creek daylighting: a public outreach effort in glen park, san francisco

8/8/2019 Creek Daylighting: A Public Outreach Effort in Glen Park, San Francisco

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/creek-daylighting-a-public-outreach-effort-in-glen-park-san-francisco 1/44

Glen Park

Community

Plan

Creek Daylighting:A Public Outreach Effort

Creek Daylighting in Glen Park:

Improving Open Space

Creating Public Space

Connecting Places



Paul Cheng

Masters CandidateDepartment of Urban & Regional Planning

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Faculty Adviser:

Professor Brian Deal

Project Clients

San Francisco Planning Department

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission



Glen Park Community Plan | 3

Report Contents

Executive Summary1.

Boundaries & Context2.

History of Project3.

Creek Daylighting - A Strategy to Address Multiple Concerns4.

Public Agency Involvement & Motivations5.

Purpose of Project6.

Scope of Project7.

Current Status of Project8.

Physical Analysis & Design Considerations9.

Lessons Learned10.

Next Steps11.

Appendices12.



4 | Creek Daylighting: A Public Outreach Effort

Executive Summary

The Glen Park neighborhood of San Francisco is a hub of activity. It is a major focal point in the San Francisco Bay Area

regional transportation network, it is the home to a unique local commercial corridor, and it supports a population base living

in both single- and multi-family housing. In addition, the Glen Park neighborhood is home to Glen Canyon, recognized as

one of San Francisco’s six “Significant Natural Resource Areas.” From the head of the canyonflows Islais Creek, currently

one of only two free-flowing creeks remaining in San Francisco. Decades after urbanization resulted in the creek’s buria

underground, the neighborhood and the city face an opportunity to “daylight” – or bring back to the surface – Islais Creek.

One of the strategies to emerge from the 2003 Glen Park Draft Community Plan was the potential daylighting of Islais Creek

through the Glen Park neighborhood. Community Plan workshop participants saw creek daylighting as a potential solution to

a number of recognized issues in the neighborhood. A running creek could form the centerpiece of an improved open space

corridor – with a stormwater management function – reviving a natural area while creating a public space currently absent fromthe neighborhood. At the same time, this corridor could double as a transportation route, providing bicyclists and pedestrians

with a safe and scenic alternative to the busy Bosworth Street-O’Shaughnessy Boulevard transition. And while the idea o

creek daylighting met with community support then, seven years have since passed. Now, in 2010, San Francisco’s Planning

Department (Planning) and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) are renewing the planning effort to bring

creek daylighting into the Glen Park neighborhood.

The aim of this Master’s capstone project is to aid Planning and the SFPUC in their public outreach effort to explore a potentia

creek daylighting project in the Glen Park neighborhood. Without an informed community, residents of the neighborhood wil

not be able to sound a knowledgeable voice regarding an issue with wide-ranging ramifications. This project emphasizes

products that promote a successful public planning process. The creation of informational documents – community surveys

case studies, frequently asked questions (FAQ) – and the participation in community events – meetings with residents,outreach at street festivals, presentations at community meetings – will provide residents with the necessary information

of benefits, costs, and potential outcomes to make knowledgeable and informed decisions. These decisions, on a creek

daylighting project in their neighborhood, will not only affect the Glen Park neighborhood, but will affect the entire city of San

Francisco. Effectively reaching out to neighborhood residents will be a critical element in Planning and SFPUC’s planning

process to promote a potential creek daylighting project in the Glen Park neighborhood.




Boundaries & Context

The Glen Park neighborhood, affectionately referred to

by residents as “the village,” encompasses Glen Park’s

commercial district (herein referred to as “downtown”),

surrounding streets, the BART station, and public open spaces

(see Figure 1). Land uses include single- and multi-family

residential structures, commercial and retail businesses, a

regional transit hub, institutional uses (elementary schoolsand library), and open space. The Glen Park neighborhood

is bounded to the west by Glen Canyon and Glen Park

Recreation Center, bounded to the north by Chenery Street,

bounded to the east by San Jose Avenue/Interstate 280, and

bounded to the south by Monterey Boulevard.

History of Project

In 2003, the San Francisco Planning Department (Planning)

held a series of public workshops to develop a community

plan for the Glen Park neighborhood. The purpose of the

workshops was to engage the community and aid Planning

in gathering information regarding the community’s existing

conditions and needs. Workshop participants identified key

issues related to Glen Park’s public realm and open space

and transportation networks. Many of the issues raised

related to residents’ desire to foster a stronger sense of placein the Glen Park neighborhood and to improve connectivity

throughout the neighborhood. Consistent with the concepts

of sense of place and connectivity were three issues cited: an

underused open space corridor, a gap in the citywide bicycle

network, and a lack of public gathering space.

One of the strategies proposed by workshop participants,

“Greenway Connection to Glen Canyon,” offered an approach

to address the three issues of open space, city bike

network, and public gathering space. A linear greenway

highlighted by a daylighted stretch of Islais Creek could

connect the westernmost end of the Glen Park neighborhood

(Glen Canyon) to the easternmost edge (“downtown”) and

establish the corridor as a deliberate public open space with

the potential to bridge the city’s bike network.1

Brief History of Islais Creek

Prior to its burial under pavement and structures, Islais Creekwas one of San Francisco’s major waterways. It spanned

from the headwaters at Twin Peaks in central San Francisco

to its release point into the Bay in the city’s southeast Bayview

Hunters Point District. In its most prominent stretch, through

the modern-day Glen Park neighborhood, Islais Creek was

two miles wide. It was in

Glen Park, nicknamed

“Butchertown” because

of the high concentration

of slaughterhouses, thaIslais Creek became a

dumping ground for anima

and residential waste

The pollution and its

resultant odors and public

health risks preceded the

creek’s eventual buria

underground.2

At present, Islais Creek

flows above ground through Glen Canyon Park, and duringthe rainy season, the creek’s water level is well above tha

during the drier parts of the year. Once the creek approaches

the Glen Park Recreation Center, itflows into an underground

culvert running under houses, a public utilities easement, and

generally along Bosworth Street. At this culvert, the creek

enters San Francisco’s combined sewer system.

Figure 1. Glen Park Community Plan Study Area




Figure 2. An informal footpath runs through this corridor parallel to Bosworth St.

Creek Daylighting – A Strategy to AddressMultiple Concerns

The proposal to daylight Islais Creek throughout the Glen

Park neighborhood, if designed properly and sensitive to

residents’ concerns, can begin to address the key community

issues of underutilized open space areas, lack of connectivity

into the city’s bike network, and a dearth of public gathering

spaces.

Underutilized, Unof fi cial Open Space Corridor Spanning the stretch of Bosworth from Brompton Street to Elk

Street is a continuous, linear greenway. The land consists of

several vacant parcels, owned by the Department of Public

Works (DPW), and sits atop a DPW easement. The north

side of the corridor (directly adjacent to Bosworth Street)

is bordered by trees, primarily EucaIyptus. The southern

edge is framed by single family houses. The corridor itself is

characterized by a grassy swath. In the daytime, foot traf ficalong this corridor is light. However, the presence of a well-

worn footpath through the corridor indicates a fairly regular

degree of use (see Figure 2).

Daylighting Islais Creek through this open space corridor

presents an array of potential benefits to the neighborhood.

The linear and relatively unimpeded nature – a long stretch

of turf grass transitioning to an unmaintained, weedy strip

– of the corridor lends itself well to a continuous greenway

connecting Glen Canyon and Glen Park Recreation Center to

the downtown district. Implementing a defined trail or walkway

would formalize the existing footpath and encourage a higher

volume of pedestrian traf fic (and thus improving safety). In

addition, the corridor abuts the St. John Elementary School

schoolyard; this presents an opportunity to create an outdoor

“living laboratory” that could enhance the school’s

curriculum. If landscaped according to San Francisco’s native

vegetation palette, the daylighted creek and greenway could

provide new habitat for native wildlife, including butter flies

birds, and other riparian wildlife.

Returning Islais Creek to the surface offers potential stormwate

management benefits to not only the neighborhood, but also

San Francisco as a whole. A daylighted Islais Creek would

allow for a consistent volume of water to remain within thecreek’s banks and outside of the city’s combined sewer system

By diverting water from the sewer, daylighting would furthe

mitigate neighborhood flood risks and reduce storage and

treatment demands on the sewer system. By implementing

Low Impact Design (LID) strategies in conjunction, including

rain gardens, detention basins, and native riparian vegetation

the creek could provide a substantial amount of cleansing

and infiltration of stormwater flows.*

Void in the Citywide Bike Network Downtown Glen Park is a hub of transportation activity. Fou

MUNI bus lines stop along the intersection of Bosworth and

Diamond Streets; the J-Church MUNI light rail line traverses

San Jose Avenue to the immediate southeast; convenien

automobile access via freeway exists to downtown San

Francisco, the South Bay (Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara)

and the East Bay (Berkeley, Oakland, Fremont); and the

BART station likewise provides a public transit connection

throughout much of the greater Bay Area region. The one

mode of transport neglected is the bicycle. Unlike much o

the rest of the central portion of the city, downtown Glen Parkis without bike infrastructure. On Bosworth between Diamond

and Elk Streets, cyclists must compete with automobiles

for lane space without much of a shoulder. This five-block

stretch is a deterrent to intra-city commuters who need to

reach areas such as the Sunset District, the West Porta

commercial corridor, or Golden Gate Park.

Daylighting Islais Creek along the DPW easement as part of

a multipurpose greenway would make it possible for passive

creekside recreation, pedestrian traf fic, and a bicycle lane

Including a bicycle lane along the greenway would provide

not only a safe route, but an aesthetically pleasing and scenic

one. Considerations would need to be made, however, fo

the change in grade upon the approach to O’Shaughnessy

* Low Impact Design refers to a stormwater management approach that

treats stormwater as a resource, and is modeled after nature: manage

rainfall at the source using distributed and small-scale controls. LID’s

goal is to mimic a site’s pre-development runoff pattern by using design

techniques that infiltrate, filter, store, evaporate, and detain stormwater

close to its source.




Boulevard. One possibility is to continue the bike lane

across Elk Street and into the western edge of the Glen Park

Recreation Center.

Lack of Neighborhood Public Gathering Space The Glen Park neighborhood possesses a unique combination

of amenities in San Francisco. At one end sits Glen Canyon,

recognized by the Recreation and Park Department as one

of the city’s six “Significant Natural Resource Areas.”3 A trulywell-kept natural treasure in the city, Glen Canyon is home

to a number of different habitat types and supports a varied

wildlife community. At the other end of the neighborhood,

downtown Glen Park features a number of quality restaurants

and retail establishments as well as the above-mentioned

regional transit links. Even with this combination of features,

Glen Park does not have a gathering space such as a

Dolores Park, UN Plaza, or other public area where people

can congregate and socialize. The BART plaza does have

a circular seating area; however, strong winds create a less-than-ideal atmosphere for gathering while a surrounding

fence restricts access and deters passersby from entering

the plaza.

The potential path for a daylighted creek could easily

feature seat walls, viewing mounds, and other gathering

spaces. With a unique natural feature – only two freeflowing

creeks survive in San Francisco, and neither flow through

neighborhoods – as its focus, the open space corridor would

become an attraction for a diverse range of users – bicyclists,

casual walkers, wildlife observers, children playing in water,and other city residents looking for a smidgeon of nature in

the city. The creek’s path would then form a bridge between

the natural Glen Canyon and the ultra-urbanized downtown

Glen Park (see Figure 3).

Public Agency Involvement & Motivations

San Francisco Planning Department (Planning)

The San Francisco Planning Department’s 2003 Glen Park

Community Plan addressed transportation, land use, and

urban design issues in the Glen Park neighborhood. The

idea to daylight Islais Creek surfaced in the public workshops

as a part of a larger concept to take advantage of an existing

public utilities easement – that runs between the Glen Park

Recreation Center and downtown Glen Park – and convert it

to a linear greenway. The greenway and its centerpiece, a

daylighted Islais Creek, could potentially address community-

cited shortcomings in the neighborhood’s transportation

network, public open/gathering space, and underused

public space. Planning wants to explore the daylighting o

Islais Creek for its potential as a multi-purpose community

amenity that, in addition to addressing the above-state

concerns, would also introduce to the neighborhood many

other tangible benefits, including an increase in neighborhood

property values, increased commercial opportunity for loca

businesses that result from the neighborhood’s status as

a destination, habitat creation for native plant and anima

species, rediscovering a part of Glen Park’s natural heritage

creation of an outdoor education resource, and on-site

stormwater management.

For Planning, the potential daylighting of Islais Creek ties

in to a more sensitive land use/development issue: the

development of the BART surface parking lot, which is

situated on Bosworth Street just east of Diamond Street, fo

mixed-income housing. Federal transportation funding slated

for BART’s development project will provide Planning with

funding to support Glen Park neighborhood improvement

A large aspect of Planning’s neighborhood improvemeneffort is the study of community and physical feasibility of

daylighting Islais Creek.

I-280

I-280

Glen Canyon

Park

Glen Park Rec Center

Islais Creek -

Current Stretch

BART Regional

Transit Hub

Congested

Intersection

“Downtown”Glen Park

Corridor

Creek Daylighting -

Candidate Stretch

Interstate

Highway 280

Principle

Roadway

Roadway

Creek -Existing Stretch

Creek -

Candidate Stretch

ResidentialArea

Commercial

Corridor

Glen Park

Rec Center

Glen CanyonPark

BART Regional

Transit Hub

LEGENDN

+

Figure 3. A daylighted creek would create multi-purpose public space that connectsthe neighborhood.




San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC)One of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s

three domains is Wastewater, which entails managing San

Francisco’s combined sewer system (treats both sewage and

stormwater). For the last several years, SFPUC has been

making an effort to promote Low Impact Design (LID) as a

feasible strategy to manage the city’s stormwater runoff. Low

Impact Design emphasizes stormwater facilities that “mimicnatural watershed processes by replicating pre-existing

hydrologic site conditions. LID directs runoff to natural

vegetated systems, such as landscaped planters, swales

and gardens that reduce, filter or slow stormwater runoff.”4

SFPUC acknowledges that LID best management practices

(BMPs) – as implemented in an urbanized context such as San

Francisco – is not practicable as a substitute for the existing,

conventional system of sewer pipes and treatment plants.

However, when sited, designed, and managed appropriately,

LID BMPs can reduce the stormwater conveyance andtreatment demands on the city’s combined sewer system.

SFPUC’s involvement in the Glen Park neighborhood – and

in particular, the Islais Creek – is driven by the stormwater

management potential of daylighting Islais Creek. In a 2009

technical memorandum analyzing potential LID opportunities

within the Islais Creek Basin – in which Glen Park resides –

SFPUC envisions 7,000 linear-feet of Islais Creek daylighted

along a 19,000 linear-foot route terminating in the San

Francisco Bay. Of the five potential projects modeled, Islais

Creek Daylighting graded out the highest.5 DaylightingIslais Creek would effectively increase San Francisco’s

wastewater treatment capacity. A small but non-negligible

portion of stormwater flows in the Islais Creek Basin would

be diverted from the underground sewer system and run in

the creek. Along the creek would be other strategically sited

LID BMPs – rain gardens to enhance stormwater infiltration

and groundwater recharge; aesthetically pleasing detention

basins and check dams to reduce peakflows and encourage

pollutant settling.

Purpose of Project

At the time Planning convened public workshops for its

Glen Park Community Plan in 2003, neighborhood residents

supported exploring the idea of daylighting Islais Creek.

(The consultant’s subsequent conceptual designs showed a

daylighted creek running through both currently vacant, city-

owned parcels and through parts of the neighborhood.)

However, in recent conversations with Planning staff, the

citizen support expressed at the 2003 public meetings do

not appear to be universal among neighborhood residents a

present.6 Residents’ concerns with a daylighted creek involve

loss of street parking, increased loitering in the neighborhood

increased mosquito breeding habitat, and increased flood

risk. Ultimately, the decision on whether or not the city

pursues a creek daylighting project in Glen Park rests in the

hands of neighborhood residents. It is, however, the mutuabelief of both Planning and SFPUC that regardless of the

end conclusion, residents should have the best information

possible at their disposal. Thus, in concert with any future

public meetings or workshops centered on creek daylighting

Planning and SFPUC are making a concerted effort to supply

Glen Park neighborhood residents with all relevant and

available information to allow residents to make the mos

informed decision.

The purpose of this project is to assist Planning and SFPUC(collectively referred to as the “Client”) with their joint public

outreach effort to inform Glen Park neighborhood residents

about the benefits and costs of creek daylighting and to

gauge community support for and/or opposition to such a

project in the neighborhood. This effort includes not only the

preparation and dissemination of informational materials, but

also the obtainment and analysis of community feedback and

participation in community events and meetings. These three

areas necessarily form an iterative loop where findings in

one area inform the proceedings in another (e.g. community

concerns disclosed in a survey would inform topics coveredin a “frequently asked questions” document).

Scope of Project

The scope of this project covers the creation and distribution o

outreach and feedback materials – frequently asked questions

(FAQ), case studies, online survey, visual preference survey

– to participation in outreach and community events

neighborhood meetings and workshops.

Project Components: Tasks A. Online Survey –

Task

Design a survey to gauge neighborhood residentsa.

perceptions of and attitudes towards the natural areas

and natural amenities in the Glen Park neighborhood

Areas of particular interest include use of recreation

areas/facilities, connections to “downtown,”




awareness of landscape features and services,

attitude toward a potential creek daylighting

project, awareness of local watershed health, and

attitude towards improving the local watershed.

Analyze survey results in regards to above-statedb.

areas of interest. In particular, determine the current

level of support for and interest in exploring a creek

daylighting project in the neighborhood, and identifywhat kinds of information might address any concerns

expressed by residents in the survey.

B. Case Studies –

Task

Identify several relevant precedent projects and draft

case studies of past creek daylighting projects – drawing

primarily from examples in California, but throughout the

U.S. as well. One of the most effective ways to present the

feasibility of any given project is to identify and describeprevious successful projects of similar scale and context.

Precedent projects provide tangible evidence of realized

benefits and costs, and lessons learned. If chosen

appropriately in terms of scale and context, they can also

provide reasonable expectations for necessary planning

efforts, benefits, and costs in the current situation.

C. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Sheet –

Task

Develop a one-page handout addressing frequently asked

questions and commonly held perceptions pertaining tocreek daylighting. The FAQ should address areas such

as defining the term, “creek daylighting,” the purpose(s)

behind creek daylighting, and what benefits and costs

might accrue to a community in which a creek is daylighted.

Community feedback will inform the document’s content.

D. Visual Preference Survey & Presentation Boards –

Task

Along with the online survey, a visual preference survey

(VPS) would provide design guidance for any potential

creek daylighting project in the Glen Park neighborhood.

Areas of particular importance include: creek channel

design, edge treatment and materials, vegetation intensity,

level of accessibility, and potential as a streetside water

feature. The format of the VPS will be an online survey

as well as a set of presentation boards to be used as an

interactive exercise at a public community workshop on

creek daylighting.

E. Participation in Community Events (Meetings,

Workshops, Outreach Opportunities) –

Task

At scheduled and ad-hoc community events, provide

support materials and assistance relating to creek

daylighting. Anticipated events include the Glen Park

Festival and community meetings to address a revised Glen

Park Community Plan and creek daylighting, specifically

Support materials will likely include visual preferenceboards and FAQ/case study handouts.

Project Components: Results and Findings A. Online Survey –

Results

Survey Design: The online survey underwena.

numerous iterations in response to feedback from

both the project faculty advisor, Professor Brian

Deal, and the Client, the San Francisco Public

Utilities Commission (SFPUC) and the San FranciscoPlanning Department (Planning). The survey covers

a spectrum of topics with the overarching goal of

understanding Glen Park neighborhood residents

awareness and use of neighborhood open space

areas and recreation opportunities; valuation o

natural features and landscape services; suppor

of or opposition to the potential daylighting of Islais

Creek through the neighborhood; and willingness

of respondents to participate in community-based

conservation efforts of the greater watershed

As of this report’s date, the online survey has notb.

been released for public response. The initial cause

for the delay was a conflict in timing with another Glen

Park neighborhood-planning effort. Superseding the

creek daylighting issue has been the related issues of

parking and future development of the BART surface

parking lot. BART’s plan to develop its parking lot into

residential units – including affordable housing – has

met with strong interest from Glen Park neighborhood

residents. The Client has decided to wait to issue the

survey to avoid overwhelming residents with surveys

as BART has issued its own survey.

Analysis and summary of survey results will not occur until a

later date and will not be included in this version of the report

See Appendix A to view the entire online survey.




B. Case Studies –

Results

The goal of the case studies was to identify and present

precedent creek daylighting projects applicable to the

Glen Park neighborhood. Because of the diversity in

the neighborhood’s land uses – ranging from a natural

area to residential streets to a commercial corridor – the

cases chosen had to also reflect a broad range of social

environments. The six precedent projects ultimatelychosen do reflect a wide range of settings and scales.

They range from neighborhood parks (Strawberry Creek

Park) to school sites (Blackberry Creek) to downtown

business districts (Arcadia Creek, San Luis Obispo Creek).

Additionally, the primary motivations behind these projects

also varied. Strawberry Creek Park reclaimed a derelict

railyard and created a welcome neighborhood park. The

Blackberry Creek project created an outdoor, natural

sciences laboratory for elementary school students. In

fact, Thousand Oaks School evolved into a magnet schoolfor the natural sciences. The Arcadia Creek and San Luis

Obispo Creek projects brought vibrancy back into their

respective business districts and created water amenities

that are sometimes the principal attractor of visitors to the

neighborhoods. The Prince Memorial Greenway in Santa

Rosa bridged the downtown and Railroad Square districts

via bike and pedestrian path.

In terms of reference materials, the universe of publicly

available research documenting daylighting projects is

quite limited. The pre-eminent publication, however, isRichard Pinkham’s “Daylighting: New Life for Buried

Streams,” published by the Rocky Mountain Institute. The

document contained rather brief but comprehensive reports

on a number of creek daylighting projects. It comprised the

principal source for the Arcadia Creek, Strawberry Creek

Park, and Blackberry Creek case studies. Supplemental

references included two previous Master’s projects

focused on daylighting, various municipal websites, and a

newspaper article. While creek daylighting is fast becoming

a phenomenon of reintroducing nature to the city, the body

of literature that documents and monitors these efforts is

surprisingly limited. See Appendix B to for the complete

case studies.

C. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Sheet –

Results

SFPUC staff had previously drafted a FAQ-type document

addressing creek daylighting. Modifications and additions

to the content made it more relevant to the Glen Park

neighborhood context. Updated images and layout made

the document consistent with the layout established for al

project documents. Because the online survey has no

been released or analyzed, the FAQ does not reflect issues

unique to the Glen Park neighborhood. See Appendix C

for the complete FAQ document.

D. Visual Preference Survey & Presentation Boards –

ResultsThe visual preference survey (VPS) and presentation

boards address a number of physical elements related to

a potential creek daylighting project. These topics include

dry weather appearance (what the creek would look like

without flowing water), general character, channel design

(the creek’s shape), and level of accessibility. The VPS is

designed as a follow-up exercise to the more general online

survey. Only in the case of extremely negative community

response to creek daylighting (expressed in the online sur-

vey) would the VPS not be issued. The VPS has not beenreleased as of this report’s date because the online survey

has not yet been released and a community meeting has

not yet been held. See Appendix D for the complete visua

preference survey.

E. Participation in Community Events (Meetings, Work-

shops, Outreach Opportunities) –

Results

To date, the Client has not held a community meeting or

workshop on creek daylighting. However, two other com-

munity events did allow for outreach. On April 12th, theproject team met with a group of residents who expressed

their opposition to any potential creek daylighting project

in the Glen Park neighborhood. Issues cited included

doubts about the city’s ability to maintain a daylighted

creek, and concerns about erosion, flooding, sewer back-

ups, child and pet safety, loitering, litter, and mosquito

breeding. The residents also offered tofinance their own

engineering and feasibility study, which the project team

declined. All parties did agree to coordinate a general

Planning’s booth was well-attended during the Glen Park Festival on April 25th.




community meeting to discuss creek daylighting. The

meeting will likely take place in July 2010.

Planning sponsored a booth at the April 25th Glen Park

Festival. In addition to general outreach on the Glen Park

Community Plan, the project team shared informal interaction

with festival-goers and distributed an informational packet

containing the FAQ and two case studies.

Current Status of Project

This project – a public outreach effort to explore a potential

creek daylighting project in the Glen Park neighborhood

of San Francisco – has slowed from the original schedule.

As of April 2010, all of the outreach materials have been

prepared. The FAQ and two case studies have been posted

on Planning’s Glen Park Community Plan website (the

documents can be downloaded at http://www.sf-planning.org/index.aspx?page=1666). The four remaining case studies,

online survey, and VPS have not been released for public

distribution or participation. The Client anticipates rolling

out the online survey immediately following the planned July

2010 community meeting. If residents express an interest to

explore the possibility of creek daylighting, the release of the

VPS will likely follow.

In just about any public planning effort, the process is just

as important as the end product. Citizens want to play an

instrumental role in the planning efforts that will ultimatelyaffect them and their community; they do not want to feel

as if a bureaucracy is forcing something upon them against

their will. The creek daylighting outreach effort in Glen Park

has proved no different. In specific, three principal issues, all

relating to the overriding concern for community involvement,

have served to delay the project.

BART’s (Bay Area Rapid Transit) Simultaneous1.

Planning Campaign – BART planned to launch

a survey and public planning process of its own

for its plans to develop a BART-owned surface

parking lot, for a residential project, adjacent to

downtown Glen Park. As the BART development

took precedence to the creek daylighting effort, our

survey got postponed for at least a couple of months.

SFPUC’s Increased Level of Involvement – In an April2.

8th meeting with SFPUC Communications staff and

the Client, the project team decided to adjust the

approach to community outreach regarding the creek

daylighting effort. Citing the amount of time that had

elapsed from the initial Glen Park Community Plan

document (2003) and the current efforts, as well as

SFPUC’s intention to become more involved in the

planning process, Communications determined that i

would be prudent to hold back on the online survey and

VPS until after formally re-engaging the community

in a town hall/public forum meeting to gauge thecommunity’s overall attitude towards creek daylighting

Communications stressed the importance of involving

the community at the outset and not making community

participation seem like a mere formality.

Group of Neighbors Opposed to Project – In March

2010, an attorney representing certain Glen Park

neighborhood residents contacted the project clients

to inquire about the status of the creek daylighting

project. The clients emphasized that no plan was in

place and that no decisions to pursue the project furthe

would occur without the community’s endorsement

Shortly thereafter, the project team agreed to mee

with this group of residents. On Monday, April 12th

Jon Swae (from Planning) and I met with the residents

represented by the above-mentioned attorney.

The residents at the meeting (referred to as “meeting

residents”) were well-organized and stated thei

opposition to any creek daylighting in the Glen Park

neighborhood. They all live in a cul-de-sac immediatelyadjacent to the most likely location for daylighting, and

they voiced their concerns:

Bad Neighbors: The adjacent school does no•

adequately manage its own stormwater, which in

heavy rains, causes erosion and debris buildup on

meeting residents’ properties

No Faith in the City: In response to a meeting•

resident’s complaints about the school, the City

offered only that he could lease a city-owned

parcel adjacent to the school and use it to managethe stormwater problem

Maintenance: The level of service for streetscape•

and park maintenance has steadily declined ove

last several years, and so the meeting residents

do not trust that the city would adequately maintain

and care for the increased responsibility that a

daylighted creek would create

3.




Safety issues: E. coli recently reported in the•

creek; creek would present drowning risk to young

children

Sewer backups into houses: Downstream•

neighbors have complained of sewage backups

into their basements: If the creek is daylighted

upstream, what would keep sewage from backing

up into the creek and entering meeting residents’

homes?Pests: Mosquitoes and other pests would breed in•

a daylighted creek, especially in standing water

Graf fiti and Trespassing: People walk along•

the green corridor even though a low fence

discourages access. However, meeting residents

have experienced foot traf fic and graf fiti vandalism

along their homes. A prominent creek would only

create even more opportunities for vandalism and

trespassing

While it seems that the public outreach effort has slowed –and even stalled – looking at the situation in a slightly different

light actually shows progress in the public planning process.

For one, we are taking a step back to reassess the situation,

making sure the community enters the conversation from the

start. This will help the project team to:

gain the community’s trust in that the community will1.

play an integral role in the planning effort;

determine the community’s overall level of support for a2.

creek daylighting project, and thus, whether it is feasible

for Planning and the SFPUC to pursue such a project.

Secondly, the project team has already engaged one

important stakeholder group – the neighbors in closest

proximity to a potential daylighting site – in a preliminary

discussion of their opposition to any daylighting project in

their neighborhood. Hearing and noting their concerns, the

project team has an opportunity to address these concerns in

front of a larger, more representative community audience.

Physical Analysis & Design Considerations

Due to the heavily urbanized nature of the Glen Park

neighborhood, a complete daylighting of Islais Creek along

its historic stretch is infeasible. Instead, a partial daylighting

where portions of the creek are brought to the surface, is a

more realistic possibility. Substantial portions of Islais Creek

run along utility easements owned by the SFPUC; these

portions of the neighborhood provide favorable opportunitiesAn April 2009 technical memorandum prepared for the SFPUC

described in greater detail the extent of a creek daylighting:

Earthen channels, on average, could be up to 6-feet wide•

and 2-feet deep

These dimensions would be suf ficient to convey a peak•

flow of 36.5 cubic feet per second, equivalent to the half

year, three-hour storm

Concrete culverts would convey flow under stree•

crossingsOver flow facilities would direct excess flows to the•

combined sewer system7

Without community feedback into the appearance and

physical characteristics of a daylighted creek, the projec

team developed several rough, conceptual designs of a

daylighted Islais Creek. The most distinctive features include

a detention pond behind the St. John’s School schoolyard tha

could serve as an outdoor classroom for St. John’s Schoo

as well as the nearby Glen Park Elementary School. In the

“downtown” Glen Park corridor, the creek would transition intoan urban water feature, fully interactive. The water feature

could form the centerpiece of a public gathering space. See

Appendix E for conceptual sketches.

Lessons Learned

From this project, the report author learned a lot about the

public planning process. For one thing, everything is simpler

faster, and more straightforward on the planner’s proverbia

“drawing board.” Technical and economic feasibility are only

two of the three essential key factors in the planning process

The third factor, of course, is public involvement/politica

feasibility. If the public, or a community in particular, objects

to the planner’s process or project, the planner will encounte

a more dif ficult and potentially more costly effort to push her

project through. Of course, in a city like San Francisco, with

a history of strong community involvement and outspoken

stakeholder groups, any perceived lack of public




engagement by planners can grind even the most promising

projects to a halt. In brief, here are a few things I have learned

while working on this project.

The public planning process is fi nicky – it is a moving a.

target

The public planning process resembles a complex

mathematical equation with multiple, interdependent

variables. When one thing comes up, for instance,the outcry of a well-organized and well-endowed

opposition group or a simultaneously occurring project,

everything else must shift accordingly. Outreach

efforts – informational documents, participation at

community events, etc. – must adapt to the changing

circumstances. I have produced multiple versions of

nearly everything – FAQ, case studies, community

survey – to meet the changing needs of the planning

process. The community survey, in particular, required

a huge effort because of the vacillations between thebroader theme of community open space to one more

focused on creek daylighting. Finally, the project team

settled on preparing both surveys. In perfect sync with

this bullet point, neither survey has been released for

public consumption.

Start from the big picture and work down b.

One thing that I realized and experienced was that

planners can really get caught up in the details of a

project. But when communicating to the community,

an audience likely to be far less knowledgeable onthe subject, the planner has to be able to step back

and work from the big picture level. In the case of this

project – a public outreach effort on creek daylighting

in the Glen Park neighborhood of San Francisco – we

were mindful of the fact that while residents and local

businesses had their individual interests – property

values, street parking, safety and flood risks, traf fic

– they likely did not share the planner’s big-picture

perspective of the project. For instance, planners are

cognizant of the role creek daylighting has played in

improving adjacent property values, the reduction of

flood risks, increases in local business activity, and

creating safe and educational public spaces. Zooming

even further out, creek daylighting can play an

instrumental role in improving local watershed health.

The benefits are apparent for flora and fauna, but they

also noticeably improve the human living environment

through lower ambient temperatures, better air quality,

creation of pedestrian-friendly spaces, and improved

functioning of the wastewater system. The lesson

learned here is that by keeping sight of the big picture

planners can communicate the full range of projec

benefits and thus improve their chances of gaining

the public support necessary to make a projec

successful.

Momentum is as quickly lost as it is gained c.

When the idea of creek daylighting came up in 2003it played a prominent role in the Glen Park Community

Plan. Yet, seven years have elapsed since anyone

seriously broached the subject in the community. In such

a large time span, many things change. Neighborhood

residents turn over, and Census socioeconomic

data relevant in 2003 might no longer apply in 2010

Planners need to re-engage local community groups

such as the Friends of Glen Canyon Park, as well as

reach out to the greater community while mindful of the

new audience. Of course, the states of science and opublic opinion change and evolve over seven years

The planning process must likewise adapt to and

apply these changes. Momentum, if not harnessed

immediately, can vanish just as quickly as it appeared

When at all possible, planners should take advantage

of any momentum in their favor.

Next Steps

The immediate next step will be to schedule a town hall-stylecommunity meeting for a preliminary discussion of a potentia

creek daylighting project in the neighborhood. Knowledgeable

staff from both the SFPUC and Planning will help to facilitate

the meeting and answer questions and concerns similar to

those mentioned by the group of neighbors with whom the

project team has already met (e.g. child safety, pest problems

flooding and erosion, etc.). A date has not yet been set, bu

the tentative target is July 2010.

The second step will be to issue the online community survey

Analysis of the survey results will strengthen the argument fo

or against a potential creek daylighting project. With survey

results supporting further study of a daylighting project, the

project team will then take two simultaneous steps: issue

the visual preference survey (VPS) and perform a feasibility

study. The goal of the VPS is to inform any potential designs

with community input. The feasibility study will help to

determine the technical and physical requirements needed

to turn a creek daylighting project into a reality.




If, on the other hand, the community survey’s results indicate

a majority opposition to creek daylighting – and a daylighting

project appears to be politically infeasible – then we will

temporarily shelve any creek daylighting efforts and take a

different tact. We will reassess the overall strategy for the

Glen Park neighborhood, and one likely scenario will be to

engage the community in programs that increase watershed

awareness. The objective of increasing watershed awareness

in the Glen Park neighborhood is to show residents howimportant private and public land use is to environmental

health and ultimately human health. Utilizing land in ways

that improve the health of the natural environment will also

improve the health of the human living environment. Relevant

activities that would apply to the Glen Park neighborhood

include volunteer creek clean-ups, walking tours describing

the creek and its history, rain barrel subsidy promotions, and

the engagement of neighborhood schools in “green schools”

initiatives that are taking place at other San Francisco

schools. As a result of this campaign, then, residents wouldsee how creek daylighting would be a logical and beneficial

land use in the Glen Park neighborhood.

1 Glen Park Draft Community Plan. November 2003. San Francisco Planning Department.2 LID Basin Analysis Technical Memorandum: Islais Creek Drainage Basin. Prepared for San Francisco Public Utilities Commission – Wastewater

Enterprise, Urban Watershed Management Program. April 2009.3 Neighborhood Parks Council website. Accessed on 03/15/10. http://www.sfnpc.org/glencanyonhistory4 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission website. Accessed on 03/18/10. http://sfwater.org/mto_main.cfm/MC_ID/14/MSC_ID/361/MTO_ID/541.5 LID Basin Analysis Technical Memorandum: Islais Creek Drainage Basin. Prepared for San Francisco Public Utilities Commission – Wastewater

Enterprise, Urban Watershed Management Program. April 2009.6 Personal communication with Jon Swae, Planning Department, 2010.7 LID Basin Analysis Technical Memorandum: Islais Creek Drainage Basin. Prepared for San Francisco Public Utilities Commission – Wastewater

Enterprise, Urban Watershed Management Program. April 2009.




Thank you for taking part in our survey!

Hello, my name is Paul Cheng. I am a graduate student and San Francisco native currentlystudying Urban Planning at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. For my Mastersproject, I am working with the San Francisco Planning Department and San Francisco PublicUtilities Commission to understand Glen Park neighborhood residents' thoughts and ideas aboutthe potential to daylight the Islais Creek through parts of the Glen Park neighborhood.

Daylighting refers to the act of exposing some or all of a previously covered creek, river, orstream.

The 2003 Glen Park Community Plan, the community raised three issues concerning publicspace and neighborhood connectivity. These issues concerned an underused series of vacantparcels along Bosworth Street spanning ‘downtown’ to Glen Park Recreation Center, a void in thecitywide bike network, and the absence of a focal public gathering space. The daylighting ofIslais Creek – one of two free-flowing creeks in all of San Francisco – emerged as a potentialstrategy to address these three items. A daylighted creek could possibly formalize the Bosworthgreenway, provide a safe corridor for bicyclists, and create a public, neighborhood amenity.

Thank you for participating in our survey, and I look forward to learning your thoughts!

_____________________________________________________________________

This survey should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. The results are for research purposes only. Allresponses will be kept confidential; we will not share any personal or contact information with third parties.

If you would like to forward this survey to other Glen Park residents, please direct them to the Glen ParkCommunity Plan website at:http://www.sf-planning.org/index.aspx?page=1666

Thank you, again, for taking the time to fill out our survey!

Appendix A - Online Survey




1. Are you a resident of the Glen Park neighborhood?(In conjunction with the Glen Park Community Plan, the Glen Park neighborhood includes areas within ¼mile of the BART station, but also includes extensions of the street network and public spaces within a ½mile radius of the station. See graphic below.)

YesNo

2. Have you ever visited either Glen Canyon Park or the Glen Park Recreation Center?

YesNoI don’t know

3. How often do you visit Glen Canyon Park or the Glen Park Recreation Center?*

5 or more times a week

2 to 4 times a week

1 or fewer times a week

Never

* Certain response(s) to this question will trigger the following question.

4. How do you typically access Glen Canyon Park or the Glen Park Recreation Center?*

Walk

Drive

Bike

Public Transit

* This question is hidden – it is triggered by certain response to previous question.





5. What route do you most frequently bike/walk between Glen Canyon and downtown/the village?*Chenery Street

Elk Street

Grassy trail along Bosworth Street

Other _______________________

Recreation in the Glen Park Neighborhood

6. How important is it that you are able to do the following in the Glen Park neighborhood?(Rate from 1 to 5, with 5 meaning “very important.”)

NotImportant

1 2 3 4 5

Walking

Jogging

Hiking

Dog walking

Wildlife or plant observation (including bird watching)

Connecting with nature

Picnicking or barbecuing

Field sports (including baseball, football, soccer, Frisbee)

Facility sports (including tennis, basketball)

Meditation or yoga

People watching

7. Are there any other activities that you feel are important to be able to do in the Glen Park neighborhood?





8. Please rate the following statements about use and access to Glen Park neighborhood parks, trails, andrecreation facilities. (Rate from 1 to 5, with 1 meaning “strongly disagree” and 5 meaning “stronglyagree.”)

Stronglydisagree

1 2 3 4

Stronglyagree

5It is convenient to get to parks, trails, or recreationfacilitiesParks, trails, or recreation facilities are crowded when Ivisit

I feel safe visiting parks, trail, or recreation facilities in theneighborhood

Glen Park neighborhood’s parks, trails, or recreationfacilities give me a break from city life

Glen Park Recreation Center connects smoothly with“downtown” Glen Park

Additional or Improved Recreation Opportunities

9. Do you go to parks, trails, or recreation facilities outside of the Glen Park neighborhood?

Yes, on a regular basis

Yes, occasionally

No

I don’t know

10. For what reason(s) do you go to other parks, trails, or recreation facilities in SanFrancisco – but outside of the Glen Park neighborhood? (Select all that apply.)

Access to recreation activities not available in Glen Park

To visit different parts of the City

Glen Park facilities are too crowdedGlen Park does not offer the recreation opportunities I want

I don’t go to parks or open space areas outside of Glen Park

Other _________________________________________

11. Would the addition of any of the below amenities and/or services in Glen Parkneighborhood parks, trails, or recreation facilities help to better meet your needs?(Select all that apply.)

More walking paths/trails

Bike paths

Longer hours for Glen Park Recreation Center

Areas to meet and socialize

Dedicated bird or wildlife observation areas

Additional sports facilities (including fields, courts)

Water features (including water fountains, waterfalls, shallow ponds)

Other _________________________________________





Landscape Features and Landscape Services in the Glen Park Neighborhood

For the purposes of this survey, “landscape features” refer to the visible attributes of an area of land,including physical elements such as topography and living elements such as plants and wildlife.

12. Below is a list of landscape features that might describe a neighborhood in this region.Check all that apply to your neighborhood.

Rocky hillsides

Grassy fields

Tree-lined walks

Paths or trails to walk

Home to birds and other wildlife

Native wild flowers

Flowing creeks or streams

Ponds or lakes

None

Other _________________________________________

13. Is access to landscape features within your neighborhood important to you?

Yes

No

I don’t know

For the purposes of this survey, “landscape services” refer to the potential benefits that the natural landscape provides to people. Examples include stormwater management, improved air quality, diverse recreation opportunities, wildlife habitat, and visual variety.

14. Below is a list of landscape services that might describe a neighborhood in this region.Check all that apply to your neighborhood.

Hiking trails

Plant or wildlife observation (including bird watching)

Flowering plants or trees

Shaded areas to walk and rest

Presence of wildlife, including birds, bees, squirrels

Absorption and infiltration of stormwater

Cooler temperatures

Quiet areas for reflection

None

Other _________________________________________

15. Is the presence of landscape services within your neighborhood important to you?

Yes

No

I don’t know

Islais Creek





One of two remaining natural waterways in San Francisco, Islais Creek winds from the mouth of Glen Canyon to the San Francisco Bay. Islais Creek supports a diverse streamside ecosystem characterized by water-loving plants – such as willow trees, horsetail, seep monkey flower, and red columbine – as well as amphibians, reptiles, and birds, some of which travel from as far away as South America.

16. Prior to this survey, have you seen or heard of Islais Creek?

I have seen Islais Creek

I have heard of Islais Creek

I have heard of AND seen Islais Creek

I have NOT heard of or seen Islais Creek

I don’t know

Creek Daylighting

For the following 5 questions, “daylighting” refers to the act of exposing some or all of a previously covered creek, river, or stream. Potential benefits of a creek daylighting project includes improved flood management, stormwater runoff reduction and diversion of runoff from sewage systems, wildlife habitat,recreation amenities, creation of an “outdoor classroom” for schools, and a unique natural feature that brings shoppers to local businesses. Some potential costs include increases in design costs, permitting requirements, creek maintenance, and plant replacement.

Buried creeks have been successfully daylighted in California cities such as San Luis Obispo, Oakland,Berkeley (3), and Santa Rosa, as well as internationally in Zurich, Switzerland and Seoul, Korea.

17. Would you support or oppose the possibility of daylighting Islais Creek through portionsof the Glen Park neighborhood?

Support

Oppose

No Opinion

18. If Islais Creek was daylighted through portions of the Glen Park neighborhood, howwould you choose to interact with it? (Select all that apply.)

Walk alongside it

Wade in it

Use it as a meeting place with friends

Listen to the sound of flowing water

Observe nearby plant and wildlife

I would not want to interact with it

Other _________________________________________

19. For what reason(s) would you not want to interact with a daylighted Islais Creek? Please describe.





20. On a scale of 1 to 5, how would you rank your interest in the following items related to a possibledaylighting of Islais Creek?

Notinterested

1 2 3 4

Veryinterested

5

Increased range of recreational opportunities

Outdoor education opportunities for schools

Wildlife habitat recreation

Alternative transportation corridor (bike and pedestrian)

Filtering and absorption of stormwater on site

Beautification of the neighborhood

Distinctive feature for the neighborhood

21. What concerns do you have about a possible creek daylighting project in the Glen Park neighborhood?

Notconcerned

1 2 3 4

Stronglyconcerned

5

Mosquitoes

Traffic congestion

Loss of parking

Attraction of loiterers, vandals

Water overflowing the creek bed

Maintenance concerns

22. Do you have any other concerns about a possible creek daylighting project in the Glen Parkneighborhood? Please specify.





Low Impact Design & Watershed Awareness

Low Impact Design (LID) refers to a stormwater management approach that treats stormwater as a resource, and is modeled after nature: manage rainfall at the source using distributed and small-scale controls. LID’s goal is to mimic a site’s pre-development runoff pattern by using design techniques that infiltrate, filter, store, evaporate, and detain stormwater close to its source.

23. On a scale of 1 to 5, indicate how important or unimportant the following potential benefits of Low

Impact Design are to you.Not

important1 2 3 4

Veryimportant

5

Reduces stormwater entering sewers

Less expensive than current system

Creates new green space or enhances existing greenspaces

Enhances wildlife habitat

Does not increase mosquito populations

Beautifies our neighborhood

I like the current system as it is

24. Would you be in favor of any of the following stormwater practices to occur in GlenPark? (Select all that apply.)

Change drainage so that stormwater runs into grassy or vegetated areas, allowing itto absorb into the ground

Create a pond or creek in an open space area where stormwater can flow into

Reduce some pavement, replacing with trees and plants to absorb more stormwater

I think the current system works fine

25. What, if any, purposes do you think stormwater could serve if it did not flow directly intoan underground pipe system? (Select all that apply.)

Irrigate my garden or lawn

Irrigate street trees and plantings

Provide a unique visual element to open space areas

Create water features like waterfalls, streams

Captures it to flush toilets

No purpose

26. Would you be in favor of doing any of the following stormwater conservation practices at your home?

Collect stormwater in a rain barrel for irrigation of my yard

Disconnect roof downspouts to direct stormwater into my yard or planting beds





Plant a “rain garden” to collect and absorb rain that falls on my property

Plant a wildflower meadow of native plants in my yard

None

Other ______________________________

Future Contact

27. Would you be interested in participating in a public workshop this Summer focused on open space andfunctional landscapes in the Glen Park neighborhood?

Yes

No

If yes, please include your name and contact information so we can keep you informed of upcomingpresentations or meetings.

Name: _________________________________________________

Email: _________________________________________________

Phone: _________________________________________________





Appendix B - Case Studies

Glen Park

Community

Plan

Background

As one o the frst projects o its kind in the U.S., StrawberryCreek Park in Berkeley paved the way or the many creek daylighting projects that ollowed. It demonstrated thearray o community benefts achievable by reintroducingelements o nature into a highly urbanized setting.Moreover, Strawberry Creek Park took a derelict site – theabandoned Santa Fe Railroad railyard – and converted it

into a multi-unction neighborhood amenity.

Stormwater

The daylighted creek has provided Berkeley withstormwater and ood benefts rather than create oodhazards as originally eared by city o cials. Designedor the 100-year storm event, the creek has survivedmany large storms, including those o El Niño in 1998.Creekside vegetation cools, slows, helps absorb, and fltersstormwater on its way to the San Francisco Bay. To date,interaction with the creek has not resulted in any majorinjuries – no one has suered an injury serious enough towarrant a hospital visit.

Education The daylighting o the creek in a naturalized settingincreases community members’ awareness o the naturalenvironment, rom an urban waterway and riparianvegetation to birds, fsh, and other wildlie. Furthermore,as part o an innovative creek/park maintenance program,the city parks department contracted with Berkeley YouthAlternatives – an ater-school program – to maintain thepark, providing valuable job experience to local youth rom

EconomicsNeighborhood property values have increased as the area– once troubled with crime and drug activity – has takenon much more o a amily-riendly and nature-orientedeel. An old warehouse at the edge o the site housesa number o start-up and local businesses, non-proftorganizations, and a bakery.

Community ProcessIn 1974, the Santa Fe Railroad abandoned a railyardin west Berkeley. Under city control, it sat vacant andunderutilized or eight years until city landscape architect,

Douglas Wole, proposed a plan to transorm the railyardinto a neighborhood park with a daylighted StrawberryCreek as the central element. City o cials resisted theidea, citing saety and ood hazards as well as its potential

as a target or litter.

Without the community’s support, the project wouldnever have let the drating board. But residents, in acoordinated and spirited campaign, executed a vigorousleaeting campaign and maintained a strong presence ata number o public meetings to show their support or thedaylighted creek and park. Eventually, the Berkeley Parks

Commission voted unanimously to approve the project. Aesthetics The Strawberry Creek daylighting project transormed anabandoned railyard into our acres o ball courts, grassymeadows, native trees, landscaped hillocks, and 200eet o babbling brook. The site’s history is preservedin the repurposed concrete slabs that now unction assteps down to the creek bed. On any given day, tens tohundreds o visitors come to Strawberry Creek Park or theopportunity to experience nature in this highly urbanizedsetting. Children, youths, and adults come to see, hear,and eel the owing water; they also enjoy the presence

o birds, aquatic creatures, and other wildlie.

Source: Daylighting: New Life for Buried Streams (Richard Pinkham, Rocky Mountain Institute)

Creek Daylighting Case Study:

Strawberry Creek Park Berkeley, CA

l o w - i n c o m ehou s e hold s .Up to a dozen

high schools t u d e n t slearn to pruneplants, removesediment andwaste, weed,

and otherwise maintain the creek and park.





Glen Park

Community

Plan

Background

Blackberry Creek ows rom the hills o north Berkeleythrough a residential neighborhood beore making itsway to San Francisco Bay. Beore it enters the Bay, thecreek shuttles through a culvert under the schoolyard o

Thousand Oaks Elementary School. The combination o Blackberry Creek’s location by the school, the 1989 LomaPrieta earthquake, and ood concerns with the culvertcreated a compelling case or daylighting the creek.Indeed, the daylighting o Blackberry Creek is a story o circumstance as well as o a great community eort –collaboration between private and public organizations,

state unding, and labor rom a job training program.

Stormwater The creek’s stream channel sits 10 to 13 eet below thesurrounding grade. To address erosion concerns, theproject designers used large rocks to slow and dissipatethe energy o the stormwater on its way to the creek’s

outer banks. They employed bioengineering techniques –ascines, brush layering, pole cuttings, and biodegradableerosion control abrics – to stabilize bank segments.Shallow rock weirs placed within the channel bed help tocontrol ow velocities and orient the channel.

Wole Mason Associates, a local landscape architecture

frm, provided planning and design services. WaterwaysRestoration Institute, based in Berkeley, helped designchannel geometries using measurements o upstreamsegments. In addition to examining historical aerialphotos to identiy original creek meanders, the designersalso asked community members questions such as “Wherehave you seen erosion occurring?” and “How high did theood o 1955 get?” Once construction got underway,another local group played an integral role: the East BayConservation Corps supplied the majority o the hand

labor or bank shaping and landscaping.

Education Thousand Oaks Elementary School has become a magnetschool, emphasizing ecology. It has taken advantage o the daylighted creek, using it in various school curricula.

The creek provides a “living laboratory” or students toexperience an outdoor environmental education. Hands-on learning ocuses on identiying and understanding theorganisms ound in the creek, as well as on understandingthe creek’s role in the larger, regional watershed.

Community ProcessIn 1992, three years ater the Loma Prieta earthquake,

Thousand Oaks School came due or structuralimprovements. In addition to seismic upgrades, a PTAmember proposed that the school daylight the stretcho Blackberry Creek running under school grounds.Daylighting the creek would provide multiple benefts– outdoor educational opportunities, an opportunity toaddress ooding problems, and the provision o a betterneighborhood park.

Funding and design o the project was the result o collaboration between local organizations and state andederal institutions. The Berkeley Unifed School Districtand Thousand Oaks School secured a $144,000 grant romthe CA Dept o Water Resources Urban Stream RestorationProgram, while key citizen supporters educated neighborsabout the educational, recreational, and stormwaterbenefts o the project. Citizens were also instrumental inobtaining the necessary permits rom the U.S. Army Corpso Engineers, the CA Water Quality Control Board, the statefsh and game department, and local authorities.

Aesthetics The daylighting project returned a 250-oot reach o Blackberry Creek back to the surace, ollowing as closelyas possible, the creek’s original state. Native dogwoodtrees provide shade and habitat or the creek (dogwoodwas chosen over willow and cottonwood in responseto the community’s preerence or shorter vegetation).

In addition, the project improved the surroundingneighborhood park. The 0.6-acre park eatures a lawn,the owing creek, a creekside path, and a picnic area. Italso eatures a well-used tot-lot, appropriate or the park’s

setting in a residential, amily-oriented neighborhood.

Source: Daylighting: New Life for Buried Streams (Richard Pinkham, Rocky Mountain Institute)


Blackberry Creek Park Berkeley, CA





Background

The daylighting and clean-up o San Luis Obispo Creek traces its humble origins to a community college classproject, which called or the partial closure o MontereyStreet and the creation o a public garden, to beautiydowntown San Luis Obispo. The end result o the city’seort was a thriving plaza – Mission Plaza – in the hearto downtown that capitalizes on its creekside location todraw tourists and locals to an eclectic mix o restaurants,shops, and historic institutions. San Luis Obispo Creek,

nonetheless, is the centerpiece o it all.

StormwaterConcern over ood control also generated supportor Mission Plaza. In 1969 and 1973, San Luis Obispoexperienced serious ooding downtown. The 80-year oldculvert could not accommodate the stormwater owsresultant rom an increasingly impervious watershed.Furthermore, years o dumping, sedimentation, andneglect reduced the ow capacity o local creeks.

As part o Mission Plaza, the creek oodplain was widened

and re-contoured; terraced stone walls would preventbank scouring during heavy rains. The city also made thecritical choice not to convert its creeks to the concrete-lined channels prevalent in many Caliornia cities. Instead,the city adopted an environmentally sensitive oodmanagement program committed to protecting localcreeks while reducing the risk o ooding.

Economics The emphasis on the San Luis Obispo Creek as an amenityand asset turned around the city’s downtown. Shops and

restaurants ace onto not only streets but also the creek,promoting an interace o natural and built environments.Mission Plaza also plays host to a number o communityevents such as concerts, estivals, and a popular armer’smarket. Perhaps the single most instrumental actorbehind the creek and plaza’s success, however, is thewalkability – constant pedestrian activity gives the scenean air o vibrancy and a true sense o destination.

Community ProcessA 1963 easibility study, along with the student-driveneort, helped galvanize public support or a downtowncreekside plaza. More than anything else, the studystressed the city’s unique gits—its small town character,historic Mission, and natural downtown creek. The studyand ensuing community engagement process indicatedresidents’ growing appreciation or the creek as a keythread in the City’s increasingly urban abric.

A citizen committee, consisting o downtown merchants,Waterway Planning Board members, City advisorycommission members, and City sta, studied theproject and worked with residents to resolve concerns.Ultimately, plans or theplaza’s development

called or the phasing-in o a multi-objective,comprehensive planningprogram. Merchantaccess and parking weremaintained; businesseswere encouraged to opena second “storeront”onto the creek walkway,creating opportunitiesor strolling and outdoordining.

Aesthetics Through a number o design elements, the city gave thecreek and Mission Plaza a distinctive character. Locallyavored art pieces celebrate the heritage o the creek andmission. Decorative lighting and walkway railing help to

identiy the area while also addressing saety concerns.“Mission-style” sidewalk paving urther unifes theplaza’s design. In addition to these hardscape elements,the plaza’s plant palette eatures an extensive array o Caliornia natives such as Caliornia Sycamore, CaliorniaLilac, Oregon Grape and Coast Live Oak. The landscapingis such that it shades and cools the creek, provides oodand habitat or wildlie, and re-engages the city with its

natural riparian heritage.

Sources:

http://www.ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us/missionplaza.asp.

http://www.ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us/parksandrecreation/missionplaza.asp.

http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2004-05-25/article/18931?headline=Berkeley-Studies-S.L.-Obispo-s-Downtown-Creek##18931.


San Luis Obispo Creek San Luis Obispo, CA

Glen Park

Community

Plan





Glen Park

Community

Plan

Background

The 1960s saw the channelization o Santa Rosa’s urbancreeks or the purpose o ood control. Concreteriprap replaced natural creek banks. Santa Rosa Creekssubsequently became a magnet or the homeless, requentdrug use, and vandalism. In addition, the area had beenused as dumping grounds or anything rom rubble rom

the 1906 earthquake to underground diesel uel tanks.

Education The creek restorationproject has increased thepublic’s awareness o theSanta Rosa creek system.

The greenway has givenneighboring residents,students rom the adjacent elementary school, joggers,walkers, and cyclists a sae and nature-riendly corridorbetween historic Railroad Square and the downtowndistrict.

Community ProcessIn the late 1980s, a group o citizens ormed the Creek Committee, motivated to recreate the creek to providepublic use and beneft. The committee engaged hundredso Santa Rosa citizens or their visions and ideas or the

Santa Rosa Creek Master Plan. The design challenge thatresulted rom this planning process was to create anurban greenway to link and revitalize the city’s HistoricRailroad Square and its downtown district. The resultantgoals emphasized community aesthetics, environmentaland habitat restoration, economic revitalization, as wellas education and public awareness. Specifcally, theyincluded:

AestheticsPaying tribute to the area’s late 19th and early 20thcentury commercial and industrial architectural heritage,the 0.6 mile creek restoration’s landscaped terraces, trails,plazas, and public art eature historic building materials –stone, cast iron, steel, and wood. The public art – murals,artistic benches, and sculptures – along with the curvedstairs and ramps create an intimate waterront setting.

Environmental Restoration

The creek restoration project has successully improvedthe area’s wildlie habitat. Native riparian vegetationprovides shade and wildlie habitat. A narrower, deepercreek channel with pools and ri es create habitator native steelheadtrout juvenile rearingand adult migration.Biologists have observedincreased numberso juvenile and adultsteelhead populations,as well as increases inriver otter and other

wildlie populations.

StormwaterA key point o emphasis or the

Prince Memorial Greenway

project was the creation

o a natural setting while

maintaining the original ood

control capacity. Habitat was

restored by planting native

riparian species, excavatingpools and a low-ow channel,

and constructing habitats

using boulders and redwood

logs. In large storm events, the

boulders act as weirs, working

with the curvilinear shape o the creek to slow storm ows

and allow greater absorption by the native plantings.

Sources:

City of Santa Rosa website (http://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/departments/recreationandparks/parks/PMG/Pages/default.aspx

http://ceic.resources.ca.gov/catalog/NorthCoastIRWMPProjectInventory/PrinceMemorialGreenwayPiersonReachRestoration.html


Prince Memorial GreenwaySanta Rosa, CA

create a more natural creek environment• ;

restore habitat critical to endangered and threatened fsh•and wildlie species;create bicycle and pedestrian paths bridging downtown•and Railroad Square;

increase tourism and revitalize downtown and Railroad•Square areas;maintain ood control;•remove toxic materials rom the creek •





Background

A joint venture between the Portland DevelopmentCommission (PDC) and a private developer, WinklerDevelopment Company, Headwaters Apartmentsincorporates creek daylighting and habitat restorationinto an inter-generational, mixed-income residentialdevelopment. Situated atop the historic headwaters o

Tryon Creek, creek daylighting provides both aesthetic andwater quality benefts. Community input shaped much o

the fnal design, rom housing density to parking.

Stormwater

Beore the Headwaters residential project, the headwaterso Tryon Creek ran underground directly into thestormwater system. The daylighting includes a numbero stormwater best management practices (BMPs) thatenhance the downstream water quality o Tryon Creek.

The major BMPs include a restored upstream wetland,multiple vegetated swales, and parking areas withpermeable pavers.

Public Education & Awareness

A point o emphasis or the Headwaters project wasto increase public awareness and interaction with thecreek. Overlooks, a pedestrian bridge, boardwalk, and aninterpretive area all allow residents and neighbors to seethe creek and swales up close. Interpretive signs increaseawareness and reinorce the importance o the site’s manyeatures to the health o Tryon Creek, the wildlie living inthe watershed, and to human health as well.

Economics The joint residential project consists o three separatehousing types – 100 units o workorce rental housing,

14 market-rate or-sale row houses, and 56 units o aordable rental housing targeted to seniors. A commonthread among all targeted residents is the desire to livemore sustainably. PDC and the developer anticipatedthat residents will regularly walk or bike to shop at andsupport local businesses.

Community ProcessPDC sought community input rom the MultnomahNeighborhood Association (MNA) and the Southwest

Neighborhoods, Inc. during the project’s planning anddesign phases. Between 2001 and 2004, PDC interactedwith community members through phone calls, one-on-one conversations, and presentations at monthly MNAmeetings. Community input had a big say in a numbero actors, including a residential density below the levelallowed by zoning, an adequate parking allowance, andan assortment o neighborhood improvements. PDC alsoengaged the Tryon Creek Watershed Council and Friendso Tryon Creek on the creek daylighting aspect.

Predictably, neighbors varied in their support oropposition o the project. Those opposed argued that theproject would adversely impact tra c ow, pedestrian

saety, and parking o the neighborhood. They urtherargued the development did not ft into the communityplans. Supporters, however, saw the project as a catalystor redevelopment, citing higher-density housing alongtransportation corridors, water quality improvements,parking, and street and sidewalk improvements.

Public participation tools to solicit input included a publicopen house, a Good Neighbor Agreement, yers, andactsheets. Public inormation tools included on-siteconstruction signage, press releases, milestone events,and a project website.

AestheticsA large number o residential units open up to the creek.

The native vegetation and landscaped creek bed create a

visually stimulating environment complemented by thesoothing sight and sound o running water. Rather thanhaving to step oot directly onto a busy street, residentswill be able to see, hear, and eel a slice o nature withinthe neighborhood’s urban setting.

The various stormwater BMPs were creatively designed,and they have been singled out in reports and by otherorganizations as a way to integrate nature restorationwith residential development.

Sources:

Portland Development Commission website. Accessed on 03/21/10: http://www.pdc.us/housing_services/projects/headwaters_project.asp.

Headwaters Apartments Public Participation Plan. April 8, 2005. Prepared by Headwaters Project Team for Portland Development Commission.


Headwaters Apartments on Tryon Creek Portland, OR

Glen Park

Community

Plan





Glen Park

Community

Plan

Background

By the mid-1980s, Kalamazoo’s north-central businessdistrict was experiencing a number o problems –increased crime, a declining building stock, and chronicooding due to the high level o impervious landcover.

The daylighting o Arcadia Creek through fve blocks o the business district was part o a multi-year, multi-milliondollar district revitalization eort. Furthermore, theproject showed the potential or creek daylighting in anurban setting. While past industrial activity precluded acomplete naturalization, the daylighting has jumpstartedthe district’s economy and created a green amenity where

none was present beore.

StormwaterKalamazoo buried Arcadia Creek to accommodatedowntown development over a century ago. Theculvert, however, had not been sized to accommodate

the large stormwater ows that resulted rom theincreased impervious surace coverage. As a result, streetooding became a serious concern. Engineering studiescomparing open channel design to the conventionaloption o increasing pipe size showed that daylightingArcadia Creek would actually be more cost-eective thanincreasing the culvert and reburying it.

Three blocks o the project consist o a concrete-lined

channel. Six weirs in the channel portion allow stormwaterto pond up to 1.5 eet deep, slowing water ow as well ascreating a more visually attractive waterway. The slowerows allow sediment to settle and be easily removed romthe channel. The last two blocks orm an open stormwaterpond with grassy slopes. When the stormwater pond isdry, it provides a estival site as well as a space or peopleto gather and relax. Downstream rom the pond, ArcadiaCreek returns below ground or nine blocks beore it joins

the Kalamazoo River.

EconomicsAs an economic revitalization strategy, daylightingArcadia Creek has been a success. According to the DDA,the Festival Site itsel reels in $12 million annually. Directemployment rom estival activities, gate receipts, hotel

stays, restaurant visits all contribute to this revenue fgure. The site has been so successul that a plan exists to convertthe adjacent parking lot into more park and estival space.Furthermore, the daylighted waterway has changed theaura surrounding the business district. The perceptions –and reality – o crime, physical deterioration, and ooding

no longer impede the business environment.

Community ProcessKalamazoo undertook a number o innovative publicoutreach strategies to garner support and awareness o the daylighting project. The city:

Some residents, however, criticized the project. Theyquestioned why the city wanted to daylight the creek instead o fxing streets and roads. But as communitymembers came to better understand the severity o theooding concerns and the opportunity to simultaneouslyrevitalize the business district, public support increased

substantially.

Aesthetics

The 1,550 eet-long daylighted system consists o aconcrete-lined channel crossable by several bridges. Thestormwater pond provides detention in wet weather, butprovides a desirable amenity in dry weather. Its gradual,glassy slopes create a park-like space where peoplegather, relax, and recreate. In addition, the area has beenlabeled the “Festival Site,” as it plays host to fve annual

summertime estivals.

Sources:

Daylighting: New Life for Buried Streams (Richard Pinkham, Rocky Mountain Institute), 2000.

Daylighting and Restoring Streams in Rural Community City Centers: Case Studies (Paul Hoobyar, National Park Service), 2002.

ormed the Downtown Development Authority to act as•the coordinator and unding agent or the project;produced a children’s book about the Arcadia Creek •project. The book was distributed to school children togenerate support and help educate the communityabout the project;coordinated a series o public meetings and workshops,•engaging residents in the design o the project;reached out to the business community, obtaining $4.5•

million to purchase surrounding land.


Arcadia Creek Kalamazoo, MI




Appendix C - Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

What is “creek daylighting?”Creek daylighting refers to projects that uncover and restore creeks, streams, and rivers previously buried

in underground pipes and culverts, covered by decks, or otherwise removed from view. Stream diversion,

more akin to sewer separation than to stream restoration, involves re-routing an underground stream to

discharge directly into another water body rather than being added to the combined sewer system. The City

of San Francisco has several historic creeks that run clean water through sewers to treatment plants and

then to the Bay and ocean. Diverting these historic streams to a separate system can decrease demand

on treatment facilities. Daylighting creeks also has the additional benefits of partially repairing the natural

hydrologic cycle, increasing effective capacity in pipes, slowing peak flow rates, providing habitat, creating

recreational facilities, and providing a site for ongoing environmental awareness and education.

What are the benets of bringing the creek to the surface?There are numerous benefits of creek daylighting. Environmental benefits include providing wildlife habitat,

flood protection, natural cooling, and an invaluable aesthetic and recreation amenity to the surrounding

neighborhood. Economic benefits include increased property values and commercial activity in the area.

Furthermore, reduction of flows to the sewer will reduce pumping and treatment costs in the City’s combined

sewer and potentially reduce combined sewer discharges.

Would daylighting create a risk for West Nile Virus or other diseases?A day-lit creek involves careful engineering and reconstruction of a creek bed and is designed to keep

water flowing. To address the possibility of standing water, the SFPUC would develop a maintenance

program similar to the curbside catch basin program, which is an integrated pest management program

to reduce mosquito populations around San Francisco reservoirs, pump stations, treatment facilities, and

watersheds. Staff applies an insect growth regulator that stunts the mosquitoes’ development and prevents

them from reproducing. The compound rapidly degrades in water and is non-toxic to humans.

Would daylighting the creek increase the risk of ooding?By creating a hybrid drainage system, we are providing more space for the creek when it is raining, thereby

increasing the capacity of the entire system. Creek daylighting restores a more natural drainage channel,

but is also designed to direct over flow to the sewer, thereby reducing theflood risk.

How would the creek be maintained?Any new project initiated by the City or a community group will require a maintenance plan and secure

funding to go forward. Successful projects often come from public-private partnerships.

Isn’t the creek buried too deep underground to bring safely to thesurface?The creek currently runs deep in the sewer pipe. A daylighting project would be more akin to a sewer

separation, in which a new, man-made creek would convey the flows along the surface of the ground.

Since water ow in the creek varies at different times of the year, will itbe ugly and dry and collect trash during the dry months?California creeks are seasonal, and designs should celebrate the features typical in our climate. As for

trash, any new projects would require a maintenance plan and secure funding.

Will we need ood insurance because of this project?A creek daylighting project will only be done if it will decrease the risk of flooding in local flood zones. If

you currently buy flood insurance, you may still want to consider keeping it. Each property owner should

evaluate their comfort level, but understand that any daylighting project would

increase water conveyance and storage capacity, thereby decreasingflood risk.

QUESTIONS?CONTACT USIf you are interested in learning

more about creek daylighting and

stormwater management, please

contact us:

Paul ChengSF Public Utilities Commission

Wastewater Enterprise

Urban Watershed Management

Program

Email: [email protected]

http://stormwater.sfwater.org

The San Francisco Planning Department and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission are exploring opportunities for daylighting Islais

Creek in the Glen Park neighborhood. The effort will include an extensive community involvement process. Basic information is provided in this

fact sheet.

Creek Daylighting:

Frequently Asked Questions

Glen ParkCommunityPlan




Thank you for taking part in our survey!

Hello, my name is Paul Cheng. I am a graduate student and San Francisco native currentlystudying Urban Planning at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. For my Mastersproject, I am working with the San Francisco Planning Department and San Francisco PublicUtilities Commission to understand Glen Park neighborhood residents' thoughts and ideas aboutthe potential to daylight the Islais Creek through parts of the Glen Park neighborhood.

Daylighting refers to the act of exposing some or all of a previously covered creek, river, orstream.

The 2003 Glen Park Community Plan, the community raised three issues concerning publicspace and neighborhood connectivity. These issues concerned an underused series of vacantparcels along Bosworth Street spanning ‘downtown’ to Glen Park Recreation Center, a void in thecitywide bike network, and the absence of a focal public gathering space. The daylighting ofIslais Creek – one of two free-flowing creeks in all of San Francisco – emerged as a potentialstrategy to address these three items. A daylighted creek could possibly formalize the Bosworthgreenway, provide a safe corridor for bicyclists, and create a public, neighborhood amenity.

Thank you for participating in our survey, and I look forward to learning your thoughts!

_____________________________________________________________________

This survey should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. The results are for research purposes only. Allresponses will be kept confidential; we will not share any personal or contact information with third parties.

If you would like to forward this survey to other Glen Park residents, please direct them to the Glen ParkCommunity Plan website at:http://www.sf-planning.org/index.aspx?page=1666

Thank you, again, for taking the time to fill out our survey!

Appendix D - Visual Preference Survey





1. Are you a resident of the Glen Park neighborhood?(In conjunction with the Glen Park Community Plan, the Glen Park neighborhood includes areas within ¼mile of the BART station, but also includes extensions of the street network and public spaces within a ½mile radius of the station. See graphic below.)

YesNo

Islais CreekOne of two remaining natural waterways in San Francisco, Islais Creek winds from the mouth of Glen Canyon to the San Francisco Bay. Islais Creek supports a diverse streamside ecosystem characterized by water-loving plants – such as willow trees, horsetail, seep monkey flower, and red columbine – as well as amphibians, reptiles, and birds, some of which travel from as far away as South America.

2. Prior to this survey, have you seen or heard of Islais Creek?

I have seen Islais Creek

I have heard of Islais Creek

I have heard of AND seen Islais Creek

I have NOT heard of or seen Islais Creek

I don’t know





Creek Daylighting

For the following 4 questions, “daylighting” refers to the act of exposing some or all of a previously covered creek, river, or stream. Potential benefits of a creek daylighting project includes improved flood management, stormwater runoff reduction and diversion of runoff from sewage systems, wildlife habitat,recreation amenities, creation of an “outdoor classroom” for schools, and a unique natural feature that brings shoppers to local businesses. Some potential costs include increases in design costs, permitting requirements, creek maintenance, and plant replacement.

Buried creeks have been successfully daylighted in California cities such as San Luis Obispo, Oakland,Berkeley (3), and Santa Rosa, as well as internationally in Zurich, Switzerland and Seoul, Korea.

3. Would you support or oppose the possibility of daylighting Islais Creek through portionsof the Glen Park neighborhood?

Support

Oppose

No Opinion

4. If Islais Creek was daylighted through portions of the Glen Park neighborhood, howwould you choose to interact with it? (Select all that apply.)

Walk alongside it

Wade in it

Use it as a meeting place with friends

Listen to the sound of flowing water

Observe nearby plant and wildlife

I would not want to interact with it

Other (Specify) ______________________________________

5. For what reason(s) would you not want to interact with a daylighted Islais Creek? Please describe.

6. On a scale of 1 to 5, how would you rank your interest in the following items related to a possibledaylighting of Islais Creek?

Notinterested

1 2 3 4

Veryinterested

5

Increased range of recreational opportunities

Outdoor education opportunities for schools

Wildlife habitat recreation

Alternative transportation corridor (bike and pedestrian)

Filtering and absorption of stormwater on site

Beautification of the neighborhood

Distinctive feature for the neighborhood





7. What, if any, concerns do you have about a possible creek daylighting project in the Glen Parkneighborhood? Please describe.

Dry Weather – What does a creek look like when it’s dry?

8. Many California creeks are seasonal, experiencing wet and dry periods.Which dry creek appearance style do you think would be most appropriate in the Glen Park neighborhood?(Click on an image.)

9. In dry weather conditions, a creek’s bed is exposed. Rank the following creek bedmaterials for what you feel would be most appropriate in the Glen Park neighborhood.

Please assign a unique ranking to each choice. (1 = Least preferred; 5 = Mostpreferred)

1 2 3 4 5

Shrubs and grasses

Cobbled

Boulders

Earthen

No Creek





10. Rank the following creek bank materials by what you feel would be most appropriatefor a creek in the Glen Park neighborhood. (1 = Least preferred; 5 = Most preferred)

1 2 3 4 5

Dirt or gravel path

Paved

Boulders and rocks

Trees and plantings

Shrubs and grasses

No Creek

Creek Character – What is the general feel of the creek?

11. The character of a creek depends on a number of factors, including its setting, edge type, materials,density of vegetation, and shape. Please choose the image below that reflects the creek character youthink would be most appropriate for the Glen Park neighborhood. (Click on an image.)





Keeping in mind the general creek character that you feel would be most appropriate for the Glen Parkneighborhood, please answer the following 3 questions. (1 = Least preferred; 5 = Most preferred)

12. General FeelLeast

Preferred1 2 3 4

MostPreferred

5

Rural

Naturalistic

Wild

Urban

Formal

No Creek

13. Edge TypeLeast

Preferred1 2 3 4

MostPreferred

5

Vegetated / Naturalistic

Rock / Boulders

Paved / Hardscaped

Earthen / Soil

No Creek

14. Density of VegetationLeast

Preferred1 2 3 4

MostPreferred

5

Sparse

Moderate

AbundantNo Creek





Creek Shape – What path does the creek follow – straight, winding?

15. Creek channels range from straight to meandering.Which general “channel design” do you prefer most? (Click on an image.)

16. Please rank the creek channel shape that you feel would be most appropriate for acreek in the Glen Park neighborhood. Please assign a unique ranking for each choice.(1 = Least preferred; 5 = Most preferred)

1 2 3 4 5

Straight

Slightly Bending

Meandering – Repeating Pattern

Meandering – Random Pattern

No Creek





Accessibility – Can you see the creek, can you go alongside it, can you go into it?

17. Accessibility of creeks to visitors - children, pedestrians, bicyclists - is an important factor in how peoplechoose to interact with a creek. Please choose the level of accessibility you prefer most. (Click on animage.)




18. Please rank the accessibility features that you feel would be most appropriate for a creek in the Glen Parkneighborhood. (1 = Least preferred; 5 = Most preferred)

LeastPreferred

1 2 3 4

MostPreferred

5

Access restricted by design (fencing, rocks, etc.)

Access restricted but able to overlook creek

Pedestrians can approach the creek banks

Bicycles can approach the creek banks

Children can wade into the water

No Creek


Low Impact Design & Watershed Awareness

Low Impact Design (LID) refers to a stormwater management approach that treats stormwater as a resource, and is modeled after nature: manage rainfall at the source using distributed and small-scale controls. LID’s goal is to mimic a site’s pre-development runoff pattern by using design techniques that infiltrate, filter, store, evaporate, and detain stormwater close to its source.

19. On a scale of 1 to 5, indicate how important or unimportant the following potential benefits of LowImpact Design are to you.

Notimportant

1 2 3 4

Veryimportant

5

Reduces stormwater entering sewers

Less expensive than gray strategies

Creates new green space or enhances existing greenspaces

Enhances wildlife habitat

Does not increase mosquito populations

Beautifies our neighborhood

I like the current system as it is

20. Would you favor or disfavor any of the following stormwater practices if they occurred in the Glen Parkneighborhood? (1 = Strongly disfavor; 5 = Strongly favor)

Stronglydisfavor

1 2 3 4

Stronglyfavor

5

Change drainage so that stormwater runs into grassy or

vegetated areas, allowing it to absorb into the ground

Create a pond or creek in an open space area intowhich stormwater can flow

Reduce some pavement, replacing with trees andplants to absorb more stormwater

I think the current system works fine





21. Would you be in favor of doing any of the following stormwater conservation practicesat your home? (Select all that apply.)

Collect stormwater in a rain barrel for irrigation of my yard

Disconnect roof downspouts to direct stormwater into my yard or planting beds

Plant a “rain garden” to collect and absorb rain that falls onto my property

Plant a wildflower meadow of native plants in my yard

None

Other ideas (Specify) ___________________________________________

22. What, if any, purposes do you think stormwater could serve if it did not flow directly into an undergroundstorm-sewer system? (Select all that apply.)

Harvest it for future irrigation of my garden or yard

Irrigate street trees and plantings

Provide a unique visual element in open space areas

Create water features like waterfalls, streams, ponds

Capture it to flush toilets

No purpose

Other (Specify) _ ______________________________

23. Do you have any other comments, thoughts, or questions?

Future Contact

27. Would you be interested in participating in a public workshop this Summer focused on open space andfunctional landscapes in the Glen Park neighborhood?

Yes

No

If yes, please include your name and contact information so we can keep you informed of upcomingpresentations or meetings.

Name: _________________________________________________

Email: _________________________________________________

Phone: _________________________________________________




Appendix E - Conceptual Design Sketches

Plan -

What Islais Creek might have looked like prior to human development.

Plan -Rapid development of Glen Park neighborhood results in the paving over of Islais Creek.





Greenway looking toward “Downtown Glen Park

Plan - Greenway Corridor / Naturalized Detention





Plan - Outdoor Classroom

Section - Greenway / Outdoor Classroom




“Downtown” Glen Park - Plan

Rill running down sidewalk into water feature.

“Downtown” Glen Park - Rill running down sidewalk.

creek daylighting: a public outreach effort in glen park, san francisco

Documents