Creek Daylighting: Glen Park

Community
A Public Outreach Effort Plan

Creek Daylighting in Glen Park:

Improving Open Space
Creating Public Space
Connecting Places
Project Clients
San Francisco Planning Department
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission

Paul Cheng
Masters Candidate
Department of Urban & Regional Planning
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Faculty Adviser:
Professor Brian Deal
Report Contents

1. Executive Summary

2. Boundaries & Context

3. History of Project

4. Creek Daylighting - A Strategy to Address Multiple Concerns

5. Public Agency Involvement & Motivations

6. Purpose of Project

7. Scope of Project

8. Current Status of Project

9. Physical Analysis & Design Considerations

10. Lessons Learned

11. Next Steps

12. Appendices

Glen Park Community Plan | 3

Executive Summary

The Glen Park neighborhood of San Francisco is a hub of activity. It is a major focal point in the San Francisco Bay Area
regional transportation network, it is the home to a unique local commercial corridor, and it supports a population base living
in both single- and multi-family housing. In addition, the Glen Park neighborhood is home to Glen Canyon, recognized as
one of San Francisco’s six “Significant Natural Resource Areas.” From the head of the canyon flows Islais Creek, currently
one of only two free-flowing creeks remaining in San Francisco. Decades after urbanization resulted in the creek’s burial
underground, the neighborhood and the city face an opportunity to “daylight” – or bring back to the surface – Islais Creek.

One of the strategies to emerge from the 2003 Glen Park Draft Community Plan was the potential daylighting of Islais Creek
through the Glen Park neighborhood. Community Plan workshop participants saw creek daylighting as a potential solution to
a number of recognized issues in the neighborhood. A running creek could form the centerpiece of an improved open space
corridor – with a stormwater management function – reviving a natural area while creating a public space currently absent from
the neighborhood. At the same time, this corridor could double as a transportation route, providing bicyclists and pedestrians
with a safe and scenic alternative to the busy Bosworth Street-O’Shaughnessy Boulevard transition. And while the idea of
creek daylighting met with community support then, seven years have since passed. Now, in 2010, San Francisco’s Planning
Department (Planning) and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) are renewing the planning effort to bring
creek daylighting into the Glen Park neighborhood.

The aim of this Master’s capstone project is to aid Planning and the SFPUC in their public outreach effort to explore a potential
creek daylighting project in the Glen Park neighborhood. Without an informed community, residents of the neighborhood will
not be able to sound a knowledgeable voice regarding an issue with wide-ranging ramifications. This project emphasizes
products that promote a successful public planning process. The creation of informational documents – community surveys,
case studies, frequently asked questions (FAQ) – and the participation in community events – meetings with residents,
outreach at street festivals, presentations at community meetings – will provide residents with the necessary information
of benefits, costs, and potential outcomes to make knowledgeable and informed decisions. These decisions, on a creek
daylighting project in their neighborhood, will not only affect the Glen Park neighborhood, but will affect the entire city of San
Francisco. Effectively reaching out to neighborhood residents will be a critical element in Planning and SFPUC’s planning
process to promote a potential creek daylighting project in the Glen Park neighborhood.

4 | Creek Daylighting: A Public Outreach Effort

Boundaries & Context network, and public gathering space. A linear greenway,
highlighted by a daylighted stretch of Islais Creek could
The Glen Park neighborhood, affectionately referred to connect the westernmost end of the Glen Park neighborhood
by residents as “the village,” encompasses Glen Park’s (Glen Canyon) to the easternmost edge (“downtown”) and
commercial district (herein referred to as “downtown”), establish the corridor as a deliberate public open space with
surrounding streets, the BART station, and public open spaces the potential to bridge the city’s bike network.1
(see Figure 1). Land uses include single- and multi-family
residential structures, commercial and retail businesses, a Brief History of Islais Creek
regional transit hub, institutional uses (elementary schools Prior to its burial under pavement and structures, Islais Creek
and library), and open space. The Glen Park neighborhood was one of San Francisco’s major waterways. It spanned
is bounded to the west by Glen Canyon and Glen Park from the headwaters at Twin Peaks in central San Francisco
Recreation Center, bounded to the north by Chenery Street, to its release point into the Bay in the city’s southeast Bayview/
bounded to the east by San Jose Avenue/Interstate 280, and Hunters Point District. In its most prominent stretch, through
bounded to the south by Monterey Boulevard. the modern-day Glen Park neighborhood, Islais Creek was
two miles wide. It was in
Glen Park, nicknamed
“Butchertown” because
of the high concentration
of slaughterhouses, that
Islais Creek became a
dumping ground for animal
and residential waste.
The pollution and its
resultant odors and public
health risks preceded the
creek’s eventual burial
underground.2

Figure 1. Glen Park Community Plan Study Area At present, Islais Creek
flows above ground through Glen Canyon Park, and during
History of Project
the rainy season, the creek’s water level is well above that
during the drier parts of the year. Once the creek approaches
In 2003, the San Francisco Planning Department (Planning)
the Glen Park Recreation Center, it flows into an underground
held a series of public workshops to develop a community
culvert running under houses, a public utilities easement, and
plan for the Glen Park neighborhood. The purpose of the
generally along Bosworth Street. At this culvert, the creek
workshops was to engage the community and aid Planning
enters San Francisco’s combined sewer system.
in gathering information regarding the community’s existing
conditions and needs. Workshop participants identified key
issues related to Glen Park’s public realm and open space
and transportation networks. Many of the issues raised
related to residents’ desire to foster a stronger sense of place
in the Glen Park neighborhood and to improve connectivity
throughout the neighborhood. Consistent with the concepts
of sense of place and connectivity were three issues cited: an
underused open space corridor, a gap in the citywide bicycle
network, and a lack of public gathering space.

One of the strategies proposed by workshop participants,

“Greenway Connection to Glen Canyon,” offered an approach
to address the three issues of open space, city bike
Glen Park Community Plan | 5
Creek Daylighting – A Strategy to Address
Multiple Concerns
The proposal to daylight Islais Creek throughout the Glen
Park neighborhood, if designed properly and sensitive to
residents’ concerns, can begin to address the key community
issues of underutilized open space areas, lack of connectivity
into the city’s bike network, and a dearth of public gathering
spaces.
Underutilized, Unofficial Open Space Corridor
Spanning the stretch of Bosworth from Brompton Street to Elk
Street is a continuous, linear greenway. The land consists of
several vacant parcels, owned by the Department of Public
Works (DPW), and sits atop a DPW easement. The north
side of the corridor (directly adjacent to Bosworth Street)
is bordered by trees, primarily EucaIyptus. The southern
edge is framed by single family houses. The corridor itself is
characterized by a grassy swath. In the daytime, foot traffic
along this corridor is light. However, the presence of a well-
worn footpath through the corridor indicates a fairly regular
degree of use (see Figure 2).
Figure 2. An informal footpath runs through this corridor parallel to Bosworth St.
Daylighting Islais Creek through this open space corridor
presents an array of potential benefits to the neighborhood.
The linear and relatively unimpeded nature – a long stretch
of turf grass transitioning to an unmaintained, weedy strip
– of the corridor lends itself well to a continuous greenway
connecting Glen Canyon and Glen Park Recreation Center to
the downtown district. Implementing a defined trail or walkway
would formalize the existing footpath and encourage a higher
volume of pedestrian traffic (and thus improving safety). In
addition, the corridor abuts the St. John Elementary School
schoolyard; this presents an opportunity to create an outdoor
“living laboratory” that could enhance the school’s
6 | Creek Daylighting: A Public Outreach Effort
curriculum. If landscaped according to San Francisco’s native
vegetation palette, the daylighted creek and greenway could
provide new habitat for native wildlife, including butterflies,
birds, and other riparian wildlife.
Returning Islais Creek to the surface offers potential stormwater
management benefits to not only the neighborhood, but also
San Francisco as a whole. A daylighted Islais Creek would
allow for a consistent volume of water to remain within the
creek’s banks and outside of the city’s combined sewer system.
By diverting water from the sewer, daylighting would further
mitigate neighborhood flood risks and reduce storage and
treatment demands on the sewer system. By implementing
Low Impact Design (LID) strategies in conjunction, including
rain gardens, detention basins, and native riparian vegetation,
the creek could provide a substantial amount of cleansing
and infiltration of stormwater flows.*
Void in the Citywide Bike Network
Downtown Glen Park is a hub of transportation activity. Four
MUNI bus lines stop along the intersection of Bosworth and
Diamond Streets; the J-Church MUNI light rail line traverses
San Jose Avenue to the immediate southeast; convenient
automobile access via freeway exists to downtown San
Francisco, the South Bay (Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara),
and the East Bay (Berkeley, Oakland, Fremont); and the
BART station likewise provides a public transit connection
throughout much of the greater Bay Area region. The one
mode of transport neglected is the bicycle. Unlike much of
the rest of the central portion of the city, downtown Glen Park
is without bike infrastructure. On Bosworth between Diamond
and Elk Streets, cyclists must compete with automobiles
for lane space without much of a shoulder. This five-block
stretch is a deterrent to intra-city commuters who need to
reach areas such as the Sunset District, the West Portal
commercial corridor, or Golden Gate Park.
Daylighting Islais Creek along the DPW easement as part of
a multipurpose greenway would make it possible for passive
creekside recreation, pedestrian traffic, and a bicycle lane.
Including a bicycle lane along the greenway would provide
not only a safe route, but an aesthetically pleasing and scenic
one. Considerations would need to be made, however, for
the change in grade upon the approach to O’Shaughnessy
* Low Impact Design refers to a stormwater management approach that
treats stormwater as a resource, and is modeled after nature: manage
rainfall at the source using distributed and small-scale controls. LID’s
goal is to mimic a site’s pre-development runoff pattern by using design
techniques that infiltrate, filter, store, evaporate, and detain stormwater
close to its source.
 Boulevard. One possibility is to continue the bike lane
across Elk Street and into the western edge of the Glen Park
Recreation Center.

Lack of Neighborhood Public Gathering Space Glen Canyon

Park
The Glen Park neighborhood possesses a unique combination
of amenities in San Francisco. At one end sits Glen Canyon, Islais Creek -

recognized by the Recreation and Park Department as one

Current Stretch

of the city’s six “Significant Natural Resource Areas.”3 A truly

Glen Park
Rec Center

well-kept natural treasure in the city, Glen Canyon is home “Downtown” Glen Park
Corridor

to a number of different habitat types and supports a varied Creek Daylighting -

Candidate Stretch

wildlife community. At the other end of the neighborhood, BART Regional

Transit Hub
I-280

downtown Glen Park features a number of quality restaurants

and retail establishments as well as the above-mentioned LEGEND
N
regional transit links. Even with this combination of features,
Creek - Glen Park
Existing Stretch Rec Center
Creek - Glen Canyon

Glen Park does not have a gathering space such as a Candidate Stretch Park
Principle Commercial
Roadway Corridor

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

Residential
Area

can congregate and socialize. The BART plaza does have

BART Regional
I-280 Interstate
Transit Hub
Highway 280
Congested

a circular seating area; however, strong winds create a less-

+
Intersection

Figure 3. A daylighted creek would create multi-purpose public space that connects
than-ideal atmosphere for gathering while a surrounding the neighborhood.
fence restricts access and deters passersby from entering
public space. Planning wants to explore the daylighting of
the plaza.
Islais Creek for its potential as a multi-purpose community
amenity that, in addition to addressing the above-state
The potential path for a daylighted creek could easily
concerns, would also introduce to the neighborhood many
feature seat walls, viewing mounds, and other gathering
other tangible benefits, including an increase in neighborhood
spaces. With a unique natural feature – only two freeflowing
property values, increased commercial opportunity for local
creeks survive in San Francisco, and neither flow through
businesses that result from the neighborhood’s status as
neighborhoods – as its focus, the open space corridor would
a destination, habitat creation for native plant and animal
become an attraction for a diverse range of users – bicyclists,
species, rediscovering a part of Glen Park’s natural heritage,
casual walkers, wildlife observers, children playing in water,
creation of an outdoor education resource, and on-site
and other city residents looking for a smidgeon of nature in
stormwater management.
the city. The creek’s path would then form a bridge between
the natural Glen Canyon and the ultra-urbanized downtown
For Planning, the potential daylighting of Islais Creek ties
Glen Park (see Figure 3).
in to a more sensitive land use/development issue: the
development of the BART surface parking lot, which is
Public Agency Involvement & Motivations
situated on Bosworth Street just east of Diamond Street, for
mixed-income housing. Federal transportation funding slated
San Francisco Planning Department (Planning)
for BART’s development project will provide Planning with
The San Francisco Planning Department’s 2003 Glen Park
funding to support Glen Park neighborhood improvement.
Community Plan addressed transportation, land use, and
A large aspect of Planning’s neighborhood improvement
urban design issues in the Glen Park neighborhood. The
effort is the study of community and physical feasibility of
idea to daylight Islais Creek surfaced in the public workshops
daylighting Islais Creek.
as a part of a larger concept to take advantage of an existing
public utilities easement – that runs between the Glen Park
Recreation Center and downtown Glen Park – and convert it
to a linear greenway. The greenway and its centerpiece, a
daylighted Islais Creek, could potentially address community-
cited shortcomings in the neighborhood’s transportation
network, public open/gathering space, and underused

Glen Park Community Plan | 7

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
(SFPUC)
One of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s
three domains is Wastewater, which entails managing San
Francisco’s combined sewer system (treats both sewage and
stormwater). For the last several years, SFPUC has been
making an effort to promote Low Impact Design (LID) as a
feasible strategy to manage the city’s stormwater runoff. Low
Impact Design emphasizes stormwater facilities that “mimic
natural watershed processes by replicating pre-existing
hydrologic site conditions. LID directs runoff to natural
vegetated systems, such as landscaped planters, swales
and gardens that reduce, filter or slow stormwater runoff.”4
SFPUC acknowledges that LID best management practices
(BMPs) – as implemented in an urbanized context such as San
Francisco – is not practicable as a substitute for the existing,
conventional system of sewer pipes and treatment plants.
However, when sited, designed, and managed appropriately,
LID BMPs can reduce the stormwater conveyance and
treatment demands on the city’s combined sewer system.
SFPUC’s involvement in the Glen Park neighborhood – and
in particular, the Islais Creek – is driven by the stormwater
management potential of daylighting Islais Creek. In a 2009
technical memorandum analyzing potential LID opportunities
within the Islais Creek Basin – in which Glen Park resides –
SFPUC envisions 7,000 linear-feet of Islais Creek daylighted
along a 19,000 linear-foot route terminating in the San
Francisco Bay. Of the five potential projects modeled, Islais
Creek Daylighting graded out the highest.5 Daylighting
Islais Creek would effectively increase San Francisco’s
wastewater treatment capacity. A small but non-negligible
portion of stormwater flows in the Islais Creek Basin would
be diverted from the underground sewer system and run in
the creek. Along the creek would be other strategically sited
LID BMPs – rain gardens to enhance stormwater infiltration
and groundwater recharge; aesthetically pleasing detention
basins and check dams to reduce peak flows and encourage
pollutant settling.
Purpose of Project
At the time Planning convened public workshops for its
Glen Park Community Plan in 2003, neighborhood residents
supported exploring the idea of daylighting Islais Creek.
(The consultant’s subsequent conceptual designs showed a
daylighted creek running through both currently vacant, city-
owned parcels and through parts of the neighborhood.)
8 | Creek Daylighting: A Public Outreach Effort
However, in recent conversations with Planning staff, the
citizen support expressed at the 2003 public meetings do
not appear to be universal among neighborhood residents at
present.6 Residents’ concerns with a daylighted creek involve
loss of street parking, increased loitering in the neighborhood,
increased mosquito breeding habitat, and increased flood
risk. Ultimately, the decision on whether or not the city
pursues a creek daylighting project in Glen Park rests in the
hands of neighborhood residents. It is, however, the mutual
belief of both Planning and SFPUC that regardless of the
end conclusion, residents should have the best information
possible at their disposal. Thus, in concert with any future
public meetings or workshops centered on creek daylighting,
Planning and SFPUC are making a concerted effort to supply
Glen Park neighborhood residents with all relevant and
available information to allow residents to make the most
informed decision.
The purpose of this project is to assist Planning and SFPUC
(collectively referred to as the “Client”) with their joint public
outreach effort to inform Glen Park neighborhood residents
about the benefits and costs of creek daylighting and to
gauge community support for and/or opposition to such a
project in the neighborhood. This effort includes not only the
preparation and dissemination of informational materials, but
also the obtainment and analysis of community feedback and
participation in community events and meetings. These three
areas necessarily form an iterative loop where findings in
one area inform the proceedings in another (e.g. community
concerns disclosed in a survey would inform topics covered
in a “frequently asked questions” document).
Scope of Project
The scope of this project covers the creation and distribution of
outreach and feedback materials – frequently asked questions
(FAQ), case studies, online survey, visual preference survey
– to participation in outreach and community events –
neighborhood meetings and workshops.
Project Components: Tasks
A. Online Survey –
Task
a. Design a survey to gauge neighborhood residents’
perceptions of and attitudes towards the natural areas
and natural amenities in the Glen Park neighborhood.
Areas of particular interest include use of recreation
areas/facilities, connections to “downtown,”
 awareness of landscape features and services,
attitude toward a potential creek daylighting
project, awareness of local watershed health, and
attitude towards improving the local watershed.
b. Analyze survey results in regards to above-stated
areas of interest. In particular, determine the current
level of support for and interest in exploring a creek
daylighting project in the neighborhood, and identify
what kinds of information might address any concerns
expressed by residents in the survey.
B. Case Studies –
Task
Identify several relevant precedent projects and draft
case studies of past creek daylighting projects – drawing
primarily from examples in California, but throughout the
U.S. as well. One of the most effective ways to present the
feasibility of any given project is to identify and describe
previous successful projects of similar scale and context.
Precedent projects provide tangible evidence of realized
benefits and costs, and lessons learned. If chosen
appropriately in terms of scale and context, they can also
provide reasonable expectations for necessary planning
efforts, benefits, and costs in the current situation.
C. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Sheet –
Task
Develop a one-page handout addressing frequently asked
questions and commonly held perceptions pertaining to
creek daylighting. The FAQ should address areas such
as defining the term, “creek daylighting,” the purpose(s)
behind creek daylighting, and what benefits and costs
might accrue to a community in which a creek is daylighted.
Community feedback will inform the document’s content.
D. Visual Preference Survey & Presentation Boards –
Task
Along with the online survey, a visual preference survey
(VPS) would provide design guidance for any potential
creek daylighting project in the Glen Park neighborhood.
Areas of particular importance include: creek channel
design, edge treatment and materials, vegetation intensity,
level of accessibility, and potential as a streetside water
feature. The format of the VPS will be an online survey
as well as a set of presentation boards to be used as an
interactive exercise at a public community workshop on
creek daylighting.
E. Participation in Community Events (Meetings,
Workshops, Outreach Opportunities) –
Task
At scheduled and ad-hoc community events, provide
support materials and assistance relating to creek
daylighting. Anticipated events include the Glen Park
Festival and community meetings to address a revised Glen
Park Community Plan and creek daylighting, specifically.
Support materials will likely include visual preference
boards and FAQ/case study handouts.
Project Components: Results and Findings
A. Online Survey –
Results
a. Survey Design: The online survey underwent
numerous iterations in response to feedback from
both the project faculty advisor, Professor Brian
Deal, and the Client, the San Francisco Public
Utilities Commission (SFPUC) and the San Francisco
Planning Department (Planning). The survey covers
a spectrum of topics with the overarching goal of
understanding Glen Park neighborhood residents’
awareness and use of neighborhood open space
areas and recreation opportunities; valuation of
natural features and landscape services; support
of or opposition to the potential daylighting of Islais
Creek through the neighborhood; and willingness
of respondents to participate in community-based
conservation efforts of the greater watershed.
b. As of this report’s date, the online survey has not
been released for public response. The initial cause
for the delay was a conflict in timing with another Glen
Park neighborhood-planning effort. Superseding the
creek daylighting issue has been the related issues of
parking and future development of the BART surface
parking lot. BART’s plan to develop its parking lot into
residential units – including affordable housing – has
met with strong interest from Glen Park neighborhood
residents. The Client has decided to wait to issue the
survey to avoid overwhelming residents with surveys
as BART has issued its own survey.
Analysis and summary of survey results will not occur until a
later date and will not be included in this version of the report.
See Appendix A to view the entire online survey.
Glen Park Community Plan | 9
 B. Case Studies –
Results
The goal of the case studies was to identify and present
precedent creek daylighting projects applicable to the
Glen Park neighborhood. Because of the diversity in
the neighborhood’s land uses – ranging from a natural
area to residential streets to a commercial corridor – the
cases chosen had to also reflect a broad range of social
environments. The six precedent projects ultimately
chosen do reflect a wide range of settings and scales.
They range from neighborhood parks (Strawberry Creek
Park) to school sites (Blackberry Creek) to downtown
business districts (Arcadia Creek, San Luis Obispo Creek).
Additionally, the primary motivations behind these projects
also varied. Strawberry Creek Park reclaimed a derelict
railyard and created a welcome neighborhood park. The
Blackberry Creek project created an outdoor, natural
sciences laboratory for elementary school students. In
fact, Thousand Oaks School evolved into a magnet school
for the natural sciences. The Arcadia Creek and San Luis
Obispo Creek projects brought vibrancy back into their
respective business districts and created water amenities
that are sometimes the principal attractor of visitors to the
neighborhoods. The Prince Memorial Greenway in Santa
Rosa bridged the downtown and Railroad Square districts
via bike and pedestrian path.
In terms of reference materials, the universe of publicly
available research documenting daylighting projects is
quite limited. The pre-eminent publication, however, is
Richard Pinkham’s “Daylighting: New Life for Buried
Streams,” published by the Rocky Mountain Institute. The
document contained rather brief but comprehensive reports
on a number of creek daylighting projects. It comprised the
principal source for the Arcadia Creek, Strawberry Creek
Park, and Blackberry Creek case studies. Supplemental
references included two previous Master’s projects
focused on daylighting, various municipal websites, and a
newspaper article. While creek daylighting is fast becoming
a phenomenon of reintroducing nature to the city, the body
of literature that documents and monitors these efforts is
surprisingly limited. See Appendix B to for the complete
case studies.
C. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Sheet –
Results
SFPUC staff had previously drafted a FAQ-type document
addressing creek daylighting. Modifications and additions
to the content made it more relevant to the Glen Park
10 | Creek Daylighting: A Public Outreach Effort
neighborhood context. Updated images and layout made
the document consistent with the layout established for all
project documents. Because the online survey has not
been released or analyzed, the FAQ does not reflect issues
unique to the Glen Park neighborhood. See Appendix C
for the complete FAQ document.
D. Visual Preference Survey & Presentation Boards –
Results
The visual preference survey (VPS) and presentation
boards address a number of physical elements related to
a potential creek daylighting project. These topics include
dry weather appearance (what the creek would look like
without flowing water), general character, channel design
(the creek’s shape), and level of accessibility. The VPS is
designed as a follow-up exercise to the more general online
survey. Only in the case of extremely negative community
response to creek daylighting (expressed in the online sur-
vey) would the VPS not be issued. The VPS has not been
released as of this report’s date because the online survey
has not yet been released and a community meeting has
not yet been held. See Appendix D for the complete visual
preference survey.
E. Participation in Community Events (Meetings, Work-
shops, Outreach Opportunities) –
Results
To date, the Client has not held a community meeting or
workshop on creek daylighting. However, two other com-
munity events did allow for outreach. On April 12th, the
project team met with a group of residents who expressed
their opposition to any potential creek daylighting project
in the Glen Park neighborhood. Issues cited included
doubts about the city’s ability to maintain a daylighted
creek, and concerns about erosion, flooding, sewer back-
ups, child and pet safety, loitering, litter, and mosquito
breeding. The residents also offered to finance their own
engineering and feasibility study, which the project team
declined. All parties did agree to coordinate a general
Planning’s booth was well-attended during the Glen Park Festival on April 25th.
 community meeting to discuss creek daylighting. The
meeting will likely take place in July 2010.
Planning sponsored a booth at the April 25th Glen Park
Festival. In addition to general outreach on the Glen Park
Community Plan, the project team shared informal interaction
with festival-goers and distributed an informational packet
containing the FAQ and two case studies.
Current Status of Project
This project – a public outreach effort to explore a potential
creek daylighting project in the Glen Park neighborhood
of San Francisco – has slowed from the original schedule.
As of April 2010, all of the outreach materials have been
prepared. The FAQ and two case studies have been posted
on Planning’s Glen Park Community Plan website (the
documents can be downloaded at http://www.sf-planning.org/
index.aspx?page=1666). The four remaining case studies,
online survey, and VPS have not been released for public
distribution or participation. The Client anticipates rolling
out the online survey immediately following the planned July
2010 community meeting. If residents express an interest to
explore the possibility of creek daylighting, the release of the
VPS will likely follow.
In just about any public planning effort, the process is just
as important as the end product. Citizens want to play an
instrumental role in the planning efforts that will ultimately
affect them and their community; they do not want to feel
as if a bureaucracy is forcing something upon them against
their will. The creek daylighting outreach effort in Glen Park
has proved no different. In specific, three principal issues, all
relating to the overriding concern for community involvement,
have served to delay the project.
1. BART’s (Bay Area Rapid Transit) Simultaneous
Planning Campaign – BART planned to launch
a survey and public planning process of its own
for its plans to develop a BART-owned surface
parking lot, for a residential project, adjacent to
downtown Glen Park. As the BART development
took precedence to the creek daylighting effort, our
survey got postponed for at least a couple of months.
2. SFPUC’s Increased Level of Involvement – In an April
8th meeting with SFPUC Communications staff and
the Client, the project team decided to adjust the
approach to community outreach regarding the creek
daylighting effort. Citing the amount of time that had
elapsed from the initial Glen Park Community Plan
document (2003) and the current efforts, as well as
SFPUC’s intention to become more involved in the
planning process, Communications determined that it
would be prudent to hold back on the online survey and
VPS until after formally re-engaging the community
in a town hall/public forum meeting to gauge the
community’s overall attitude towards creek daylighting.
Communications stressed the importance of involving
the community at the outset and not making community
participation seem like a mere formality.
3. Group of Neighbors Opposed to Project – In March
2010, an attorney representing certain Glen Park
neighborhood residents contacted the project clients
to inquire about the status of the creek daylighting
project. The clients emphasized that no plan was in
place and that no decisions to pursue the project further
would occur without the community’s endorsement.
Shortly thereafter, the project team agreed to meet
with this group of residents. On Monday, April 12th,
Jon Swae (from Planning) and I met with the residents
represented by the above-mentioned attorney.
The residents at the meeting (referred to as “meeting
residents”) were well-organized and stated their
opposition to any creek daylighting in the Glen Park
neighborhood. They all live in a cul-de-sac immediately
adjacent to the most likely location for daylighting, and
they voiced their concerns:
• Bad Neighbors: The adjacent school does not
adequately manage its own stormwater, which in
heavy rains, causes erosion and debris buildup on
meeting residents’ properties
• No Faith in the City: In response to a meeting
resident’s complaints about the school, the City
offered only that he could lease a city-owned
parcel adjacent to the school and use it to manage
the stormwater problem
• Maintenance: The level of service for streetscape
and park maintenance has steadily declined over
last several years, and so the meeting residents
do not trust that the city would adequately maintain
and care for the increased responsibility that a
daylighted creek would create
Glen Park Community Plan | 11
 • Safety issues: E. coli recently reported in the
creek; creek would present drowning risk to young
children
• Sewer backups into houses: Downstream
neighbors have complained of sewage backups
into their basements: If the creek is daylighted
upstream, what would keep sewage from backing
up into the creek and entering meeting residents’
homes?
• Pests: Mosquitoes and other pests would breed in
a daylighted creek, especially in standing water
• Graffiti and Trespassing: People walk along
the green corridor even though a low fence
discourages access. However, meeting residents
have experienced foot traffic and graffiti vandalism
along their homes. A prominent creek would only
create even more opportunities for vandalism and
trespassing
While it seems that the public outreach effort has slowed –
and even stalled – looking at the situation in a slightly different
light actually shows progress in the public planning process.
For one, we are taking a step back to reassess the situation,
making sure the community enters the conversation from the
start. This will help the project team to:
1. gain the community’s trust in that the community will
play an integral role in the planning effort;
2. determine the community’s overall level of support for a
creek daylighting project, and thus, whether it is feasible
for Planning and the SFPUC to pursue such a project.
Secondly, the project team has already engaged one
important stakeholder group – the neighbors in closest
proximity to a potential daylighting site – in a preliminary
discussion of their opposition to any daylighting project in
their neighborhood. Hearing and noting their concerns, the
project team has an opportunity to address these concerns in
front of a larger, more representative community audience.
12 | Creek Daylighting: A Public Outreach Effort
Physical Analysis & Design Considerations
Due to the heavily urbanized nature of the Glen Park
neighborhood, a complete daylighting of Islais Creek along
its historic stretch is infeasible. Instead, a partial daylighting,
where portions of the creek are brought to the surface, is a
more realistic possibility. Substantial portions of Islais Creek
run along utility easements owned by the SFPUC; these
portions of the neighborhood provide favorable opportunities.
An April 2009 technical memorandum prepared for the SFPUC
described in greater detail the extent of a creek daylighting:
• Earthen channels, on average, could be up to 6-feet wide
and 2-feet deep
• These dimensions would be sufficient to convey a peak
flow of 36.5 cubic feet per second, equivalent to the half-
year, three-hour storm
• Concrete culverts would convey flow under street
crossings
• Overflow facilities would direct excess flows to the
combined sewer system7
Without community feedback into the appearance and
physical characteristics of a daylighted creek, the project
team developed several rough, conceptual designs of a
daylighted Islais Creek. The most distinctive features include
a detention pond behind the St. John’s School schoolyard that
could serve as an outdoor classroom for St. John’s School
as well as the nearby Glen Park Elementary School. In the
“downtown” Glen Park corridor, the creek would transition into
an urban water feature, fully interactive. The water feature
could form the centerpiece of a public gathering space. See
Appendix E for conceptual sketches.
Lessons Learned
From this project, the report author learned a lot about the
public planning process. For one thing, everything is simpler,
faster, and more straightforward on the planner’s proverbial
“drawing board.” Technical and economic feasibility are only
two of the three essential key factors in the planning process.
The third factor, of course, is public involvement/political
feasibility. If the public, or a community in particular, objects
to the planner’s process or project, the planner will encounter
a more difficult and potentially more costly effort to push her
project through. Of course, in a city like San Francisco, with
a history of strong community involvement and outspoken
stakeholder groups, any perceived lack of public
engagement by planners can grind even the most promising
projects to a halt. In brief, here are a few things I have learned
while working on this project.
a. The public planning process is finicky – it is a moving
target
The public planning process resembles a complex
mathematical equation with multiple, interdependent
variables. When one thing comes up, for instance,
the outcry of a well-organized and well-endowed
opposition group or a simultaneously occurring project,
everything else must shift accordingly. Outreach
efforts – informational documents, participation at
community events, etc. – must adapt to the changing
circumstances. I have produced multiple versions of
nearly everything – FAQ, case studies, community
survey – to meet the changing needs of the planning
process. The community survey, in particular, required
a huge effort because of the vacillations between the
broader theme of community open space to one more
focused on creek daylighting. Finally, the project team
settled on preparing both surveys. In perfect sync with
this bullet point, neither survey has been released for
public consumption.
b. Start from the big picture and work down
One thing that I realized and experienced was that
planners can really get caught up in the details of a
project. But when communicating to the community,
an audience likely to be far less knowledgeable on
the subject, the planner has to be able to step back
and work from the big picture level. In the case of this
project – a public outreach effort on creek daylighting
in the Glen Park neighborhood of San Francisco – we
were mindful of the fact that while residents and local
businesses had their individual interests – property
values, street parking, safety and flood risks, traffic
– they likely did not share the planner’s big-picture
perspective of the project. For instance, planners are
cognizant of the role creek daylighting has played in
improving adjacent property values, the reduction of
flood risks, increases in local business activity, and
creating safe and educational public spaces. Zooming
even further out, creek daylighting can play an
instrumental role in improving local watershed health.
The benefits are apparent for flora and fauna, but they
also noticeably improve the human living environment
through lower ambient temperatures, better air quality,
creation of pedestrian-friendly spaces, and improved
functioning of the wastewater system. The lesson
learned here is that by keeping sight of the big picture,
planners can communicate the full range of project
benefits and thus improve their chances of gaining
the public support necessary to make a project
successful.
c. Momentum is as quickly lost as it is gained
When the idea of creek daylighting came up in 2003,
it played a prominent role in the Glen Park Community
Plan. Yet, seven years have elapsed since anyone
seriously broached the subject in the community. In such
a large time span, many things change. Neighborhood
residents turn over, and Census socioeconomic
data relevant in 2003 might no longer apply in 2010.
Planners need to re-engage local community groups,
such as the Friends of Glen Canyon Park, as well as
reach out to the greater community while mindful of the
new audience. Of course, the states of science and of
public opinion change and evolve over seven years.
The planning process must likewise adapt to and
apply these changes. Momentum, if not harnessed
immediately, can vanish just as quickly as it appeared.
When at all possible, planners should take advantage
of any momentum in their favor.
Next Steps
The immediate next step will be to schedule a town hall-style
community meeting for a preliminary discussion of a potential
creek daylighting project in the neighborhood. Knowledgeable
staff from both the SFPUC and Planning will help to facilitate
the meeting and answer questions and concerns similar to
those mentioned by the group of neighbors with whom the
project team has already met (e.g. child safety, pest problems,
flooding and erosion, etc.). A date has not yet been set, but
the tentative target is July 2010.
The second step will be to issue the online community survey.
Analysis of the survey results will strengthen the argument for
or against a potential creek daylighting project. With survey
results supporting further study of a daylighting project, the
project team will then take two simultaneous steps: issue
the visual preference survey (VPS) and perform a feasibility
study. The goal of the VPS is to inform any potential designs
with community input. The feasibility study will help to
determine the technical and physical requirements needed
to turn a creek daylighting project into a reality.
Glen Park Community Plan | 13
If, on the other hand, the community survey’s results indicate
a majority opposition to creek daylighting – and a daylighting
project appears to be politically infeasible – then we will
temporarily shelve any creek daylighting efforts and take a
different tact. We will reassess the overall strategy for the
Glen Park neighborhood, and one likely scenario will be to
engage the community in programs that increase watershed
awareness. The objective of increasing watershed awareness
in the Glen Park neighborhood is to show residents how
important private and public land use is to environmental
health and ultimately human health. Utilizing land in ways
that improve the health of the natural environment will also
improve the health of the human living environment. Relevant
activities that would apply to the Glen Park neighborhood
include volunteer creek clean-ups, walking tours describing
the creek and its history, rain barrel subsidy promotions, and
the engagement of neighborhood schools in “green schools”
initiatives that are taking place at other San Francisco
schools. As a result of this campaign, then, residents would
see how creek daylighting would be a logical and beneficial
land use in the Glen Park neighborhood.

1
Glen Park Draft Community Plan. November 2003. San Francisco Planning Department.
2
LID Basin Analysis Technical Memorandum: Islais Creek Drainage Basin. Prepared for San Francisco Public Utilities Commission – Wastewater
Enterprise, Urban Watershed Management Program. April 2009.
3
Neighborhood Parks Council website. Accessed on 03/15/10. http://www.sfnpc.org/glencanyonhistory
4
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission website. Accessed on 03/18/10. http://sfwater.org/mto_main.cfm/MC_ID/14/MSC_ID/361/MTO_ID/541.
5
LID Basin Analysis Technical Memorandum: Islais Creek Drainage Basin. Prepared for San Francisco Public Utilities Commission – Wastewater
Enterprise, Urban Watershed Management Program. April 2009.
6
Personal communication with Jon Swae, Planning Department, 2010.
7
LID Basin Analysis Technical Memorandum: Islais Creek Drainage Basin. Prepared for San Francisco Public Utilities Commission – Wastewater
Enterprise, Urban Watershed Management Program. April 2009.

14 | Creek Daylighting: A Public Outreach Effort

Appendix A - Online Survey

Thank you for taking part in our survey!

Hello, my name is Paul Cheng. I am a graduate student and San Francisco native currently
studying Urban Planning at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. For my Masters
project, I am working with the San Francisco Planning Department and San Francisco Public
Utilities Commission to understand Glen Park neighborhood residents' thoughts and ideas about
the potential to daylight the Islais Creek through parts of the Glen Park neighborhood.
Daylighting refers to the act of exposing some or all of a previously covered creek, river, or
stream.

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

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

_____________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

Glen Park Community Plan | 15

 Appendix A - Online Survey

1. Are you a resident of the Glen Park neighborhood?

(In conjunction with the Glen Park Community Plan, the Glen Park neighborhood includes areas within ¼
mile of the BART station, but also includes extensions of the street network and public spaces within a ½
mile radius of the station. See graphic below.)
Yes
No

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

Yes
No
I don’t know

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

5 or more times a week

2 to 4 times a week
1 or fewer times a week
Never

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

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

Walk
Drive
Bike
Public Transit
* This question is hidden – it is triggered by certain response to previous question.

16 | Creek Daylighting: A Public Outreach Effort

Appendix A - Online Survey

5. What route do you most frequently bike/walk between Glen Canyon and downtown/the village?*
Chenery Street
Elk Street
Grassy trail along Bosworth Street
Other _______________________

Recreation in the Glen Park Neighborhood

6. How important is it that you are able to do the following in the Glen Park neighborhood?
(Rate from 1 to 5, with 5 meaning “very important.”)
Not
1 2 3 4 5
Important
Walking

Jogging

Hiking

Dog walking

Wildlife or plant observation (including bird watching)

Connecting with nature

Picnicking or barbecuing

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

Facility sports (including tennis, basketball)

Meditation or yoga
People watching

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

Glen Park Community Plan | 17

 Appendix A - Online Survey

8. Please rate the following statements about use and access to Glen Park neighborhood parks, trails, and
recreation facilities. (Rate from 1 to 5, with 1 meaning “strongly disagree” and 5 meaning “strongly
agree.”)
Strongly Strongly
disagree agree
1 2 3 4 5
It is convenient to get to parks, trails, or recreation
facilities
Parks, trails, or recreation facilities are crowded when I
visit

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

neighborhood

Glen Park neighborhood’s parks, trails, or recreation

facilities give me a break from city life

Glen Park Recreation Center connects smoothly with

“downtown” Glen Park

Additional or Improved Recreation Opportunities

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

Yes, on a regular basis

Yes, occasionally
No
I don’t know

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

Access to recreation activities not available in Glen Park

To visit different parts of the City
Glen Park facilities are too crowded
Glen Park does not offer the recreation opportunities I want
I don’t go to parks or open space areas outside of Glen Park
Other _________________________________________

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

More walking paths/trails

Bike paths
Longer hours for Glen Park Recreation Center
Areas to meet and socialize
Dedicated bird or wildlife observation areas
Additional sports facilities (including fields, courts)
Water features (including water fountains, waterfalls, shallow ponds)
Other _________________________________________

18 | Creek Daylighting: A Public Outreach Effort

Appendix A - Online Survey

Landscape Features and Landscape Services in the Glen Park Neighborhood

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

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

Rocky hillsides
Grassy fields
Tree-lined walks
Paths or trails to walk
Home to birds and other wildlife
Native wild flowers
Flowing creeks or streams
Ponds or lakes
None
Other _________________________________________

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

Yes
No
I don’t know

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

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

Hiking trails
Plant or wildlife observation (including bird watching)
Flowering plants or trees
Shaded areas to walk and rest
Presence of wildlife, including birds, bees, squirrels
Absorption and infiltration of stormwater
Cooler temperatures
Quiet areas for reflection
None
Other _________________________________________

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

Yes
No
I don’t know

Islais Creek

Glen Park Community Plan | 19

 Appendix A - Online Survey

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

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

I have seen Islais Creek

I have heard of Islais Creek
I have heard of AND seen Islais Creek
I have NOT heard of or seen Islais Creek
I don’t know

Creek Daylighting

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

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

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

Support
Oppose
No Opinion

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

Walk alongside it
Wade in it
Use it as a meeting place with friends
Listen to the sound of flowing water
Observe nearby plant and wildlife
I would not want to interact with it
Other _________________________________________

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

20 | Creek Daylighting: A Public Outreach Effort

Appendix A - Online Survey

20. On a scale of 1 to 5, how would you rank your interest in the following items related to a possible
daylighting of Islais Creek?
Not Very
interested interested
1 2 3 4 5

Increased range of recreational opportunities

Outdoor education opportunities for schools

Wildlife habitat recreation

Alternative transportation corridor (bike and pedestrian)

Filtering and absorption of stormwater on site

Beautification of the neighborhood

Distinctive feature for the neighborhood

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

Not Strongly
concerned concerned
1 2 3 4 5

Mosquitoes

Traffic congestion

Loss of parking

Attraction of loiterers, vandals

Water overflowing the creek bed

Maintenance concerns

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

Glen Park Community Plan | 21

 Appendix A - Online Survey

Low Impact Design & Watershed Awareness

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

23. On a scale of 1 to 5, indicate how important or unimportant the following potential benefits of Low
Impact Design are to you.
Not Very
important important
1 2 3 4 5

Reduces stormwater entering sewers

Less expensive than current system

Creates new green space or enhances existing green

spaces

Enhances wildlife habitat

Does not increase mosquito populations

Beautifies our neighborhood

I like the current system as it is

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

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

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

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

I think the current system works fine

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

Irrigate my garden or lawn

Irrigate street trees and plantings

Provide a unique visual element to open space areas

Create water features like waterfalls, streams

Captures it to flush toilets

No purpose

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

Collect stormwater in a rain barrel for irrigation of my yard

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

22 | Creek Daylighting: A Public Outreach Effort

Appendix A - Online Survey

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

Plant a wildflower meadow of native plants in my yard

None

Other ______________________________

Future Contact

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

Yes

No

If yes, please include your name and contact information so we can keep you informed of upcoming
presentations or meetings.
Name: _________________________________________________

Email: _________________________________________________

Phone: _________________________________________________

Glen Park Community Plan | 23

Appendix B - Case Studies
Creek Daylighting Case Study:
Strawberry Creek Park
Berkeley, CA
Background
As one of the first projects of its kind in the U.S., Strawberry
Creek Park in Berkeley paved the way for the many creek
daylighting projects that followed. It demonstrated the
array of community benefits achievable by reintroducing
elements of nature into a highly urbanized setting.
Moreover, Strawberry Creek Park took a derelict site – the
abandoned Santa Fe Railroad railyard – and converted it
into a multi-function neighborhood amenity.
Community Process
In 1974, the Santa Fe Railroad abandoned a railyard
in west Berkeley. Under city control, it sat vacant and
underutilized for eight years until city landscape architect,
Douglas Wolfe, proposed a plan to transform the railyard
into a neighborhood park with a daylighted Strawberry
Creek as the central element. City officials resisted the
idea, citing safety and flood hazards as well as its potential
as a target for litter.
Without the community’s support, the project would
never have left the drafting board. But residents, in a
coordinated and spirited campaign, executed a vigorous
leafleting campaign and maintained a strong presence at
a number of public meetings to show their support for the
daylighted creek and park. Eventually, the Berkeley Parks
Commission voted unanimously to approve the project.
Education
The daylighting of the creek in a naturalized setting
increases community members’ awareness of the natural
environment, from an urban waterway and riparian
vegetation to birds, fish, and other wildlife. Furthermore,
as part of an innovative creek/park maintenance program,
the city parks department contracted with Berkeley Youth
Alternatives – an after-school program – to maintain the
park, providing valuable job experience to local youth from
low-income
households.
Up to a dozen
high school
students
learn to prune
plants, remove
sediment and
waste, weed,
and otherwise maintain the creek and park.
Source: Daylighting: New Life for Buried Streams (Richard Pinkham, Rocky Mountain Institute)
24 | Creek Daylighting: A Public Outreach Effort
Glen Park
Community
Plan
Stormwater
The daylighted creek has provided Berkeley with
stormwater and flood benefits rather than create flood
hazards as originally feared by city officials. Designed
for the 100-year storm event, the creek has survived
many large storms, including those of El Niño in 1998.
Creekside vegetation cools, slows, helps absorb, and filters
stormwater on its way to the San Francisco Bay. To date,
interaction with the creek has not resulted in any major
injuries – no one has suffered an injury serious enough to
warrant a hospital visit.
Aesthetics
The Strawberry Creek daylighting project transformed an
abandoned railyard into four acres of ball courts, grassy
meadows, native trees, landscaped hillocks, and 200
feet of babbling brook. The site’s history is preserved
in the repurposed concrete slabs that now function as
steps down to the creek bed. On any given day, tens to
hundreds of visitors come to Strawberry Creek Park for the
opportunity to experience nature in this highly urbanized
setting. Children, youths, and adults come to see, hear,
and feel the flowing water; they also enjoy the presence
of birds, aquatic creatures, and other wildlife.
Economics
Neighborhood property values have increased as the area
– once troubled with crime and drug activity – has taken
on much more of a family-friendly and nature-oriented
feel. An old warehouse at the edge of the site houses
a number of start-up and local businesses, non-profit
organizations, and a bakery.
Appendix B - Case Studies
Creek Daylighting Case Study:
Blackberry Creek Park
Berkeley, CA
Background
Blackberry Creek flows from the hills of north Berkeley
through a residential neighborhood before making its
way to San Francisco Bay. Before it enters the Bay, the
creek shuttles through a culvert under the schoolyard of
Thousand Oaks Elementary School. The combination of
Blackberry Creek’s location by the school, the 1989 Loma
Prieta earthquake, and flood concerns with the culvert
created a compelling case for daylighting the creek.
Indeed, the daylighting of Blackberry Creek is a story of
circumstance as well as of a great community effort –
collaboration between private and public organizations,
state funding, and labor from a job training program.
Community Process
In 1992, three years after the Loma Prieta earthquake,
Thousand Oaks School came due for structural
improvements. In addition to seismic upgrades, a PTA
member proposed that the school daylight the stretch
of Blackberry Creek running under school grounds.
Daylighting the creek would provide multiple benefits
– outdoor educational opportunities, an opportunity to
address flooding problems, and the provision of a better
neighborhood park.
Funding and design of the project was the result of
collaboration between local organizations and state and
federal institutions. The Berkeley Unified School District
and Thousand Oaks School secured a $144,000 grant from
the CA Dept of Water Resources Urban Stream Restoration
Program, while key citizen supporters educated neighbors
about the educational, recreational, and stormwater
benefits of the project. Citizens were also instrumental in
obtaining the necessary permits from the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, the CA Water Quality Control Board, the state
fish and game department, and local authorities.
Source: Daylighting: New Life for Buried Streams (Richard Pinkham, Rocky Mountain Institute)
Glen Park
Community
Plan
Wolfe Mason Associates, a local landscape architecture
firm, provided planning and design services. Waterways
Restoration Institute, based in Berkeley, helped design
channel geometries using measurements of upstream
segments. In addition to examining historical aerial
photos to identify original creek meanders, the designers
also asked community members questions such as “Where
have you seen erosion occurring?” and “How high did the
flood of 1955 get?” Once construction got underway,
another local group played an integral role: the East Bay
Conservation Corps supplied the majority of the hand
labor for bank shaping and landscaping.
Education
Thousand Oaks Elementary School has become a magnet
school, emphasizing ecology. It has taken advantage of
the daylighted creek, using it in various school curricula.
The creek provides a “living laboratory” for students to
experience an outdoor environmental education. Hands-
on learning focuses on identifying and understanding the
organisms found in the creek, as well as on understanding
the creek’s role in the larger, regional watershed.
Stormwater
The creek’s stream channel sits 10 to 13 feet below the
surrounding grade. To address erosion concerns, the
project designers used large rocks to slow and dissipate
the energy of the stormwater on its way to the creek’s
outer banks. They employed bioengineering techniques –
fascines, brush layering, pole cuttings, and biodegradable
erosion control fabrics – to stabilize bank segments.
Shallow rock weirs placed within the channel bed help to
control flow velocities and orient the channel.
Aesthetics
The daylighting project returned a 250-foot reach of
Blackberry Creek back to the surface, following as closely
as possible, the creek’s original state. Native dogwood
trees provide shade and habitat for the creek (dogwood
was chosen over willow and cottonwood in response
to the community’s preference for shorter vegetation).
In addition, the project improved the surrounding
neighborhood park. The 0.6-acre park features a lawn,
the flowing creek, a creekside path, and a picnic area. It
also features a well-used tot-lot, appropriate for the park’s
setting in a residential, family-oriented neighborhood.
Glen Park Community Plan | 25
Appendix B - Case Studies

Creek Daylighting Case Study: Glen Park

Community
San Luis Obispo Creek Plan
San Luis Obispo, CA
Background As part of Mission Plaza, the creek floodplain was widened
The daylighting and clean-up of San Luis Obispo Creek and re-contoured; terraced stone walls would prevent
traces its humble origins to a community college class bank scouring during heavy rains. The city also made the
project, which called for the partial closure of Monterey critical choice not to convert its creeks to the concrete-
Street and the creation of a public garden, to beautify lined channels prevalent in many California cities. Instead,
downtown San Luis Obispo. The end result of the city’s the city adopted an environmentally sensitive flood
effort was a thriving plaza – Mission Plaza – in the heart management program committed to protecting local
of downtown that capitalizes on its creekside location to creeks while reducing the risk of flooding.
draw tourists and locals to an eclectic mix of restaurants,
shops, and historic institutions. San Luis Obispo Creek,
nonetheless, is the centerpiece of it all.
Community Process
A 1963 feasibility study, along with the student-driven
effort, helped galvanize public support for a downtown
creekside plaza. More than anything else, the study
stressed the city’s unique gifts—its small town character,
historic Mission, and natural downtown creek. The study
and ensuing community engagement process indicated
residents’ growing appreciation for the creek as a key
thread in the City’s increasingly urban fabric.
A citizen committee, consisting of downtown merchants,
Waterway Planning Board members, City advisory
Aesthetics
commission members, and City staff, studied the
Through a number of design elements, the city gave the
project and worked with residents to resolve concerns.
creek and Mission Plaza a distinctive character. Locally
Ultimately, plans for the
flavored art pieces celebrate the heritage of the creek and
plaza’s development
mission. Decorative lighting and walkway railing help to
called for the phasing-
identify the area while also addressing safety concerns.
in of a multi-objective,
“Mission-style” sidewalk paving further unifies the
comprehensive planning
plaza’s design. In addition to these hardscape elements,
program. Merchant
the plaza’s plant palette features an extensive array of
access and parking were
California natives such as California Sycamore, California
maintained; businesses
Lilac, Oregon Grape and Coast Live Oak. The landscaping
were encouraged to open
is such that it shades and cools the creek, provides food
a second “storefront”
and habitat for wildlife, and re-engages the city with its
onto the creek walkway,
creating opportunities natural riparian heritage.
for strolling and outdoor Economics
dining. The emphasis on the San Luis Obispo Creek as an amenity
and asset turned around the city’s downtown. Shops and
Stormwater restaurants face onto not only streets but also the creek,
Concern over flood control also generated support
promoting an interface of natural and built environments.
for Mission Plaza. In 1969 and 1973, San Luis Obispo
Mission Plaza also plays host to a number of community
experienced serious flooding downtown. The 80-year old
events such as concerts, festivals, and a popular farmer’s
culvert could not accommodate the stormwater flows
market. Perhaps the single most instrumental factor
resultant from an increasingly impervious watershed.
behind the creek and plaza’s success, however, is the
Furthermore, years of dumping, sedimentation, and
walkability – constant pedestrian activity gives the scene
neglect reduced the flow capacity of local creeks.
an air of vibrancy and a true sense of destination.
Sources:
http://www.ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us/missionplaza.asp.
http://www.ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us/parksandrecreation/missionplaza.asp.
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2004-05-25/article/18931?headline=Berkeley-Studies-S.L.-Obispo-s-Downtown-Creek##18931.

26 | Creek Daylighting: A Public Outreach Effort

Appendix B - Case Studies

Creek Daylighting Case Study: Glen Park

Community
Prince Memorial Greenway Plan
Santa Rosa, CA
Background Environmental Restoration
The 1960s saw the channelization of Santa Rosa’s urban The creek restoration project has successfully improved
creeks for the purpose of flood control. Concrete the area’s wildlife habitat. Native riparian vegetation
riprap replaced natural creek banks. Santa Rosa Creeks provides shade and wildlife habitat. A narrower, deeper
subsequently became a magnet for the homeless, frequent creek channel with pools and riffles create habitat
drug use, and vandalism. In addition, the area had been for native steelhead
used as dumping grounds for anything from rubble from trout juvenile rearing
the 1906 earthquake to underground diesel fuel tanks. and adult migration.
Biologists have observed
Community Process increased numbers
In the late 1980s, a group of citizens formed the Creek of juvenile and adult
Committee, motivated to recreate the creek to provide steelhead populations,
public use and benefit. The committee engaged hundreds as well as increases in
of Santa Rosa citizens for their visions and ideas for the river otter and other
Santa Rosa Creek Master Plan. The design challenge that wildlife populations.
resulted from this planning process was to create an
urban greenway to link and revitalize the city’s Historic Education
Railroad Square and its downtown district. The resultant The creek restoration
goals emphasized community aesthetics, environmental project has increased the
and habitat restoration, economic revitalization, as well public’s awareness of the
as education and public awareness. Specifically, they Santa Rosa creek system.
included: The greenway has given
• create a more natural creek environment; neighboring residents,
• restore habitat critical to endangered and threatened fish students from the adjacent elementary school, joggers,
and wildlife species; walkers, and cyclists a safe and nature-friendly corridor
• create bicycle and pedestrian paths bridging downtown between historic Railroad Square and the downtown
and Railroad Square; district.
• increase tourism and revitalize downtown and Railroad
Square areas; Aesthetics
• maintain flood control; Paying tribute to the area’s late 19th and early 20th
• remove toxic materials from the creek century commercial and industrial architectural heritage,
the 0.6 mile creek restoration’s landscaped terraces, trails,
Stormwater
plazas, and public art feature historic building materials –
A key point of emphasis for the
stone, cast iron, steel, and wood. The public art – murals,
Prince Memorial Greenway artistic benches, and sculptures – along with the curved
project was the creation stairs and ramps create an intimate waterfront setting.
of a natural setting while
maintaining the original flood
control capacity. Habitat was
restored by planting native
riparian species, excavating
pools and a low-flow channel,
and constructing habitats
using boulders and redwood
logs. In large storm events, the
boulders act as weirs, working
with the curvilinear shape of the creek to slow storm flows
and allow greater absorption by the native plantings.
Sources:
City of Santa Rosa website (http://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/departments/recreationandparks/parks/PMG/Pages/default.aspx
http://ceic.resources.ca.gov/catalog/NorthCoastIRWMPProjectInventory/PrinceMemorialGreenwayPiersonReachRestoration.html

Glen Park Community Plan | 27

Appendix B - Case Studies

Creek Daylighting Case Study: Glen Park

Headwaters Apartments on Tryon Creek
Portland, OR
Background
A joint venture between the Portland Development
Commission (PDC) and a private developer, Winkler
Development Company, Headwaters Apartments
incorporates creek daylighting and habitat restoration
into an inter-generational, mixed-income residential
development. Situated atop the historic headwaters of
Tryon Creek, creek daylighting provides both aesthetic and
water quality benefits. Community input shaped much of
the final design, from housing density to parking.
Community
Plan
Public Education & Awareness
A point of emphasis for the Headwaters project was
to increase public awareness and interaction with the
creek. Overlooks, a pedestrian bridge, boardwalk, and an
interpretive area all allow residents and neighbors to see
the creek and swales up close. Interpretive signs increase
awareness and reinforce the importance of the site’s many
features to the health of Tryon Creek, the wildlife living in
the watershed, and to human health as well.

Community Process
PDC sought community input from the Multnomah
Neighborhood Association (MNA) and the Southwest
Neighborhoods, Inc. during the project’s planning and
design phases. Between 2001 and 2004, PDC interacted
with community members through phone calls, one-on-
one conversations, and presentations at monthly MNA
meetings. Community input had a big say in a number
of factors, including a residential density below the level
allowed by zoning, an adequate parking allowance, and
an assortment of neighborhood improvements. PDC also
engaged the Tryon Creek Watershed Council and Friends
of Tryon Creek on the creek daylighting aspect.
Predictably, neighbors varied in their support or Aesthetics
opposition of the project. Those opposed argued that the A large number of residential units open up to the creek.
project would adversely impact traffic flow, pedestrian The native vegetation and landscaped creek bed create a
safety, and parking of the neighborhood. They further visually stimulating environment complemented by the
argued the development did not fit into the community soothing sight and sound of running water. Rather than
plans. Supporters, however, saw the project as a catalyst having to step foot directly onto a busy street, residents
for redevelopment, citing higher-density housing along will be able to see, hear, and feel a slice of nature within
transportation corridors, water quality improvements, the neighborhood’s urban setting.
parking, and street and sidewalk improvements. The various stormwater BMPs were creatively designed,
Public participation tools to solicit input included a public and they have been singled out in reports and by other
open house, a Good Neighbor Agreement, flyers, and organizations as a way to integrate nature restoration
factsheets. Public information tools included on-site with residential development.
construction signage, press releases, milestone events,
and a project website. Economics
The joint residential project consists of three separate
Stormwater housing types – 100 units of workforce rental housing,
Before the Headwaters residential project, the headwaters 14 market-rate for-sale row houses, and 56 units of
of Tryon Creek ran underground directly into the affordable rental housing targeted to seniors. A common
stormwater system. The daylighting includes a number thread among all targeted residents is the desire to live
of stormwater best management practices (BMPs) that more sustainably. PDC and the developer anticipated
enhance the downstream water quality of Tryon Creek. that residents will regularly walk or bike to shop at and
The major BMPs include a restored upstream wetland, support local businesses.
multiple vegetated swales, and parking areas with
permeable pavers.
Sources:
Portland Development Commission website. Accessed on 03/21/10: http://www.pdc.us/housing_services/projects/headwaters_project.asp.
Headwaters Apartments Public Participation Plan. April 8, 2005. Prepared by Headwaters Project Team for Portland Development Commission.

28 | Creek Daylighting: A Public Outreach Effort

Appendix B - Case Studies
Creek Daylighting Case Study:
Arcadia Creek
Kalamazoo, MI
Background
By the mid-1980s, Kalamazoo’s north-central business
district was experiencing a number of problems –
increased crime, a declining building stock, and chronic
flooding due to the high level of impervious landcover.
The daylighting of Arcadia Creek through five blocks of
the business district was part of a multi-year, multi-million
dollar district revitalization effort. Furthermore, the
project showed the potential for creek daylighting in an
urban setting. While past industrial activity precluded a
complete naturalization, the daylighting has jumpstarted
the district’s economy and created a green amenity where
none was present before.
Community Process
Kalamazoo undertook a number of innovative public
outreach strategies to garner support and awareness of
the daylighting project. The city:
• formed the Downtown Development Authority to act as
the coordinator and funding agent for the project;
• produced a children’s book about the Arcadia Creek
project. The book was distributed to school children to
generate support and help educate the community
about the project;
• coordinated a series of public meetings and workshops,
engaging residents in the design of the project;
• reached out to the business community, obtaining $4.5
million to purchase surrounding land.
Some residents, however, criticized the project. They
questioned why the city wanted to daylight the creek
instead of fixing streets and roads. But as community
members came to better understand the severity of the
flooding concerns and the opportunity to simultaneously
revitalize the business district, public support increased
substantially.
Stormwater
Kalamazoo buried Arcadia Creek to accommodate
downtown development over a century ago. The
culvert, however, had not been sized to accommodate
the large stormwater flows that resulted from the
increased impervious surface coverage. As a result, street
flooding became a serious concern. Engineering studies
comparing open channel design to the conventional
option of increasing pipe size showed that daylighting
Arcadia Creek would actually be more cost-effective than
increasing the culvert and reburying it.
Sources:
Daylighting: New Life for Buried Streams (Richard Pinkham, Rocky Mountain Institute), 2000.
Daylighting and Restoring Streams in Rural Community City Centers: Case Studies (Paul Hoobyar, National Park Service), 2002.
Glen Park
Community
Plan
Three blocks of the project consist of a concrete-lined
channel. Six weirs in the channel portion allow stormwater
to pond up to 1.5 feet deep, slowing water flow as well as
creating a more visually attractive waterway. The slower
flows allow sediment to settle and be easily removed from
the channel. The last two blocks form an open stormwater
pond with grassy slopes. When the stormwater pond is
dry, it provides a festival site as well as a space for people
to gather and relax. Downstream from the pond, Arcadia
Creek returns below ground for nine blocks before it joins
the Kalamazoo River.
Aesthetics
The 1,550 feet-long daylighted system consists of a
concrete-lined channel crossable by several bridges. The
stormwater pond provides detention in wet weather, but
provides a desirable amenity in dry weather. Its gradual,
glassy slopes create a park-like space where people
gather, relax, and recreate. In addition, the area has been
labeled the “Festival Site,” as it plays host to five annual
summertime festivals.
Economics
As an economic revitalization strategy, daylighting
Arcadia Creek has been a success. According to the DDA,
the Festival Site itself reels in $12 million annually. Direct
employment from festival activities, gate receipts, hotel
stays, restaurant visits all contribute to this revenue figure.
The site has been so successful that a plan exists to convert
the adjacent parking lot into more park and festival space.
Furthermore, the daylighted waterway has changed the
aura surrounding the business district. The perceptions –
and reality – of crime, physical deterioration, and flooding
no longer impede the business environment.
Glen Park Community Plan | 29
Appendix C - Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Creek Daylighting:
Frequently Asked Questions
The San Francisco Planning Department and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission are exploring opportunities for daylighting Islais
Creek in the Glen Park neighborhood. The effort will include an extensive community involvement process. Basic information is provided in this
fact sheet.
QUESTIONS?
CONTACT US
If you are interested in learning
more about creek daylighting and
stormwater management, please
contact us:
Paul Cheng
SF Public Utilities Commission
Wastewater Enterprise
Urban Watershed Management
Program
Email: pycheng@sfwater.org
http://stormwater.sfwater.org
30 | Creek Daylighting: A Public Outreach Effort
Glen Park
Community
Plan
What is “creek daylighting?”
Creek daylighting refers to projects that uncover and restore creeks, streams, and rivers previously buried
in underground pipes and culverts, covered by decks, or otherwise removed from view. Stream diversion,
more akin to sewer separation than to stream restoration, involves re-routing an underground stream to
discharge directly into another water body rather than being added to the combined sewer system. The City
of San Francisco has several historic creeks that run clean water through sewers to treatment plants and
then to the Bay and ocean. Diverting these historic streams to a separate system can decrease demand
on treatment facilities. Daylighting creeks also has the additional benefits of partially repairing the natural
hydrologic cycle, increasing effective capacity in pipes, slowing peak flow rates, providing habitat, creating
recreational facilities, and providing a site for ongoing environmental awareness and education.
What are the bene‫ۋ‬ts of bringing the creek to the surface?
There are numerous benefits of creek daylighting. Environmental benefits include providing wildlife habitat,
flood protection, natural cooling, and an invaluable aesthetic and recreation amenity to the surrounding
neighborhood. Economic benefits include increased property values and commercial activity in the area.
Furthermore, reduction of flows to the sewer will reduce pumping and treatment costs in the City’s combined
sewer and potentially reduce combined sewer discharges.
Would daylighting create a risk for West Nile Virus or other diseases?
A day-lit creek involves careful engineering and reconstruction of a creek bed and is designed to keep
water flowing. To address the possibility of standing water, the SFPUC would develop a maintenance
program similar to the curbside catch basin program, which is an integrated pest management program
to reduce mosquito populations around San Francisco reservoirs, pump stations, treatment facilities, and
watersheds. Staff applies an insect growth regulator that stunts the mosquitoes’ development and prevents
them from reproducing. The compound rapidly degrades in water and is non-toxic to humans.
Would daylighting the creek increase the risk of ‫ی‬ooding?
By creating a hybrid drainage system, we are providing more space for the creek when it is raining, thereby
increasing the capacity of the entire system. Creek daylighting restores a more natural drainage channel,
but is also designed to direct overflow to the sewer, thereby reducing the flood risk.
How would the creek be maintained?
Any new project initiated by the City or a community group will require a maintenance plan and secure
funding to go forward. Successful projects often come from public-private partnerships.
Isn’t the creek buried too deep underground to bring safely to the
surface?
The creek currently runs deep in the sewer pipe. A daylighting project would be more akin to a sewer
separation, in which a new, man-made creek would convey the flows along the surface of the ground.
Since water ‫ی‬ow in the creek varies at different times of the year, will it
be ugly and dry and collect trash during the dry months?
California creeks are seasonal, and designs should celebrate the features typical in our climate. As for
trash, any new projects would require a maintenance plan and secure funding.
Will we need ‫ی‬ood insurance because of this project?
A creek daylighting project will only be done if it will decrease the risk of flooding in local flood zones. If
you currently buy flood insurance, you may still want to consider keeping it. Each property owner should
evaluate their comfort level, but understand that any daylighting project would
increase water conveyance and storage capacity, thereby decreasing flood risk.
Appendix D - Visual Preference Survey

Thank you for taking part in our survey!

Hello, my name is Paul Cheng. I am a graduate student and San Francisco native currently
studying Urban Planning at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. For my Masters
project, I am working with the San Francisco Planning Department and San Francisco Public
Utilities Commission to understand Glen Park neighborhood residents' thoughts and ideas about
the potential to daylight the Islais Creek through parts of the Glen Park neighborhood.
Daylighting refers to the act of exposing some or all of a previously covered creek, river, or
stream.

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

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

_____________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

Glen Park Community Plan | 31

 Appendix D - Visual Preference Survey

1. Are you a resident of the Glen Park neighborhood?

(In conjunction with the Glen Park Community Plan, the Glen Park neighborhood includes areas within ¼
mile of the BART station, but also includes extensions of the street network and public spaces within a ½
mile radius of the station. See graphic below.)
Yes
No

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

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

I have seen Islais Creek

I have heard of Islais Creek
I have heard of AND seen Islais Creek
I have NOT heard of or seen Islais Creek
I don’t know

32 | Creek Daylighting: A Public Outreach Effort

Appendix D - Visual Preference Survey

Creek Daylighting

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

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

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

Support
Oppose
No Opinion

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

Walk alongside it
Wade in it
Use it as a meeting place with friends
Listen to the sound of flowing water
Observe nearby plant and wildlife
I would not want to interact with it
Other (Specify) ______________________________________

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

6. On a scale of 1 to 5, how would you rank your interest in the following items related to a possible
daylighting of Islais Creek?
Not Very
interested interested
1 2 3 4 5

Increased range of recreational opportunities

Outdoor education opportunities for schools

Wildlife habitat recreation

Alternative transportation corridor (bike and pedestrian)

Filtering and absorption of stormwater on site

Beautification of the neighborhood

Distinctive feature for the neighborhood

Glen Park Community Plan | 33

 Appendix D - Visual Preference Survey

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

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

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

9. In dry weather conditions, a creek’s bed is exposed. Rank the following creek bed
materials for what you feel would be most appropriate in the Glen Park neighborhood.
Please assign a unique ranking to each choice. (1 = Least preferred; 5 = Most
preferred)

1 2 3 4 5
Shrubs and grasses
Cobbled
Boulders
Earthen
No Creek

34 | Creek Daylighting: A Public Outreach Effort

Appendix D - Visual Preference Survey

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

1 2 3 4 5
Dirt or gravel path
Paved
Boulders and rocks
Trees and plantings
Shrubs and grasses
No Creek

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

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

Glen Park Community Plan | 35

 Appendix D - Visual Preference Survey

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

12. General Feel

Least Most
Preferred Preferred
1 2 3 4 5

Rural
Naturalistic
Wild
Urban
Formal
No Creek

13. Edge Type

Least Most
Preferred Preferred
1 2 3 4 5

Vegetated / Naturalistic
Rock / Boulders
Paved / Hardscaped
Earthen / Soil
No Creek

14. Density of Vegetation

Least Most
Preferred Preferred
1 2 3 4 5

Sparse
Moderate
Abundant
No Creek

36 | Creek Daylighting: A Public Outreach Effort

Appendix D - Visual Preference Survey
Creek Shape – What path does the creek follow – straight, winding?

15. Creek channels range from straight to meandering.

Which general “channel design” do you prefer most? (Click on an image.)

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

1 2 3 4 5
Straight
Slightly Bending
Meandering – Repeating Pattern
Meandering – Random Pattern
No Creek

Glen Park Community Plan | 37

 Appendix D - Visual Preference Survey

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

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

38 | Creek Daylighting: A Public Outreach Effort

Appendix D - Visual Preference Survey

18. Please rank the accessibility features that you feel would be most appropriate for a creek in the Glen Park
neighborhood. (1 = Least preferred; 5 = Most preferred)
Least Most
Preferred Preferred
1 2 3 4 5

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

Access restricted but able to overlook creek
Pedestrians can approach the creek banks
Bicycles can approach the creek banks
Children can wade into the water
No Creek

Low Impact Design & Watershed Awareness

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

19. On a scale of 1 to 5, indicate how important or unimportant the following potential benefits of Low
Impact Design are to you.
Not Very
important important
1 2 3 4 5

Reduces stormwater entering sewers

Less expensive than gray strategies

Creates new green space or enhances existing green

spaces

Enhances wildlife habitat

Does not increase mosquito populations

Beautifies our neighborhood

I like the current system as it is

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

Strongly Strongly
disfavor favor
1 2 3 4 5

Change drainage so that stormwater runs into grassy or

vegetated areas, allowing it to absorb into the ground

Create a pond or creek in an open space area into

which stormwater can flow

Reduce some pavement, replacing with trees and

plants to absorb more stormwater

I think the current system works fine

Glen Park Community Plan | 39

 Appendix D - Visual Preference Survey

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

Collect stormwater in a rain barrel for irrigation of my yard

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

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

Plant a wildflower meadow of native plants in my yard

None

Other ideas (Specify) ___________________________________________

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

Harvest it for future irrigation of my garden or yard

Irrigate street trees and plantings

Provide a unique visual element in open space areas

Create water features like waterfalls, streams, ponds

Capture it to flush toilets

No purpose

Other (Specify) _ ______________________________

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

Future Contact

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

Yes

No

If yes, please include your name and contact information so we can keep you informed of upcoming
presentations or meetings.
Name: _________________________________________________

Email: _________________________________________________

Phone: _________________________________________________

40 | Creek Daylighting: A Public Outreach Effort

Appendix E - Conceptual Design Sketches

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

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

Glen Park Community Plan | 41

 Appendix E - Conceptual Design Sketches

Plan - Greenway Corridor / Naturalized Detention

Greenway looking toward “Downtown Glen Park

42 | Creek Daylighting: A Public Outreach Effort

Appendix E - Conceptual Design Sketches

Section - Greenway / Outdoor Classroom

Plan - Outdoor Classroom

Glen Park Community Plan | 43

 Appendix E - Conceptual Design Sketches

“Downtown” Glen Park - Rill running down sidewalk.

“Downtown” Glen Park - Plan

Rill running down sidewalk into water feature.

44 | Creek Daylighting: A Public Outreach Effort