ocean beach master plan

with

draft
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

1

“it is nice to have such a remote wild-feeling place near the city”
workshop 1 participant

2

ocean beach master plan

contents
I executive summary
seven focus areas six big moves focus area 2 : utility infrastructure next steps focus area 3 : coastal dynamics

IV understanding ocean beach:
7 focus areas
focus area 1 : ecology

VI master plan recommendations
key move 1 key move 2 key move 3 key move 4 key move 5 key move 6

II introduction
about ocean beach about this project about this document

focus area 4 : image + character focus area 5 : program + activities focus area 6 : access + connectivity focus area 7 : management + stewardship

VII master plan implementation strategy VIII evaluations + cost/benefit analysis IX outreach process X glossary + sources appendix
technical memoranda

III project goal + aspirations
overall goal statement focus areas project aspirations

V test scenarios
definitions + ingredients maximum habitat scenario maximum recreation scenario maximum green infrastructure scenario maximum infrastructure scenario evaluation

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

3

project team
SPUR San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association Project Manager/Lead AECOM Landscape Architecture, Environmental Planning ESA/PWA Coastal Engineering Sherwood Design Engineers Civil Engineering and Infrastructure Nelson/Nygaard Transportation Planning Phil G. King PhD Cost | Benefit Analysis

4

ocean beach master plan

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

5

acknowledgements
steering committee
Ed Harrington, General Manager, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Mohammed Nuru, Director, Department of Public Works Phil Ginsburg, General Manager, Recreation and Park Department Carmen Chu, San Francisco Supervisor, District 4 Eric Mar, San Francisco Supervisor, District 1 John Rahaim, Director, Planning Department Lara Truppelli, Chair, Ocean Beach Planning Advisory Committee Tanya Peterson, Executive Director and President, San Francisco Zoological Society Frank Dean, General Superintendent, Golden Gate National Recreation Area Gabriel Metcalf, Executive Director, SPUR (FACILITATOR)

6

ocean beach master plan

planning advisory committee (pac)
Lara Truppelli, CHAIR, SAND/OB, Beach Chalet Amy Meyer, HONORARY CO-CHAIR, People for a Golden Gate National Recreation Area Renee Ananda, California Coastal Commission Brian Aviles, Golden Gate National Recreation Area Dan Bernal, Office of Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi Lisa Beyer, SF Department of Recreation and Parks John Billovits, SF Planning Department Cammy Blackstone, Office of Supervisor Carmen Chu Greg Braswell, San Francisco Department of Public Works Julie Burns, Planning Assocation of the Richmond Kevin Conger, CMG Landscape Architecture Caleb Conn, US Army Corps of Engineers Alex Doniach, Office of Senator Leland Yee Marc Duffet, SPEAK Lesley Ewing, California Coastal Commission Frank V. Filice, San Francisco Department of Public Works Radhika Fox, SF Public Utilities Commission John Frykman, Coalition to Save Ocean Beach Jonathan Gast, Rep. Jackie Speier Leslie Ewing, California Coastal Commission Freddy Hahne, Black Rock Arts Foundation Kit Hodge, Great Streets Collaborative Katherine Howard, Golden Gate Park Preservation Alliance Chris Ker, San Francisco Planning Department Dean LaTourrette, Save the Waves Coalition Karen Mauney-Brodek, San Francisco Department of Recreation and Parks Bill McLaughlin, Surfrider Foundation Erin Miller, AICP, SF Municipal Transportation Agency Dick Morten, SF Parks Alliance Dan Murphy, Golden Gate Audubon Society Doug Overman, Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy Ruby Pap, California Coastal Commission Wayne Reading, San Francisco Zoological Society Ashley Summers, Assemblywoman Fiona Ma Andy Thornley, San Francisco Bicycle Coalition Bob Twomey, California State Assembly Katie Westfall, Save the Waves Coalition George Woodin, West of Twin Peaks Central Council

technical advisors
Johanna Partin, Office of Mayor Edwin Lee Steve Ortega, Golden Gate National Recreation Area Chris Kern, SF Planning Department Lesley Ewing, California Coastal Commission Peter Mull, US Army Corps of Engineers John Dingler, US Army Corps of Engineers Patrick Barnard, USGS Marla Jurosek, SFPUC Dilip Trivedi, Moffatt & Nichol Laura Tam, SPUR Petra Unger, AECOM

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

7

8

ocean beach master plan

JAN 23, 2012

| DRAFT

executive summary
chapter

This document presents recommendations for the management and protection of San Francisco’s Ocean Beach, 3.5 miles of beach and rugged coastline that is a National Park, a popular urban open space, the site a major infrastructure complex, and a beloved San Francisco landscape. This process, lays out a wide range of complex challenges and charts a course for a more sustainable future in the context of complex jurisdictional challenges, severe erosion, a diverse population of beach users and points of view, and the looming challenge of climate-induced sea level rise. It is the result of a robust public process, in which a wide range of stakeholders and the public participated over an 18-month period. Several earlier efforts brought attention to the ongoing issues at Ocean Beach. This document is intended to translate that energy into implementable actions by the responsible agencies.

I
9

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

executive summary
seven focus areas
The complex issues facing Ocean Beach are addressed through seven Focus Areas, each of which is described in some detail. In summary, they are as follows:

4. image and character
Ocean Beach has a wild, rugged character and a unique culture and history. Improvements should retain and draw upon these qualities.

5. program and uses 1. ecology
Ocean Beach is a National Park and supports important natural resources, including two threatened birds. Its nonnative dunes have restoration potential. Ocean Beach is used in a variety of ways, from birdwatching to surfing to dog-walking, that can come into conflict, and should be managed to benefit everyone.

6. access and connectivity
Ocean Beach links a wealth of open spaces and is transitrich, but key gaps and some problematic street configurations could be improved to welcome all users, especially bikes and pedestrians.

2. utility infrastructure
A major complex of wastewater infrastructure is located at Ocean Beach, and protects coastal water quality. Large stormwater/wastewater transport structures are under the great highway and subject to erosion hazards.

7. management and stewardship
Though visitors experience a single place, a host of different Federal, State and local agencies are responsible for different aspects of Ocean Beach, without a common vision.

3. coastal dynamics
Ocean Beach is the visible portion of a much larger coastal sediment system. Erosion problems will worsen with climate-related sea level rise, and will need to be managed through a variety of approaches.

10

ocean beach master plan

overall project goal
“To knit the unique assets and experiences of Ocean Beach into a seamless and welcoming public landscape, planning for environmental conservation, sustainable infrastructure and long-term stewardship”

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 23, 2012

| DRAFT

11

executive summary
test scenarios
The Ocean beach Master Plan team developed four Test Scenarios, to model the outcomes of very different approaches to managing Ocean Beach through 2100. These Test Scenarios organized technical analysis and tested a wide variety of ideas from stakeholders and the public. Test Scenarios are not proposals or alternatives. They were as follows: A. B. C. D. Maximum Habitat Maximum Recreation Maximum Green Infrastructure Maximum Infrastructure

evaluation criteria
Evaluation criteria were developed in consultation with OBMP Planning Advisory Committee to evaluate outcomes of Test Scenarios and Plan Recommendations.

12

ocean beach master plan

master plan aerial view

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 23, 2012

| DRAFT

13

executive summary
plan recommendations:

south reach: south of sloat boulevard key move 1 reroute great highway behind the zoo via sloat and skyline
• Close the Great Highway South of Sloat Boulevard, replace with a coastal trail • Reconfigure Sloat Boulevard and key intersections to create a safer, more efficient street • Consolidate street parking, the L-Taraval terminus, and bicycle access along the south side of Sloat • Reconfigure Zoo’s parking lot for access via Skyline and Zoo road

six key moves

These six “Key Moves” outline the Ocean Beach Master Plan’s major recommendations. Each includes many individual recommendations, more than forty in all. They are organized by three geographical reaches as indicated, and will be implemented incrementally over a period of decades.

assumptions
• Analysis to 2100 horizon • Recommendations to 2050 • Ongoing monitoring + adaptive management • Re-evaluation in 2030

key move 2 introduce a multi-purpose coastal protection/restoration/access system
• Incrementally dismantle the Great Highway and parking lots, allow erosion to proceed inland • Protect the Lake Merced Tunnel in place with a gradient of elements • A low-profile hard structure, covered with… • A dynamic revetment, or cobble berm, covered with… • Placed sand • Allow storm surges to wash over the Tunnel and dissipate toward higher ground • Restore and revegetate the surface to allow recreational and ecological functions

14

ocean beach master plan

middle reach: lincoln- sloat key move 3 reduce the width of great highway to provide amenities / managed retreat
• Narrow the Great Highway from 4 lanes to 2 South of Lincoln • Use the current Southbound lanes for parking pockets, restrooms, signage etc • Introduce a multi-use promenade west of the road • Between amenities, allow dunes to migrate inland over the road and transport box

north reach: lincoln to 48th avenue key move 5 better connection between golden gate park & beach
• Tighten and reconfigure O’Shaughnessy Seawall parking lot to improve pedestrian conditions, bike access and traffic circulation • Introduce permeable paving, amenities, and appropriate vegetation to create a more welcoming, attractive space • Retain events capacity and historic character

implementation actions
SPUR has received additional funding from the State Coastal Conservancy and matching agencies to pursue implementation of Plan recommendations through the following projects:

key move 4 middle reach beach dune restoration
• Sand nourishment via Army Corps of Engineers along southern end of Middle Reach • Phased native dune restoration in key locations: especially at Lincoln, Vicente • Sand ladders and modular boardwalks provide access while limiting impact

key move 6 bicycle + pedestrian improvements north of balboa
• Narrow Great Highway and Point Lobos Avenue ( from 4 to 2 lanes) • Introduce physically separated bikeway with connections to Land’s End and beyond

1. Ongoing Implementation Leadership and Coordination 2. Circulation and Access Study 3. Joint Coastal Management Framework 4. Joint Open Space Management Plan

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 23, 2012

| DRAFT

15

ocean beach master plan
SOUTH REACH

MIDDLE REACH

OSTP SF zoo

lake merced

Sunset Blvd.

16

ocean beach master plan

NORTH REACH MIDDLE REACH

golden gate park

master plan illustrative

scale 1”=750’

0 375’

750’ 1,125’

1,500’

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 23, 2012

| DRAFT

N

17

18

introduction
about ocean beach
Ocean Beach is one of the gems of the San Francisco landscape, drawing more than 300,000 visitors each year. It is an important piece of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, a wild landscape, an urban sea strand, a grand public open space. Ocean Beach is also home to major elements of San Francisco’s wastewater and stormwater infrastructure. Recent erosion events South of Sloat Boulevard and ongoing community efforts have created unprecedented momentum for a sustainable long-range plan. Drawing on the work of the Ocean Beach Vision Council and others, this plan addresses the impact of rising seas, the physical and ecological processes shaping the beach, and improved integration with its natural, recreational, and urban contexts. of the oceans. The State of California projects sea-level rise of 14 inches by 2050 and 55 inches by 2100. The frequency and severity of storms are also likely to increase, and local policymakers have no choice but to adapt. Climate-change adaptation consists of policy and design responses to the negative effects of climate change that have already been “locked in,” regardless of how we address carbon emissions going forward. Adaptation will be required in many arenas, from water supply to biodiversity to extreme heat events, but few are as vivid and pressing as sea-level rise. At Ocean Beach, this means that the sort of erosion episodes that took place in 1997 and 2010 will happen more frequently. As the shoreline recedes, critical wastewater infrastructure along Ocean Beach will face increasing pressure and will need to be protected, reconfigured or abandoned. Natural habitat and recreational amenities are threatened as well. Although we have a pretty clear picture of what will happen as sea levels rise, there is a great deal of uncertainty about its timing and extent. Ocean Beach is San Francisco’s first real test in responding to the effects of climate change. The proximity of critical public infrastructure to the coast throws the challenges into high relief. Where should we hold the coastline? What is the economic value of a beach? A dune system? A threatened bird species? When and how will private property be exposed to coastal hazards? There are also significant limitations in the available data about the effects of sea-level rise. Existing studies paint a general picture of likely impacts but do not account for local factors like coastal armoring and topography, which will shape coastal processes.

II
19

climate adaptation
We know that sea levels are rising due to melting polar ice and thermal expansion

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

introduction
multiple jurisdictions, no single lead agency
A key challenge at Ocean Beach is the numerous overlapping jurisdictions and boundaries. A host of City, State, and Federal agencies have different roles and responsibilities. SPUR’s tole is as an outside convener, facilitating communication and coordination while keeping the long view in focus.

erosion emergency: response and criticism
In the El Niño winter of 2009–2010, powerful storms battered the bluffs of Ocean Beach south of Sloat Boulevard, resulting in dramatic erosion. In some locations, bluff tops receded 40 feet, undermining the asphalt of parking lots and the shoulder of the Great Highway, which was closed southbound for much of the year. The episode was the most serious in a series going back several decades. The City’s response—the construction of 425 feet of rock revetments (embankments of boulder riprap)— has drawn criticism from environmentalists, who are concerned that such armoring often carries a heavy cost in beach and habitat loss. They ask whether an event as predictable as erosion at Ocean Beach can be meaningfully described as an emergency. Indeed, a similar episode in 1997 resulted in the

partner agencies
• San Francisco Public Utilities Commission • National Park Service/Golden Gate National Recreation Area • San Francisco Department of Recreation and Parks • California Coastal Commission • US Army Corps of Engineers • San Francisco Department of Public Works

construction of rock revetments that are still in place. With no policy for how to address the inevitable, the City repeatedly finds itself in a reactive posture, shoring up the bluffs under an emergency declaration with the lukewarm sanction of the Coastal Commission and National Park Service. The 2010 storm may have been an emergency, but it was hardly a surprise and, above all, reflects the lack of a policy framework to guide action in a crisis. The environmentalist response may be a fair criticism, but erosion meanwhile poses a very real threat to a critical sewage-treatment complex that we depend on to protect coastal water quality. In the absence of another approach, this infrastructure, some of which lies underneath the Great Highway, must be armored against coastal hazards. In the summer of 2011, the California Coastal Commission unanimously denied a permit application from the

City and County of San Francisco for additional armoring and retroactive permits, leaving near-term hazards unresolved but sending a clear message that a new approach is needed. Recent proposal by city agencies reflect a shift toward a softer and more temporary approach to interim coastal protection, pending the outcome of this process.

20

ocean beach master plan

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

21

introduction

about this project
what is the ocean beach master plan?
The Ocean Beach Master Plan is an interagency effort to develop a sustainable long-term vision for Ocean Beach, addressing public access, environmental protection and infrastructure needs in the context of erosion and climate-related sea level rise. The Ocean Beach Master Plan process was the result of more than a decade of advocacy by community members, and increasing interest by advocates, community members, public agencies, and decisionmakers. In 2009, the Ocean Beach Vision Council, a task force appointed by Mayor Gavin Newsom, submitted an application for planning funds to the California State Coastal Conservancy, with matches from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and the National Parks Service. Because of the many overlapping jurisdictions at Ocean Beach, an issue that had long been identified as impeding proactive planning, the need for an outside entity to convene a multiagency, multi-objective planning process was identified. SPUR, the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association, was selected for its capacity, its history of effective engagement with challenging public policy questions, its involvement in the creation of the Golden Gate National Recreation area, and its recent body of policy research around climate change adaptation. SPUR served as the grantee and project manager, beginning in June of 2010, and assembled advisory committees and a consultant team with the appropriate expertise in the wide range of relevant fields.

Project Funders: / / / California State Coastal Conservancy San Francisco Public Utilities Commission National Park Service

22

ocean beach master plan

sub-heading or photo caption

“quote”

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

23

about this document
This is a non-regulatory guidance document, which reflects a robust and inclusive public process. It presents a framework for understanding the wide range of issues and challenges at Ocean Beach. The recommendations outline an ambitious approach to managing and improving Ocean Beach through 2050, while incorporating analysis and consideration of test scenarios through 2100. This document is intended to: • Articulate a compelling and rigorous vision for Ocean Beach’s future, rooted in the complex realities and imperatives of all actors. / key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points • Provide the basis of better and more coordinated management practices • Provide guidance for decision making by public agencies and elected officials • Provide a road map for implementation, technical studies, project initiation, environmental review, and capital planning by various agencies • Provide a consensus baseline against which future actions may be measured • Provide guidance to public agencies in the development of policy and projects • Promote better interagency coordination

/

24

ocean beach master plan

scope and study area
The Ocean Beach Master Plan is charged with looking at all major aspects of the beach for the next 50 years and beyond. By taking a decidedly long view, developing a consensus vision and working backward to arrive at near- and medium-term actions, the master plan is intended to provide the framework that is missing from short-term decisions today. The study area encompasses the beach and adjacent lands from the high-water mark to the property line at the eastern edge of the Lower Great Highway and excludes any private property. It takes in 3.5 miles of contiguous coastline from the beach’s northern extent to the Fort Funston bluffs. Of course, numerous processes and practices, from transit access to offshore dredging, must be considered as well. The plan will consider Ocean Beach as a whole place: as an urban promenade, a

changing coastline, a key segment of the GGNRA, a habitat corridor and a major infrastructure complex. But as much as these aspects are interdependent, the conversation about Ocean Beach invariably returns to the most pressing crisis: the erosion at the south end of the beach and the infrastructure that lies in its path. To plan meaningfully for Ocean Beach as an open space, we must define an approach to coastal management that balances infrastructure needs, naturalresource values and the realities of a changing climate.

“quote”

sub-heading or photo caption

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

25

...quote quote quote quote quote quote...

26

ocean beach master plan

project goal + aspirations
chapter

III
JAN 23, 2012

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

| DRAFT

27

28

ocean beach master plan

overall project goal
“To knit the unique assets and experiences of Ocean Beach into a seamless and welcoming public landscape, planning for environmental conservation, sustainable infrastructure and long-term stewardship”

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 23, 2012

| DRAFT

29

project aspirations
The complex issues facing Ocean Beach are addressed through seven Focus Areas, each of which represents a key aspect of this Plan. To kick-off the planning process, the project team in collaboration with the Steering Committee and the Planning Advisory Committee prepared the following seven aspirations that correspond to each of the site’s focus areas.

focus area 1 : ecology aspiration
Restore and establish conditions that support thriving biological communities.

focus area 2 : utility infrastructure aspiration
Evaluate infrastructure plans and needs in light of uncertain coastal conditions, and pursue a smart, sustainable approach.

focus area 3 : coastal dynamics aspiration
Identify a proactive approach to coastal management, in the service of desires outcomes.

30

ocean beach master plan

focus area 4 : image + character aspiration
Preserve and celebrate the beach’s raw and open beauty while welcoming a broader public.

focus area 5 : program + activities aspiration
Accommodate diverse activities and users, managed for positive coexistence.

focus area 6 : access + connectivity aspiration
Provide seamless and fluid connections to adjacent open spaces, the city and the region.

focus area 7 : management + stewardship aspiration
Provide an approach to long-term stewardship across agencies, properties and jurisdictions.

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 23, 2012

| DRAFT

31

a beach for everyone
...the beach is part of a much larger system of interconnected elements and its form and configuration is influenced by a number of urban, environmental and social factors...

32

ocean beach master plan

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

understanding ocean beach: 7 focus areas
chapter

Ocean Beach is a complex, multifaceted environment, with a host of overlapping issues and challenges. This plan provides a multi-objective approach to OB, synthesizing a wide range of factors and addressing numerous issues simultaneously. To that end, it necessarily favors breadth over depth, and additional technical work will be required on numerous fronts in order to implement the recommendations. Specialists in any of the numerous relevant disciplines may therefore find some of the analysis wanting in depth, but, we believe, fundamentally sound. Instead, this document takes an integrative approach to the issues, synthesizing information from a wide variety of fields and presenting solutions that solve many problems simultaneously.

This has been an interdisciplinary process. Specialists in a wide range of fields were employed to ensure the best available technical information informed the problem definition and recommended solutions. However, the project scope allowed only a basic level of technical analysis and engineering. Implementing the recommendations presented here will necessarily involve significant additional technical studies, environmental analysis, feasibility studies, and cost estimation.

IV
33

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

focus area 1 : ecology
aspiration
Restore and establish conditions that support thriving biological communities.
Although Ocean Beach is very much a managed landscape — the alignment of the coast, the shape of the beach and bluffs, and the form and composition of the dunes are all man-made — important biological communities make their homes there. The beach and dune system provide a corridor of scarce habitat for numerous species and connect adjacent parklands.

/

key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points

/

SF’s potential wildlife corridors

natural resource area historic sand dunes

34

ocean beach master plan

ocean beach dunes
“quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote”

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

35

focus area 1 : ecology

threatened bird species
In particular, there are two threatened bird species at Ocean Beach. The Western Snowy Plover, a federally listed threatened species, inhabits dry back beach, especially in the central part of Ocean Beach. Western Snowy Plovers inhabit Ocean Beach from July to May, using the space between dunes or sea wall and high tide line to forage, rest, and roost. As a result of their reliance on back beaches, the species declines as beaches narrow, suggesting that beach nourishment would help maintain plover habitat, provided it was conducted sensitively. The Bank Swallow, a state-listed threatened species, burrows in exposed bluffs faces near sources of fresh water (Lake Merced in this case) where it feeds on insects. A colony of Bank Swallow has been observed at the south end of Ocean Beach in recent years, a vulnerable position given ongoing erosion and the installation of coastal armoring. Coastal management in this area should be designed to maximize the erodible bluff face to the extent possible. With that said, the species is opportunistic about its exact burrowing locations, and considerable appropriate habitat remains available immediately to the south at Fort Funston, which lacks the intense constraints of the South of Sloat area. Neither species nests at Ocean Beach and both are protected to some degree by current management practices, including the prohibition on dogs on much of the beach during plover season (July-April) and the cessation of work by San Francisco Department of Public Works (SFDPW) crews during bank swallow season. Concerns about the plover have been a factor in a recent proposal by the GGNRA to further limit dog access to parts of Ocean Beach.

beach wrack crustaceans

seals

plover threats
/ / / / / habitat loss and degradation human disturbance urban development exotic beach grass expanding predator populations

starfish + shellfish

willets

pelicans

beach lupine

marbled godwit

beach burr

/

key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points

snowy plover

bank swallow

/

federally-listed threatened species

state-listed threatened species

ocean beach native species

36

ocean beach master plan

native dune restoration potential
sand dunes evolution
The “dunes” that predominate from Fulton to Noriega streets (and recurs elsewhere) might be more properly considered a sand embankment rather than dunes per se. It was primarily constructed as part of the Clean Water Program in the 1980s and helps to protect both wastewater infrastructure and adjacent neighborhoods from coastal hazards. Its morphology and plant communities are both non-native, with European beach grass (ammophila arenaria) and iceplant (Carpobrotus spp) predominating. The deep root system and dense mats of vegetation formed by amophila tend to crowd out the more diverse native vegetation and produce a steep, tall form that launches windborne sand inland over the road. While the dynamics of a complete native dune system would require extensive space that is unavailable without acquiring private property, but a restoration of native morphology, removal of re-vegetation with native plant materials could provide both ecological and interpretive benefits. Although removing ammophila is a significant undertaking, other projects have been undertaken successfully in California, including at Little River State Beach and Freshwater Lagoon Spit in Humboldt County. Such an effort could enhance biodiversity at Ocean Beach, while providing a corridor among adjacent habitats and a recreational and interpretive resource for visitors.

native dune vegetation

1906
sunset district encroaching on the native sand dune

1928 1928 9
dune restoration planting

historic native dune | lower profile, more sand transport

1990

typical native dune section

dunes today : ice plant + non-native grasses

non-native dune | steep and dense

today

sand dunes characteristics
with

typical non-native dune section

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

37

focus area 1 : ecology

diagram legend
project boundary dunes bluffs snowy plover protection shorebird corridors

38

ocean beach master plan

existing ecological zones diagram

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

39

focus area 2 : utility infrastructure
aspiration
Evaluate infrastructure plans and needs in light of uncertain coastal conditions, and pursue a smart, sustainable approach.
Beginning in the 1970s, under pressure from the Federal Clean Water Act, the SFPUC significantly upgraded the city’s combined sewer-stormwater system, especially on the west side, where the ocean was being subjected to 60 to 70 combined sewer overflows each year. The PUC’s Clean Water Program completed the current system in 1993 and has reduced the number of overflows to fewer than eight per year. The system accomplishes this impressive feat through a series of interconnected components. In dry weather, the west side’s wastewater (sewage) runs though the network of local pipes to the Westside Transport Box — a large rectangular tube under the Great Highway — then south to the pump station at Sloat Boulevard. It is pumped to the Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant, from which secondary-treated effluent is released through the Southwest Ocean Outfall, 4.5 miles out to sea. In wet weather, stormwater runoff surges into the system. When the plant’s capacity of 65 million gallons per day is overwhelmed, the transport box and Lake Merced Tunnel — two massive structures designed to store runoff and prevent overflows — fill up and retain the combined flow. Overflow there is decanted and pumped to the deep ocean outfall. Only when that system’s capacity is exceeded do combined discharges occur, through two large outfall structures on Ocean Beach. Parts of the Lake Merced Tunnel – a 14-foot diameter pipe under the Great Highway south of Sloat Boulevard— are immediately vulnerable to erosion, and must be protected or moved to prevent serious sewage spill that would contaminate coastal waters. The Westside Transport runs under the Great Highway from Lincoln Boulevard to Sloat Boulevard, and it may become a significant factor in shaping the beach and dunes as the coastline recedes.

/

key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points

/

40

ocean beach master plan

beach as part of the city’s infrastructure
ocean beach is more than an ecological and recreational resource for San Francisco... it also plays a role as part of its stormwater management system

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

41

focus area 2 : utility infrastructure

Wastewater infrastructure is designed for the long haul: Parts of the current system are more than 100 years old. The West Side system is new, expensive and very effective. Unfortunately, it is also exposed to varying degrees of coastal hazard, as recent events have made clear. On two occasions, the City of San Francisco has responded to severe episodes of erosion with emergency armoring in the form of boulder revetments, which, although nominally temporary are difficult to remove, controversial, and degrade ecological and recreation conditions. At this time, the opportunity exists to protect the protect the Lake Merced in place, while replacing the revetments with low-profile elements covered with cobble and sand, restoring recreational and ecological functions. Eventually, this may become untenable, and we will face a choice

between more intrusive armoring and the strategic relocation of infrastructure elements, beginning with the Lake Merced Tunnel. The cost, complexity, competing priorities, and tight regulatory agreements governing the system’s storage make this a challenging prospect, and one which should be examined well ahead of time. Newer thinking at the SFPUC and elsewhere emphasizes Low Impact Development (LID) and green infrastructure — both terms for modifying urban watersheds to increase stormwater retention and infiltration into the ground. Permeable surfaces, green roofs, swales and the restoration of natural waterways can add up to a significant reduction in stormwater entering the combined system, and help to prevent combined discharges.

/

/

past

key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points

present

key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points

water quality
former water quality issues at ocean beach greatly influence the development of current infrastructure

westside transport box under great hwy

oceanside wastewater treatment plan

60-70 CSO’s/ yr (before)

<8 CSO’s/ yr (after Clean Water Program)

42

ocean beach master plan

SF stormwater management system

SF watershed management plan

watershed / low-impact design
low-impact design city
stormwater detention - Pacific Shores Ctr

nt

westside transport box

westside pump station

erosion at lake merced tunnel

future

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

43

focus area 2 : utility infrastructure

diagram legend
project boundary SEWER SYSTEM westside transport box sewer pipe less than 50 years old sewer pipe more than 50 yrs old sewer pipe more than 80 yrs old sewer pipe (unknown age) water infrastructure building wet-weather outfall (combined sewer) REVETMENTS rubble emergency repair area
wet-weather outflow

outer sunset district

* CSO’s = combined sewer overflow

westside pump station
pacific ocean

SF Zoo

lake merced tunnel
co mb ine df low

oceanside plant

Lake Merced

44

ocean beach master plan

te

rti

ar

yt

re

at

ed

wa

st

ew

at

pacific ocean

er

lake merced tunnel

richmond district

existing combined sewage system

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

45

focus area 3 : coastal dynamics
aspiration
Identify a proactive approach to coastal management, in the service of desires outcomes.
Ocean Beach is the visible portion of a much larger coastal sand and sediment system. It is an intensely energetic environment, battered by powerful waves and storm surges on a regular basis. South of Noriega Street, and even moreso South of Sloat Boulevard, the beach is subject to erosion, in which more sand is removed than deposited by waves and currents, and the shoreline recedes landward. The past 15 years have seen several severe erosion episodes, typically during El Nino seasons, which have resulted in bluffs receding seventy feet over a decade in some stretches South of Sloat. In the 2009-2010 winter alone, the coast eroded forty feet inland, undermining parking lots and the shoulder of the Great Highway, and resulting in closure of the Southbound lanes for nearly a year. The City of San Francisco, under a local emergency, armored the area with boulder revetments for the second time since 1997, to the consternation of critics who have advocated a long-term plan to avoid these sorts of emergency actions. The ongoing erosion episodes and ad hoc response by city agencies was a major impetus for initiating this plan. Although it considers the full range of issues at Ocean Beach, including access, amenities, natural resources and character, it is driven by the need for a proactive approach to coastal management.

/

key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points

/

46

ocean beach master plan

“Ocean Beach is the visible portion of a much larger coastal sand and sediment system.”

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

47

focus area 3 : coastal dynamics

history
The western shoreline of San Francisco is artificially maintained about 200 feet seaward of its natural equilibrium. Sand was pushed west in the late 19th and early 20th centuries to create level ground for the construction of the adjacent neighborhoods and the Great Highway, once billed as the widest highway in the Western US. This new land was then stabilized with pavement and seawalls, but erosion has been a recurring issue from the beginning, in part a symptom of the coastal processes seeking that equilibrium. Between the late 1970s and early 1990s, major sewer infrastructure was installed, including the conveyance structures under the Great Highway, a process that included rebuilding the road and constructing the embankments of fill that were revegetated to create constructed “dunes”. The Golden Gate Littoral Cell and the Marine Shipping Channel Ocean Beach is the visible portion of a much larger coastal sediment system, the Golden Gate Littoral Cell. The cell is bounded by a large, semicircular sandbar within which sand circulates with the currents and tides, by turns eroding and nourishing the beach. Within the cell, sand

supply is relatively stable. Average longshore (lateral) currents at Ocean Beach carry sand northward, and it continues to circulate within the bar. South of Noriega, however, currents diverge and southward currents scour sand away and out of the cell, resulting in a net loss of sand and a narrowing beach. This had resulted in an erosion “hotspot” south of Sloat Boulevard. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers annually dredges a marine shipping channel in the sandbar to allow access by large ships to the Golden Gate. This dredged sand— about 300,000 cubic yards each year, represents a significant opportunity for beach nourishment, in which sand is placed on the beach to counteract the effects of erosion. The northern end of Ocean Beach has been getting wider since the 1970s because of a combination of sediment management practices (dumping dredged sand within the system rather than in the deep ocean) and natural changes to the sandbars. Meanwhile, the southern end is narrowing as erosive forces scour away sand and bluffs, leaving less and less buffer between waves and critical infrastructure. More recently, sand has been deposited closer to shore off the southern end of the beach, with results that remain uncertain but have not resulted in dramatic improvements in beach width.

48

ocean beach master plan

seawalls

Taraval Seawall (1941)

Noriega - Rivera Seawall (1980s)

sand placement

O’Shaughnessy seawall (built 1920s)

beach enlargement - north end

1972

sand accretion/beach widening 2009

erosion + emergency revetments

sloat parking lot 1990

erosion early 2000’s

emergency repair area 2010

section: infrastructure protection

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

49

focus area 3 : coastal dynamics
diagram legend

diagrammatic seawall section

diagrammatic dunes section

50

ocean beach master plan

coastal dynamics + historic shorelines

diagrammatic bluffs section
with

seawall overtopping
JAN 27, 2012

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

| DRAFT

51

“quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote”

52

ocean beach master plan

focus area 3 : coastal dynamics
climate change and sea level rise
rate of sea level change measured at san francisco is about 8 inches in last 100 years
TIDE DATA, PRESIDIO SAN FRANCISCO, NOS TIDE GAUGE 941-4290

the rate of rise is anticipated to go up exponentially

recent sea level rise

state guidance suggests sea level rise could reach:

14 inches by 2050 55 inches by 2100
and

future sea level rise (SLR)
SOURCE: state of california sea-level rise interim guidance document, october 2010

Sea level rise and its impact are fundamental challenges in planning for the future of Ocean Beach, as they directly inform the management of coastal hazards. As sea levels rise, the coastline recedes inland, except where limited by hard structures. This translates into increased erosive pressure and coastal hazards. Although there is a great deal of uncertainty about the timing and extent of climaterelated sea level rise, there is considerable consensus on its general impacts. The State of California’s Interim Guidance on Sea Level Rise (2010) developed after a considerable interagency examination of the various available climate models, directs State agencies to plan for 14 inches of sea level rise by 2050 and 55 inches by 2100. This process has used that figure, in lieu of the capacity to carry out a separate examination of the data, and to be in sync with public agencies to the degree possible. It is also assumed that California will likely by subjected to an increased frequency and severity of coastal storm surges, which will be exacerbated by higher sea levels. The data on local changes in precipitation—which is critical to understanding future loads on combined sewer infrastructure — remains far less conclusive, and this plan assumes that San Francisco will need to be prepared for a range of possible outcomes.

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

53

focus area 3 : coastal dynamics
coastal management tools
Sea-level rise and accompanying storm surges will significantly worsen erosive pressures at Ocean Beach in the coming years. Options for the management of this erosion include coastal armoring, beach nourishment and managed retreat: Coastal armoring seeks to resist erosive forces and the receding shore with hard structures such as seawalls or revetments. Depending on its height, a structure might be overtopped by wave runup during storm surges, inundating inland areas. If the coastline recedes until it reaches a hard structure, the beach may be lost, along with the ecological and recreational functions it supports. Reflected wave energy may worsen erosion in adjacent arees. There are nearly 10,000 linear feet of hard structures at Ocean Beach today, in the form of the three existing seawalls and recent revetments. This does not including the Westside Transport Box, which could end up functioning as a sort of seawall if exposed by beach and dune recession. Additional armoring will likely be necessary south of Sloat, but should be placed as part of a proactive and comprehensive strategy to manage coastal dynamics at Ocean Beach. Its placement and design should reflect consideration of ecological and access needs, as well as potential negative secondary erosion effects. Beach nourishment, or the deliberate placement of sand to counteract erosion, is a promising option at Ocean Beach, since 300,000 cubic yards of dredged sand are available annually for beneficial local use. The cost beyond current practices would be shared between local and federal agencies. An effort is underway to retrofit the Essayons, the Army Corps’ dredge, to enable it to pump sand directly onto the beach. This could likely reestablish a wide beach north of Sloat and buy considerable time through sacrificial sand placement to the south. Managed retreat is the gradual reconfiguration or removal of manmade structures in the path of the advancing coastline, according to pre-established triggers. This approach seeks to avoid expending excessive resources defending structures unnecessarily. Managed retreat has been successfully employed in several locations in California, including the acquisition and demolition of private structures in Pacifica, and the phased reconfiguration of parking lots, roads, and trails at Surfer’s Point in Ventura. Managed retreat is most readily employed where structures like roads or parking lots are concerned, and space is available. It is significantly more difficult to pursue in a highly constrained setting where expensive publicly funded infrastructure stands in harm’s way. This Plan includes major components of managed retreat in combination with other strategies. All of these management strategies are recommended at Ocean Beach. A key objective for the Ocean Beach Master Plan is to analyze the relative needs, costs and benefits of various approaches, and build consensus around a nuanced, multi-objective approach.

/

key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points

/

54

ocean beach master plan

oce

an b

eac

h is

the

visib

le p

ortio

n of

a la

rge

and

com

plex

coa

stal

sed

ime

nt s

yste

m

golden gate littoral cell

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

55

focus area 3 : coastal dynamics
regulatory actions
In July 2011, the City and County of San Francisco submitted an application to the California Coastal Commission for a Coastal Development Permit, which included making permanent the emergency permit for the 2010 revetment, the installation of additional armoring, and retroactively permitting the 1997 Emergency Quarrystone Revetment (EQR). The permit was denied by the Commission, which demanded a long-range coastal management plan be in place before additional permits would be issued. This sent a clear message that a different approach would be required, but also left the City without a near-term approach to some areas of considerable risk to infrastructure, with significant environmental risk. The Commission has since issued an emergency permit for the placement of sandbags (and softer and more patently temporary approach) in the reach of highest risk. It is anticipated that this plan will serve as the basis for a long-term approach, and that City Agencies will be required carry these recommendations forward if the Commission is to issue Coastal Development Permits in future.

/

key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points

/

56

ocean beach master plan

beach nourishment
Beach nourishment is the act of placing sand to widen the beach. Beach nourishment has occurred frequently at Ocean beach, but typically on a relatively modest and incremental scale by moving excess beach sand on land. The opportunity exists at Ocean Beach to conduct beach nourishment at a much larger scale by pumping dredged sand directly onto the beach from offshore. The Army Corps of Engineers is working with the City and County of San Francisco to plan and permit the placement of dredged sand from the Marine Shipping Channel directly on Ocean Beach. Up to 300,000 cubic yards per year is available, though existing proposals are for XXXXX. While complex to permit and conduct, most parties are enthusiastic that beach nourishment could have a significant impact at Ocean Beach for near-to-medium term. The recommendations in this plan assume that the program will go forward and be one component of coastal management. Several processes are necessary for beach nourishment to proceed:

• Environmental Assessment (EA) under NEPA. This process is underway, with assessment of direct placement being conducted concurrently with that for near-shore placement at the SF-17 site. • Beneficial Use Plan (Section 2037). The process allows the Corps to partner with local agencies to use dredged materials in beneficial local projects. The local partner must provide 35% of the project cost over and above the current practice. This plan is in draft form and is proceeding in partnership with local City agencies. • Dredge Availability/Retrofit. The Corps hopper dredge Essayons is one of the only vessels capable of completing the dredging at Ocean Beach, but it must be fitted with the pumping equipment to allow direct placement of sand on the beach. Efforts to scure Federal funds to that add have not been successful to date, and city agencies are investigating bringing a private contract dredge through the Panama Canal to conduct the work.

Beach nourishment should be conducted using the best available practices to protect and support the ecological functions of the beach and dunes, particularly with respect to the Federally-listed threatened Western Snowy Plover. This would mean nourishment activity would best be conduct between May and July of each year when the bird is absent. Although extensive beach nourishment may have some impacts on the beach ecosystem, for example by covering beach wrack that feeds invertebrate detritivores, the existence of a wide beach and improved dunes likely far outweigh such concerns. The long-term sand supply in another concern. Increased sea levels coupled with the Ship Channel side slopes reaching an equilibrium could mean that the availability of sand will decline, as dredge records suggest may already be occurring. This would make it increasingly difficult to rely on beach nourishment to counteract erosion over the long term.

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

57

why not relocate the lake merced tunnel today?
Many advocates and concerned citizens feel strongly that the Lake Merced Tunnel I be relocated immediately or in the near future. This Plan does not propose to do so, for the following reasons:

Limited Benefit
Relocating the Lake Merced Tunnel would allow the coastline to recede naturally through erosion, but only a short distance, as other structures, including the existing force mains and pump station, the Fleishhacker Pool building and the Oceanside Treatment Plant, lie immediately behind the Tunnel, limiting the benefits of relocation, or necessitating the relocation of additional elements relatively soon.

Opportunity to Protect in Place
The analysis of the project team indicates that it is possible to protect the Lake Merced Tunnel (and with it the public’s investment in coastal water quality) for several decades while also dramatically improving the recreational and ecological functions of the coastline South of Sloat Blvd. This “win-win” approach is the best way to secure a significant shift coastal protection practices and a significant investment in conditions in the area.

Other Pressing Needs
Whatever the merits of relocating the Lake Merced Tunnel, the city and SFPUC are responsible for the whole city, including areas, such as the Southeast, with antiquated infrastructure, frequent combined discharges, and economically disadvantaged communities. Major investments on the West Side will need to be considered in light its recent upgrades, city-wide needs, and environmental justice considerations.

Environmental and Regulatory Challenges
The West Side infrastructure complex is permitted through a very complex and constrained agreement with the US EPA, predicated on system’s capacity to store stormwater and allow fewer than eight combined discharges per year. Modification of the system, while not impossible, entails significant regulatory complexities.

Long-Term Prospects/2030 Adaptive Revision
The Ocean Beach environment is highly constrained. It shares with many urban beaches the presence of dense settlement along the coast with many owners and users. But Ocean Beach has additional challenges as well: ongoing erosion, minimal space between the coast and significant features, and the presence of new, high-value, publically-financed infrastructure that is delivering important environmental services. Two major features -- The Lake Merced Tunnel and West Side Transport – run along the coast, limiting the natural evolution of the coast by creating a fixed boundary.

Cost
The Lake Merced Tunnel was built as part of the SFPUC’s Clean Water program, a costly investment of ratepayer funds, only completed in 1993. Not only is it early in its functional life, it would be quite expensive to reconfigure, with estimates varying from $90 to $190 Million, depending on which elements were reconfigured. A more comprehensive reconfiguration would be the most cost-effective, but also the most expensive.

58

ocean beach master plan

focus area 3 : coastal dynamics
strategic relocation
These structures represent major and successful new investments in water quality protection, and their near-term relocation is not being contemplated by decisionmakers. However, as sea-level rise sets in, it is likely to become increasingly difficult to maintain all existing structures in their current locations without an unacceptable degradation of environmental , recreational, and aesthetic conditions. This Plan recommends a major reevaluation of its assumptions and reexamination of the space of possibilities at that time in light of the following factors: • Better information about the impacts of sea level rise and associated coastal hazards • Improved policy and technical tools for climate adaptation and coastal management • Broader awareness by the public and decisionmakers about climate impacts and possible responses In particular, two assumptions should be revisited: • Strategic Relocation/Replacement of Infrastructure. As it becomes increasingly difficult and expensive to protect infrastructure in place without unacceptably compromising environmental and recreational conditions, as the SFPUC completes pressing capital improvements to improve environmental performance in other parts of the combine sewer system (such as the Southeast Treatment Plant) and with the existing Westside system having provided a greater portion of its design life, it will be essential to consider relocating elements of the system away from coastal hazards. Clearly, the first component that should be considered is the Lake Merced Tunnel, followed by the West Side Transport and Pump Station. A long-term approach that considers other coastal management objectives , sites for all components, and ongoing water quality protection will be required. • Acquisition of private property. As coastal hazards increasingly threaten private homes at Ocean Beach, and both Federal and private insurance become more limited, the gradual acquisition of private land through rolling easements, public right of first refusal, or even eminent domain may become prudent. This is not considered in this plan, although is explored in Test Scenario A, “Maximum Retreat”. / key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points

/

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

59

focus area 3 : coastal dynamics
coastal hazards: today and tomorrow storm surge and coastal inundations
ESA PWA estimated the limits of extreme wave runup for existing and future conditions as part of the analysis of the coastal physical dynamics. Wave runup was modeled using a program developed by PWA. The program uses several published methods to assess the extent of wave runup on beaches and shores with irregular topography and surface conditions. In addition to the profile analysis discussed above, PWA will also calculate the landward extent of wave runup during an extreme event approximating a recurrence frequency of 1% per year (i.e. the 100¬year runup event). The limits of runup will provide a sense of coastal flooding potential landward of the coastal dunes and bluffs. These data may be used to estimate potential flood damages or used as a qualitative estimate of damage hazard. / key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points In other words, the increased wave runup elevations are substantially higher than the Great Highway and it probably isn’t publically acceptable to raise the roadway to an elevation necessary to prevent increased flood and damage risk. The Figure in the next page presents a graphical map of the approximate wave runup limits from extreme coastal flooding events for existing and future conditions. We consider the wave runup limits presented here to be superior to previous estimates of coastal flooding and erosion including those available via the Pacific Institute and FEMA. While these maps are the best available mapping of coastal flood hazards, they are still approximate and not intended to assess property values, insurance rates or development potential.

/

60

ocean beach master plan

“quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote”

sub-heading or photo caption

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

61

focus area 3 : coastal dynamics
armoring can protect resources, but changes shoreline movement patterns, dune and beach formation, and can result in beach loss

recent infrastructure likely to face increasing coastal hazard

inland low-lying areas are vulnerable to overwash dunes offer some protection but will erode over time due to increasing wave run-up levels and frequency

diagram legend
project boundary
ROADS + PATHS

the great highway (1929)
SEAWALLS

noriega seawall (1968-1993) taraval seawall (1940) o’shaughnessy seawall (1915-1922)
REVETMENTS

rock stabilization treatment emergency repair area (2010)
TOPOGRAPHICAL FEATURES

dunes bluffs low-lying areas
STRUCTURES

sewer pipes major sewer infrastructure wastewater treatment facility buildings

62

ocean beach master plan

s detail below see d t il b l

richmond district outer sunset district

coastal features for climate change planning
LEGEND
1' Contour 5' Contour 20' Contour

14.1 - 15

Elevation (ft)
-15 - 0 0.1 - 3 3.1 - 6 6.1 - 9 9.1 - 10 10.1 - 11 11.1 - 12

Pacific Ocean
15.1 - 16 16.1 - 17 17.1 - 18 18.1 - 19 19.1 - 20 20.1 - 21 21.1 - 22 22.1 - 23 23.1 - 24 24.1 - 25

elevation map of central dunes area

12.1 - 13 13.1 - 14 14.1 - 15

GREAT HWY

GREAT HWY

GREAT HWY

LINCOLN WAY

JUDAH ST

Golden Gate Park

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

63

focus area 4 : image + character
aspiration
Preserve and celebrate the beach’s raw and open beauty while welcoming a broader public.
Although Ocean Beach is in the city, its urban setting is dwarfed by the vastness of the natural context. Like many of San Francisco’s best open spaces, it offers a portal to the regional landscape. But both its wild and urban aspects are decidedly less genteel than those of other natural places in the city. The environment — built and natural — shows the elemental scour of wind and waves, and is known for its dense and persistent fog. The local culture has developed an edge that mirrors the environment: Most days, even a stroll on the sand demands a bit of ruggedness, and the surf’s frigid rip currents have regularly threatened and even taken lives.

/

Ocean Beach (OB) has a rich and unique history integrally linked to San Francisco and the Pacific Ocean. Remnants of this history are still visible today. OB is a place of multiple, distinct characters ...from the ocean to the bluff trails, from the northern open beach to the southern beach dunes, OB provides opportunities for outdoor recreation and to enjoy the Pacific Ocean vast and dramatic landscape.

/

64

ocean beach master plan

sub-heading or photo caption
“quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote”

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

65

focus area 4 : image + character

diagram legend
project boundary great highway existing promenade lower great highway (pedestrian walk) key views

surf zone

shoreline

open beach

promenade

dune beach

dune beach (trail)

great highway

lower grt hwy park

linear zones
66
ocean beach master plan

beach chalet

seal rocks

cliff house

fire bowls

GGP windmill

seawall

feature icons + character zones diagram

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

67

focus area 4 : image + character

A century ago, Ocean Beach was a very different kind of place, more Coney Island than wilderness. Before the Richmond and Sunset districts took shape, Adolph Sutro’s steam railway drew day-trippers through the dunes to his gardens and baths, and to nearby Chutes-at-the-Beach (later Playland). A settlement built of decommissioned horsecars offered a destination for bohemians and bicycle clubs. As the automobile came to prominence, the soft sand was pushed seaward to create a “Great Highway” for Sunday drivers, all the way south to Fleishhacker Pool, near the current site of the San Francisco Zoo. A massive saltwater rec center built in 1924, the decrepit poolhouse today offers a tempting opportunity for adaptive reuse.

sutro baths

windmill / life station

cliff house

seawall at kelly’s cove

1896
a rich history of public recreation... still visible today

1903

1904

1920

68

ocean beach master plan

Today, when those few sweet warm days arrive, Ocean Beach again becomes a retreat for the whole city. A festival atmosphere prevails as a crush of cars, bikes and Muni riders descends, and the shortage of services becomes acute as trash piles up, bikes are heaped up and locked together, and dunes become restrooms of last resort. It would be wrong to ignore the basic needs of the more than 3 million annual visitors to Ocean Beach. But as many in the community have expressed, “prettying up” is not what the beach needs, either. The Master Plan team is taking that observation to heart. Good landscape design has the power to strike that balance — to solve problems and serve needs while speaking to the soul of a place.

fleishhacker pool

beach chalet

great highway

loreline pier

1925

1925

1929

1950

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

69

focus area 5 : program + activities
aspiration
Accommodate diverse activities and users, managed for positive coexistence.
To be successful, improvements at Ocean Beach will need to accommodate and balance a wide range of users, from surfers to families, birdwatchers to cyclists. For the most part, activities sort themselves into linear zones that can inform the approach to design and programming: joggers and cyclists on the multiuse path, walkers on the dune trails, promenades and (along with anglers) on the wet sand, and surfers in the water. Basic amenities — such as restrooms, waste collection and food — are in limited supply, and jurisdictional challenges complicate their siting, funding and operation. As in most open spaces, there are conflicting ideas about which uses belong where, and which are worthy of accommodation. Pedestrians and cyclists get tangled on the multiuse path, birders raise an eyebrow at dog-walkers, and night-time bonfires are a grand tradition to some and a messy nuisance to others. In January 2011, the National Park Service issued its Draft Dog Management Plan for the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. In its preferred alternative, the northern end of Ocean Beach would remain an off-leash area but much of the beach would be entirely off-limits to dogs. Much of that area is already off-limits for nine to 10 months of the year (plover season), and the GGNRA would remain the only National Park to allow dogs at all. Still, the proposal has rankled many dog owners and remains controversial. The NPS is accepting public comment on the Draft until May 29. One key challenge is the distinctive pattern of use over time. Most of the time, the beach and promenades are used by relatively few people, many of whom are locals and regular users: walkers and joggers, surfers and cyclists. This “baseline” condition (with its own seasonal and diurnal variations) holds sway until one of those rare hot, sunny weekends, when the beach experiences an enormous spike of visitors from around the city and region.

/

key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points

/

foggy days

sunny days

special events

70

visitation “spikes” ocean beach master plan

sub-heading or photo caption
“quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote”

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

71

focus area 5 : program + activities

diagram legend
existing restroom existing cafe/ restaurant existing bench existing stairwell approximate firebowl location visitor attraction element or node

heart to heart talks

bike riding

bonfire

listening to waves walking

meditating

sky + star gazing

dog walking

meeting friends

bike riding

72

ocean beach master plan

existing elements + facilities diagram

sand play

wading

family day

sunbathing

relaxing

picnicking

sunset watching

dating

surfing

contact with nature

birdwatching

photography

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

73

focus area 6 : access + connectivity
aspiration
Provide seamless and fluid connections to adjacent open spaces, the city and the region.
Ocean Beach is not only a destination in itself. It is also a key corridor connecting Land’s End and Sutro Heights at its north end to Golden Gate Park, the Zoo and Fort Funston to the south, While movement along Ocean Beach is fairly easy, it offers much weaker connection to adjoining open spaces, neighborhoods and other amenities. In general, Ocean Beach could be integrated much more effectively with its surroundings, particularly for pedestrians, transit riders, and cyclists. Significant gaps include: Connection to Golden Gate Park, which could and should be spectacular, offers little sense of arrival and is challenging to navigate for pedestrians and cyclists. Promenade Transition at Lincoln. The O;Shaughnessy Seawall promenade offer a grand strolling experience from the Cliff House to Lincoln, the suddenly peters out into intermittently visible trails in the dunes. A clear connection is needed. Ocean Beach to Fort Funston, the GGNRA’s next major park to the south. Trails and promenades peter out South of Sloat, due in part to erosion and the installation of revetments. Pedestrians are often forced to walk in the roadway and jump a guardrail to access Fort Funston via informal trails. Ocean Beach to Lake Merced. The Great Highway south of Sloat offer no pedestrian or bicycle access, and there is no crosswalk at Skyline allowing access the Lake Merced’s popular trails.

/

key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points

/

74

ocean beach master plan

“quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote”

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

75

focus area 6 : access + connectivity
traffic capacity
Many of the streets surrounding Ocean Beach are wider than necessary and have more vehicular capacity than actual demand under most conditions. [N/N diagram] These include the Great Highway from Lincoln to Sloat, and to a greater degree South of Sloat,and Sloat boulevard from Great highway to Skyline. Both intersections and roadway configurations are non-standard in some locations. These include: Sloat Boulevard Corridor, with six lanes of auto traffic and angle parking in the median, which is impedes traffic flow and pedestrian access. This segment is slated for narrowing with painted bicycle lanes, a project which, along with Caltrans’ similar effort farther East, could provide important data on traffic flow. Sloat/Skyline intersection, which is quite oversized and features free-right-turn channels than are problematic for pedestrians and cyclists. Great Highway and Skyline, which lacks a crosswalk to the multi-use trail at Lake Merced, a major recreational amenity. Great Highway at JFK/Beach Chalet/Fulton, which includes a large concentration of intersections, with long and ambiguous pedestrian crossings.

/

key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points

/

regional connectivity

76

ocean beach master plan

Great Highway at Balboa, which include a six-lane intersection controlled by a stop sign.

traffic volumes | great highway + sloat blvd.

135 - 160’ wide
park

great highw

ay typical

190’ wide

12 128’ wide

sloat blvd

In addition, the Great Highway is frequently closed for special events or due to blowing sand or flooding. The Great Highway South of Sloat Boulevard was closed southbound for nearly a year after the severe erosion episode in 2010, with only limitied congestion impacts despite minimal management of temporary circulation. The segment from Lincoln to Sloat is unusual in that it lack any vehicular intersections and is signalized only at pedestrian crossings. This both allows precise signal timing and limits spillover impacts on surrounding residential districts, which nevertheless do occur during periods of heavy use. Residents and Supervisor Chu’s office have identified the unmanaged impacts of Great Highway closures as a problem and have been working with the MTA to address the problem by installing flip-down signs advising other routes, such as Skyline Boulevard during Great Highway closures. Any steps that would limit traffic throughput on the Great Highway should be accompanied by mitigation measures to limit impact s on adjacent neigborhoods.

great highway

@ golden gate

N

road dimensions

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

77

focus area 6 : access + connectivity
transit
Several major transit lines terminate at or near Ocean Beach, providing good connectivity to the rest of the city. These include the L-Tarava,l, N-Judah , and 38-Geary. Other lines include the 31, 18, 48, and 23, among others. Although both the L-Taraval and N-Judah streetcar terminate near the beach, there is little sense of arrival at a major open space resource and a National Park. These termini could do more to inform and facilitate coastal access.

bus stop at la playa street

pedestrian path along great hwy

bicycle
Ocean Beach is a major destination for recreational cyclists, many of whom ride to Ocean via Golden Gate Park, a major bicycle route that is being upgraded extensively. The Great Highway and its multi-use trail are also an important cycling route, and constitute a segment the Pacific Coast route from Canada to Mexico, as well as important regional connections.

promenade

ocean beach parking

Ongoing Efforts. Several important bicycle improvement
projects are planned in the vicinity of Ocean Beach, including striped lanes on Sloat Boulevard and improvements in Golden Gate Park. Improvements should be coordinated with these.
bike route on great hwy vehicular traffic great hwy

local connectivity

Inadequate bicycle parking. Although some bike rack
have been added in the O’Shaughnessy lot in recent years, they are frequently over-full, indicating considerable unmet demand, and most of the beach lacks any bike parking at all.

78

ocean beach master plan

Conflicts with other users. The Multi-Use trail combine
joggers, walkers, skaters and cyclists of different speeds, resulting in frustrating and potentially dangerous conflicts.

Hazardous Condition North of Balboa. As the Great

Ocean Beach is well-served by the Muni transit system, but while the 38-Geary, N-Judah and L-Taraval lines each terminate within easy walking distance of the beach, the pedestrian connections are weaker than they might be if welcoming transit users were made a priority. The Great Highway was built in the 1920s as a grand vehicular promenade, the widest stretch of pavement for its length in the world. Its reconfiguration in the 1990s narrowed it by nearly half, but it remains a traffic artery first and foremost, with a capacity that exceeds its actual usage. South of Sloat Boulevard, the Great Highway is squeezed between the eroding bluffs and inland structures, with traffic capacity to spare. The City of San Francisco’s Sunday Streets program has closed the road to cars a few times, showing us a tantalizing multimodal vision, more “great” than “highway.” Meanwhile, a campaign by the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition to build a physically separated bikeway from San Francisco Bay to the ocean is highlighting Ocean Beach as a major cycling destination with significant shortfalls in connectivity. As our ideas about multimodal streets and recreational waterfront access evolve, it may be time to reevaluate the vehicular emphasis on the city’s only oceanfront street.

today

Highway ascends Sutro Heights adjacent to the cliffhouse, several factors—a lack of designated lanes, a steep grade, a lind curve, and diagonal parking – combine to create a hazardous condition. This segment connect to important cycling routes through Lands End and the Presidio.

1930

the great highway

Ocean Beach is not only a destination in itself; it is the connective tissue that links an embarrassment of open space riches on the city’s west side. From Land’s End and Sutro Heights at its north end to Golden Gate Park, the Zoo and Fort Funston to the south, Ocean Beach is a key corridor. While movement along Ocean Beach is fairly easy, it offers much weaker connection to adjoining open spaces, neighborhoods and other amenities. In particular, arriving at the beach from Golden Gate Park, which ought to be one of the great landscape experiences in San Francisco, is an anticlimax for pedestrians and cyclists, who are dropped into a sea of asphalt roadway and parking, with little sense of how to proceed. Another significant gap is from Ocean Beach to Fort Funston, the GGNRA’s next major park to the south, where pedestrians must walk the highway shoulder and hop the guardrail to access the trails and beach.

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

79

focus area 6 : access + connectivity

diagram legend
project boundary great highway major arterial road muni metro muni bus promenade pedestrian connection bike path / lane / route planned bike lane traffic light muni line number pedestrian connectivity gap beach access (path, stair, ramp) key pedestrian connections parking

80

ocean beach master plan

exiting circulation diagram

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

81

focus area 7 : management + stewardship
aspiration
Provide an approach to long-term stewardship across agencies, properties and jurisdictions.
Although visitors experience Ocean Beach as a whole place, it is administered by an alphabet soup of federal, state and local agencies. The beach, dunes and promenades are mostly federal GGNRA parkland, while the Great Highway, multiuse trail and most parking lots are owned by the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department. The SFDPW provides maintenance and emergency repairs on both city and federal property, while the SFPUC owns and manages underground wastewater infrastructure and the Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant. Dredging and sediment management by the Army Corps of Engineers shape the beach. The California Coastal Commission is the permitting authority at the beach. Further inland within the coastal zone, the San Francisco Planning Department oversees development decisions through the City’s Coastal Commissionapproved Local Coastal Program (the Western Shoreline Plan). With so many agencies involved, it’s not hard to understand why problems as simple as managing litter can be challenging — never mind protecting infrastructure while managing a habitat for threatened birds. Not only are these agencies administratively distinct, they often have conflicting priorities, as well. For example, National Park Service policies favoring natural resources and processes may conflict with the needs of the PUC’s infrastructure, although both serve environmental imperatives. The Ocean Beach Master Plan is a major first step in coordinating the activities of these agencies. Several of the recommended implementation steps involve interagency cooperation, including the creation of joint management agreements around both open space and coastal management. Could Ocean Beach be managed as a single unit? What form would that take? Simply having a consensus vision in place will provide a basis for improved interagency cooperation. A joint operating agreement clearly defining responsibilities, or even the creation of a new management entity or park boundary, could provide the kind of integrated management to see Ocean Beach through the challenges we know are coming.

/

key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points

/

.

82

ocean beach master plan

“quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote”

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

83

focus area 7 : management + stewardship

diagram legend

84

ocean beach master plan

jurisdictions

existing jurisdictions diagram

sand transport by wind

maintenance + stewardship

beach / sand maintenance

dunes

trails

waste management

restrooms / facilities

dog management

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

85

sub-heading or photo caption

quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote

86

ocean beach master plan

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

test scenarios
purpose
These Test scenarios were developed to explore a range of possible interventions at Ocean Beach and model their outcomes through the year 2100, based on the best available current understanding of climate change, sea level rise, and coastal dynamics at Ocean Beach. The Test Scenarios represent “extreme cases” with the intent of illustrating sketching the broadest possible range of outcomes. They are not proposals or alternatives. The Test Scenarios served to organize technical work by the project team’s coastal and civil engineers and economist. They were also intended to examine the wide range of ideas and proposals expressed by the public and stakeholders. Testing very different directions allowed the team to illustrate the ramifications of various singleobjective approaches whose outcomes fall short in some areas, encouraging an understanding of tradeoffs and a balanced approach. The Test Scenarios were presented at Public Workshop #2. Participants were then invited to assemble a hybrid scenario drawing from their preferred elements of the Test Scenarios. While not all of the hybrid scenarios were feasible, the exercise revealed a great deal about the tradeoffs involved and the effects of near-term actions over a long time horizon.

chapter

V
87

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

test scenarios
methodology
Test Scenarios were developed by the project team by assembling packages of interventions drawn from public and stakeholder suggestions and grouping them according to key priorities, such as maximizing access or allowing a naturally eroding coastline. Many interventions were related to the placement and selection of amenities like roads, trails, restrooms, and parking lots, but the most critical actions related to the management of coastal dynamics and hazards such as beach nourishment, the relocation of infrastructure, of the placement of seawalls or other hard structures. These actions provided the basis for physical modeling of the evolving coastline at several time periods through 2100. Four coastal cross-sections, or profiles, showing the location of the water’s edge, and the width, position, and elevation of the beach, dunes, and hard structures, were altered , or ‘transgressed’ according to historical erosion rates projected forward and coupled with the likely impacts of sea level rise. The effects of hard structures like seawalls and the placement of sand were incorporated as dictated by each scenario, and the resulting profiles showed the evolving beach and dune width over time. Beach and dune width provide proxies for both recreational and ecological value, both of which are compromised as these erode. Scenarios have been developed by the SPUR Team with input from the Management and Advisory Committees. These are described in documents produced by AECOM, attached (110506Scenarios Board PAC mtg.pdf and 110509Evaluation Criteria revisions mtg.pdf ). The scenarios have different responses at different triggers, which will result in different outcomes. There are four scenarios: A. Maximum Habitat; B. Maximum Recreation; C. Maximum Green Infrastructure; D. Maximum Infrastructure. The scenarios include treatments at four time periods: 0 Years (2010); 20 years (2030); 40 years (2050); 90 years (2100). The scenarios are divided into three shore reaches (Figure 1): • North Ocean Beach (NOB) from Point Lobos¬Cliff House south to Lincoln Boulevard; • Middle Ocean Beach (MOB) from Lincoln Boulevard to Sloat Boulevard; • South Ocean Beach (SOB) from Sloat Boulevard to Fort Funston. The above results in approximately 48 permutations (four scenarios x four time periods x three reaches). Detailed methodology are in Appendix X, ppXX.

88

ocean beach master plan

sub-heading or photo caption

quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

89

This Test Scenario is intended to explore the possibilities of an ambitious and comprehensive program of managed retreat, to allow a natural, wild coastline to develop and persist into the future, including wide sandy beaches, an extensive native dune system, and the improved habitat and ecological function these elements suggest Visitor services are limited and

why?
+40 to +90 years
/ / to increase biodiversity and ecological function at Ocean Beach to allow natural coastal processes to proceed

how?
/ maximize habitat restoration and comprehensive managed retreat

90

ocean beach master plan

(for exploratory purposes - not a proposal)

(for exploratory purposes - not a proposal)

+20 to +40 years

(for exploratory purposes - not a proposal)

+5 to +20 years

emphasize wildlife experience. This is the only Test Scenario in which the inland project boundary is removed, and space is converted from urban to natural uses, including the removal and relocation of infrastructure, the gradual acquisition of private property in the coastal hazard zone, and the restoration of Golden Gate Park to native conditions.

(for exploratory purposes - not a proposal)

0 to +5 years

test scenario A : maximum habitat

ocean beach at 2100

test scenario A : maximum habitat

• Lake Merced connected to the ocean as an ecological corridor • Zoo is reconfigured to higher elevation • Bank swallow habitat may be limited by bluff erosion

• City has purchased hundreds of homes along western most blocks to allow for coastal retreat • Westside Transport Box and pump station is reconstructed inland (38th Avenue or Sunset Boulevard) • Native dune system is restored and expanded into coastal retreat area • New Great Highway reconstructed inland • Habitat protection areas are expanded and recreational uses are limited to minimize impacts.

• Great Highway rerouted using existing Golden Gate Park road system • Native dune system allowed to expand into the park toward a new windbreak • The Beach Chalet is now directly on the beach

outcomes

• Lake Merced tunnel is rerouted inland of treatment plant, Great Highway eliminated. • Natural bluff morphology develops up to treatment plant • Beyond 2100 - Oceanside Treatment Plan will be exposed to coastal hazards and need to be armored or relocated.

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

91

Test Scenario B emphasizes Ocean Beach’s function as a park and open space for people, with considerable improvements made to access and amenities, and coastal management geared toward maintaining the beach

why?
+40 to +90 years
/ / to offer a great experience for the broadest spectrum of visitors to celebrate and embrace the many facets of ocean beach

how?
/ protect and enhance the natural character of ocean beach while providing visitor amenities

92

ocean beach master plan

(for exploratory purposes - not a proposal)

(for exploratory purposes - not a proposal)

+20 to +40 years

(for exploratory purposes - not a proposal)

+5 to +20 years

in place to the extent possible. Natural features are protected as a visitor amenity, but wholesale restoration is limited. South Ocean Beach is protected with an artificial reef designed as a surfing break.

(for exploratory purposes - not a proposal)

0 to +5 years

test scenario B : maximum recreation

ocean beach at 2100

test scenario B : maximum recreation

• Lake Merced is connected to the ocean as a new zoo feature and trail connection • Zoo is reconfigured to Treatment Plant’s green roof • South Great Hwy rerouted inland, leaving trail corridor • Artificial reef protects bluffs, creates surfing opportunity

• Great Hwy narrowed to create a multi-modal promenade along the beach • Access improvements, restrooms, and concessions built at key intersections • Transport box reinforced with seawall, largely concealed by ongoing nourishment • Dunes revegetated and improved, accessible via trails • Beyond 2100, a seawall or artificial offshore reef will likely be needed to protect low-lying areas from storm surge flooding

• At Golden Gate Park, the Great Hwy is re-routed through park to allow for a great beach-park connection. • Attractions, concessions, and public realm improvements create an urban “sea strand” along Golden Gate Park and promenade.

outcomes

• Fleishhacker Poolhouse restored as restaurant/interpretive center

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

93

why?
+40 to +90 years
/ / more resilient, sustainable wastewater / stormwater system to support the health and function of the watershed

how?
/ implement green infrastructure to replace existing infrastructure

94

ocean beach master plan

(for exploratory purposes - not a proposal)

(for exploratory purposes - not a proposal)

+20 to +40 years

(for exploratory purposes - not a proposal)

+5 to +20 years

This Test Scenario maximizes the stormwater management potential of the watershed in order to take pressure off the combine sewerstormwater system to protect water quality and allow some modification

to elements exposed to coastal hazards. This was somewhat problematic as a distinct scenario, as the key concepts could be layered onto any of the other scenarios, and were by many workshop participants.

(for exploratory purposes - not a proposal)

0 to +5 years

test scenario C : maximum green infrastructure

ocean beach at 2100

test scenario C : maximum green infrastructure

• Reduced stormwater load on utility infrastructure • Lake Merced Tunnel rerouted inland, possibly smaller • South Great Hwy rerouted inland, leaving coastal trail corridor • Bluffs continue to erode

• Extensive stormwater retention reduces or eliminates CSDs • Throughout watershed: Improved public realm, biodiversity, temperatures • Improved groundwater levels, water supplies • Stable precipitation: Overflow structures removed • Increased Precipitation: water quality maintained • Transport Box reinforced by a seawall • Constructed wetlands/lagoons store floodwaters in low-lying areas • North of Sloat has limited or no beach

• Stormwater bio-retention basins incorporated into the west end of Golden Gate Park and Sutro Dunes

outcomes

• Lake Merced integrated into watershed, fed by stormwater, and connected to the ocean via constructed wetland. • Beyond 2100 - Pump station, Zoo and Treatment Plant will be exposed to coastal hazards.

• All reaches - groundwater and Lake Merced levels are raised; improved bio-diversity and beautification in public realm; stormwater is pre-treated for water quality and can be routed directly to Lake Merced

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

95

why?
+40 to +90 years
/ / to increase biodiversity and ecological function at Ocean Beach to protect rate-payer investment

how?
/ protect existing infrastructure

96

ocean beach master plan

(for exploratory purposes - not a proposal)

(for exploratory purposes - not a proposal)

+20 to +40 years

(for exploratory purposes - not a proposal)

+5 to +20 years

This Test Scenario is organized around the protection of existing infrastructure, both for its pollutioncontrol functions and for the stewardship of recent public investments. This replicates the recent

pattern to a great extent, with revetments installed to armor the coast as needed in response to erosion events, and seawalls added in chronic trouble spots. Environmental and recreational considerations are secondary.

(for exploratory purposes - not a proposal)

0 to +5 years

test scenario D : maximum infrastructure

ocean beach at 2100

test scenario D : maximum infrastructure

• Limited or no beach • Raised seawall topped with a promenade provides flooding and erosion protection for Treatment Plant, Zoo and Pump Station • Off-shore breakwater further protects from storm surges

• Great Highway is raised, reinforced with a seawall, and topped with a multimodal promenade or boardwalk • Limited or no beach North of Sloat • Pumping required to mitigate coastal and stormwater flooding • Private homes protected by transport box/seawall

outcomes

• Loss of bank swallow habitat in bluffs

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

97

key move 1 subheading
quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote
Menis reictum et unt officideliam quibusapidus at.Ehent. Quuntot aturiorum re perum idero berio blabo. Nequam nus explit volorestotat lit lique voluptas dipsus nos aut alique eos alit volum fuga. Ad ent vellabo rendeni minvele ceatatem nihil inus, se por magnimusaes prem que autempo rionetur? Unt od erum es ut et, same ium quo quiam, si corem quam venime simusdae landam es estem. Optatiumque rempedior apidelendi dolorae vel is nulpa sinctiu remporit adiam si officiae quatatia iliquatest, in restet prest faccumqui adit, in etur, to blaut officium facil inctur? Quiat. Lenis ea vendes sedi repudae sunt es et aut estiisint in reium volene ni ati sincil ipis doluptatecto omnisse quostibea nia velenda consed quo bea ea nihillectem incto volores pa quide ne perchillabo. Itaepudis doluptata nos id molor adignam, nis am soloraeped que eumqui que si doluptatem facil magnihitius. Eperumq uodigendenis doluptatia di dolorum doloreheniet endant eaqui blaccum ad quo te iunt doleni aliquam quatur re nem quiae lam, nos nem eaquundipsae rerrovitiis dolo ipsaped qui re rerciae sequibus vit hario. Genducium disimi, as velicta esequia dolore parum quae rest landamus soluptas iusanti ametur simil ipis et evelest iusdae volut laborem quo quamentis doles es ex et fugiaec tatisciis event aligent utaquiate nitam aut labor moluptat mod quae idel ipides essinis elibusam quatior aepudandusam adiatios estoribusdae entioss imendit vendem aut facia quo etur aperspit, to molo sincidebis ut pa verum exped esed est, il magnihic te endi ut arciend ipsusam, essum excepeles consequia sunt eat. Mil iusam ipsum et landiti isimpel estiossin rest pos mos et volorate poresequae porit, te volor sunto es dero estio incipitaspid quam di aboritium qui accus eossitae nonsequ atetus doluptate estia voluptatem harum voles et volectum harum dolor aut et animus volore, sit velignis con net offic te si dem aut everumqui beraPa simi, apidunt imus ipsa consequi ad ut adi torro blaut ea cuptassit idunt iduntis et eum idel il illenima sit, sequosam harum dolecae dolupic to ma cum est venis minusas. Sum quatioria ipsapit iistrum ipidi re pelicip idelest re, tet prestotatist laudaer umquia vit excerovid ute vitis serro ommoluptat ut officiumque sani beaquibusae natet eaquiam eum exceatem ad magnimo dignihil minctem porendae nonse venestores et fugiae vit, corem. Ut ut exceaqu iatiam, adigend ipiciis esequas aut ad maxima commossunt officat. Boressi taquos illaut od et as dipsumqusequiae eni reperspis quat eossuntem fugit denditi qui cus dolesci umquiae tur, siLiquis aliquo eum essum harumque et rem haribus adis consent.

98

ocean beach master plan

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

master plan recommendations
The Ocean Beach Master Plan recommendations address the full gamut of issues identified above, proposing a vision that is comprehensive and ambitious, while reflecting extensive testing and vetting with affected agencies, and an unprecedented level of community consensus rooted in honest exploration of the imperatives, priorities, and tradeoffs at Ocean Beach. This package of recommendations is presented as a package of improvements, investments and management practices that can achieve bestcase outcomes for many objectives through the year 2050, based on consideration and analysis to the year 2100.

VI
99

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

overall framework
six big moves
For the sake of clarity they are grouped into six “Key Moves” each of which contains numerous recommendations, which will needs to be phased incrementally as physical conditions evolve, and regulatory and fiscal hurdles are cleared. The sequencing and phasing of these interventions will be discussed in the implementation and phasing section of this document [forthcoming]. Finally, these recommendations reflect the state of knowledge, the available consensus, and the capacity of various agencies to act as of the present planning process. An adaptive approach to implementation, based on the evolution of all these factors will be essential, and is reflected in the recommendation of a formal re-evaluation of all recommendations and underlying assumptions in 2030.

assumptions
• Analysis to 2100 horizon • Recommendations to 2050 • Ongoing monitoring + adaptive management • Re-evaluation in 2030

/

key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points key points

/

100

ocean beach master plan

natural bluff
Cor am quodit, si volla dis rem volum et estorepe eleni ni omnienis consed expelendant volutate pellabo. Ut repero conectem vendeliaspel in enimus, voluptio. Em inctis ipiciendit deliquodis as doloribus, quasperferes simin res evelloria voluptios sit maio berite ipis ma quodit, si con et modis verum experem sum quia velia nosandisquam dolore nemperi oresti deratur sequi comnime pro volestor sandit ea sus ium int aute pro debit, tet laut dolesti onseque nam eossinv elibus duciissi officae erupta nis sedi am quasiti berorempedis quis re ne odit es utataecearum ipid ut ut ut ent ant. Sum fugiam fugitatures delis est ut aspererum et magnimi, sequo comnia di idelenda volupti onsedi

historic connection

natural dunes

beach + dune restoration preserved habitat

open beach

cliff

bluff overlook trail walk wetland connection

better trail

gateways

improved amenities

l o w i mp a c t d e v e l o p me n t (L I D ) me a s u re s

improved ped promenade connection preserve the park

“natural” element
natural bluff historic connection natural dunes beach + dune restoration preserved habitat open beach cliff

green seawall? structural modification? cobble berm? bluff overlook trail walk wetland connection

dune as protection? reduced lanes? box as protection? better trail gateways improved amenities

enhanced existing seawall? reduced lanes? improved ped promenade connection preserve the park

l o w i m p a c t d e v e l o p m e n t ( L ID ) m e a s u r e s

“social” element
with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D. G Ph D

27, JAN 27 2012

| DRAFT

101

south reach

master plan

reroute great highway behind the zoo via sloat and skyline

Menis reictum et unt officideliam quibusapidus at.Ehent. Quuntot aturiorum re perum idero berio blabo. Nequam nus explit volorestotat lit lique voluptas dipsus nos aut alique eos alit volum fuga. Ad ent vellabo rendeni minvele ceatatem nihil inus, se por magnimusaes prem que autempo rionetur?

o Wawona Wawona St

Sky line Blv d.

Lenis ea vendes sedi repudae sunt es et aut estiisint in reium volene ni ati sincil ipis doluptatecto omnisse quostibea nia velenda consed quo bea ea nihillectem incto volores pa quide ne perchillabo. Itaepudis doluptata nos id molor adignam, nis am soloraeped que eumqui que si doluptatem facil magnihitius.

Mil iusam ipsum et landiti isimpel estiossin rest pos mos et volorate poresequae porit, te volor sunto es dero estio incipitaspid quam di aboritium qui accus eossitae nonsequ atetus doluptate estia
wo awo a Wawona St

40th 40 40th e Boressi taquos illaut od et th Ave as dipsumqusequiae eni reperspis quat 9 39th Ave 39t Av 39th Ave eossuntem fugit denditi qui cus 8t 38th e 38 38t 38th Avaliquo dolesci umquiae tur, siLiquis ve eum essum harumque et rem 7th 7 37t Ave 37t Av 37th Ave haribus adis consent.

nt ag St Santiago St.

e icente t Vicente St.

ll Ull S Ulloa St.

ara ara l Taraval St.

lv u uns t Blv Sunset Blvd

6 6t Ave 36 Av 36th Ave

5t 5 35t 35 h v 35th Ave

102

ocean beach master plan

Riv a Rivera St.

t Q ntar S Quintara St

rempedior apidelendi dolorae vel is nulpa sinctiu remporit adiam si officiae quatatia iliquatest, in restet prest faccumqui adit, in etur, to blaut officium facil inctur? Quiat.

l ulev d ule oule S Slo Boulevard Sloat Boulevard

treatmentsi corem quam venime simusdae quiam, plant es estem. Optatiumque landam zoo
Arm ory Rd .

Ul Ul Ullo St Ulloa St.

Unt od erum es ut et, same ium quo

Eperumq uodigendenis doluptatia di dolorum doloreheniet endant eaqui blaccum ad quo te iunt doleni aliquam quatur re nem quiae lam, nos nem eaquundipsae rerrovitiis dolo ipsaped qui re rerciae sequibus vit hario. Genducium disimi, as velicta esequia dolore parum quae rest landamus soluptas iusanti ametur simil ipis et evelest iusdae volut laborem quo quamentis doles es ex et fugiaec tatisciis event aligent utaquiate nitam aut labor moluptat mod quae idel ipides essinis elibusam quatior aepudandusam adiatios estoribusdae entioss imendit vendem aut facia quo etur aperspit, to molo sincidebis ut pa verum exped esed est, il magnihic te endi ut arciend ipsusam, essum excepeles consequia sunt eat.
Vicent St Vicente St.

voluptatem harum voles et volectum harum dolor aut et animus volore, sit velignis con net offic te si dem aut everumqui beraPa simi, apidunt imus ipsa consequi ad ut adi torro blaut ea cuptassit idunt iduntis et eum idel il illenima sit, sequosam harum t 8th 8th 48t Ave 48th Av 48th A dolecae dolupic to ma cumveest venis minusas. Sum quatioria ipsapit iistrum ipidi re 6t 46th 46t A 46th Ave pelicip idelest re, tet prestotatist laudaer umquia vit excerovide ute vitis 5t 45 45t Av 45 h Av serro ommoluptat ut officiumque 4th 4th 44th 44t 44t Av 44th Ave sani beaquibusae natet eaquiam eum exceatem ad magnimo dignihil 3 43t 43t Av 43th Ave minctem porendae nonse venestores et fugiae vit, corem. Ut ut42exceaqu 2t Ave 42t Av 42th Ave iatiam, adigend ipiciis esequas aut 1t 1th 41t 41th Ave 41th Av 41th Ave ad maxima commossunt officat.
t. a av Taraval St. o a ant go S Sa t ago St Santiago St. Riv a t Rivera St.
ve 47 47t 47th Ave

ra ui Quin ara Quintara S Quintara St

middle reach

north reach

cliff house lands end
St La La Playa St a ya La Playa St La Playa St.
igh ig way

ve 48 48t 48th Ave

l ab lio abril St Cabrilio St.

t lb Balb Balboa St.

t th Ave 7th Av 47th Ave

n nc ln Way. Lincoln Way.

t ri rik Kr Kri h m St. Krikham St

th 7th ve 47th Ave
uda St Ju Judah S . t. vi rvi St Irv Irving St.

t. a ra Mora St. Moraga St.

S St o Nori Nor Noriega St.

aw awt awton t. Lawton St.

t St. u Ful Fulton St.

c e acheco S Pacheco St

g S eg St Ortega St.

t 46th ve 46th Ave

46th ve 46th Ave

5 45t 45th Ave 45th ve 45th Ave 44th e 44th Ave h ve 44th Ave th 43th Ave h ve 43th Ave v 4 42th Ave v t 42th Ave

master plan

c ch che ach ach o Pacheco St

41t 41t Ave 41th Ave

“quote quote quote quote quote quote”
41th Ave ve 40th Ave 3 h Ave 39th Ave

0t 40th e 40 40 40th Ave

th 9th ve 39th Ave
ea eary Blvd. Geary Blvd. ab Cabrilio S Cabrilio St.

n Anz Anza Anza St

ea eary B d Geary Blvd.

Lobo v Point L bos Ave

e M Me ical C ter Medical Center Cl ent Cleme t St

Great Lower G eat Lower Great

golden gate park

h th ve 48th Ave

ay. Li Lincoln Way

St. h ikh Krikham St

Mo Mo Mora a t Moraga St.

O te Ort ga t. Ortega St.

g ga St o ieg St Noriega St.

t awt La Lawton St.

d Juda Juda St. Judah St.

I i g Irving St.

e 8 38 38th Ave

lt ulton t. ult Fulton St.

7th 37 37t 37th Ave

7 37t 37 h ve 37th Ave h th 6th v 36th Ave 6th ve 36t 36 h Ave ve 5t 5 35t 35th Ave th 5th 5th v 35th Ave

v uns Sun t Blv Sunset Blvd

scale 1”=750’

0 375’

Anza St Anza S

8 8th e 38th Ave

B Bal a t Balboa St.

750’ 1,125’

1,500’

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

N

103

key move 1:
1.5 1.2 1.7 1.1

golden gate park reroute great highway behind the zoo via sloat and skyline

1.4

A rm

treatment plant
1.6
Sky line Blv d.

o ry

zoo

1.8 1.3

scale 1”=400’

0 200’

400’ 600’

800’

104

ocean beach master plan

S lo a t B o u le v a r d

W Wawona St

Rd

.

N

reroute great highway behind the zoo via sloat and skyline

key move 1

To date, the city has been defending the Great Highway South of Sloat Boulevard with boulder revetments. Many officials agree that the road is a proxy for a much greater concern: the Lake Merced Tunnel, a 14-foot underground sewer and stormwater pipe that runs underneath the highway. The road is lightly traveled and frequently closed (most notably the southbound lanes were closed for nearly a year in 2010). Rerouting traffic from the Great Highway to Sloat and Skyline (which have capacity to spare) would allow a more flexible approach to coastal protection and create major restoration and recreation opportunities.

parking to the south side along the zoo and adding a first-class bike route. The L-Taraval Muni line could be extended one block to terminate adjacent to the zoo. Counterintuitively, auto access to the region could improve, as traffic controls are upgraded and this important link is no longer subject to closure by erosion or flood.

open coastal access
Removing the Great Highway South of Sloat would offer an amazing recreational resource for cyclists, pedestrians and beach users while allowing for a healthier ecosystem. Today’s landscape of asphalt, rubble and boulders can be gradually transformed into a coastal trail linking Fort Funston to the rest of Ocean Beach and beyond, reminiscent of recent improvements at Land’s End and Crissy Field. Infrastructure would remain, but the structures used to protect it would be designed with access, aesthetics and natural resources (like the bank swallow) in mind.
1.1

reconfigure sloat/great highway and sloat/ skyline intersections maintain 1-lane out southbound from oceanside treatment plant (OTP) for trucks reconfigure sloat blvd, with parking along zoo boundary, permeable pavement, bikeway, and coastal access amenities pull L-taraval south across sloat, terminus at zoo gate introduce coastal trail to ft funston connect N-S to california coastal trail, linking lake merced all the way to marin replace beach/zoo parking along armory road and using OTP roof reopen armory road: skyline to zoo lot

1.2

1.3

1.4

create a new gateway to the zoo and the coast.
Drivers, cyclists and Muni riders would all arrive at the south side of Sloat, where they could visit the zoo and access the coast without crossing any streets. A new access point near the pump station would provide bike parking, restrooms and information, while a restored Fleishhaker pool house could host a visitor center with food and interpretive elements. Sloat’s neighborhood businesses could thrive on a safe, attractive seaside street.

1.5 1.6

tame an unsafe and overwide street
Sloat Blvd is six lanes wide, with diagonal parking in the median. Zoo visitors often park there and jaywalk across the street with small children. Re-routing the Great Highway inland would allow significant improvements to Sloat Boulevard, including moving

1.7

1.8

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

105

key move 1

reroute great highway behind the zoo via sloat and skyline

sub-heading or photo caption
boardwalk reuse + add architectural elements public restroom

permeable paving

vegetated swale

bike + transit amenities

restored bluff restore + reuse

bike lane striping bluff protection barrier

crushed stone path

106

ocean beach master plan

reroute great highway behind the zoo via sloat and skyline

key move 1

benefits
• spectacular new coastal trail, continuous pedestrian connection • enables significant retreat from coastal erosion • more flexible infrastructure protection • major improvements to sloat blvd design, with green infrastructure elements

outstanding questions
• nature of traffic impacts • optimal configuration of sloat blvd and adjacent intersections

sub-heading or photo caption

constraints
• some traffic impacts, likely minor • requires reconfiguring zoo access • cost of roadway and intersection improvements

sub-heading or photo caption

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

107

2.3

2.2 2.6

2.4 2.5 2.8 2.7 2.1 2.9

key move 2:
introduce a multi-purpose coastal protection / restoration / access system

A rm

treatment plant

o ry

zoo

Sky line Blv d.

2.7

scale 1”=400’

0 200’

400’ 600’

800’

108

ocean beach master plan

S lo a t B o u le v a r d

W Wawona St

Rd

.

N

introduce a multi-purpose coastal protection / restoration / access system

key move 2

remove the road, and take advantage of the opportunity
Unlike the Great Highway south of Sloat, the Lake Merced Tunnel is a significant piece of infrastructure and worth protecting in the coming decades. West of the zoo, the road is perched atop an erodable berm of construction fill, well above the pipe. Letting that vertical space go would allow a much more flexible approach to coastal protection. The recommended solution is conceptual and will require considerable study to ensure its feasibility, but the underlying ideas represent a new and more nuanced approach to the problem of erosion at Ocean Beach.

of “speed bump” under the beach. This is a significant engineering challenge, as it needs to be protected from wave energy, flotation forces (it is mostly empty most of the time) and seismic forces. However, an examination of the problem with coastal engineers and agency technical staff lend credence to the approach.

beach most of the time.

restore the surface, allowing coastal access and ecological benefits
If infrastructure protection alone is the goal, then a traditional seawall or revetment would do, but other important objective would be compromised. The recommended approach allows Ocean Beach to protect infrastructure while also improving recreational access, ecological function and character, in keeping with its status as a National Park. Regular placement of sand and revegetation would offer an accessible beach environment, with a spectacular trail connecting Sloat Boulevard to Fort Funston. Cobble is passable and attractive even when sand has been washed away, as it might be in major storms. And the San Francisco Zoo could find a new expression of its conservation values through an improved relationship the watershed and the coastal ecosystem.

2.1 2.2

incrementally withdraw from bluff edge reinforce the Lake Merced (LM) tunnel in place, remove revetments and fill sand nourishment via Army Corps, develop and pursue Best Practices for beach nourishment cobble berm over LM tunnel covered by sand (via Army Corps sand nourishment) serves as wave dissipation zone; overwash occurs during severe storm events second cobble berm protects force mains, high ground at pump station, Fleishhacker bldg terraced, vegetated seawall with cobble toe along oceanside treatment plant (OTP) create detention swale (through zoo) and constructed wetland fleishhaker bldg renovated as warming hut and interpretive center interpretive elements explain stormwater infrastructure system to visitors conduct near-term pilot studies of dynamic coastal protection: skyline to zoo lot
JAN 27, 2012

2.3

2.4

layer flexible, dynamic structures over hard structures
The structure protecting the Lake Merced Tunnel would be covered by a berm of cobble, stones that range from the size of marbles to that of softballs. These structures, modeled on natural cobble beaches, can be shaped dynamically by wave action and excel at dissipating wave energy. A second cobble berm, farther inland, would protect existing force mains and high ground near the Fleishhacker Pool building. Large quantities of sand would then be placed over the cobble, providing a first line of protection and a sandy

2.5

2.6

armor the lake merced tunnel with a low-profile structure
The Lake Merced Tunnel sits at a much lower elevation than the roadway. If it can be protected with a low wall, cap or internal reinforcement, it can become a sort

2.7

2.8

2.9

2.10

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

| DRAFT

109

key move 2
benefits
• incorporates significant coastal retreat • protects costly infrastructure in place for decades • a softer approach to coastal protection, that can work with coastal processes • restores ecological and recreational function

introduce a multi-purpose coastal protection / restoration / access system

constraints
• significant up-front investment from multiple agencies • challenging to maintain sand cover and surface restoration • depends on careful integration with army corps beach nourishment • new approach requiring careful study and monitoring

outstanding questions
• can the tunnel be protected at a low enough profile for a reasonable cost? • how will wave action interact with cobble and sand to shape the beach and berm? • how will protection measures be phased to prevent spills, protect habitat, and manage cost?

A

B C

key plan

section A (at ocean side treatment plant)
110
ocean beach master plan

key move 2

section B (at zoo parking lot)

section C (at proposed wetland / fleishhacker)
with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

111

key move 2
phasing
The installation of these coastal protection measures will be an incremental process, balancing the desire for rapid improvements with the gradual evolution of the coast. Roadway and parking lot demolition can only occur as permitting and oceanside treatment plant existing revetments zoo parking lot fleishhacker pool existing fill pump station beach parking lot

introduce a multi-purpose coastal protection / restoration / access system
replacement facilities are implemented. In the interim, on-site pilot studies can be completed to assess the most innovative aspect of the recommendations, such as the use of cobble. Near Sloat Boulevard, where artificial fill predominates, it will be appropriate to excavate and remove the fill actively, as soon as the parking lot and roadway can be removed. This would be coupled with the installation of the low-profile protection of the Lake Merced Tunnel, the removal of the adjacent revetment, and the placement of cobble and sand. Further south, where natural sandstone oceanside treatment plant zoo parking lot fleishhacker pool lake merced tunnel (under cobble berm) pump station
existing revetments
wa y

bluffs predominate, coastal recession should be allowed to proceed naturally, allowing the bluff face to continue as potential habitat for the bank swallow, until hazard thresholds are reached and the sequence of protection measures are installed. At the Oceanside Treatment Plant, this threshold has already been reached, and the

revetment should be replaced with a low structure as soon as feasible, with the bluff above continuing to recede once the road is removed.

gre

at

h hig

coastal trail

sloa

t bl

vd
20 11 b

c ea

h

ed

ge
x. 5 20 0 b

c ea

h

ed

ge a be ch g ed

e

upper cobble berm back beach cobble berm (dynamic revetment)

existing fill

south of sloat - existing condition
112
ocean beach master plan

gr

th

wy

a

r pp

o

20

11

south of sloat - multistage coastal protection, 2050

introduce a multi-purpose coastal protection / restoration / access system
Without the Great Highway a more flexible approach to infrastructure protection is possible. Protect the Lake Merced Tunnel with a low-profile structure, topped with dynamic cobble berms and sand. Storm surges can dissipate by washing over and up a restored beach and dune landscape.

key move 2

oceanside treatment plant

seasonal wetland

zoo parking lot
bluff

fleishhacker pool

back beach & cobble berm

coastal trail

cobble berm

force mains lake merced tunnel reinforced in place
AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

dynamic bluff protection system, 2050
JAN 27, 2012

with

| DRAFT

113

key move 2

introduce a multi-purpose coastal protection / restoration / access system

detention swale + constructed wetland system through zoo
114
ocean beach master plan

introduce a stormwater infiltration wetland
The reconfiguration of Sloat Boulevard and is location in the West Side watershed creates a significant green infrastructure and stormwater management opportunity. A living system combining green streets, swales, and restored waterways moves stormwater flows and directs the water to a constructed wetland for retention and infiltration, recharging San Francisco’s freshwater aquifer and combatting saltwater intrusion. The wetland would be located at the entrance to the zoo parking lot, removing a small number of spaces, which could be relocated at a proposed lot at Zoo road. The wetland and adjacent vegetation provide habitat and recreational benefits while improving water quality. This system could be incrementally expanded to increase catchment area and riparian features, including portions of the Zoo landscape and Lake Merced,

ultimately removing up to 33.7 million gallons per year from the combined system. This simple and powerful gesture supports San Francisco’s citywide commitment to reducing stormwater flows to the bay and ocean and to simultaneously improve public spaces and ecological amenities.

stormwater infiltration wetland
JAN 27, 2012

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

| DRAFT

115

key move 3
reduce great highway to 2 lanes + wide shoulder for cycling, emergency access reconfigure great highway / sloat intersection following transport box to avoid erosion hot spot distributed parking at key access nodes restore existing restrooms, build new restrooms improve access at judah, taraval, rivera and noriega traffic calming + mitigation measure to lessen neighborhood traffic impacts LID (low-impact design) to address stormwater management

reduce width of great highway to provide amenities / managed retreat

3.1

3.2

3.3 3.4

3.1 3.2 3.4 3.5

3.3

3.5

3.5

3.7

3.6

zoo

3.6

3.7

Our major coast road is today an expressway geared toward the automobile. By converting the southbound lanes to other uses, including access amenities like restrooms, bike parking, signage, and pockets of auto parking, connected by a new promenade on the ocean side of the road, we apportion this critical public

resource to a much wider set of uses. The existing Northbound lanes would serve as a two-way street. In addition, in areas between major access points, the space gained by narrowing the roadway would be devoted to expansion and restoration of the dunes, which could migrate shoreward, overtop of the Westside

Transport Box. Coupled with the direct placement of sand through the Army Corps of Engineers’ proposed beach nourishment program, this approach could extend the period of time in which a significant sandy beach would be feasible South of Noriega.

116

ocean beach master plan

noriega seawall
3.5

3.3 3.1 3.4

3.7

scale 1”=400’

0 200’

400’ 600’

800’

N

This change would likely result in some traffic impact, via spillover effects. Mitigation measures to prevent aggressive cut-throughs in adjacent neighborhoods (already a problem during frequent raod closures) would be essential, as would coordination with ongoing planning for circulation on the West Side. Comprehensive traffic

analysis will be essential to determine if the traffic impacts of this intervention would be justified by the considerable improvements in coastal access.

key move 3
reduce width of great highway to provide amenities / managed retreat

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

117

key move 3
benefits
• a restored dune system is given space to migrate landward, allowing a wider beach as sealevel rise sets in. • allows space for additional amenities, improved beach access • favors pedestrians, bicycles, beach access, and wildlife over traffic flow

reduce width of great highway to provide amenities / managed retreat

constraints
• traffic impacts, which may be significant, in adjacent neighborhoods • limited space gained at substantial cost • potential to bring more users to plover habitat areas • some redundancy between recreational trails

outstanding questions
• what will traffic impacts be and to what degree can they be mitigated? • how much additional beach width will result in the long run? D E

key plan

section D (great highway at wawona)
118
ocean beach master plan

reduce width of great highway to provide amenities / managed retreat

key move 3

section E (noriega seawall at rivera)
with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

119

key move 3

reduce width of great highway to provide amenities / managed retreat

public restroom

solar power

wind power

green roof

permeable paving amenity pod

interpretive

vertical signage

multi-modal promenade

GGNRA signage

wall signage

distributed parking and amenity node
120
ocean beach master plan

existing condition : cyclists using shoulder of great highway
121

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

key move 4
sand nourishment via army corp of engineers along southern end of middle reach dune restoration in key locations, especially at lincoln and vicente sand ladders and modular boardwalks provide access while limiting impact

middle reach native dune restoration

4.1

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.2

4.3

The existing “dunes” are actually sand embankments, constructed as part of the SFPUC’s clean water program, and vegetated with non-native grasses and iceplant. Re-countouring and re-vegetating these embankment to introduce a native dune morphology and ecosystem would provide ecological benefits by reintroducing a scarce and fragile coastal ecosystem, increase the

visibility of the ocean from the Great Highway, and may provide some improvements in sand management by reducing the existing embankment’s tendency to launch windborne sand long distances.

122

ocean beach master plan

4.2

4.3

scale 1”=400’

0 200’

400’ 600’

800’

N

key move 4
middle reach native dune restoration

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

123

key move 4
benefits
• ecological restoration and improved aesthetics • removal of non-native species • lower profile will allow more visual access to the ocean • potential for improved sand management with lower profile

middle reach native dune restoration

constraints
• significant cost • challenge of fully removing nonnative grasses • access to dunes limited to protect restoration

outstanding questions
• would a native dune form offer comparable coastal protection? • to what degree would management of windblown sand be improved • how can sand placed through beach nourishment best feed the dune system? F

key plan

section F (great highway at moraga)
124
ocean beach master plan

middle reach native dune restoration

key move 4

“sand engine”, north sea, netherlands
sand nourishment
sand nourishment via army corps of engineers along southern end of middle reach and south reach

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

125

key move 4
sand verbena

middle reach native dune restoration

pacific wildrye

ragweed

beach saltbush

native dune morphology + native species

non-native dune mor morphology + non-native species

european beach grass

iceplant

existing dunes

typical section : dune restoration southbound lanes of great highway 126
ocean beach master plan

existing non-native dunes

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

127

key move 5
5.1

better connection between golden gate park and beach

improve parking lot, preserve event/flexspace capacity maintain row of “watching the water” parking modify parking entrances, and improve pedestrian crossings at JFK/Beach Chalet provide vertical arrival element / overlook at ends of Golden Gate Park add east side bike lanes (in both directions), connect bike trail with GGP add abundant bike parking joint City/Federal Parking Management Plan introduce appropriate landscape site elements

5.2

5.3

5.4

The coastal frontage of Golden Gate Park – the O’Shaughnessy parking lot and seawall promenade – does not currently provide the spectacular sense of arrival that it could. Identified by GGNRA plans as a location for active and vibrant activities, it is currently defined by a large expanse of asphalt, with a great deal of unused parking most of the time. Pedestrians arriving from the park find a confusing path to the sea and few basic amenities. This Key Move would rework this space to create a multi-use space appropriate to the context and program of this critical connection, while maintaining parking, providing basic amenities and appropriate landscaping, and allowing for continued use for major events.

5.5

5.6 5.7

5.8

128

ocean beach master plan

key move 5
better connection between golden gate park and beach

5.6 5.8 5.4 5.8 5.6 5. 5.3 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.5

lay la St Pl La Playa St t. a Pla La Playa St.
5.5

golden gate park

th 48th Ave

th 48th Ave
i r lio t. Cabrilio St. t b Balboa St.

th 47th Ave

ln W y. i Lincoln Way.

th 47th Ave
t St. Judah St. Ir ing t Irvi Irving St.

t lto Fulton St.

46th ve 46th Ave

46t 46th ve 46th Ave

45th Av 45th Ave 45th Av 45th Ave

scale 1”=400’

0 200’

400’ 600’

800’

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

N

129

key move 5
benefits
• a sense of arrival in a contextappropriate landscape • improved basic amenities at the busiest access point • maintains parking and event capacity while improving pedestrian and bicycle safety • improved environmental performance with permeable paving, alternative energy

better connection between golden gate park and beach

constraints
• cost • interagency management challenges G

key plan

section G (at o’shaughnessy seawall)
130
ocean beach master plan

better connection between golden gate park and beach
bike shelter + racks

key move 5

Tighten o’shaughnessy parking lot potentially replacing asphalt for permeable paving, preserve event / flexspace capacity.

Improve circulation, site features, and landscaping at the O’Shaughnessy lot to provide a welcoming gateway to the ocean for all users.

bike share station

coastal sage mix

coastal scrub grasses

grass crete

precast concrete pavers

improved o’shaughnessy parking lot
with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

131

key move 5

temporal sculpture

kinetic elements

Lincoln avenue gateway (potential improvement elements)
stone restrooms shelter custom concrete

Provide vertical arrival element / overlook at ends of Golden Gate Park permanent sculpture

wind + solar energyoperated restrooms

arrival element / gateway at lincoln
132
ocean beach master plan

existing promenade & o’shaunessy seawall

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

133

key move 6
6.1

bicycle + pedestrian improvements north of balboa

narrow Great Highway North of Balboa ( from 4 to 2 lanes) keep diagonal Cliff House parking narrow Point Lobos Avenue from 4 lanes to 2, add 2-way separated bikeway on inland side. Separated bikeway along cliff to prevent bicycle/vehicular conflict on steep slope connect bike lane to bike trail to Lands End and add “bicycle box” at Pt Lobos and 49th

6.2

6.3

6.4

North of Fulton Street, the great highway carries much less traffic than its design would suggest, and it presents a confusing and unwelcoming condition to pedestrians and cyclists. North of Balboa, there is a dangerous combination of bicycle traffic, diagonal parking, and a steep grade. These recommendations would narrow the roadway from four lanes to two, allow for a physically separated two-way bikeway along the bluff adjacent to the Cliff House while leaving the diagonal visitor parking intact. This shortens pedestrian crossings and addresses the nonstandard intersection at Balboa. It also presents an opportunity to make a key connection for cyclists and pedestrians to the trails at Land’s End, the Presidio, and beyond, in keeping with the role of Ocean Beach as a key connector of the broader open space network.

134

ocean beach master plan

key move 6
6.2

bicycle + pedestrian improvements north of balboa
6.1

6.3

6.4

scale 1”=400’

0 200’

400’ 600’

800’

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

N

135

key move 6

bicycle + pedestrian improvements north of balboa

benefits
• improved pedestrian, bicycle safety, shortened crossings • improved aesthetics and street design • maintains cliff house parking while reducing car-bike conflicts • enhances key recreational connection to land’s end, coastal trail

constraints
• modest traffic impacts

outstanding questions
• what is the optimal arrangement of bicycle lanes along point lobos avenue? • what will the traffic impacts be?

potential pt lobos & 49th (existing condition)
136
ocean beach master plan

poin t lobos road diet :
Narrow pt lobos avenue from 4 lanes to 2, add 2-way separated bikeway on inland side. Separated bikeway along cliff to prevent bicycle/vehicular conflict on steep slope

key move 6
vertical signage gateway element

connect to lands end :
Connect bike lane to bike trail to land’s end and add “bicycle box” at pt lobos and 49th

interprative signage

GGNRA signage

crosswalk paving

crosswalk upgrade

separated bikeway

bike box

potential pt lobos & 49th intersection i
JAN 27, 2012 7, 2

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

| DRAFT

137

master plan recommendations
These six “Key Moves” outline the Ocean Beach Master Plan’s major recommendations. Each includes many individual recommendations, more than forty in all. They are organized by three geographical reaches as indicated, and will be implemented incrementally over a period of decades.

south reach

middle reach

north reach

cliff house lands end
Playa t La P La Playa St St. Playa St Pl La Playa St.
hway ighway

8th 48th ve 48th Ave

S b Cabril St Cabrilio St.

Linco Lincoln W Lin ol Way.

t Krikha St. Krikham St

4 t 47th e 47th Ave dah d h udah t Judah St. t Ir ing St. Irving St.

ag oraga Mora Morag St Moraga St.

o iega oriega Norieg St Noriega St.

t. w wto aw awton St. Lawton St.

t Fu Fult Fulto Fulton St.

lS araval St ar Taraval St.

a tiag ant Santiag St Santiago St.

S e a St Rivera St.

7th 47t 47th ve 47t Ave

nta inta Q intar Quinta S Quintara St

h hec ach achec acheco Pache S Pacheco St

g r ega S Ortega St.

ve 46 Ave 46th Ave

Wawo a S Wawona St

n nt nte V en Vicente St.

ve 46 46t 46th Ave

Arm mo ry R

u ul oule t oulev Sloat Boulevard

treatment plant
Sky line lin Blv lvd.

l ll Ul oa Ullo Ulloa St.

d.

ve t 6t Av 46th Ave ve 45 45th Ave 5t 45th Ave 45t Av 45th Ave 44th e 44th Ave 4th 4t 44 44t 44th Av 44th Ave 3th 3th ve 43th Ave 43t 43t Ave 43th Ave v 42t 42th Ave

4 45th Ave

zoo

4th ve 44 44t 44th Ave

th th 43th Ave

42 42 42th Ave

he h checo S Pacheco St

2 42t Ave 42t Av 42 h Ave

S Q n Quint Quintara St

41th 41 41th Ave e 41t 41th Ave 0th 0th e 40th Ave 0 40t 40t Ave 40th A e h e th Ave 39th Ave h th Ave 39th Ave
v Blvd e Geary B vd. ab il S Cabrilio St.

1th 41t 41t 41th Av 41th Ave

e 40t 40t Ave 40th Ave

z Anza Anza St

8th 48t Ave 48th Av 48th Ave

a Balboa St Balboa St.

t 7th 7th 47th Ave

d ary ea B vd Geary Blvd.

i t Lobos v Point Lob Ave

d Medic Center M dical C Medica Cent t nt S Cl Clement St

t ower eat ower Great Lower Great

golden gate park

h ve 48th Ave

Li Linc n ay Lincoln Way.

ham S ikham St Krikham St.

M Mo aga Morag S Mora St Moraga St.

g tega St. Ortega St.

eg S ieg St Noriega St.

S a t St Lawton St.

Judah Judah t. Judah St.

t in rvin St. Irving St

8 38th e 38 38th Ave

u n ulton S Fu ton St Fulton St.

ntiago t anti antiag St Santiago St.

S St. ra Taraval St

St R Rivera St.

ve 8 38t 38t 38 h Ave

3 h v 37th Ave

wo wona St Wawona St

icente S Vicente St.

7 7t 37th ve 37th Ave h th 6th v 36th Ave ve 36t 36th Ave

l Ull Ull Ull Ulloa St.

7 37t Av 37t Ave 37th Ave

Sunset B v Sunset Blvd

vd v u uns Sunset Blv Sunset Blvd 36 36 Av 36th Ave

e 5 35t 35 h Ave h 5th 5th ve 35th Ave

35th ve 35t 35 35t Ave

138

ocean beach master plan

S A Anza St

9 39t Av 39th Ave

8th 38th Ave

t t. B b Balb St Balboa St.

overall perspective (in progress)

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

139

subheading
quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote

140

ocean beach master plan

JAN 23, 2012

| DRAFT

master plan implementation strategy
The Ocean Beach Master Plan is a non-regulatory guidance document, and its implementation will therefore depend on sustained engagement. A significant advantage of SPUR’s participation is our capacity to remain involved, keeping plan recommendations in the spotlight over the long term. The Ocean Beach Master Plan has, in less than 18 months, achieved an unprecedented level of cooperation and consensus among responsible agencies and key stakeholders at Ocean Beach. It represents a balanced compromise in highly constrained circumstances, and presents a unique opportunity to make significant improvements at Ocean Beach. Aspects of the recommendations will remain controversial, but as a whole it had received a remarkably enthusiastic reception. This Plan presents solutions at a conceptual, visionary stage, but they are informed by in-depth research and discussion with responsible agencies, and thus represent real opportunities with considerable vetting and support. Implementation must therefore begin with deeper studies of the feasibility, engineering, financing, interagency capacities and environmental impacts of these recommendations. Although many conditions at Ocean Beach are pressing and cry out for quick action, this is at its core a long-term, strategic plan, and these ambitious recommendations have a considerable distance to travel before they result in changes on the ground. In the meantime, the presence of a long-term vision will inform (as it has already) the nearterm actions by responsible agencies.

VII
141

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

master plan implementation strategy
four implementation tracks
The projects identified below represent four implementation tracks for Ocean Beach Master Plan recommendations. The many different types of actions recommended, many responsible agencies, and several different types of regulatory review (including CEQA, NEPA, and Coastal Commission) make a single process unwieldy. However, many different aspects of the recommendations can move forward independently, through the specific pathways of the lead agencies identified under each. engagement of all partners. SPUR will lead public communications and steward the core principles of the Ocean Beach Master Plan through the full range of implementation efforts. Project Lead: SPUR complete the scope of work. • CEQA-ready Traffic Analysis of Great Highway re-routing and associated roadway and intersection reconfigurations • Coordination with ongoing city transportation plans and studies, including the 19th Avenue Corridor Study • Area-wide joint parking management plan • L-Taraval Extension Planning • Development of roadway configuration and design • Zoo access reconfiguration • Circulation and Access EIR Project Lead: SPUR EIR Lead: SFMTA Partners: SFMTA, SFCTA, MOEWD, SFZoo

interagency circulation and access study
The recommended approach to coastal management at Ocean Beach will require significant reconfiguration of roadways, in particular the closure of the Great Highway South of Sloat Boulevard, and the re-routing of traffic via Sloat and Skyline. This will require the reconfiguration of several intersections and the redesign of Sloat Boulevard into a multi-modal coastal gateway. SPUR will assemble, scope, and manage consultant teams in close coordination with city agencies, through the Mayor’s Office of Economic and Workforce Development, as well as identifying any additional funds necessary to

implementation leadership + coordination
SPUR will serve as the coordinator and manager, providing continuity of leadership and maintaining the key relationships developed to date, with partner agencies taking the lead on project elements as appropriate from a legal and regulatory standpoint. SPUR will coordinate closely with partner agencies to pursue and secure additional funding, build political momentum, and maintain the focused

142

ocean beach master plan

sub-heading or photo caption

quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

143

master plan implementation strategy
sub-heading or photo caption
joint coastal management framework and technical studies
The Coastal Management recommendations in the OBMP will require considerable study and analysis, and their implementation will depend on agreement among several affected agencies, including the National Park Service, SFPUC, and Army Corps of Engineers. A joint coastal management framework will define an agreed-upon set of triggers and actions for adaptation to rising sea-levels and associated coastal hazard s at Ocean Beach. SPUR will facilitate the development of a Joint Coastal Management Framework, in line with the principles of the OB Master Plan, to provide the basis of a formal agreement among the agencies responsible for coastal management and affected by coastal outcomes. Elements will include: • Coastal Engineering Feasibility Studies • Definition of Phasing, with Climate and Erosion triggers • Economic and Cost-Benefit Analysis • Coordination with Access and Surface Restoration Design and Implementation • Capital Project Planning and Coordination Project Lead: SPUR EIR/EIS Lead: SFPUC Project Partners: GGNRA, SFPUC, SFDPW, ACOE

quote quote quote quote quote quote quote

144

ocean beach master plan

joint open space management agreement
Ocean Beach is experienced as a single place, but to date, management of Ocean Beach as an open space resource has been divided among several entities, resulting in significant public frustration over the most basic needs, such as waste management and restrooms. SPUR will facilitate the creation of a joint a management agreement or similar structure, whereby responsible agencies collaborate both to improve day-today operations and management, and to make significant improvements to public access and amenities in the future. Access improvements will include key segments of the Coastal Trail. This effort will include: • Open Space Planning and Programming study • Cost and Revenue Sharing Framework

• Dune Restoration Pilot • Schematic Design: Public Access Improvements • Management Agreement Project Lead: SPUR EIS/EIR Lead: GGNRA Project Partners: GGNRA, SFDRP, GGNPC, SFPUC, SFZoo

sub-heading or photo caption

reroute great highway behind the zoo via sloat and skyline

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

145

master plan implementation strategy
funding opportunities
Ongoing engagement and additional funding can also leverage significant additional public and philanthropic moneys to support the implementation of Master Plan recommendations. Working with the Mayor’s office of Economic and Workforce Development, SPUR has already identified over 16 million dollars in existing funds from numerous sources that could be used directly or in support of plan recommendations.

sub-heading or photo caption
quote quote quote quote quote quote quote

146

ocean beach master plan

funding opportunites
agency source purpose amount

direct / priority

SCC SFPUC NPS CTA CCSF NPS NPS

grant request grant match grant match Prop K Cosco Busan settlement Cosco Busan settlement FLHP/TRIP section 2037 costshare

indirect / leverage

ACOE/CCSF CTA/MOEWD NPS MTC/CTA MTC/CTA strategic growth council planning grant council planning grant GGNPC

core impl/mgt funds core impl/mgt funds core impl/mgt funds Great Hwy recreational amentities recreational amentities GH corridor trail access beach nourishment 19th Ave transportation study Oshaughnessy seawall rehab Cons. Corps partnerships street/roads, bike/ ped categories

$400,000 $300,000 $125,000 $800,000 $1,125,000 $7,000,000 $250,000 $3.7M-6.8M $480,000 $1,500,000 tbd

GMP projects list T-E funds OneBay Area Grant prop 84 philanthropic

public access improvements

tbd

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

147

subheading

“quote”

148

ocean beach master plan

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

evaluations + cost / benefit analysis

VIII
with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

149

focus areas: setting the foundation

evaluation criteria
Evaluation criteria were developed in consultation with OBMP Planning Advisory Committee to evaluate outcomes of Test Scenarios and Plan Recommendations.

aspiration

focus areas

ecology

coastal dynamics

utility infrastructure

Restore and establish conditions that support thriving biological communities.
1. Biodiversity & ecological functions on land, water, and intertidal zones -2 -1 0 1 2
(degrades) (improves)

Identify a proactive approach to coastal management, in the service of desired outcomes.
1. Adaptable and effective response to erosion, storm surges and sea-level rise -2 -1 0 1 2
(degrades)

Evaluate utility plans and needs in light of coastal hazards and uncertainties, and pursue a smart, sustainable approach.
1. Water quality management (stormwater, wastewater, combined-sewer overflows) -2 -1 0 1 2
(degrades)

evaluation criteria

(improves)

(improves)

2. Habitat for key species (plovers, bank swallows) -2 -1 0 1 2
(degrades)

(improves)

2. Requirement for on-going interventions -2 -1 0 1 2
(increases)

(reduces)

2. Flooding prevention (stormwater run-off) -2 -1 0 1
(degrades)

(improves)

2

3. Ecological connectivity -2 -1 0 1
(degrades)

(improves)

2

3. Impact to other focus areas -2 -1 0 1 2
(negative)

(positive)

3. Management of the investment in core utility facilities (treatment plant, transport box, Lake Merced tunnel...) -2 -1 0 1 2
(negative) (positive)

150

ocean beach master plan

focus areas : place-making

focus area*

focus areas

access + connectivity

image + character

uses + activities + program

management + stewardship

aspiration

Provide seamless and fluid connections to adjacent open spaces, the city, and the region.
1. Pedestrian and bicycle circulation along north/south corridors -2 -1 0 1 2
(degrades) (improves)

Preserve and celebrate the beach’s raw and open beauty, while welcoming a broader public.
1. Image of Ocean Beach -2 -1 0 1
(degrades)

Accommodate the diverse activities people enjoy at the beach, managed for positive coexistence.
1. Activities and amentities -2 -1 0 1
(degrades)

Provide an approach to long-term stewardship across agencies, properties, and jurisdictions.
1. Day to day management and maintenance 2. Ability for agencies to work cooperatively

evaluation criteria

(improves)

2

(improves)

2

2. Pedestrian & bike connections to adjacent open spaces, streets & transit network -2 -1 0 1 2
(degrades) (improves)

2. Natural feel and experience of the beach (dunes, wildlife, surf...) -2 -1 0 1 2
(degrades) (improves)

2. Surf conditions -2 -1 0
(degrades)

(improves)

1

2

3. Funding in support of the vision

3. Traffic flow and parking system -2 -1 0 1 2
(degrades) (improves)

3. Experience and character of the urban edge along Ocean Beach -2 -1 0 1 2
(degrades) (improves)

3. Compatibility of uses -2 -1 0 1
(degrades)

(improves)

2

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

151

cost/benefit analysis
Refer to Appendix (Cost/Benefit Analysis Technical Memorandum) for assumptions and additional information.

KEY MOVES

COST (current dollars)

TIME FRAME

PRESENT VALUE

1

2

3

4

5

6

Reroute Great Highway Replace South of Sloat Reconfigure Sloat Consolidate Parking Reconfigure Zoo Parking Introduce Multipurpose Access System Dismantle Great Hwy/Coastal Trail Protect Lake Merced Tunnel Allow Storm Surges/Wetland Revegetate Reduce Great Highway Narrow Hwy from 4 to 2 lanes Use Southbound Lanes for Parking, etc. Promenade Allow Dunes to Migrate Middle Reach Dune Restoration Beach Nourishment Native Dune Restoration Sand ladders/Boardwalks Connect GG Park with Beach Reconfigure Parking Lot Amenities Event Capacity Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements Narrow Great Highway Physically Seperated Bikeway Additional: Low Impact Development (LID)

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

12,807,381 5,898,200 6,510,431 79,750 319,000 76,949,875 402,000 60,000,000 5,500,000 11,047,875 17,182,840 15,855,840 319,000 1,008,000

MID MID MID MID MID MID/LONG LONG MID MID MID MID MID NEAR/MID MID MID NEAR/MID NEAR/MID NEAR/MID NEAR/MID MID MID

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

5,068,315 2,334,118 2,576,398 31,560 126,239 27,925,725 159,085 22,613,369 781,251 4,372,019 6,799,833 6,274,694 126,239 398,900 37,059,427 35,080,757 1,978,670 14,316,317 7,158,158 7,158,158 4,562,378 4,163,478 398,900 59,360,094

$ 65,000,000 $ 60,000,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 12,561,880 $ 319,000 $ 12,242,880 $ $ $ 8,128,960 7,120,960 1,008,000

$150,000,000

TOTAL

$342,630,936

$ 155,092,088

152

ocean beach master plan

sub-heading or photo caption
“quote”

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

153

key move 1
photo caption
quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote quote
Menis reictum et unt officideliam quibusapidus at.Ehent. Quuntot aturiorum re perum idero berio blabo. Nequam nus explit volorestotat lit lique voluptas dipsus nos aut alique eos alit quote volum quote fuga. Ad ent vellabo rendeni minvele ceatatem nihil inus, se por magnimusaes prem que autempo rionetur? Unt od erum es ut et, same ium quo quiam, si corem quam venime simusdae landam es estem. Optatiumque rempedior apidelendi dolorae vel is nulpa sinctiu remporit adiam si officiae quatatia iliquatest, in restet prest faccumqui adit, in etur, to blaut officium facil inctur? Quiat. Lenis ea vendes sedi repudae sunt es et aut estiisint in reium volene ni ati sincil ipis doluptatecto omnisse quostibea nia velenda consed quo bea ea nihillectem incto volores pa quide ne perchillabo. Itaepudis doluptata nos id molor adignam, nis am soloraeped que eumqui que si doluptatem facil magnihitius. Eperumq uodigendenis doluptatia di dolorum doloreheniet endant eaqui blaccum ad quo te iunt doleni aliquam quatur re nem quiae lam, nos nem eaquundipsae rerrovitiis dolo ipsaped qui re rerciae sequibus vit hario. Genducium disimi, as velicta esequia dolore parum quae rest landamus soluptas iusanti ametur simil ipis et evelest iusdae volut laborem quo quamentis doles es ex et fugiaec tatisciis event aligent utaquiate nitam aut labor moluptat mod quae idel ipides essinis elibusam quatior aepudandusam adiatios estoribusdae entioss imendit vendem aut facia quo etur aperspit, to molo sincidebis ut pa verum exped esed est, il magnihic te endi ut arciend ipsusam, essum excepeles consequia sunt eat. Mil iusam ipsum et landiti isimpel estiossin rest pos mos et volorate poresequae porit, te volor sunto es dero estio incipitaspid quam di aboritium qui accus eossitae nonsequ atetus doluptate estia voluptatem harum voles et volectum harum dolor aut et animus volore, sit velignis con net offic te si dem aut everumqui beraPa simi, apidunt imus ipsa consequi ad ut adi torro blaut ea cuptassit idunt iduntis et eum idel il illenima sit, sequosam harum dolecae dolupic to ma cum est venis minusas. Sum quatioria ipsapit iistrum ipidi re pelicip idelest re, tet prestotatist laudaer umquia vit excerovid ute vitis serro ommoluptat ut officiumque sani beaquibusae natet eaquiam eum exceatem ad magnimo dignihil minctem porendae nonse venestores et fugiae vit, corem. Ut ut exceaqu iatiam, adigend ipiciis esequas aut ad maxima commossunt officat. Boressi taquos illaut od et as dipsumqusequiae eni reperspis quat eossuntem fugit denditi qui cus dolesci umquiae tur, siLiquis aliquo eum essum harumque et rem haribus adis consent.

154

ocean beach master plan

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

outreach process
A robust public and stakeholder outreach process was fundamental to the development of this plan. Much of the team’s effort was devoted to synthesizing a dizzying array of complex site conditions and tradeoffs into accessible and compelling materials to facilitate informed public participation. Two earlier community task forces, The Ocean Beach Task Force under Mayor Brown, and the Ocean Beach Vision Council under Mayor Newsom, raised awareness and made proposals for the future of Ocean Beach, but neither had a pathway to implementation. The result was increased awareness on the part of decisionmakers, but frustration at the limited impact on the policies and actions of public agencies. The Ocean Beach Master Plan process was intended to build on the efforts of these task forces by moving quickly and prioritizing results, while broadening the base of both community and agency stakeholders.

IX
155

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

outreach process
stakeholder interviews
In scoping the project and identifying key issues and voices, the OBMP conducted one-on-one interviews with dozens of public agency and community stakeholders in the Summer and Fall of 2010. and provide feedback.

steering committee
The Steering Committee is a small, non-delegable body consisting exclusively of agency directors, elected officials, and the PAC chair. The considerable interagency challenges at Ocean Beach made this high-level body indispensable in considering big-picture challenges at Ocean Beach. The Steering Committee met at key project milestones.

• Workshop 2: Test Scenarios Golden Gate Park Senior Center, June 2010 Attendance: ~60 • Workshop 3: Draft Recommendations Golden Gate Park Senior Center, October 2010 Attendance: ~60 • Online and Physical Survey Participants: 100

systematic and transparent fashion, and was heavily used. • Respondents to Draft recommendations Survey: 100 (15 paper, 85 online) • Twitter followers: 75 • Facebook followers: 210 Finally, SPUR used its extensive schedule of public programming to host several panels and an exhibition at the Urban Center Gallery, further extending the projects public engagement.

technical advisors
An on-call group of technical advisors was identified and enlisted to weigh in as needed on the scientific and engineering aspects of the project. These included coastal engineers, climate scientists, traffic specialists, and wildlife biologists.

online, social media, and other channels
Throughout the process, the OBMP team sought to use every available channel for public engagement, from posting multilingual fliers to Twitter. The project website includes the entire public record of the project, including all workshop presentations, public feedback, press clippings, and other resources. Two digital animations were developed by project consultants to explain complex technical processes in a clear, accessible manner. An online feedback tool allowed the public to respond to Draft Recommendations in a

public workshops
The process included three major public workshops, which included interactive exercises and numerous channels for obtaining and recording public feedback. • Workshop 1: Public Open House: Understanding Ocean Beach, San Francisco Zoo, January 2010 Attendance: >150

project phases
1. Startup (Jun-Aug, 2010) 2. Problem Definition (Sep-Dec, 2010) 3. Alternatives/Scenarios Development (Jan-May, 2011) 4. Draft Recommendations (MayOctober 2011) 5. Draft Master Plan Document (October 2011- February 2012)

planning advisory committee
The Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) consists of more than 30 members representing many points of view. It includes agency staff, issue advocates, and community leaders. The PAC met approximately every 8-10 weeks throughout the process to review work in progress

156

ocean beach master plan

sub-heading or photo caption

reroute great highway behind the zoo via sloat and skyline

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

JAN 27, 2012

| DRAFT

157

158

appendix

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

159

160

ocean beach master plan

technical memorandum 01 : coastal engineering
Prepared by: ESA PWA

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

161

162

ocean beach master plan

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

163

164

ocean beach master plan

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

165

166

ocean beach master plan

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

167

168

ocean beach master plan

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

169

170

ocean beach master plan

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

171

172

ocean beach master plan

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

173

174

ocean beach master plan

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

175

176

ocean beach master plan

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

177

178

ocean beach master plan

technical memorandum 01 : civil engineering
Prepared by: Sherwood Design Engineers

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

179

180

ocean beach master plan

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

181

182

ocean beach master plan

technical memorandum 01 : cost/benefit analysis
Prepared by: Phil G. King PhD

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

183

184

ocean beach master plan

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

185

186

ocean beach master plan

technical memorandum 01 : transportation
Prepared by: Nelson\Nygaard (forthcoming)

with

AECOM | ESA PWA | Nelson\Nygaard | Sherwood Design Engineers | Phil G. King Ph.D.

187

draft
ocean beach master plan
DRAFT January 27, 2012

188