DOCSLIB.ORG

E a St Shor E Pa R K Proj Ec T Gen Er a L Pl

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
E a St Shor E Pa R K Proj Ec T Gen Er a L Pl PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT EASTSHORE PARK PROJECT GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT STATE CLEARINGHOUSE # 2002022051 July 2002 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT EASTSHORE PARK PROJECT GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT STATE CLEARINGHOUSE # 2002022051 Gray Davis Governor Mary D. Nichols Secretary for Resources Ruth Coleman Acting Director of Parks and Recreation P.O.Box 942896 Sacramento, CA 94296-0001 July 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT SUMMARY ............................................................................ 1 A. PURPOSE OF THE EIR........................................................................................................ 1 B. PROPOSED PROJECT ......................................................................................................... 2 C. PLANNING PROCESS......................................................................................................... 4 D. EIR SCOPE............................................................................................................................ 5 E. SUMMARY........................................................................................................................... 5 F. REPORT ORGANIZATION................................................................................................. 7 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................... 9 A. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................9 B. REGIONAL LOCATION AND SETTING........................................................................... 9 C. PROPOSED PROJECT ......................................................................................................... 9 D. ANTICIPATED ADOPTION AND IMPLEMENTATION................................................ 30 E. INTENDED USES OF THE EIR......................................................................................... 32 III. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES .......................................................... 35 A. AESTHETICS...................................................................................................................... 37 B. AIR QUALITY .................................................................................................................... 51 C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................. 65 D. CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................ 87 E. GEOLOGY AND SOILS..................................................................................................... 95 F. HAZARDS......................................................................................................................... 107 G. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY....................................................................... 123 H. LAND USE AND PUBLIC POLICY................................................................................ 137 I. NOISE................................................................................................................................ 153 J. PUBLIC SERVICES.......................................................................................................... 167 K. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION .................................................................. 177 L. UTILITIES......................................................................................................................... 209 IV. ALTERNATIVES .................................................................................................................... 221 A. ALTERNATIVES THAT WERE CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED .............................. 221 B. ALTERNATIVES TO THE DRAFT GENERAL PLAN.................................................. 223 C. ENVIRONMENTALLY-SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE .................................................. 244 V. CEQA-REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS .......................................................... 245 A. GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS................................................................................... 245 B. SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES.................................................................. 245 C. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS............................................................................................... 246 D. EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT............................................................. 250 E. UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS................................................................... 251 F. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT................................................................................................ 251 P:\Wrt130\Draft EIR\00-TOC.doc (07/12/02) i LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EASTSHORE PARK PROJECT GENERAL PLAN EIR JULY 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS VI. EIR AND GENERAL PLAN PREPARATION....................................................................... 253 A. EIR PREPARERS.............................................................................................................. 253 B. GENERAL PLAN PREPARERS ...................................................................................... 254 C. REFERENCES................................................................................................................... 255 D. CONTACTS....................................................................................................................... 263 E. CONTACT INFORMATION............................................................................................ 266 APPENDICES CONTAINED IN THIS DRAFT EIR A: Notice of Preparation, Initial Study, and Written Comments B: Draft General Plan Guidelines TECHNICAL APPENDICES SEPARATELY BOUND C: Traffic Modeling Worksheets D: Air Quality Worksheets E: Noise Worksheets F: Projects Considered in the Cumulative Analysis P:\Wrt130\Draft EIR\00-TOC.doc (07/12/02) ii LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. EASTSHORE PARK PROJECT GENERAL PLAN EIR JULY 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS FIGURES Figure I-1: Regional Location Map...............................................................................................3 Figure II-1a: Project Boundaries and Key Features ......................................................................11 Figure II-1b: Key Adjacent Features .............................................................................................12 Figure II-2a: Land Use – Preservation ...........................................................................................15 Figure II-2b: Land Use – Conservation ..........................................................................................16 Figure II-2c: Land Use – Recreation ..............................................................................................17 Figure II-3a: Emeryville Crescent ..................................................................................................24 Figure II-3b: South Berkeley – North Emeryville ..........................................................................25 Figure II-3c: Berkeley Meadow/North Basin.................................................................................26 Figure II-3d: Albany Shoreline.......................................................................................................27 Figure II-3e: Pt. Isabel/South Richmond Shoreline........................................................................28 Figure II-4: Circulation.................................................................................................................31 Figure III.I-1: Noise And Land Use Compatibility Guidelines......................................................158 Figure III.K-1: Existing Roadway Geometrics and Characteristics.................................................179 Figure III.K-2: Study Area Intersection Locations and Geometrics ................................................187 Figure III.K-3: Existing Peak Hour and Daily Traffic Volumes......................................................189 Figure III.K-4: Project Trip Generation, Distribution, and Assignment..........................................193 Figure III.K-5: Existing Plus Project Peak Hour and Daily Traffic Volumes .................................195 Figure III.K-6: Year 2025 Baseline Peak Hour and Daily Traffic Volumes ...................................201 Figure III.K-7: Year 2025 Baseline Plus Project Peak Hour and Daily Traffic Volumes ...............203 Figure IV-1a: Alternative A: Conservation – Emeryville Crescent...............................................230 Figure IV-1b: Alternative A: Conservation – South Berkeley/North Emeryville..........................231 Figure IV-1c: Alternative A: Conservation – Berkeley Meadow/North Basin..............................232 Figure IV-1d: Alternative A: Conservation – Albany Shoreline....................................................234 Figure IV-1e: Alternative A: Conservation – Pt. Isabel/South Richmond Shoreline.....................235 Figure IV-2a: Alternative B: Recreation – Emeryville Crescent ...................................................237 Figure IV-2b: Alternative B: Recreation – South Berkeley/North Emeryville ..............................238 Figure IV-2c: Alternative B: Recreation – Berkeley Meadow/North Basin ..................................239 Figure IV-2d: Alternative B: Recreation
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 3.1 Land Use & Housing
    3.1 Land Use and Housing This section presents the environmental setting and impact analysis on land use in the Emeryville General Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING PHYSICAL SETTING Land Use Evolution Before the colonization of the area by Spain in 1776, the Emeryville area was the site of extensive Native American settlements. Mudflats rich with clams and rocky areas with oysters, plus fishing, hunting, and acorns from the local oak trees, provided a rich and easily exploited food source for the residents. They would dispose of their clam and oyster shells in a single place, over time creating a huge mound—the Emeryville Shellmound. After settlement by Europeans, Emeryville became a city in its own right, largely through the efforts of businessman Joseph S. Emery who started a stonework contracting business in San Francisco. In 1859, Emery purchased a 185-acre tract of land north of Oakland and began to develop projects in the area. A community began to develop around the Emery Tract, and the town of Emeryville was officially incorporated in 1896, taking the name of its founder. In 1871 Emery financed the construction of the San Pablo Avenue Horse Cart Railroad, which connected Oakland to Emeryville. He was also one of the primary builders of the California- Nevada Railroad, which began in Oakland, crossed the burgeoning Emery Tract, and terminated in Orinda. Emeryville soon became a city of big industrial enterprises and rail terminals. Successive years saw further consolidation of industry, including the paint factory of Sherwin- Williams and Shell Development, the research arm of Shell Oil Company.
    [Show full text]
  • Codornices Creek Watershed Restoration Action Plan
    Codornices Creek Watershed Restoration Action Plan Prepared for the Urban Creeks Council By Kier Associates Fisheries and Watershed Professionals 207 Second Street, Ste. B Sausalito, CA 94965 November, 2003 The Codornices Creek watershed assessment and salmonid restoration planning project, the results of which are reported here, was funded by the Watershed Program of the California Bay-Delta Authority, through Contract No. 4600001722 between the California Department of Water Resources and the Urban Creeks Council. The Urban Creeks Council is a non-profit organization working to preserve, protect, and restore urban streams and their riparian habitat. The Urban Creeks Council may be reached at 1250 Addison Street, Ste. 107, Berkeley, CA 94702 (510- 540-6669). Table of Contents Executive Summary..................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgements...................................................................................................................... ii Introduction Fish and stream habitat records................................................................................................. 1 Other Codornices Creek studies................................................................................................ 1 Methods: How Each Element of the Project Was Undertaken Fish population assessment methods ........................................................................................ 2 Salmonid habitat assessment methods.....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 NHPA Annual Report
    January 30, 2017 Julianne Polanco, State Historic Preservation Officer Attention: Mark Beason Office of Historic Preservation 1725 23rd Street, Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95816 John Fowler, Executive Director Attention: Najah Duvall Office of Federal Agency Programs Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 401 F Street NW, Suite 308 Washington, DC 20001 Laura Joss, Regional Director Attention: Elaine Jackson-Retondo National Park Service – Pacific West Regional Office 333 Bush Street San Francisco, CA 94104 Craig Kenkel, Acting Superintendent Attention: Steve Haller Golden Gate National Recreation Area Building 201 Fort Mason San Francisco, CA 94123 Reference: 2016 Annual Report on Activities under the 2014 Presidio Trust Programmatic Agreement, the Presidio of San Francisco National Historic Landmark District, San Francisco, California Pursuant to Stipulation XIV of the Presidio Trust Programmatic Agreement (PTPA, 2014), enclosed is the 2016 Annual Report of activities conducted under that PA. In 2016, the Presidio Trust celebrated the 50th anniversary of the National Historic Preservation Act alongside the nation’s preservation community with a sense of reflection, gratitude and forward-looking purpose. We were also pleased to commemorate the centennial anniversary of the National Park Service, and thank our partners for their trailblazing role in preserving American cultural heritage here in California and beyond. Our principal activity for recognizing these milestones was to host the 41st annual California Preservation Foundation conference at the Presidio in April. At the conference we were enormously proud to be recognized by CPF president Kelly Sutherlin McLeod as “perhaps the biggest preservation success story of the 20th century”, praise that would not be possible without the contributions of our partner agencies, tenants and park users.
    [Show full text]
  • Contra Costa County
    Historical Distribution and Current Status of Steelhead/Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California Robert A. Leidy, Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA Gordon S. Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA Brett N. Harvey, John Muir Institute of the Environment, University of California, Davis, CA This report should be cited as: Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, B.N. Harvey. 2005. Historical distribution and current status of steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Marsh Creek Watershed Marsh Creek flows approximately 30 miles from the eastern slopes of Mt. Diablo to Suisun Bay in the northern San Francisco Estuary. Its watershed consists of about 100 square miles. The headwaters of Marsh Creek consist of numerous small, intermittent and perennial tributaries within the Black Hills. The creek drains to the northwest before abruptly turning east near Marsh Creek Springs. From Marsh Creek Springs, Marsh Creek flows in an easterly direction entering Marsh Creek Reservoir, constructed in the 1960s. The creek is largely channelized in the lower watershed, and includes a drop structure near the city of Brentwood that appears to be a complete passage barrier. Marsh Creek enters the Big Break area of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta northeast of the city of Oakley. Marsh Creek No salmonids were observed by DFG during an April 1942 visual survey of Marsh Creek at two locations: 0.25 miles upstream from the mouth in a tidal reach, and in close proximity to a bridge four miles east of Byron (Curtis 1942).
    [Show full text]
  • Tidal Marsh Recovery Plan Habitat Creation Or Enhancement Project Within 5 Miles of OAK
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California California clapper rail Suaeda californica Cirsium hydrophilum Chloropyron molle Salt marsh harvest mouse (Rallus longirostris (California sea-blite) var. hydrophilum ssp. molle (Reithrodontomys obsoletus) (Suisun thistle) (soft bird’s-beak) raviventris) Volume II Appendices Tidal marsh at China Camp State Park. VII. APPENDICES Appendix A Species referred to in this recovery plan……………....…………………….3 Appendix B Recovery Priority Ranking System for Endangered and Threatened Species..........................................................................................................11 Appendix C Species of Concern or Regional Conservation Significance in Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California….......................................13 Appendix D Agencies, organizations, and websites involved with tidal marsh Recovery.................................................................................................... 189 Appendix E Environmental contaminants in San Francisco Bay...................................193 Appendix F Population Persistence Modeling for Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California with Intial Application to California clapper rail …............................................................................209 Appendix G Glossary……………......................................................................………229 Appendix H Summary of Major Public Comments and Service
    [Show full text]
  • Board Meeting Packet
    June 1, 2021 BOARD OF DIRECTORS Board Meeting Packet SPECIAL NOTICE REGARDING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AT THE EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING SCHEDULED FOR TUESDAY, JUNE 1, 2021 at 1:00 pm Pursuant to Governor Newsom’s Executive Order No. N-29-20 and the Alameda County Health Officer’s Shelter in Place Orders, the East Bay Regional Park District Headquarters will not be open to the public and the Board of Directors and staff will be participating in the Board meetings via phone/video conferencing. Members of the public can listen and view the meeting in the following way: Via the Park District’s live video stream which can be found at https://youtu.be/md2gdzkkvVg Public comments may be submitted one of three ways: 1. Via email to Yolande Barial Knight, Clerk of the Board, at [email protected]. Email must contain in the subject line public comments – not on the agenda or public comments – agenda item #. It is preferred that these written comments be submitted by Monday, May 31, 2021 at 3:00 pm. 2. Via voicemail at (510) 544-2016. The caller must start the message by stating public comments – not on the agenda or public comments – agenda item # followed by their name and place of residence, followed by their comments. It is preferred that these voicemail comments be submitted by Monday, May 31, 2021 at 3:00 pm. 3. Live via zoom. If you would like to make a live public comment during the meeting this option is available through the virtual meeting platform: *Note: this virtual meeting platform link will let you into the https://zoom.us/j/94773173402 virtual meeting for the purpose of providing a public comment.
    [Show full text]
  • Planning for Native Oyster Restoration in San Francisco Bay. Final Report to California Coastal Conservancy Agreement
    Planning for Native Oyster Restoration in San Francisco Bay Final Report to California Coastal Conservancy Agreement # 05-134 Edwin Grosholza, Jim Mooreb, Chela Zabina, Sarikka Attoea and Rena Obernoltea aDepartment of Environmental Science and Policy University of California, Davis bCalifornia Department of Fish and Game Funding provided by the California Ocean Protection Council Introduction Historically, native Olympia oysters Ostreola conchaphila (=Ostrea lurida) (Turgeon et al. 1998) were an abundant and ecologically important part of the fauna in West Coast estuaries and an important fishery (Barnett 1963, Baker 1995). Unfortunately, the popularity of the fishery that began in the 1850s resulted in the complete collapse of native oyster populations along the west coast of the U.S. during the late 19th and early 20th centuries (Barnett 1963, Baker 1995). Not only was the fishery lost, but so were the key ecosystem services provided by native oysters. Studies of oysters in estuaries in the eastern U.S. have shown that native oyster reefs (Crassostrea virginica) act as a “foundation species” by creating a refuge from predators and physical stress as well as a food source resulting in increased local diversity of fishes and invertebrates (Zimmerman 1989, Lenihan 1999, Micheli and Peterson 1999, Lenihan et al. 2001). In the largely unstructured, soft-sediment habitats of West Coast estuaries, aggregations of native oysters were likely to have provided similar functions and have been shown to increase invertebrate species richness (Kimbro and Grosholz 2006). The introduction of exotic Pacific oysters (Crassostrea gigas) from Asia in the early 20th century provided a successful replacement for the native oyster fishery.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Background ...............................................................................................1-1 2 Project Approach and Methodology.......................................................2-1 3 Key Issues and DC&E Qualities...............................................................3-1 4 Project Staff Qualifications......................................................................4-1 5 Recent Relevant Experience....................................................................5-1 6 Disclosure ..................................................................................................6-1 7 Fee Schedule .............................................................................................7-1 STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS i DESIGN, COMMUNITY & ENVIRONMENT CITY OF ALBANY ALBANY WATERFRONT VISIONING PROJECT STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS ii DESIGN, COMMUNITY & ENVIRONMENT BACKGROUND 1 Background neighbors and work towards consensus on a vision for the future. In addition to creating an The Albany waterfront is a place of paradox. environment of trust and openness, the process Although much of the land there today is must also encourage creativity and innovation artificial fill dumped and engineered over the from citizens, consultants, City staff and the past 60 years, Fleming Point is one of the last property owner. remaining natural features in this stretch of the bay shore. The views from the Albany shoreline are unparalleled, and yet the shoreline today is virtually deserted. At the edge of
    [Show full text]
  • East Bay Regional Park District 2005 Budget
    EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT 2005 BUDGET January 1 to December 31, 2005 2005 Adopted Budget Page 1 East Bay Regional Park District Page Intentionally Left Blank 2005 Adopted Budget Page 2 East Bay Regional Park District TABLE OF CONTENTS VISION AND MISSION STATEMENTS .......................................................................... 7 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT MAP .............................................................. 9 HOW TO USE THIS BOOK............................................................................................ 11 SECTION A – GENERAL MANAGER’S MESSAGE..................................................... 13 SECTION B – BUDGET OVERVIEW ............................................................................ 21 BUDGET AT-A-GLANCE .................................................................................... 29 TOTAL RESOURCES BY CATEGORY AND MAJOR CHANGES ..................... 30 TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS BY CATEGORY AND MAJOR CHANGES ............ 34 BUDGET BY FUND ............................................................................................ 37 BUDGET BY DIVISION AND DEPARTMENT .................................................... 38 AUTHORIZATION POSITIONS BY DIVISION AND DEPARTMENT ................. 40 GENERAL FUND ................................................................................................ 41 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS ............................................................................. 47 DEBT SERVICE FUNDS ...................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Wildcat Creek Restoration Action Plan Version 1.3 April 26, 2010 Prepared by the URBAN CREEKS COUNCIL for the WILDCAT-SAN PABLO WATERSHED COUNCIL
    wildcat creek restoration action plan version 1.3 April 26, 2010 prepared by THE URBAN CREEKS COUNCIL for the WILDCAT-SAN PABLO WATERSHED COUNCIL Adopted by the City of San Pablo on August 3, 2010 wildcat creek restoration action plan table of contents 1. INTRODUCTION 5 1.1 plan obJectives 5 1.2 scope 6 Urban Urban 1.5 Methods 8 1.5 Metadata c 10 reeks 2. WATERSHED OVERVIEW 12 c 2.1 introdUction o 12 U 2.2 watershed land Use ncil 13 2.3 iMpacts of Urbanized watersheds 17 april 2.4 hydrology 19 2.5 sediMent transport 22 2010 2.6 water qUality 24 2.7 habitat 26 2.8 flood ManageMent on lower wildcat creek 29 2.9 coMMUnity 32 3. PROJECT AREA ANALYSIS 37 3.1 overview 37 3.2 flooding 37 3.4 in-streaM conditions 51 3.5 sUMMer fish habitat 53 3.6 bioassessMent 57 4. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS 58 4.1 obJectives, findings and strategies 58 4.2 recoMMended actions according to strategy 61 4.3 streaM restoration recoMMendations by reach 69 4.4 recoMMended actions for phase one reaches 73 t 4.5 phase one flood daMage redUction reach 73 able of 4.6 recoMMended actions for watershed coUncil 74 c ontents version 1.3 april 26, 2010 2 wildcat creek restoration action plan Urban creeks coUncil april 2010 table of contents 3 figUre 1-1: wildcat watershed overview to Point Pinole Regional Shoreline wildcat watershed existing trail wildcat creek highway railroad city of san pablo planned trail other creek arterial road bart Parkway SAN PABLO Richmond BAY Avenue San Pablo Point UP RR San Pablo WEST COUNTY BNSF RR CITY OF LANDFILL NORTH SAN PABLO RICHMOND San Pablo
    [Show full text]
  • REQUEST for QUALIFICATIONS and PROPOSALS Notice of Development Opportunity Historic Anitas Building: 920 Macdonald Ave
    REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS AND PROPOSALS Notice of Development Opportunity Historic Anitas Building: 920 Macdonald Ave. Macdonald Ave. and 11th St. - 1940’s Source: Online Archive of California City of Richmond, California Issued by the City of Richmond, CA City Manager’s Office, Development Services Submission Deadline: May 3, 2019 at 12:00 PM (PDT) City of Richmond, CA REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS AND PROPOSALS Notice of Development Opportunity 920 Macdonald Ave. City of Richmond, California City Council Mayor Tom Butt Vice Mayor Melvin Willis Councilmember Nathaniel Bates Councilmember Ben Choi Councilmember Eduardo Martinez Councilmember Jael Myrick Councilmember Demnlus Johnson III City Manager Carlos Martinez City Manager Bill Lindsay Stay updated on all Richmond Opportunity Sites: http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/OpportunitySites Request for Qualifications/Request for Proposals: 920 Macdonald Ave. 2 City of Richmond, CA Contents I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................... 4 II. NEIGHBORHOOD & COMMUNITY ASSETS............................. 6 III. SITE VISION...................................................................................... 21 IV. SITE AND PARCEL SUMMARY...................................................... 23 V. DEVELOPMENT TEAM SELECTION............................................ 29 VI. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS..................................................... 30 VII. SELECTION CRITERIA, PROCESS & SCHEDULE.................. 33 VIII. CITY NON-LIABILITY & RELATED MATTERS....................
    [Show full text]
  • Pt. Isabel-Stege Area
    Tales of the Bay Shore -- Pt. Isabel-Stege area Geology: The “bones” of the shoreline from Albany to Richmond are a sliver of ancient, alien sea floor, caught on the edge of North America as it overrode the Pacific. Fleming Point (site of today’s racetrack), Albany Hill, Pt. Isabel, Brooks Island, scattered hillocks inland, the hills at Pt Richmond, and the hills across the San Pablo Strait (spanned by the Richmond Bridge) all are part of this Novato Terrane. Erosion and uplift eventually left their hard rock as hilltops in a valley. Still later – only about 5000 years ago -- rising seas from the melting glaciers of our last Ice Age flooded the valley, forming today’s San Francisco Bay. The “alien” hilltops became islands, peninsulas linked to shore by marsh, or isolated dome-like “turtlebacks.” Left: Portion of 1911 map of SF Bay showing many Native American sites near Pt. Isabel and Stege. Right: 1853 U.S. Coastal Survey map showing N. end of Albany Hill, Cerrito Creek, Pt. Isabel, and marshes/ to North. Native Americans: Native Americans would have watched the slow rise of today’s Bay. When Europeans reached North America, the East Bay was the home of Huchiun Ohlone peoples. Living in groups generally of fewer than 100 people, they moved seasonally amid rich and varied resources, gathering, hunting, fishing, and encouraging useful plants with pruning and burning. They made reed boats, baskets, nets, traps, mortars, and a wide variety of implements and decorations. Along the shellfish-rich shoreline they gradually built up substantial hills of debris – shell mounds -- that kept them above floods and served as multipurpose homesites, burial sites, refuse dumps, and more.
    [Show full text]