Professional Documents
Culture Documents
with
draft
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
contents
I executive summary
seven focus areas six big moves focus area 2 : utility infrastructure next steps focus area 3 : coastal dynamics
II introduction
about ocean beach about this project about this document
focus area 4 : image + character focus area 5 : program + activities focus area 6 : access + connectivity focus area 7 : management + stewardship
VII master plan implementation strategy VIII evaluations + cost/benefit analysis IX outreach process X glossary + sources appendix
technical memoranda
V test scenarios
definitions + ingredients maximum habitat scenario maximum recreation scenario maximum green infrastructure scenario maximum infrastructure scenario evaluation
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
project team
SPUR San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association Project Manager/Lead AECOM Landscape Architecture, Environmental Planning ESA/PWA Coastal Engineering Sherwood Design Engineers Civil Engineering and Infrastructure Nelson/Nygaard Transportation Planning Phil G. King PhD Cost | Benefit Analysis
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
acknowledgements
steering committee
Ed Harrington, General Manager, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Mohammed Nuru, Director, Department of Public Works Phil Ginsburg, General Manager, Recreation and Park Department Carmen Chu, San Francisco Supervisor, District 4 Eric Mar, San Francisco Supervisor, District 1 John Rahaim, Director, Planning Department Lara Truppelli, Chair, Ocean Beach Planning Advisory Committee Tanya Peterson, Executive Director and President, San Francisco Zoological Society Frank Dean, General Superintendent, Golden Gate National Recreation Area Gabriel Metcalf, Executive Director, SPUR (FACILITATOR)
technical advisors
Johanna Partin, Office of Mayor Edwin Lee Steve Ortega, Golden Gate National Recreation Area Chris Kern, SF Planning Department Lesley Ewing, California Coastal Commission Peter Mull, US Army Corps of Engineers John Dingler, US Army Corps of Engineers Patrick Barnard, USGS Marla Jurosek, SFPUC Dilip Trivedi, Moffatt & Nichol Laura Tam, SPUR Petra Unger, AECOM
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
| DRAFT
executive summary
chapter
This document presents recommendations for the management and protection of San Franciscos Ocean Beach, 3.5 miles of beach and rugged coastline that is a National Park, a popular urban open space, the site a major infrastructure complex, and a beloved San Francisco landscape. This process, lays out a wide range of complex challenges and charts a course for a more sustainable future in the context of complex jurisdictional challenges, severe erosion, a diverse population of beach users and points of view, and the looming challenge of climate-induced sea level rise. It is the result of a robust public process, in which a wide range of stakeholders and the public participated over an 18-month period. Several earlier efforts brought attention to the ongoing issues at Ocean Beach. This document is intended to translate that energy into implementable actions by the responsible agencies.
I
9
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
executive summary
seven focus areas
The complex issues facing Ocean Beach are addressed through seven Focus Areas, each of which is described in some detail. In summary, they are as follows:
2. utility infrastructure
A major complex of wastewater infrastructure is located at Ocean Beach, and protects coastal water quality. Large stormwater/wastewater transport structures are under the great highway and subject to erosion hazards.
3. coastal dynamics
Ocean Beach is the visible portion of a much larger coastal sediment system. Erosion problems will worsen with climate-related sea level rise, and will need to be managed through a variety of approaches.
10
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
11
executive summary
test scenarios
The Ocean beach Master Plan team developed four Test Scenarios, to model the outcomes of very different approaches to managing Ocean Beach through 2100. These Test Scenarios organized technical analysis and tested a wide variety of ideas from stakeholders and the public. Test Scenarios are not proposals or alternatives. They were as follows: A. B. C. D. Maximum Habitat Maximum Recreation Maximum Green Infrastructure Maximum Infrastructure
evaluation criteria
Evaluation criteria were developed in consultation with OBMP Planning Advisory Committee to evaluate outcomes of Test Scenarios and Plan Recommendations.
12
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
13
executive summary
plan recommendations:
south reach: south of sloat boulevard key move 1 reroute great highway behind the zoo via sloat and skyline
Close the Great Highway South of Sloat Boulevard, replace with a coastal trail Reconfigure Sloat Boulevard and key intersections to create a safer, more efficient street Consolidate street parking, the L-Taraval terminus, and bicycle access along the south side of Sloat Reconfigure Zoos parking lot for access via Skyline and Zoo road
These six Key Moves outline the Ocean Beach Master Plans major recommendations. Each includes many individual recommendations, more than forty in all. They are organized by three geographical reaches as indicated, and will be implemented incrementally over a period of decades.
assumptions
Analysis to 2100 horizon Recommendations to 2050 Ongoing monitoring + adaptive management Re-evaluation in 2030
14
middle reach: lincoln- sloat key move 3 reduce the width of great highway to provide amenities / managed retreat
Narrow the Great Highway from 4 lanes to 2 South of Lincoln Use the current Southbound lanes for parking pockets, restrooms, signage etc Introduce a multi-use promenade west of the road Between amenities, allow dunes to migrate inland over the road and transport box
north reach: lincoln to 48th avenue key move 5 better connection between golden gate park & beach
Tighten and reconfigure OShaughnessy Seawall parking lot to improve pedestrian conditions, bike access and traffic circulation Introduce permeable paving, amenities, and appropriate vegetation to create a more welcoming, attractive space Retain events capacity and historic character
implementation actions
SPUR has received additional funding from the State Coastal Conservancy and matching agencies to pursue implementation of Plan recommendations through the following projects:
1. Ongoing Implementation Leadership and Coordination 2. Circulation and Access Study 3. Joint Coastal Management Framework 4. Joint Open Space Management Plan
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
15
MIDDLE REACH
OSTP SF zoo
lake merced
Sunset Blvd.
16
scale 1=750
0 375
750 1,125
1,500
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
17
18
introduction
about ocean beach
Ocean Beach is one of the gems of the San Francisco landscape, drawing more than 300,000 visitors each year. It is an important piece of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, a wild landscape, an urban sea strand, a grand public open space. Ocean Beach is also home to major elements of San Franciscos wastewater and stormwater infrastructure. Recent erosion events South of Sloat Boulevard and ongoing community efforts have created unprecedented momentum for a sustainable long-range plan. Drawing on the work of the Ocean Beach Vision Council and others, this plan addresses the impact of rising seas, the physical and ecological processes shaping the beach, and improved integration with its natural, recreational, and urban contexts. of the oceans. The State of California projects sea-level rise of 14 inches by 2050 and 55 inches by 2100. The frequency and severity of storms are also likely to increase, and local policymakers have no choice but to adapt. Climate-change adaptation consists of policy and design responses to the negative effects of climate change that have already been locked in, regardless of how we address carbon emissions going forward. Adaptation will be required in many arenas, from water supply to biodiversity to extreme heat events, but few are as vivid and pressing as sea-level rise. At Ocean Beach, this means that the sort of erosion episodes that took place in 1997 and 2010 will happen more frequently. As the shoreline recedes, critical wastewater infrastructure along Ocean Beach will face increasing pressure and will need to be protected, reconfigured or abandoned. Natural habitat and recreational amenities are threatened as well. Although we have a pretty clear picture of what will happen as sea levels rise, there is a great deal of uncertainty about its timing and extent. Ocean Beach is San Franciscos first real test in responding to the effects of climate change. The proximity of critical public infrastructure to the coast throws the challenges into high relief. Where should we hold the coastline? What is the economic value of a beach? A dune system? A threatened bird species? When and how will private property be exposed to coastal hazards? There are also significant limitations in the available data about the effects of sea-level rise. Existing studies paint a general picture of likely impacts but do not account for local factors like coastal armoring and topography, which will shape coastal processes.
II
19
climate adaptation
We know that sea levels are rising due to melting polar ice and thermal expansion
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
introduction
multiple jurisdictions, no single lead agency
A key challenge at Ocean Beach is the numerous overlapping jurisdictions and boundaries. A host of City, State, and Federal agencies have different roles and responsibilities. SPURs tole is as an outside convener, facilitating communication and coordination while keeping the long view in focus.
partner agencies
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission National Park Service/Golden Gate National Recreation Area San Francisco Department of Recreation and Parks California Coastal Commission US Army Corps of Engineers San Francisco Department of Public Works
construction of rock revetments that are still in place. With no policy for how to address the inevitable, the City repeatedly finds itself in a reactive posture, shoring up the bluffs under an emergency declaration with the lukewarm sanction of the Coastal Commission and National Park Service. The 2010 storm may have been an emergency, but it was hardly a surprise and, above all, reflects the lack of a policy framework to guide action in a crisis. The environmentalist response may be a fair criticism, but erosion meanwhile poses a very real threat to a critical sewage-treatment complex that we depend on to protect coastal water quality. In the absence of another approach, this infrastructure, some of which lies underneath the Great Highway, must be armored against coastal hazards. In the summer of 2011, the California Coastal Commission unanimously denied a permit application from the
City and County of San Francisco for additional armoring and retroactive permits, leaving near-term hazards unresolved but sending a clear message that a new approach is needed. Recent proposal by city agencies reflect a shift toward a softer and more temporary approach to interim coastal protection, pending the outcome of this process.
20
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
21
introduction
Project Funders: / / / California State Coastal Conservancy San Francisco Public Utilities Commission National Park Service
22
quote
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
23
24
changing coastline, a key segment of the GGNRA, a habitat corridor and a major infrastructure complex. But as much as these aspects are interdependent, the conversation about Ocean Beach invariably returns to the most pressing crisis: the erosion at the south end of the beach and the infrastructure that lies in its path. To plan meaningfully for Ocean Beach as an open space, we must define an approach to coastal management that balances infrastructure needs, naturalresource values and the realities of a changing climate.
quote
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
25
26
III
JAN 23, 2012
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
27
28
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
29
project aspirations
The complex issues facing Ocean Beach are addressed through seven Focus Areas, each of which represents a key aspect of this Plan. To kick-off the planning process, the project team in collaboration with the Steering Committee and the Planning Advisory Committee prepared the following seven aspirations that correspond to each of the sites focus areas.
30
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
31
32
| DRAFT
Ocean Beach is a complex, multifaceted environment, with a host of overlapping issues and challenges. This plan provides a multi-objective approach to OB, synthesizing a wide range of factors and addressing numerous issues simultaneously. To that end, it necessarily favors breadth over depth, and additional technical work will be required on numerous fronts in order to implement the recommendations. Specialists in any of the numerous relevant disciplines may therefore find some of the analysis wanting in depth, but, we believe, fundamentally sound. Instead, this document takes an integrative approach to the issues, synthesizing information from a wide variety of fields and presenting solutions that solve many problems simultaneously.
This has been an interdisciplinary process. Specialists in a wide range of fields were employed to ensure the best available technical information informed the problem definition and recommended solutions. However, the project scope allowed only a basic level of technical analysis and engineering. Implementing the recommendations presented here will necessarily involve significant additional technical studies, environmental analysis, feasibility studies, and cost estimation.
IV
33
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points
34
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
35
seals
plover threats
/ / / / / habitat loss and degradation human disturbance urban development exotic beach grass expanding predator populations
starfish + shellfish
willets
pelicans
beach lupine
marbled godwit
beach burr
key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points
snowy plover
bank swallow
36
1906
sunset district encroaching on the native sand dune
1928 1928 9
dune restoration planting
1990
today
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
37
diagram legend
project boundary dunes bluffs snowy plover protection shorebird corridors
38
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
39
key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points
40
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
41
Wastewater infrastructure is designed for the long haul: Parts of the current system are more than 100 years old. The West Side system is new, expensive and very effective. Unfortunately, it is also exposed to varying degrees of coastal hazard, as recent events have made clear. On two occasions, the City of San Francisco has responded to severe episodes of erosion with emergency armoring in the form of boulder revetments, which, although nominally temporary are difficult to remove, controversial, and degrade ecological and recreation conditions. At this time, the opportunity exists to protect the protect the Lake Merced in place, while replacing the revetments with low-profile elements covered with cobble and sand, restoring recreational and ecological functions. Eventually, this may become untenable, and we will face a choice
between more intrusive armoring and the strategic relocation of infrastructure elements, beginning with the Lake Merced Tunnel. The cost, complexity, competing priorities, and tight regulatory agreements governing the systems storage make this a challenging prospect, and one which should be examined well ahead of time. Newer thinking at the SFPUC and elsewhere emphasizes Low Impact Development (LID) and green infrastructure both terms for modifying urban watersheds to increase stormwater retention and infiltration into the ground. Permeable surfaces, green roofs, swales and the restoration of natural waterways can add up to a significant reduction in stormwater entering the combined system, and help to prevent combined discharges.
past
key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points
present
key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points
water quality
former water quality issues at ocean beach greatly influence the development of current infrastructure
42
nt
future
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
43
diagram legend
project boundary SEWER SYSTEM westside transport box sewer pipe less than 50 years old sewer pipe more than 50 yrs old sewer pipe more than 80 yrs old sewer pipe (unknown age) water infrastructure building wet-weather outfall (combined sewer) REVETMENTS rubble emergency repair area
wet-weather outflow
SF Zoo
oceanside plant
Lake Merced
44
te
rti
ar
yt
re
at
ed
wa
st
ew
at
pacific ocean
er
richmond district
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
45
key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points
46
Ocean Beach is the visible portion of a much larger coastal sand and sediment system.
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
47
history
The western shoreline of San Francisco is artificially maintained about 200 feet seaward of its natural equilibrium. Sand was pushed west in the late 19th and early 20th centuries to create level ground for the construction of the adjacent neighborhoods and the Great Highway, once billed as the widest highway in the Western US. This new land was then stabilized with pavement and seawalls, but erosion has been a recurring issue from the beginning, in part a symptom of the coastal processes seeking that equilibrium. Between the late 1970s and early 1990s, major sewer infrastructure was installed, including the conveyance structures under the Great Highway, a process that included rebuilding the road and constructing the embankments of fill that were revegetated to create constructed dunes. The Golden Gate Littoral Cell and the Marine Shipping Channel Ocean Beach is the visible portion of a much larger coastal sediment system, the Golden Gate Littoral Cell. The cell is bounded by a large, semicircular sandbar within which sand circulates with the currents and tides, by turns eroding and nourishing the beach. Within the cell, sand
supply is relatively stable. Average longshore (lateral) currents at Ocean Beach carry sand northward, and it continues to circulate within the bar. South of Noriega, however, currents diverge and southward currents scour sand away and out of the cell, resulting in a net loss of sand and a narrowing beach. This had resulted in an erosion hotspot south of Sloat Boulevard. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers annually dredges a marine shipping channel in the sandbar to allow access by large ships to the Golden Gate. This dredged sand about 300,000 cubic yards each year, represents a significant opportunity for beach nourishment, in which sand is placed on the beach to counteract the effects of erosion. The northern end of Ocean Beach has been getting wider since the 1970s because of a combination of sediment management practices (dumping dredged sand within the system rather than in the deep ocean) and natural changes to the sandbars. Meanwhile, the southern end is narrowing as erosive forces scour away sand and bluffs, leaving less and less buffer between waves and critical infrastructure. More recently, sand has been deposited closer to shore off the southern end of the beach, with results that remain uncertain but have not resulted in dramatic improvements in beach width.
48
seawalls
sand placement
1972
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
49
50
seawall overtopping
JAN 27, 2012
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
51
quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote
52
Sea level rise and its impact are fundamental challenges in planning for the future of Ocean Beach, as they directly inform the management of coastal hazards. As sea levels rise, the coastline recedes inland, except where limited by hard structures. This translates into increased erosive pressure and coastal hazards. Although there is a great deal of uncertainty about the timing and extent of climaterelated sea level rise, there is considerable consensus on its general impacts. The State of Californias Interim Guidance on Sea Level Rise (2010) developed after a considerable interagency examination of the various available climate models, directs State agencies to plan for 14 inches of sea level rise by 2050 and 55 inches by 2100. This process has used that figure, in lieu of the capacity to carry out a separate examination of the data, and to be in sync with public agencies to the degree possible. It is also assumed that California will likely by subjected to an increased frequency and severity of coastal storm surges, which will be exacerbated by higher sea levels. The data on local changes in precipitationwhich is critical to understanding future loads on combined sewer infrastructure remains far less conclusive, and this plan assumes that San Francisco will need to be prepared for a range of possible outcomes.
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
53
key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points
54
oce
an b
eac
h is
the
visib
le p
ortio
n of
a la
rge
and
com
plex
coa
stal
sed
ime
nt s
yste
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
55
key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points
56
beach nourishment
Beach nourishment is the act of placing sand to widen the beach. Beach nourishment has occurred frequently at Ocean beach, but typically on a relatively modest and incremental scale by moving excess beach sand on land. The opportunity exists at Ocean Beach to conduct beach nourishment at a much larger scale by pumping dredged sand directly onto the beach from offshore. The Army Corps of Engineers is working with the City and County of San Francisco to plan and permit the placement of dredged sand from the Marine Shipping Channel directly on Ocean Beach. Up to 300,000 cubic yards per year is available, though existing proposals are for XXXXX. While complex to permit and conduct, most parties are enthusiastic that beach nourishment could have a significant impact at Ocean Beach for near-to-medium term. The recommendations in this plan assume that the program will go forward and be one component of coastal management. Several processes are necessary for beach nourishment to proceed:
Environmental Assessment (EA) under NEPA. This process is underway, with assessment of direct placement being conducted concurrently with that for near-shore placement at the SF-17 site. Beneficial Use Plan (Section 2037). The process allows the Corps to partner with local agencies to use dredged materials in beneficial local projects. The local partner must provide 35% of the project cost over and above the current practice. This plan is in draft form and is proceeding in partnership with local City agencies. Dredge Availability/Retrofit. The Corps hopper dredge Essayons is one of the only vessels capable of completing the dredging at Ocean Beach, but it must be fitted with the pumping equipment to allow direct placement of sand on the beach. Efforts to scure Federal funds to that add have not been successful to date, and city agencies are investigating bringing a private contract dredge through the Panama Canal to conduct the work.
Beach nourishment should be conducted using the best available practices to protect and support the ecological functions of the beach and dunes, particularly with respect to the Federally-listed threatened Western Snowy Plover. This would mean nourishment activity would best be conduct between May and July of each year when the bird is absent. Although extensive beach nourishment may have some impacts on the beach ecosystem, for example by covering beach wrack that feeds invertebrate detritivores, the existence of a wide beach and improved dunes likely far outweigh such concerns. The long-term sand supply in another concern. Increased sea levels coupled with the Ship Channel side slopes reaching an equilibrium could mean that the availability of sand will decline, as dredge records suggest may already be occurring. This would make it increasingly difficult to rely on beach nourishment to counteract erosion over the long term.
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
57
Limited Benefit
Relocating the Lake Merced Tunnel would allow the coastline to recede naturally through erosion, but only a short distance, as other structures, including the existing force mains and pump station, the Fleishhacker Pool building and the Oceanside Treatment Plant, lie immediately behind the Tunnel, limiting the benefits of relocation, or necessitating the relocation of additional elements relatively soon.
Cost
The Lake Merced Tunnel was built as part of the SFPUCs Clean Water program, a costly investment of ratepayer funds, only completed in 1993. Not only is it early in its functional life, it would be quite expensive to reconfigure, with estimates varying from $90 to $190 Million, depending on which elements were reconfigured. A more comprehensive reconfiguration would be the most cost-effective, but also the most expensive.
58
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
59
60
quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
61
inland low-lying areas are vulnerable to overwash dunes offer some protection but will erode over time due to increasing wave run-up levels and frequency
diagram legend
project boundary
ROADS + PATHS
62
14.1 - 15
Elevation (ft)
-15 - 0 0.1 - 3 3.1 - 6 6.1 - 9 9.1 - 10 10.1 - 11 11.1 - 12
Pacific Ocean
15.1 - 16 16.1 - 17 17.1 - 18 18.1 - 19 19.1 - 20 20.1 - 21 21.1 - 22 22.1 - 23 23.1 - 24 24.1 - 25
GREAT HWY
GREAT HWY
GREAT HWY
LINCOLN WAY
JUDAH ST
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
63
Ocean Beach (OB) has a rich and unique history integrally linked to San Francisco and the Pacific Ocean. Remnants of this history are still visible today. OB is a place of multiple, distinct characters ...from the ocean to the bluff trails, from the northern open beach to the southern beach dunes, OB provides opportunities for outdoor recreation and to enjoy the Pacific Ocean vast and dramatic landscape.
64
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
65
diagram legend
project boundary great highway existing promenade lower great highway (pedestrian walk) key views
surf zone
shoreline
open beach
promenade
dune beach
great highway
linear zones
66
ocean beach master plan
beach chalet
seal rocks
cliff house
fire bowls
GGP windmill
seawall
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
67
A century ago, Ocean Beach was a very different kind of place, more Coney Island than wilderness. Before the Richmond and Sunset districts took shape, Adolph Sutros steam railway drew day-trippers through the dunes to his gardens and baths, and to nearby Chutes-at-the-Beach (later Playland). A settlement built of decommissioned horsecars offered a destination for bohemians and bicycle clubs. As the automobile came to prominence, the soft sand was pushed seaward to create a Great Highway for Sunday drivers, all the way south to Fleishhacker Pool, near the current site of the San Francisco Zoo. A massive saltwater rec center built in 1924, the decrepit poolhouse today offers a tempting opportunity for adaptive reuse.
sutro baths
cliff house
1896
a rich history of public recreation... still visible today
1903
1904
1920
68
Today, when those few sweet warm days arrive, Ocean Beach again becomes a retreat for the whole city. A festival atmosphere prevails as a crush of cars, bikes and Muni riders descends, and the shortage of services becomes acute as trash piles up, bikes are heaped up and locked together, and dunes become restrooms of last resort. It would be wrong to ignore the basic needs of the more than 3 million annual visitors to Ocean Beach. But as many in the community have expressed, prettying up is not what the beach needs, either. The Master Plan team is taking that observation to heart. Good landscape design has the power to strike that balance to solve problems and serve needs while speaking to the soul of a place.
fleishhacker pool
beach chalet
great highway
loreline pier
1925
1925
1929
1950
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
69
key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points
foggy days
sunny days
special events
70
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
71
diagram legend
existing restroom existing cafe/ restaurant existing bench existing stairwell approximate firebowl location visitor attraction element or node
bike riding
bonfire
meditating
dog walking
meeting friends
bike riding
72
sand play
wading
family day
sunbathing
relaxing
picnicking
sunset watching
dating
surfing
birdwatching
photography
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
73
key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points
74
quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
75
key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points
regional connectivity
76
Great Highway at Balboa, which include a six-lane intersection controlled by a stop sign.
great highw
ay typical
190 wide
12 128 wide
sloat blvd
In addition, the Great Highway is frequently closed for special events or due to blowing sand or flooding. The Great Highway South of Sloat Boulevard was closed southbound for nearly a year after the severe erosion episode in 2010, with only limitied congestion impacts despite minimal management of temporary circulation. The segment from Lincoln to Sloat is unusual in that it lack any vehicular intersections and is signalized only at pedestrian crossings. This both allows precise signal timing and limits spillover impacts on surrounding residential districts, which nevertheless do occur during periods of heavy use. Residents and Supervisor Chus office have identified the unmanaged impacts of Great Highway closures as a problem and have been working with the MTA to address the problem by installing flip-down signs advising other routes, such as Skyline Boulevard during Great Highway closures. Any steps that would limit traffic throughput on the Great Highway should be accompanied by mitigation measures to limit impact s on adjacent neigborhoods.
great highway
@ golden gate
road dimensions
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
77
bicycle
Ocean Beach is a major destination for recreational cyclists, many of whom ride to Ocean via Golden Gate Park, a major bicycle route that is being upgraded extensively. The Great Highway and its multi-use trail are also an important cycling route, and constitute a segment the Pacific Coast route from Canada to Mexico, as well as important regional connections.
promenade
local connectivity
78
Ocean Beach is well-served by the Muni transit system, but while the 38-Geary, N-Judah and L-Taraval lines each terminate within easy walking distance of the beach, the pedestrian connections are weaker than they might be if welcoming transit users were made a priority. The Great Highway was built in the 1920s as a grand vehicular promenade, the widest stretch of pavement for its length in the world. Its reconfiguration in the 1990s narrowed it by nearly half, but it remains a traffic artery first and foremost, with a capacity that exceeds its actual usage. South of Sloat Boulevard, the Great Highway is squeezed between the eroding bluffs and inland structures, with traffic capacity to spare. The City of San Franciscos Sunday Streets program has closed the road to cars a few times, showing us a tantalizing multimodal vision, more great than highway. Meanwhile, a campaign by the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition to build a physically separated bikeway from San Francisco Bay to the ocean is highlighting Ocean Beach as a major cycling destination with significant shortfalls in connectivity. As our ideas about multimodal streets and recreational waterfront access evolve, it may be time to reevaluate the vehicular emphasis on the citys only oceanfront street.
today
Highway ascends Sutro Heights adjacent to the cliffhouse, several factorsa lack of designated lanes, a steep grade, a lind curve, and diagonal parking combine to create a hazardous condition. This segment connect to important cycling routes through Lands End and the Presidio.
1930
Ocean Beach is not only a destination in itself; it is the connective tissue that links an embarrassment of open space riches on the citys west side. From Lands End and Sutro Heights at its north end to Golden Gate Park, the Zoo and Fort Funston to the south, Ocean Beach is a key corridor. While movement along Ocean Beach is fairly easy, it offers much weaker connection to adjoining open spaces, neighborhoods and other amenities. In particular, arriving at the beach from Golden Gate Park, which ought to be one of the great landscape experiences in San Francisco, is an anticlimax for pedestrians and cyclists, who are dropped into a sea of asphalt roadway and parking, with little sense of how to proceed. Another significant gap is from Ocean Beach to Fort Funston, the GGNRAs next major park to the south, where pedestrians must walk the highway shoulder and hop the guardrail to access the trails and beach.
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
79
diagram legend
project boundary great highway major arterial road muni metro muni bus promenade pedestrian connection bike path / lane / route planned bike lane traffic light muni line number pedestrian connectivity gap beach access (path, stair, ramp) key pedestrian connections parking
80
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
81
key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points
82
quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
83
diagram legend
84
jurisdictions
maintenance + stewardship
dunes
trails
waste management
restrooms / facilities
dog management
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
85
quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote
86
| DRAFT
test scenarios
purpose
These Test scenarios were developed to explore a range of possible interventions at Ocean Beach and model their outcomes through the year 2100, based on the best available current understanding of climate change, sea level rise, and coastal dynamics at Ocean Beach. The Test Scenarios represent extreme cases with the intent of illustrating sketching the broadest possible range of outcomes. They are not proposals or alternatives. The Test Scenarios served to organize technical work by the project teams coastal and civil engineers and economist. They were also intended to examine the wide range of ideas and proposals expressed by the public and stakeholders. Testing very different directions allowed the team to illustrate the ramifications of various singleobjective approaches whose outcomes fall short in some areas, encouraging an understanding of tradeoffs and a balanced approach. The Test Scenarios were presented at Public Workshop #2. Participants were then invited to assemble a hybrid scenario drawing from their preferred elements of the Test Scenarios. While not all of the hybrid scenarios were feasible, the exercise revealed a great deal about the tradeoffs involved and the effects of near-term actions over a long time horizon.
chapter
V
87
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
test scenarios
methodology
Test Scenarios were developed by the project team by assembling packages of interventions drawn from public and stakeholder suggestions and grouping them according to key priorities, such as maximizing access or allowing a naturally eroding coastline. Many interventions were related to the placement and selection of amenities like roads, trails, restrooms, and parking lots, but the most critical actions related to the management of coastal dynamics and hazards such as beach nourishment, the relocation of infrastructure, of the placement of seawalls or other hard structures. These actions provided the basis for physical modeling of the evolving coastline at several time periods through 2100. Four coastal cross-sections, or profiles, showing the location of the waters edge, and the width, position, and elevation of the beach, dunes, and hard structures, were altered , or transgressed according to historical erosion rates projected forward and coupled with the likely impacts of sea level rise. The effects of hard structures like seawalls and the placement of sand were incorporated as dictated by each scenario, and the resulting profiles showed the evolving beach and dune width over time. Beach and dune width provide proxies for both recreational and ecological value, both of which are compromised as these erode. Scenarios have been developed by the SPUR Team with input from the Management and Advisory Committees. These are described in documents produced by AECOM, attached (110506Scenarios Board PAC mtg.pdf and 110509Evaluation Criteria revisions mtg.pdf ). The scenarios have different responses at different triggers, which will result in different outcomes. There are four scenarios: A. Maximum Habitat; B. Maximum Recreation; C. Maximum Green Infrastructure; D. Maximum Infrastructure. The scenarios include treatments at four time periods: 0 Years (2010); 20 years (2030); 40 years (2050); 90 years (2100). The scenarios are divided into three shore reaches (Figure 1): North Ocean Beach (NOB) from Point LobosCliff House south to Lincoln Boulevard; Middle Ocean Beach (MOB) from Lincoln Boulevard to Sloat Boulevard; South Ocean Beach (SOB) from Sloat Boulevard to Fort Funston. The above results in approximately 48 permutations (four scenarios x four time periods x three reaches). Detailed methodology are in Appendix X, ppXX.
88
quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
89
This Test Scenario is intended to explore the possibilities of an ambitious and comprehensive program of managed retreat, to allow a natural, wild coastline to develop and persist into the future, including wide sandy beaches, an extensive native dune system, and the improved habitat and ecological function these elements suggest Visitor services are limited and
why?
+40 to +90 years
/ / to increase biodiversity and ecological function at Ocean Beach to allow natural coastal processes to proceed
how?
/ maximize habitat restoration and comprehensive managed retreat
90
+5 to +20 years
emphasize wildlife experience. This is the only Test Scenario in which the inland project boundary is removed, and space is converted from urban to natural uses, including the removal and relocation of infrastructure, the gradual acquisition of private property in the coastal hazard zone, and the restoration of Golden Gate Park to native conditions.
0 to +5 years
Lake Merced connected to the ocean as an ecological corridor Zoo is reconfigured to higher elevation Bank swallow habitat may be limited by bluff erosion
City has purchased hundreds of homes along western most blocks to allow for coastal retreat Westside Transport Box and pump station is reconstructed inland (38th Avenue or Sunset Boulevard) Native dune system is restored and expanded into coastal retreat area New Great Highway reconstructed inland Habitat protection areas are expanded and recreational uses are limited to minimize impacts.
Great Highway rerouted using existing Golden Gate Park road system Native dune system allowed to expand into the park toward a new windbreak The Beach Chalet is now directly on the beach
outcomes
Lake Merced tunnel is rerouted inland of treatment plant, Great Highway eliminated. Natural bluff morphology develops up to treatment plant Beyond 2100 - Oceanside Treatment Plan will be exposed to coastal hazards and need to be armored or relocated.
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
91
Test Scenario B emphasizes Ocean Beachs function as a park and open space for people, with considerable improvements made to access and amenities, and coastal management geared toward maintaining the beach
why?
+40 to +90 years
/ / to offer a great experience for the broadest spectrum of visitors to celebrate and embrace the many facets of ocean beach
how?
/ protect and enhance the natural character of ocean beach while providing visitor amenities
92
+5 to +20 years
in place to the extent possible. Natural features are protected as a visitor amenity, but wholesale restoration is limited. South Ocean Beach is protected with an artificial reef designed as a surfing break.
0 to +5 years
Lake Merced is connected to the ocean as a new zoo feature and trail connection Zoo is reconfigured to Treatment Plants green roof South Great Hwy rerouted inland, leaving trail corridor Artificial reef protects bluffs, creates surfing opportunity
Great Hwy narrowed to create a multi-modal promenade along the beach Access improvements, restrooms, and concessions built at key intersections Transport box reinforced with seawall, largely concealed by ongoing nourishment Dunes revegetated and improved, accessible via trails Beyond 2100, a seawall or artificial offshore reef will likely be needed to protect low-lying areas from storm surge flooding
At Golden Gate Park, the Great Hwy is re-routed through park to allow for a great beach-park connection. Attractions, concessions, and public realm improvements create an urban sea strand along Golden Gate Park and promenade.
outcomes
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
93
why?
+40 to +90 years
/ / more resilient, sustainable wastewater / stormwater system to support the health and function of the watershed
how?
/ implement green infrastructure to replace existing infrastructure
94
+5 to +20 years
This Test Scenario maximizes the stormwater management potential of the watershed in order to take pressure off the combine sewerstormwater system to protect water quality and allow some modification
to elements exposed to coastal hazards. This was somewhat problematic as a distinct scenario, as the key concepts could be layered onto any of the other scenarios, and were by many workshop participants.
0 to +5 years
Reduced stormwater load on utility infrastructure Lake Merced Tunnel rerouted inland, possibly smaller South Great Hwy rerouted inland, leaving coastal trail corridor Bluffs continue to erode
Extensive stormwater retention reduces or eliminates CSDs Throughout watershed: Improved public realm, biodiversity, temperatures Improved groundwater levels, water supplies Stable precipitation: Overflow structures removed Increased Precipitation: water quality maintained Transport Box reinforced by a seawall Constructed wetlands/lagoons store floodwaters in low-lying areas North of Sloat has limited or no beach
Stormwater bio-retention basins incorporated into the west end of Golden Gate Park and Sutro Dunes
outcomes
Lake Merced integrated into watershed, fed by stormwater, and connected to the ocean via constructed wetland. Beyond 2100 - Pump station, Zoo and Treatment Plant will be exposed to coastal hazards.
All reaches - groundwater and Lake Merced levels are raised; improved bio-diversity and beautification in public realm; stormwater is pre-treated for water quality and can be routed directly to Lake Merced
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
95
why?
+40 to +90 years
/ / to increase biodiversity and ecological function at Ocean Beach to protect rate-payer investment
how?
/ protect existing infrastructure
96
+5 to +20 years
This Test Scenario is organized around the protection of existing infrastructure, both for its pollutioncontrol functions and for the stewardship of recent public investments. This replicates the recent
pattern to a great extent, with revetments installed to armor the coast as needed in response to erosion events, and seawalls added in chronic trouble spots. Environmental and recreational considerations are secondary.
0 to +5 years
Limited or no beach Raised seawall topped with a promenade provides flooding and erosion protection for Treatment Plant, Zoo and Pump Station Off-shore breakwater further protects from storm surges
Great Highway is raised, reinforced with a seawall, and topped with a multimodal promenade or boardwalk Limited or no beach North of Sloat Pumping required to mitigate coastal and stormwater flooding Private homes protected by transport box/seawall
outcomes
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
97
98
| DRAFT
VI
99
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
overall framework
six big moves
For the sake of clarity they are grouped into six Key Moves each of which contains numerous recommendations, which will needs to be phased incrementally as physical conditions evolve, and regulatory and fiscal hurdles are cleared. The sequencing and phasing of these interventions will be discussed in the implementation and phasing section of this document [forthcoming]. Finally, these recommendations reflect the state of knowledge, the available consensus, and the capacity of various agencies to act as of the present planning process. An adaptive approach to implementation, based on the evolution of all these factors will be essential, and is reflected in the recommendation of a formal re-evaluation of all recommendations and underlying assumptions in 2030.
assumptions
Analysis to 2100 horizon Recommendations to 2050 Ongoing monitoring + adaptive management Re-evaluation in 2030
key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points
100
natural bluff
Cor am quodit, si volla dis rem volum et estorepe eleni ni omnienis consed expelendant volutate pellabo. Ut repero conectem vendeliaspel in enimus, voluptio. Em inctis ipiciendit deliquodis as doloribus, quasperferes simin res evelloria voluptios sit maio berite ipis ma quodit, si con et modis verum experem sum quia velia nosandisquam dolore nemperi oresti deratur sequi comnime pro volestor sandit ea sus ium int aute pro debit, tet laut dolesti onseque nam eossinv elibus duciissi officae erupta nis sedi am quasiti berorempedis quis re ne odit es utataecearum ipid ut ut ut ent ant. Sum fugiam fugitatures delis est ut aspererum et magnimi, sequo comnia di idelenda volupti onsedi
historic connection
natural dunes
open beach
cliff
better trail
gateways
improved amenities
l o w i mp a c t d e v e l o p me n t (L I D ) me a s u re s
natural element
natural bluff historic connection natural dunes beach + dune restoration preserved habitat open beach cliff
green seawall? structural modication? cobble berm? bluff overlook trail walk wetland connection
dune as protection? reduced lanes? box as protection? better trail gateways improved amenities
enhanced existing seawall? reduced lanes? improved ped promenade connection preserve the park
l o w i m p a c t d e v e l o p m e n t ( L ID ) m e a s u r e s
social element
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D. G Ph D
| DRAFT
101
south reach
master plan
reroute great highway behind the zoo via sloat and skyline
Menis reictum et unt officideliam quibusapidus at.Ehent. Quuntot aturiorum re perum idero berio blabo. Nequam nus explit volorestotat lit lique voluptas dipsus nos aut alique eos alit volum fuga. Ad ent vellabo rendeni minvele ceatatem nihil inus, se por magnimusaes prem que autempo rionetur?
o Wawona Wawona St
Lenis ea vendes sedi repudae sunt es et aut estiisint in reium volene ni ati sincil ipis doluptatecto omnisse quostibea nia velenda consed quo bea ea nihillectem incto volores pa quide ne perchillabo. Itaepudis doluptata nos id molor adignam, nis am soloraeped que eumqui que si doluptatem facil magnihitius.
Mil iusam ipsum et landiti isimpel estiossin rest pos mos et volorate poresequae porit, te volor sunto es dero estio incipitaspid quam di aboritium qui accus eossitae nonsequ atetus doluptate estia
wo awo a Wawona St
40th 40 40th e Boressi taquos illaut od et th Ave as dipsumqusequiae eni reperspis quat 9 39th Ave 39t Av 39th Ave eossuntem fugit denditi qui cus 8t 38th e 38 38t 38th Avaliquo dolesci umquiae tur, siLiquis ve eum essum harumque et rem 7th 7 37t Ave 37t Av 37th Ave haribus adis consent.
nt ag St Santiago St.
102
t Q ntar S Quintara St
rempedior apidelendi dolorae vel is nulpa sinctiu remporit adiam si officiae quatatia iliquatest, in restet prest faccumqui adit, in etur, to blaut officium facil inctur? Quiat.
treatmentsi corem quam venime simusdae quiam, plant es estem. Optatiumque landam zoo
Arm ory Rd .
Eperumq uodigendenis doluptatia di dolorum doloreheniet endant eaqui blaccum ad quo te iunt doleni aliquam quatur re nem quiae lam, nos nem eaquundipsae rerrovitiis dolo ipsaped qui re rerciae sequibus vit hario. Genducium disimi, as velicta esequia dolore parum quae rest landamus soluptas iusanti ametur simil ipis et evelest iusdae volut laborem quo quamentis doles es ex et fugiaec tatisciis event aligent utaquiate nitam aut labor moluptat mod quae idel ipides essinis elibusam quatior aepudandusam adiatios estoribusdae entioss imendit vendem aut facia quo etur aperspit, to molo sincidebis ut pa verum exped esed est, il magnihic te endi ut arciend ipsusam, essum excepeles consequia sunt eat.
Vicent St Vicente St.
voluptatem harum voles et volectum harum dolor aut et animus volore, sit velignis con net offic te si dem aut everumqui beraPa simi, apidunt imus ipsa consequi ad ut adi torro blaut ea cuptassit idunt iduntis et eum idel il illenima sit, sequosam harum t 8th 8th 48t Ave 48th Av 48th A dolecae dolupic to ma cumveest venis minusas. Sum quatioria ipsapit iistrum ipidi re 6t 46th 46t A 46th Ave pelicip idelest re, tet prestotatist laudaer umquia vit excerovide ute vitis 5t 45 45t Av 45 h Av serro ommoluptat ut officiumque 4th 4th 44th 44t 44t Av 44th Ave sani beaquibusae natet eaquiam eum exceatem ad magnimo dignihil 3 43t 43t Av 43th Ave minctem porendae nonse venestores et fugiae vit, corem. Ut ut42exceaqu 2t Ave 42t Av 42th Ave iatiam, adigend ipiciis esequas aut 1t 1th 41t 41th Ave 41th Av 41th Ave ad maxima commossunt officat.
t. a av Taraval St. o a ant go S Sa t ago St Santiago St. Riv a t Rivera St.
ve 47 47t 47th Ave
middle reach
north reach
c e acheco S Pacheco St
g S eg St Ortega St.
5 45t 45th Ave 45th ve 45th Ave 44th e 44th Ave h ve 44th Ave th 43th Ave h ve 43th Ave v 4 42th Ave v t 42th Ave
master plan
h th ve 48th Ave
I i g Irving St.
e 8 38 38th Ave
7 37t 37 h ve 37th Ave h th 6th v 36th Ave 6th ve 36t 36 h Ave ve 5t 5 35t 35th Ave th 5th 5th v 35th Ave
scale 1=750
0 375
Anza St Anza S
750 1,125
1,500
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
103
key move 1:
1.5 1.2 1.7 1.1
golden gate park reroute great highway behind the zoo via sloat and skyline
1.4
A rm
treatment plant
1.6
Sky line Blv d.
o ry
zoo
1.8 1.3
scale 1=400
0 200
400 600
800
104
S lo a t B o u le v a r d
W Wawona St
Rd
reroute great highway behind the zoo via sloat and skyline
key move 1
To date, the city has been defending the Great Highway South of Sloat Boulevard with boulder revetments. Many officials agree that the road is a proxy for a much greater concern: the Lake Merced Tunnel, a 14-foot underground sewer and stormwater pipe that runs underneath the highway. The road is lightly traveled and frequently closed (most notably the southbound lanes were closed for nearly a year in 2010). Rerouting traffic from the Great Highway to Sloat and Skyline (which have capacity to spare) would allow a more flexible approach to coastal protection and create major restoration and recreation opportunities.
parking to the south side along the zoo and adding a first-class bike route. The L-Taraval Muni line could be extended one block to terminate adjacent to the zoo. Counterintuitively, auto access to the region could improve, as traffic controls are upgraded and this important link is no longer subject to closure by erosion or flood.
reconfigure sloat/great highway and sloat/ skyline intersections maintain 1-lane out southbound from oceanside treatment plant (OTP) for trucks reconfigure sloat blvd, with parking along zoo boundary, permeable pavement, bikeway, and coastal access amenities pull L-taraval south across sloat, terminus at zoo gate introduce coastal trail to ft funston connect N-S to california coastal trail, linking lake merced all the way to marin replace beach/zoo parking along armory road and using OTP roof reopen armory road: skyline to zoo lot
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5 1.6
1.7
1.8
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
105
key move 1
reroute great highway behind the zoo via sloat and skyline
permeable paving
vegetated swale
106
reroute great highway behind the zoo via sloat and skyline
key move 1
benefits
spectacular new coastal trail, continuous pedestrian connection enables significant retreat from coastal erosion more flexible infrastructure protection major improvements to sloat blvd design, with green infrastructure elements
outstanding questions
nature of traffic impacts optimal configuration of sloat blvd and adjacent intersections
constraints
some traffic impacts, likely minor requires reconfiguring zoo access cost of roadway and intersection improvements
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
107
2.3
2.2 2.6
key move 2:
introduce a multi-purpose coastal protection / restoration / access system
A rm
treatment plant
o ry
zoo
2.7
scale 1=400
0 200
400 600
800
108
S lo a t B o u le v a r d
W Wawona St
Rd
key move 2
of speed bump under the beach. This is a significant engineering challenge, as it needs to be protected from wave energy, flotation forces (it is mostly empty most of the time) and seismic forces. However, an examination of the problem with coastal engineers and agency technical staff lend credence to the approach.
2.1 2.2
incrementally withdraw from bluff edge reinforce the Lake Merced (LM) tunnel in place, remove revetments and fill sand nourishment via Army Corps, develop and pursue Best Practices for beach nourishment cobble berm over LM tunnel covered by sand (via Army Corps sand nourishment) serves as wave dissipation zone; overwash occurs during severe storm events second cobble berm protects force mains, high ground at pump station, Fleishhacker bldg terraced, vegetated seawall with cobble toe along oceanside treatment plant (OTP) create detention swale (through zoo) and constructed wetland fleishhaker bldg renovated as warming hut and interpretive center interpretive elements explain stormwater infrastructure system to visitors conduct near-term pilot studies of dynamic coastal protection: skyline to zoo lot
JAN 27, 2012
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.10
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
109
key move 2
benefits
incorporates significant coastal retreat protects costly infrastructure in place for decades a softer approach to coastal protection, that can work with coastal processes restores ecological and recreational function
constraints
significant up-front investment from multiple agencies challenging to maintain sand cover and surface restoration depends on careful integration with army corps beach nourishment new approach requiring careful study and monitoring
outstanding questions
can the tunnel be protected at a low enough profile for a reasonable cost? how will wave action interact with cobble and sand to shape the beach and berm? how will protection measures be phased to prevent spills, protect habitat, and manage cost?
B C
key plan
key move 2
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
111
key move 2
phasing
The installation of these coastal protection measures will be an incremental process, balancing the desire for rapid improvements with the gradual evolution of the coast. Roadway and parking lot demolition can only occur as permitting and oceanside treatment plant existing revetments zoo parking lot fleishhacker pool existing fill pump station beach parking lot
bluffs predominate, coastal recession should be allowed to proceed naturally, allowing the bluff face to continue as potential habitat for the bank swallow, until hazard thresholds are reached and the sequence of protection measures are installed. At the Oceanside Treatment Plant, this threshold has already been reached, and the
revetment should be replaced with a low structure as soon as feasible, with the bluff above continuing to recede once the road is removed.
gre
at
h hig
coastal trail
sloa
t bl
vd
20 11 b
c ea
ed
ge
x. 5 20 0 b
c ea
ed
ge a be ch g ed
existing fill
gr
th
wy
r pp
20
11
key move 2
seasonal wetland
fleishhacker pool
coastal trail
cobble berm
with
| DRAFT
113
key move 2
ultimately removing up to 33.7 million gallons per year from the combined system. This simple and powerful gesture supports San Franciscos citywide commitment to reducing stormwater flows to the bay and ocean and to simultaneously improve public spaces and ecological amenities.
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
115
key move 3
reduce great highway to 2 lanes + wide shoulder for cycling, emergency access reconfigure great highway / sloat intersection following transport box to avoid erosion hot spot distributed parking at key access nodes restore existing restrooms, build new restrooms improve access at judah, taraval, rivera and noriega traffic calming + mitigation measure to lessen neighborhood traffic impacts LID (low-impact design) to address stormwater management
3.1
3.2
3.3 3.4
3.3
3.5
3.5
3.7
3.6
zoo
3.6
3.7
Our major coast road is today an expressway geared toward the automobile. By converting the southbound lanes to other uses, including access amenities like restrooms, bike parking, signage, and pockets of auto parking, connected by a new promenade on the ocean side of the road, we apportion this critical public
resource to a much wider set of uses. The existing Northbound lanes would serve as a two-way street. In addition, in areas between major access points, the space gained by narrowing the roadway would be devoted to expansion and restoration of the dunes, which could migrate shoreward, overtop of the Westside
Transport Box. Coupled with the direct placement of sand through the Army Corps of Engineers proposed beach nourishment program, this approach could extend the period of time in which a significant sandy beach would be feasible South of Noriega.
116
noriega seawall
3.5
3.7
scale 1=400
0 200
400 600
800
This change would likely result in some traffic impact, via spillover effects. Mitigation measures to prevent aggressive cut-throughs in adjacent neighborhoods (already a problem during frequent raod closures) would be essential, as would coordination with ongoing planning for circulation on the West Side. Comprehensive traffic
analysis will be essential to determine if the traffic impacts of this intervention would be justified by the considerable improvements in coastal access.
key move 3
reduce width of great highway to provide amenities / managed retreat
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
117
key move 3
benefits
a restored dune system is given space to migrate landward, allowing a wider beach as sealevel rise sets in. allows space for additional amenities, improved beach access favors pedestrians, bicycles, beach access, and wildlife over traffic flow
constraints
traffic impacts, which may be significant, in adjacent neighborhoods limited space gained at substantial cost potential to bring more users to plover habitat areas some redundancy between recreational trails
outstanding questions
what will traffic impacts be and to what degree can they be mitigated? how much additional beach width will result in the long run? D E
key plan
key move 3
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
119
key move 3
public restroom
solar power
wind power
green roof
interpretive
vertical signage
multi-modal promenade
GGNRA signage
wall signage
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
key move 4
sand nourishment via army corp of engineers along southern end of middle reach dune restoration in key locations, especially at lincoln and vicente sand ladders and modular boardwalks provide access while limiting impact
4.1
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.2
4.3
The existing dunes are actually sand embankments, constructed as part of the SFPUCs clean water program, and vegetated with non-native grasses and iceplant. Re-countouring and re-vegetating these embankment to introduce a native dune morphology and ecosystem would provide ecological benefits by reintroducing a scarce and fragile coastal ecosystem, increase the
visibility of the ocean from the Great Highway, and may provide some improvements in sand management by reducing the existing embankments tendency to launch windborne sand long distances.
122
4.2
4.3
scale 1=400
0 200
400 600
800
key move 4
middle reach native dune restoration
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
123
key move 4
benefits
ecological restoration and improved aesthetics removal of non-native species lower profile will allow more visual access to the ocean potential for improved sand management with lower profile
constraints
significant cost challenge of fully removing nonnative grasses access to dunes limited to protect restoration
outstanding questions
would a native dune form offer comparable coastal protection? to what degree would management of windblown sand be improved how can sand placed through beach nourishment best feed the dune system? F
key plan
key move 4
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
125
key move 4
sand verbena
pacific wildrye
ragweed
beach saltbush
iceplant
existing dunes
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
127
key move 5
5.1
improve parking lot, preserve event/flexspace capacity maintain row of watching the water parking modify parking entrances, and improve pedestrian crossings at JFK/Beach Chalet provide vertical arrival element / overlook at ends of Golden Gate Park add east side bike lanes (in both directions), connect bike trail with GGP add abundant bike parking joint City/Federal Parking Management Plan introduce appropriate landscape site elements
5.2
5.3
5.4
The coastal frontage of Golden Gate Park the OShaughnessy parking lot and seawall promenade does not currently provide the spectacular sense of arrival that it could. Identified by GGNRA plans as a location for active and vibrant activities, it is currently defined by a large expanse of asphalt, with a great deal of unused parking most of the time. Pedestrians arriving from the park find a confusing path to the sea and few basic amenities. This Key Move would rework this space to create a multi-use space appropriate to the context and program of this critical connection, while maintaining parking, providing basic amenities and appropriate landscaping, and allowing for continued use for major events.
5.5
5.6 5.7
5.8
128
key move 5
better connection between golden gate park and beach
5.6 5.8 5.4 5.8 5.6 5. 5.3 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.5
th 48th Ave
th 48th Ave
i r lio t. Cabrilio St. t b Balboa St.
th 47th Ave
ln W y. i Lincoln Way.
th 47th Ave
t St. Judah St. Ir ing t Irvi Irving St.
scale 1=400
0 200
400 600
800
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
129
key move 5
benefits
a sense of arrival in a contextappropriate landscape improved basic amenities at the busiest access point maintains parking and event capacity while improving pedestrian and bicycle safety improved environmental performance with permeable paving, alternative energy
constraints
cost interagency management challenges G
key plan
key move 5
Tighten oshaughnessy parking lot potentially replacing asphalt for permeable paving, preserve event / flexspace capacity.
Improve circulation, site features, and landscaping at the OShaughnessy lot to provide a welcoming gateway to the ocean for all users.
grass crete
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
131
key move 5
temporal sculpture
kinetic elements
Provide vertical arrival element / overlook at ends of Golden Gate Park permanent sculpture
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
133
key move 6
6.1
narrow Great Highway North of Balboa ( from 4 to 2 lanes) keep diagonal Cliff House parking narrow Point Lobos Avenue from 4 lanes to 2, add 2-way separated bikeway on inland side. Separated bikeway along cliff to prevent bicycle/vehicular conflict on steep slope connect bike lane to bike trail to Lands End and add bicycle box at Pt Lobos and 49th
6.2
6.3
6.4
North of Fulton Street, the great highway carries much less traffic than its design would suggest, and it presents a confusing and unwelcoming condition to pedestrians and cyclists. North of Balboa, there is a dangerous combination of bicycle traffic, diagonal parking, and a steep grade. These recommendations would narrow the roadway from four lanes to two, allow for a physically separated two-way bikeway along the bluff adjacent to the Cliff House while leaving the diagonal visitor parking intact. This shortens pedestrian crossings and addresses the nonstandard intersection at Balboa. It also presents an opportunity to make a key connection for cyclists and pedestrians to the trails at Lands End, the Presidio, and beyond, in keeping with the role of Ocean Beach as a key connector of the broader open space network.
134
key move 6
6.2
6.3
6.4
scale 1=400
0 200
400 600
800
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
135
key move 6
benefits
improved pedestrian, bicycle safety, shortened crossings improved aesthetics and street design maintains cliff house parking while reducing car-bike conflicts enhances key recreational connection to lands end, coastal trail
constraints
modest traffic impacts
outstanding questions
what is the optimal arrangement of bicycle lanes along point lobos avenue? what will the traffic impacts be?
key move 6
vertical signage gateway element
interprative signage
GGNRA signage
crosswalk paving
crosswalk upgrade
separated bikeway
bike box
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
137
south reach
middle reach
north reach
4 t 47th e 47th Ave dah d h udah t Judah St. t Ir ing St. Irving St.
S e a St Rivera St.
Wawo a S Wawona St
Arm mo ry R
treatment plant
Sky line lin Blv lvd.
d.
ve t 6t Av 46th Ave ve 45 45th Ave 5t 45th Ave 45t Av 45th Ave 44th e 44th Ave 4th 4t 44 44t 44th Av 44th Ave 3th 3th ve 43th Ave 43t 43t Ave 43th Ave v 42t 42th Ave
4 45th Ave
zoo
th th 43th Ave
42 42 42th Ave
he h checo S Pacheco St
S Q n Quint Quintara St
41th 41 41th Ave e 41t 41th Ave 0th 0th e 40th Ave 0 40t 40t Ave 40th A e h e th Ave 39th Ave h th Ave 39th Ave
v Blvd e Geary B vd. ab il S Cabrilio St.
z Anza Anza St
h ve 48th Ave
S a t St Lawton St.
S St. ra Taraval St
St R Rivera St.
3 h v 37th Ave
wo wona St Wawona St
138
S A Anza St
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
139
subheading
quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote
140
| DRAFT
VII
141
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
142
quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
143
144
Dune Restoration Pilot Schematic Design: Public Access Improvements Management Agreement Project Lead: SPUR EIS/EIR Lead: GGNRA Project Partners: GGNRA, SFDRP, GGNPC, SFPUC, SFZoo
reroute great highway behind the zoo via sloat and skyline
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
145
146
funding opportunites
agency source purpose amount
direct / priority
grant request grant match grant match Prop K Cosco Busan settlement Cosco Busan settlement FLHP/TRIP section 2037 costshare
indirect / leverage
ACOE/CCSF CTA/MOEWD NPS MTC/CTA MTC/CTA strategic growth council planning grant council planning grant GGNPC
core impl/mgt funds core impl/mgt funds core impl/mgt funds Great Hwy recreational amentities recreational amentities GH corridor trail access beach nourishment 19th Ave transportation study Oshaughnessy seawall rehab Cons. Corps partnerships street/roads, bike/ ped categories
$400,000 $300,000 $125,000 $800,000 $1,125,000 $7,000,000 $250,000 $3.7M-6.8M $480,000 $1,500,000 tbd
GMP projects list T-E funds OneBay Area Grant prop 84 philanthropic
tbd
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
147
subheading
quote
148
| DRAFT
VIII
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
149
evaluation criteria
Evaluation criteria were developed in consultation with OBMP Planning Advisory Committee to evaluate outcomes of Test Scenarios and Plan Recommendations.
aspiration
focus areas
ecology
coastal dynamics
utility infrastructure
Evaluate utility plans and needs in light of coastal hazards and uncertainties, and pursue a smart, sustainable approach.
1. Water quality management (stormwater, wastewater, combined-sewer overflows) -2 -1 0 1 2
(degrades)
evaluation criteria
(improves)
(improves)
(improves)
(reduces)
(improves)
3. Ecological connectivity -2 -1 0 1
(degrades)
(improves)
(positive)
3. Management of the investment in core utility facilities (treatment plant, transport box, Lake Merced tunnel...) -2 -1 0 1 2
(negative) (positive)
150
focus area*
focus areas
access + connectivity
image + character
management + stewardship
aspiration
Provide seamless and fluid connections to adjacent open spaces, the city, and the region.
1. Pedestrian and bicycle circulation along north/south corridors -2 -1 0 1 2
(degrades) (improves)
Preserve and celebrate the beachs raw and open beauty, while welcoming a broader public.
1. Image of Ocean Beach -2 -1 0 1
(degrades)
Accommodate the diverse activities people enjoy at the beach, managed for positive coexistence.
1. Activities and amentities -2 -1 0 1
(degrades)
evaluation criteria
(improves)
(improves)
2. Pedestrian & bike connections to adjacent open spaces, streets & transit network -2 -1 0 1 2
(degrades) (improves)
2. Surf conditions -2 -1 0
(degrades)
(improves)
3. Compatibility of uses -2 -1 0 1
(degrades)
(improves)
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
151
cost/benefit analysis
Refer to Appendix (Cost/Benefit Analysis Technical Memorandum) for assumptions and additional information.
KEY MOVES
TIME FRAME
PRESENT VALUE
Reroute Great Highway Replace South of Sloat Reconfigure Sloat Consolidate Parking Reconfigure Zoo Parking Introduce Multipurpose Access System Dismantle Great Hwy/Coastal Trail Protect Lake Merced Tunnel Allow Storm Surges/Wetland Revegetate Reduce Great Highway Narrow Hwy from 4 to 2 lanes Use Southbound Lanes for Parking, etc. Promenade Allow Dunes to Migrate Middle Reach Dune Restoration Beach Nourishment Native Dune Restoration Sand ladders/Boardwalks Connect GG Park with Beach Reconfigure Parking Lot Amenities Event Capacity Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements Narrow Great Highway Physically Seperated Bikeway Additional: Low Impact Development (LID)
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
12,807,381 5,898,200 6,510,431 79,750 319,000 76,949,875 402,000 60,000,000 5,500,000 11,047,875 17,182,840 15,855,840 319,000 1,008,000
MID MID MID MID MID MID/LONG LONG MID MID MID MID MID NEAR/MID MID MID NEAR/MID NEAR/MID NEAR/MID NEAR/MID MID MID
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
5,068,315 2,334,118 2,576,398 31,560 126,239 27,925,725 159,085 22,613,369 781,251 4,372,019 6,799,833 6,274,694 126,239 398,900 37,059,427 35,080,757 1,978,670 14,316,317 7,158,158 7,158,158 4,562,378 4,163,478 398,900 59,360,094
$150,000,000
TOTAL
$342,630,936
$ 155,092,088
152
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
153
key move 1
photo caption
quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote
Menis reictum et unt officideliam quibusapidus at.Ehent. Quuntot aturiorum re perum idero berio blabo. Nequam nus explit volorestotat lit lique voluptas dipsus nos aut alique eos alit quote volum quote fuga. Ad ent vellabo rendeni minvele ceatatem nihil inus, se por magnimusaes prem que autempo rionetur? Unt od erum es ut et, same ium quo quiam, si corem quam venime simusdae landam es estem. Optatiumque rempedior apidelendi dolorae vel is nulpa sinctiu remporit adiam si officiae quatatia iliquatest, in restet prest faccumqui adit, in etur, to blaut officium facil inctur? Quiat. Lenis ea vendes sedi repudae sunt es et aut estiisint in reium volene ni ati sincil ipis doluptatecto omnisse quostibea nia velenda consed quo bea ea nihillectem incto volores pa quide ne perchillabo. Itaepudis doluptata nos id molor adignam, nis am soloraeped que eumqui que si doluptatem facil magnihitius. Eperumq uodigendenis doluptatia di dolorum doloreheniet endant eaqui blaccum ad quo te iunt doleni aliquam quatur re nem quiae lam, nos nem eaquundipsae rerrovitiis dolo ipsaped qui re rerciae sequibus vit hario. Genducium disimi, as velicta esequia dolore parum quae rest landamus soluptas iusanti ametur simil ipis et evelest iusdae volut laborem quo quamentis doles es ex et fugiaec tatisciis event aligent utaquiate nitam aut labor moluptat mod quae idel ipides essinis elibusam quatior aepudandusam adiatios estoribusdae entioss imendit vendem aut facia quo etur aperspit, to molo sincidebis ut pa verum exped esed est, il magnihic te endi ut arciend ipsusam, essum excepeles consequia sunt eat. Mil iusam ipsum et landiti isimpel estiossin rest pos mos et volorate poresequae porit, te volor sunto es dero estio incipitaspid quam di aboritium qui accus eossitae nonsequ atetus doluptate estia voluptatem harum voles et volectum harum dolor aut et animus volore, sit velignis con net offic te si dem aut everumqui beraPa simi, apidunt imus ipsa consequi ad ut adi torro blaut ea cuptassit idunt iduntis et eum idel il illenima sit, sequosam harum dolecae dolupic to ma cum est venis minusas. Sum quatioria ipsapit iistrum ipidi re pelicip idelest re, tet prestotatist laudaer umquia vit excerovid ute vitis serro ommoluptat ut officiumque sani beaquibusae natet eaquiam eum exceatem ad magnimo dignihil minctem porendae nonse venestores et fugiae vit, corem. Ut ut exceaqu iatiam, adigend ipiciis esequas aut ad maxima commossunt officat. Boressi taquos illaut od et as dipsumqusequiae eni reperspis quat eossuntem fugit denditi qui cus dolesci umquiae tur, siLiquis aliquo eum essum harumque et rem haribus adis consent.
154
| DRAFT
outreach process
A robust public and stakeholder outreach process was fundamental to the development of this plan. Much of the teams effort was devoted to synthesizing a dizzying array of complex site conditions and tradeoffs into accessible and compelling materials to facilitate informed public participation. Two earlier community task forces, The Ocean Beach Task Force under Mayor Brown, and the Ocean Beach Vision Council under Mayor Newsom, raised awareness and made proposals for the future of Ocean Beach, but neither had a pathway to implementation. The result was increased awareness on the part of decisionmakers, but frustration at the limited impact on the policies and actions of public agencies. The Ocean Beach Master Plan process was intended to build on the efforts of these task forces by moving quickly and prioritizing results, while broadening the base of both community and agency stakeholders.
IX
155
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
outreach process
stakeholder interviews
In scoping the project and identifying key issues and voices, the OBMP conducted one-on-one interviews with dozens of public agency and community stakeholders in the Summer and Fall of 2010. and provide feedback.
steering committee
The Steering Committee is a small, non-delegable body consisting exclusively of agency directors, elected officials, and the PAC chair. The considerable interagency challenges at Ocean Beach made this high-level body indispensable in considering big-picture challenges at Ocean Beach. The Steering Committee met at key project milestones.
Workshop 2: Test Scenarios Golden Gate Park Senior Center, June 2010 Attendance: ~60 Workshop 3: Draft Recommendations Golden Gate Park Senior Center, October 2010 Attendance: ~60 Online and Physical Survey Participants: 100
systematic and transparent fashion, and was heavily used. Respondents to Draft recommendations Survey: 100 (15 paper, 85 online) Twitter followers: 75 Facebook followers: 210 Finally, SPUR used its extensive schedule of public programming to host several panels and an exhibition at the Urban Center Gallery, further extending the projects public engagement.
technical advisors
An on-call group of technical advisors was identified and enlisted to weigh in as needed on the scientific and engineering aspects of the project. These included coastal engineers, climate scientists, traffic specialists, and wildlife biologists.
public workshops
The process included three major public workshops, which included interactive exercises and numerous channels for obtaining and recording public feedback. Workshop 1: Public Open House: Understanding Ocean Beach, San Francisco Zoo, January 2010 Attendance: >150
project phases
1. Startup (Jun-Aug, 2010) 2. Problem Definition (Sep-Dec, 2010) 3. Alternatives/Scenarios Development (Jan-May, 2011) 4. Draft Recommendations (MayOctober 2011) 5. Draft Master Plan Document (October 2011- February 2012)
156
reroute great highway behind the zoo via sloat and skyline
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
| DRAFT
157
158
appendix
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
159
160
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
161
162
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
163
164
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
165
166
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
167
168
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
169
170
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
171
172
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
173
174
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
175
176
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
177
178
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
179
180
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
181
182
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
183
184
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
185
186
with
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.
187
draft
ocean beach master plan
DRAFT January 27, 2012
188