PRC MIN 1970-03-11 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

--~--,----- ~---_..- 33 Mr. Deuel Batsford representing Jenks & Adamson included the following information in his presentation; displayed charts and maps showing that Jefferson creek branch runs through park, is joined east of park bridge by the Emerald branch, and showed portions of creek which have not been improved - from Valota Road, east, to approx. the Dickey street area; that a covered design would include an 8411 pipe to approx. the park bridge, then various sizes of boxed culverts from 81x6' - 915"x5.25' - 11'x4~'-to go over the top of the San Francisco water line (H/H r/w) near Dickey street; estimate of improvement is $177,000, which covers cons- truction cost based on preliminary design and which mayor may not cover complete channel restoration,ie.there will be some areas of relocation of channel and removed fill may not be suff- icient to complete backfill in entirety-availability of backfill is an unknown quantity at this time, but it is possible that backfill (or protective cover) could be charged against the bond fund; the various sizes of pipe and boxed culverts is to keep the tops below ground surface; the present creek is somewhat longer because of its devious route, straightening of the channel as proposed would see its length at 1,4801 or around 1,500'; that there is no exact profile of the ground surfaces as they exist now but it is anticipated that there would be fill cover from a minimum of 611 to a maximum of 21-cost of additional fill would depend on park development plans; the velocity of the speed of water would be substantially the same at Valota as at Dickey street; that with an open stream treatment there could be the possibility that, based on a "30 year stormll, at good flow the water could tend to chew into some landscaping and sides but at flood state - similar to photographs--that Commissioner Thompson showed (which were taken under storm conditions at 9 a~m. on Jan. 7, 1970) - if the sides were IIlaid openll as proposed in the open stream system and as it came to these broader areas it would lose some of its velocity and tend to drop some of the sediment which was in it and as the water receded some silt poss- ibly would be left on the banks; that, as the culverting would go up o~er the SF water department line, and as the straightened channel would be going down grade, there would be no puddling or ponding at the SF water department line; that all other creek improved areas included 61 chain link fences on each side for liability purposes and he saw no other way that the city could protect itself from the obvious danger to youngsters and the un- suspecting and the hazards which would occur especially when there was a lot of water running; (Mr. Ullrich said that since the city had owned the park-1947-it had been unprotected and as far as he knew no one had been lost, but that a different situat- ion exists today with improvements above and below the park a~d the water would be moving much faster; that from an engineering standpoint as well as the city they would probably be reluctant to see something go in that wasn1t protected as, in the case of a suit as the result of a loss, both the_city and Jenks & Adamson ----.---_u"---- -. --. - -. - ---- ..., -- ._, -- - ---.. -.- - -.' - . -- .. -- - - - -. - . . -. ... .. ~ - - - .,. '--~'--"~ ----._--------------~--------------_.__.._....h---'--"'--'-' -- _.n. oJ .. -.,.j; :f:;:Y . .' " - .~j;~~ ,. - .. \. ' . . '. .' -- ¡ 'i' , ..:if} "'--' . .