Getting to Know the County of Alameda
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Alameda, a Geographical History, by Imelda Merlin
Alameda A Geographical History by Imelda Merlin Friends of the Alameda Free Library Alameda Museum Alameda, California 1 Copyright, 1977 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 77-73071 Cover picture: Fernside Oaks, Cohen Estate, ca. 1900. 2 FOREWORD My initial purpose in writing this book was to satisfy a partial requirement for a Master’s Degree in Geography from the University of California in Berkeley. But, fortunate is the student who enjoys the subject of his research. This slim volume is essentially the original manuscript, except for minor changes in the interest of greater accuracy, which was approved in 1964 by Drs. James Parsons, Gunther Barth and the late Carl Sauer. That it is being published now, perhaps as a response to a new awareness of and interest in our past, is due to the efforts of the “Friends of the Alameda Free Library” who have made a project of getting my thesis into print. I wish to thank the members of this organization and all others, whose continued interest and perseverance have made this publication possible. Imelda Merlin April, 1977 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer wishes to acknowledge her indebtedness to the many individuals and institutions who gave substantial assistance in assembling much of the material treated in this thesis. Particular thanks are due to Dr. Clarence J. Glacken for suggesting the topic. The writer also greatly appreciates the interest and support rendered by the staff of the Alameda Free Library, especially Mrs. Hendrine Kleinjan, reference librarian, and Mrs. Myrtle Richards, curator of the Alameda Historical Society. The Engineers’ and other departments at the Alameda City Hall supplied valuable maps an information on the historical development of the city. -
Novartis / Chiron Regulation (Ec)
EN Case No COMP/M.4049 - NOVARTIS / CHIRON Only the English text is available and authentic. REGULATION (EC) No 139/2004 MERGER PROCEDURE Article 6(1)(b) NON-OPPOSITION Date: 06/02/2006 In electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4049 Office for Official Publications of the European Communities L-2985 Luxembourg COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 06-02-2006 SG-Greffe (2006) D/200529 In the published version of this decision, some information has been omitted pursuant to Article 17(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 concerning non-disclosure of business secrets and PUBLIC VERSION other confidential information. The omissions are shown thus […]. Where possible the information omitted has been replaced by ranges of figures or a MERGER PROCEDURE general description. ARTICLE 6(1)(b) DECISION To the notifying party Dear Madam/Sir, Subject: Case No. COMP/M.4049 – Novartis / Chiron Notification of 23/12/2005 pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation No 139/20041 (“Merger Regulation”) 1. On 23/12/2005, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 by which the undertaking Novartis AG (“Novartis”, Switzerland) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Chiron Corporation (“Chiron”, United States) by way of purchase of shares. 2. After examination of the notification, the Commission has concluded that the notified operation constitutes a concentration that falls within the scope of the Merger Regulation and does not raise serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market and the EEA Agreement. -
About WETA Present Future a Plan for Expanded Bay Area Ferry Service
About WETA Maintenance Facility will consolidate Central and South Bay fleet operations, include a fueling facility with emergency fuel The San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation storage capacity, and provide an alternative EOC location, Authority (WETA) is a regional public transit agency tasked with thereby significantly expanding WETA’s emergency response operating and expanding ferry service on the San Francisco and recovery capabilities. Bay, and is responsible for coordinating the water transit response to regional emergencies. Future Present WETA is planning for a system that seamlessly connects cities in the greater Bay Area with San Francisco, using Today, WETA operates daily passenger ferry service to the fast, environmentally responsible vessels, with wait times cities of Alameda, Oakland, San Francisco, Vallejo, and South of 15 minutes or less during peak commute hours. WETA’s San Francisco, carr4$)"(*- /#)тѵр million passengers 2035 vision would expand service throughout the Bay Area, annually under the San Francisco Bay Ferry brand. Over the operating 12 services at 16 terminals with a fleet of 44 vessels. last five years, SF Bay Ferry ridership has grown чф percent. In the near term, WETA will launch a Richmond/San Francisco route (201ш) and new service to Treasure Island. Other By the Numbers terminal sites such as Seaplane Lagoon in Alameda, Berkeley, Mission Bay, Redwood City, the South Bay, and the Carquinez *- /#)ǔǹǒ --$ ./-).+*-/0+ Strait are on the not-too-distant horizon. ($''$*)-$ -. /*ǗǕǑ$& .-*.. 0. 4 --4 /# 4 #4ǹ 1 -44 -ǹ A Plan for Expanded Bay Area Ferry Service --4-$ -.#$+ 1 )! --$ . Vallejo #.$)- . /*!' / /2 )ǓǑǒǘ CARQUINEZ STRAIT Ǚǖʞ.$) ǓǑǒǓǹ )ǓǑǓǑǹ Hercules WETA Expansion Targets Richmond Funded Traveling by ferry has become increasingly more popular in • Richmond Berkeley the Bay Area, as the economy continues to improve and the • Treasure Island Partially Funded Pier 41 Treasure Island population grows. -
Documenting the Biotechnology Industry in the San Francisco Bay Area
UC San Diego Reports and Studies Title Documenting the Biotechnology Industry in the San Francisco Bay Area Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1m24k447 Author Chandler, Robin L. Publication Date 1997 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Documenting the Biotechnology Industry In the San Francisco Bay Area Robin L. Chandler Head, Archives and Special Collections UCSF Library and Center for Knowledge Management 1997 1 Table of Contents Project Goals……………………………………………………………………….p. 3 Participants Interviewed………………………………………………………….p. 4 I. Documenting Biotechnology in the San Francisco Bay Area……………..p. 5 The Emergence of An Industry Developments at the University of California since the mid-1970s Developments in Biotech Companies since mid-1970s Collaborations between Universities and Biotech Companies University Training Programs Preparing Students for Careers in the Biotechnology Industry II. Appraisal Guidelines for Records Generated by Scientists in the University and the Biotechnology Industry………………………. p. 33 Why Preserve the Records of Biotechnology? Research Records to Preserve Records Management at the University of California Records Keeping at Biotech Companies III. Collecting and Preserving Records in Biotechnology…………………….p. 48 Potential Users of Biotechnology Archives Approaches to Documenting the Field of Biotechnology Project Recommendations 2 Project Goals The University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) Library & Center for Knowledge Management and the Bancroft Library at the University of California, Berkeley (UCB) are collaborating in a year-long project beginning in December 1996 to document the impact of biotechnology in the Bay Area. The collaborative effort is focused upon the development of an archival collecting model for the field of biotechnology to acquire original papers, manuscripts and records from selected individuals, organizations and corporations as well as coordinating with the effort to capture oral history interviews with many biotechnology pioneers. -
Pinolecreeksedimentfinal
Pinole Creek Watershed Sediment Source Assessment January 2005 Prepared by the San Francisco Estuary Institute for USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service and Contra Costa Resource Conservation District San Francisco Estuary Institute The Regional Watershed Program was founded in 1998 to assist local and regional environmental management and the public to understand, characterize and manage environmental resources in the watersheds of the Bay Area. Our intent is to help develop a regional picture of watershed condition and downstream effects through a solid foundation of literature review and peer- review, and the application of a range of science methodologies, empirical data collection and interpretation in watersheds around the Bay Area. Over this time period, the Regional Watershed Program has worked with Bay Area local government bodies, universities, government research organizations, Resource Conservation Districts (RCDs) and local community and environmental groups in the Counties of Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara, San Mateo, and San Francisco. We have also fulfilled technical advisory roles for groups doing similar work outside the Bay Area. This report should be referenced as: Pearce, S., McKee, L., and Shonkoff, S., 2005. Pinole Creek Watershed Sediment Source Assessment. A technical report of the Regional Watershed Program, San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI), Oakland, California. SFEI Contribution no. 316, 102 pp. ii San Francisco Estuary Institute ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors gratefully -
PW Pavement Management Program Report
PTAP-21 Napa County Final Report 2020-21 Pavement Management Program Update March 17, 2021 Prepared by: The preparation of this report has been financed in part by grants from the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the U.S. Department of Transportation. TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables and Figures ...................................................................................................................... ii Acronyms & Abbreviations .................................................................................................................. iii I. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................ 1 II. Background ....................................................................................................................................... 2 III. Introduction and Purpose ................................................................................................................. 3 IV. Network Description and Inventory ................................................................................................ 4 V. Existing Pavement Condition ............................................................................................................ 5 VI. Pavement Management Strategies ................................................................................................... 7 VII. Budget Needs -
92 29 84 2 Alameda 5TH STREET CENT
2016/2017 Count Summary 2018 Count Summary PM (4-6 PM) Midday (12-2) School (2-4) PM (4-6 PM) Midday (12-2) School (2-4) Sidewalk Sidewalk Bike - Total No Helmet Wrong Way Ped Bike Ped Bike Ped Bike - Total No Helmet Wrong Way Scooters Ped Bike Ped Bike Ped ID City North/South East/West Riding Riding 1 Alameda BROADWAY LINCOLN AVENUE 35 8 5 4 93 29 69 49 10 3 4 - 92 29 84 2 Alameda 5TH STREET CENTRAL AVENUE 69 10 25 12 113 63 190 71 18 10 - - 87 52 124 3 Alameda MAIN ST RALPH APPEZATO MEMORIAL PARKWAY 97 15 51 7 24 27 3 1 1 2 14 4 Alameda PARK STREET CENTRAL AVENUE 42 33 2 - 1,039 21 1,561 73 29 25 - 1 1,262 28 1,584 5 Alameda PARK STREET OTIS DRIVE 35 23 6 - 332 22 317 65 23 15 15 5 335 10 296 6 Alameda WEBSTER STREET ATLANTIC AVENUE 33 18 4 - 425 34 627 26 24 19 - 5 301 20 440 7 Alameda WEBSTER ST SANTA CLARA AVE 41 19 15 7 514 50 18 19 1 4 479 8 Alameda County ASHLAND AVE LEWELLING BLVD 12 3 8 1 33 13 90 13 1 7 5 1 33 12 122 9 Alameda County CENTER ST CASTRO VALLEY BLVD 2 - - - 25 4 16 21 15 6 3 12 15 4 10 Alameda County REDWOOD RD CASTRO VALLEY BLVD 45 29 7 6 195 21 134 26 22 7 - 205 16 181 11 Alameda County E 14TH ST 159TH AVE 23 13 11 - 202 24 15 12 - 160 12 Alameda County FOOTHILL BLVD 164TH AVE. -
Restoring San Francisco Bay
Restoring San Francisco Bay Amy Hutzel Coastal Conservancy Photo credit: Rick Lewis 150 years of urbanization has altered San Francisco Bay (1850) (1998) We have had a massive impact on the Bay over the last century We’ve filled thousands of acres We’ve dumped garbage IMPORTANCE OF TIDAL MARSH • Growing threat: Climate Change Photo credit: Vivian Reed • Build up of sediment and vegetation takes time. • Higher starting elevation means marshes survive sea-level rise for longer. San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority Mission: To raise and allocate resources for the restoration, enhancement, protection, and enjoyment of wetlands and wildlife habitat in the San Francisco Bay and along its shoreline. The San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority was created by Save The Bay and others through 2008 legislation. Its mandate is to propose new public funding mechanisms to voters for Bay marsh restoration; then provide grants to accelerate wetland restoration, flood protection, and public access to Bay. Governing Board comprised of elected officials from each quadrant of the Bay Area; Advisory Committee represents many community interests. It currently has no funding to carry out Photo credit: Vivian Reed its important mission. Clean and Healthy Bay Ballot Measure: Measure AA June 2016 ballot measure to accelerate Bay wetlands restoration $12/parcel/year for 20 years, would generate ~$500 million for restoration projects around the Bay Strong majority of nine-county Bay Area voters are supportive; needs 2/3 support in all nine counties, cumulatively, to pass Examples of Projects Anticipated to be Eligible For Funding: • Eden Landing (Alameda) • Chelsea Wetlands (Contra Costa) • Bel Marin Keys (Marin) • Edgerly Island (Napa) • Yosemite Slough (San Francisco) • Ravenswood Ponds (San Mateo) • Alviso Ponds (Santa Clara) • Benicia Shoreline (Solano) • Skaggs Island (Sonoma) Clean and Healthy Bay Ballot Measure: Measure AA Restoring vital fish, bird and wildlife habitat. -
Active Wetland Habitat Projects of the San
ACTIVE WETLAND HABITAT PROJECTS OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY JOINT VENTURE The SFBJV tracks and facilitates habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement projects throughout the nine Bay Area Projects listed Alphabetically by County counties. This map shows where a variety of active wetland habitat projects with identified funding needs are currently ALAMEDA COUNTY MAP ACRES FUND. NEED MARIN COUNTY (continued) MAP ACRES FUND. NEED underway. For a more comprehensive list of all the projects we track, visit: www.sfbayjv.org/projects.php Alameda Creek Fisheries Restoration 1 NA $12,000,000 McInnis Marsh Habitat Restoration 33 180 $17,500,000 Alameda Point Restoration 2 660 TBD Novato Deer Island Tidal Wetlands Restoration 34 194 $7,000,000 Coyote Hills Regional Park - Restoration and Public Prey enhancement for sea ducks - a novel approach 3 306 $12,000,000 35 3.8 $300,000 Access Project to subtidal habitat restoration Hayward Shoreline Habitat Restoration 4 324 $5,000,000 Redwood Creek Restoration at Muir Beach, Phase 5 36 46 $8,200,000 Hoffman Marsh Restoration Project - McLaughlin 5 40 $2,500,000 Spinnaker Marsh Restoration 37 17 $3,000,000 Eastshore State Park Intertidal Habitat Improvement Project - McLaughlin 6 4 $1,000,000 Tennessee Valley Wetlands Restoration 38 5 $600,000 Eastshore State Park Martin Luther King Jr. Regional Shoreline - Water 7 200 $3,000,000 Tiscornia Marsh Restoration 39 16 $1,500,000 Quality Project Oakland Gateway Shoreline - Restoration and 8 200 $12,000,000 Tomales Dunes Wetlands 40 2 $0 Public Access Project Off-shore Bird Habitat Project - McLaughlin 9 1 $1,500,000 NAPA COUNTY MAP ACRES FUND. -
(Oncorhynchus Mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California
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 TABLE OF CONTENTS Forward p. 3 Introduction p. 5 Methods p. 7 Determining Historical Distribution and Current Status; Information Presented in the Report; Table Headings and Terms Defined; Mapping Methods Contra Costa County p. 13 Marsh Creek Watershed; Mt. Diablo Creek Watershed; Walnut Creek Watershed; Rodeo Creek Watershed; Refugio Creek Watershed; Pinole Creek Watershed; Garrity Creek Watershed; San Pablo Creek Watershed; Wildcat Creek Watershed; Cerrito Creek Watershed Contra Costa County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 39 Alameda County p. 45 Codornices Creek Watershed; Strawberry Creek Watershed; Temescal Creek Watershed; Glen Echo Creek Watershed; Sausal Creek Watershed; Peralta Creek Watershed; Lion Creek Watershed; Arroyo Viejo Watershed; San Leandro Creek Watershed; San Lorenzo Creek Watershed; Alameda Creek Watershed; Laguna Creek (Arroyo de la Laguna) Watershed Alameda County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 91 Santa Clara County p. 97 Coyote Creek Watershed; Guadalupe River Watershed; San Tomas Aquino Creek/Saratoga Creek Watershed; Calabazas Creek Watershed; Stevens Creek Watershed; Permanente Creek Watershed; Adobe Creek Watershed; Matadero Creek/Barron Creek Watershed Santa Clara County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. -
Regional Oral History Office University of California the Bancroft Library Berkeley, California
Regional Oral History Office University of California The Bancroft Library Berkeley, California Program in Bioscience and Biotechnology Studies RONALD E. CAPE, M.B.A., Ph. D. BIOTECH PIONEER AND CO-FOUNDER OF CETUS Interviews Conducted by Sally Smith Hughes in 2003 Copyright © 2006 by The Regents of the University of California Since 1954 the Regional Oral History Office has been interviewing leading participants in or well-placed witnesses to major events in the development of northern California, the West, and the nation. Oral history is a method of collecting historical information through tape-recorded interviews between a narrator with firsthand knowledge of historically significant events and a well-informed interviewer, with the goal of preserving substantive additions to the historical record. The tape recording is transcribed, lightly edited for continuity and clarity, and reviewed by the interviewee. The corrected manuscript is indexed, bound with photographs and illustrative materials, and placed in The Bancroft Library at the University of California, Berkeley, and in other research collections for scholarly use. Because it is primary material, oral history is not intended to present the final, verified, or complete narrative of events. It is a spoken account, offered by the interviewee in response to questioning, and as such it is reflective, partisan, deeply involved, and irreplaceable. ************************************ All uses of this manuscript are covered by legal agreements between The Regents of the University of California and Ronald Cape, dated December 18, 2003. The manuscript is thereby made available for research purposes. All literary rights in the manuscript, including the right to publish, are reserved to The Bancroft Library of the University of California, Berkeley. -
Richard Gregory, Et Al. V. Chiron Corporation, Et Al. 04-CV-04293-Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Chiron Corporation&
EXHIBIT F Chiron News Page 1 of 9 Lc Chiron Reports 2003 Second -Quarter Pro-Forma Income of 35 Cents Per Share 17 Percent Increase in Revenues Over 200 2 EMERYVILLE, Calif., July 23 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Chiron Corporation (Nasdaq : CHIR) today reported pro-forma income from continuing operations of $67 million, or $0 .35 per share, for the second quarter of 2003, compared to $56 million, or $0.29 per share, for the second quarter of 2002 . (Chiron management uses pro-forma financial statements to gain an understanding of the company's operating performance on a comparative basis . Pro-forma results exclude special items relating to certain acquisitions and revenues, which may not be relevant to gaining an understanding of the company's trends or potential future performance . Please refer to the attached tables at the end of this document for more detail on these items and a reconciliation to GAAP financial statements .) On a GAAP basis, Chiron's income from continuing operations was $61 million, or $0 .32 per share, for the second quarter of 2003, compared to $50 million, or $0 .26 per share, for the second quarter of 2002 . (All references to per-share amounts are per diluted share .) Foreign exchange rates, on a pro-forma basis, resulted in a $0 .01 increase in earnings per share . "Chiron made several important advances that demonstrate our momentum as a global biopharmaceutical company and that will help drive growth from the immediate to the long term, increasing shareholder value," said Howard Pion, Chiron's president and CEO . "Prominent among these was our acquisition of PowderJect, which makes us the second-largest flu vaccines manufacturer worldwide and adds a U .S.