DOCSLIB.ORG

North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN JUNE 1993 BRADY AND ASSOCIATES PLANNERS AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN JUNE 1993 Prepared for the CITY OF RICHMOND CONTRA COSTA COUNTY STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY By BRADY AND ASSOCIATES PLANNERS AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS In association with CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP ORION ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES PHILIP WILLIAM ASSOCIATED SAN S WARD AND ASSOCIATES WETLANDS RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC. American Societf yo Honor Landscape Architects Award presentee th y db Northern North Richmond California Shoreline Specific Plan Chapter Richmond, California in recognition of outstanding professional achievement City of Richmond RESOLUTION "A" RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIRESOLUTIO3 29-9 L. ONO FN THE CITY OF RICHMOND APPROVING THE NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFI E ARECTH APLA R GENERALLFO N Y BOUNDED E NORTTH Y POINB N HO T PINOLE REGIONAL SHORELIN EE EASPARKY TH B T N O , THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD TRACKS AND PARCHESTER VILLAGE, ON THE SOUTH BY PARR BOULEVARD, AND ON THE WEST BY SAN PABLO BAY (AREA ALSO KNOWN AS THE NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA).__________ WHEREAS, the Richmond City Council adopted the Richmond General Plan by Resolution No. 8481 on September 21, 1964 as the official plan o guidt e futurth e e physical developmen e Cit th f Richmondo y f o t d an ; WHEREAS, the Richmond City Council adopted the Richmond Coastline e RichmonPla th s para n f o t d General Pla y Resolutiob n . No n 44-7 n Marc o 3a Loca, 197 s 12 ha 3l Area Pland an ; WHEREAS n Decembe,o , 199r9 e Environmenta 2th l Assessment Panel, actin n accordanci g e wite Californith h a Environmental Qualitt Ac y (CEQA) e Statth , e CEQA Guidelines d Resolutioan , e . 274-8th No n f o 9 Cit f Richmondo y , certified thae Finath t l Program Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan has been complete compliancn i d e State th wite CEQd eth han CEQ A A Guideliness a , amended. This FEI s preparee Citwa Rth f Richmon o yr fo d y Bradb dd an y Associate d consist o an separatels tw f o s y bound reports bearine th g following title d datesan s : ) (1 Public Hearing Draf - tNort h Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan EIR. May 1992. ) (2 North Richmond Shoreline Specific Respons- PlaR EI n o t e Comments Addendum, November 1992. WHEREAS, the Planning Director, pursuant to Resolution No. 274- 89 of the City of Richmond, determined that the effects on the environment caused by implementation of the Specific Plan, as amended by Exhibit A of this Resolution, are covered by this FEIR; and WHEREAS e Richmonth , d Planning Commission recommendee th o t d City Council an amendment to the Richmond General Plan for the North Richmond Shoreline Area by Resolution No. 92-26 on December 17, 1992 to addres e changeth s s thae occurrinar t e Richmona resul th s a gf o t d Parkway e flooth , d control improvements d neaan , r term closure th f o e West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill; and WHEREAS, the Richmond City Council approved an amendment to the Richmond General Plan for the North Richmond Shoreline area by Resolutio n Marco n , 199 1 ho addresd t 3circulatio an e lane th sus d n changes that are expected to occur in the North Richmond Shoreline Area; and WHEREAS e Richmonth , d City Counci n Marco l , 1991 h 3 hela d public hearine drafth n to g North Richmond Shoreline Specific Pland an : WHEREAS, the Richmond City Council finds that the future developmen e Nortth f ho t Richmond Shorelin e b more en Areca a appropriately guided by the adoption of the Specific Plan, as revised; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Richmond, California has reviewed and considered the staff memorandum e witsubjecth h t headin f o NORTg H RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN and such other related information presented to the Counci d accordinglan l y certifies, adopts, state d approvean s s a s follows: 1. That said City Council pursuan o Sectiot n e Stat1509th f e0o CEQA Guidelines hereby certifie s reviewe ha tha t i d tconsidere an d d the information contained in the pertinent FEIR described above prior to reaching a decision on this Specific Plan, and that said FEIR has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the State CEQA Guidelines, as amended. This certification is made upon the report of the Environmental Assessmen e Plannint th Pane d an lg Director thae th t environmental impac f thio t s Specific Plan s amendea , y Exhibib d t C, has been adequately addressed in said FEIR prepared for the City of Richmond. 2 That said City Council hereby adopt e environmentath s l findings and statement of overriding considerations as approved and recommended by the Planning Commission in their Resolution No. 92- 27 approved January 7, 1993. 3. That said City Council approves the Public Hearing Draft - North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan, incorporated herei y thib n s reference, as amended by Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herei y thib n s reference. T BFURTHEI E R RESOLVED thae Citth ty e CounciCitf th o yf o l Richmond, California directs the City Clerk to keep on file said document and that the Planning Department maintain a copy of said documen r publifo t c inspection. 1 certify thae foregointh t g resolutioy s adopte cit wa ne th y b d Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting held March 1, 1993. Ayes: Councilmembers Washington, Niccolls, Corbin, Rogers, Ziesenhenne, McMillan, Powers, Griffin d Mayoan , r Livings ton Noes: None Absent: None EUL . BARNEM A S e Cit Clerth f Richmono y f o k d Approved: GEORGE L. LIVINGSTON Mayor Certified as a True Copy Approved as to form: MALCOLM HUNTER_____ City Attorney North Richmond Shoreline Area Specific Plan TABL CONTENTF EO S 1. INTRODUCTION 1 1 . A Backgroun Plad dan n Purpose 3 B. Planning Process C. Specific Plan Contents 4 D. How to Use This Plan 5 E. Statutory Authority 6 F. Relationship to Other Plans and Regulations 7 2. DESCRIPTION OF PLAN AREA 11 A. Regional Setting 11 1 1 . B Local Setting C. General Site Characteristics 12 7 1 . D Jurisdictions 1 2 . 3 PLAN GOALS 1 2 . A General Goa Objectived an l s 2 2 B. Lan e dUs C. Natural Resources 23 4 2 . D Visual Resources E. Circulation and Public Access 25 F. Capital Improvements and Plan Implementation 26 6 2 . G Economic Development 4. LAND USE ELEMENT 29 9 2 . A Lan Policiee dUs s B. Land Use Strategies 36 1 4 . C Lan Designatione dUs s D. Land Use Designations Summary 51 2 5 . E Development Standards 3 6 . 5 CIRCULATION ELEMENT 3 6 . A Circulation Policies 4 6 . B Existing Circulation C. Roadway Classifications and Standards 64 D. Railroad Operations 72 E. Transit Service 73 F. Bicycle Circulation 73 G. Projected Traffic Volumes 74 H. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Techniques 75 6 7 I. Emergency Vehicle Access J. Street Development Standards 77 8 7 K. Roadway Phasing 9 7 . 6 DESIGN GUIDELINES A. Introduction 79 0 8 B. General Design Guidelines C. Guidelines for Specific Areas 8 8 and Design Elements . 7 1 IMPLEMENTATIO10 N ELEMENT 1 10 . A Introduction B. Actions Required for Adoption of the North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan 101 . C Development 6 Revie10 Approvad wan l Process . D Employmen8 10 t Developmen _ t Programs 1 11 . E Richmond Enterprise Zone F. Infrastructure Improvements 112 G. Hazardous Waste Remediation 122 H. Natural Conservation, Shoreline Restoration and Flood Protection Implementatio3 12 n Actions 5 13 . 8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A. North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan Citizen Advisory Committee 135 . B North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan Technical Advisory Committee 136 7 13 . C Contributing Staff 7 13 . D Lis f Preparero t s List of Figures 1. Regional Location 2 3 1 . 2 Aerial Phot f Planninoo g Area 3. Plan Area Points of Reference 15 9 1 . 4 Jurisdictions 5. Shoreline Conditions 33 6. Specific Plan Land Use Map 43 7. Public Access and Recreation 45 8. Circulation Plan 66 9. Streetscape Plan 95 10. Rheem Creek Channel Typical Cross-Section 132 List of Tables 2 5 . 1 Summar f Lan yo e Allocation dUs s 2. Development Standards 54 0 7 . 3 Roadway Dimensions 5 . 7 4 Year 2005 Projec t 100a t % Buildout . 5 Streetscap4 9 e Plan Landscape Treatments 6. Applicable Zoning Districts 104 . 7 Capital Improvement NeedPlae th nn i sAre a and Associated Property Owner Benefits 113 8. Existing Water and Sewer Mains 117 9. Financing Mechanisms for Capital Improvements, Operations and Maintenance 120 Appendices l A- . A Tabl . OwnershieA Parcelizatiod pan n l B- . B Financing Approaches Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION A. Background and Purpose e NortTh h Richmond Shorelin s uniqu ei e metropolita th n ei Areay nBa a , 1,951 acre area locatePabln neay majoSa o oBa n tw r do r transportation routes, Interstate 580 and SO, in the heart of the East Bay's urban-industrial complex. Acces thio st s ares beeaha n limite paste aboud th an n , d0 i 6 t percen aree th undevelopeds a i f o t developee th n I . d areas, industrial uses predominate, with some commercial nurseries and very little residential use. Much of the area is representative of historic San Francisco baylands, with marshland uplandd an s s alon shoree gth .
Recommended publications
  • San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan

    San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan

    San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan October 2019 Table of Contents List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures.............................................................................................................................. ii Chapter 1: Governance ............................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background ....................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Governance Team and Structure ...................................................... 1-1 1.2.1 Coordinating Committee ......................................................... 1-2 1.2.2 Stakeholders .......................................................................... 1-3 1.2.2.1 Identification of Stakeholder Types ....................... 1-4 1.2.3 Letter of Mutual Understandings Signatories .......................... 1-6 1.2.3.1 Alameda County Water District ............................. 1-6 1.2.3.2 Association of Bay Area Governments ................. 1-6 1.2.3.3 Bay Area Clean Water Agencies .......................... 1-6 1.2.3.4 Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency ................................................................. 1-8 1.2.3.5 Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District .................................. 1-8 1.2.3.6 Contra Costa Water District .................................. 1-9 1.2.3.7
  • Proposal for Pillar Point Rvpark Public Restroom and Green Space Design,Engineering,Permitting

    Proposal for Pillar Point Rvpark Public Restroom and Green Space Design,Engineering,Permitting

    PPRROOPPOOSSAALL FFOORR PPIILLLLAARR PPOOIINNTT RRVV PPAARRKK PPUUBBLLIICC RREESSTTRROOOOMM AANNDD GGRREEEENN SSPPAACCEE DDEESSIIGGNN,, EENNGGIINNEEEERRIINNGG,, PPEERRMMIITTTTIINNGG AANNDD CCOONNSSTTRRUUCCTTIIOONN SSUUPPPPOORRTT SSEERRVVIICCEESS Submitted to: San Mateo County Harbor District Submitted by: Questa Engineering Corporation In Association with: Ware Associates Zeiger Engineers, Inc. mack5 October 7, 2019 October 7, 2019 San Mateo County Harbor District Attn: Deputy Secretary of the District 504 Ave Alhambra, Ste. 200 El Granada, CA 94018 Subject: Proposal for Pillar Point RV Park Public Restroom and Green Space Design, Engineering, Permitting and Construction Support Services Dear Mr. Moren: Questa Engineering Corporation is pleased to present this Proposal for the Pillar Point Project. We have assembled a highly qualified team, including Ware Associates (architecture/engineering services), Zeiger Engineers, Inc. (electrical engineering), and mack5 (cost estimating). Questa is widely recognized as one of California’s leading park and trail planning and engineering design firms for open space and natural park areas in constrained and challenging sites, including coastal and beach areas. We also have extensive experience in trail planning and design in parks, and sites with complex environmental and geotechnical issues. Questa provides complete services in planning, landscape architecture and engineering design of recreational improvement projects, from preliminary engineering investigations/feasibility studies and constraints
  • Bothin Marsh 46

    Bothin Marsh 46

    EMERGENT ECOLOGIES OF THE BAY EDGE ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE AND SEA LEVEL RISE CMG Summer Internship 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface Research Introduction 2 Approach 2 What’s Out There Regional Map 6 Site Visits ` 9 Salt Marsh Section 11 Plant Community Profiles 13 What’s Changing AUTHORS Impacts of Sea Level Rise 24 Sarah Fitzgerald Marsh Migration Process 26 Jeff Milla Yutong Wu PROJECT TEAM What We Can Do Lauren Bergenholtz Ilia Savin Tactical Matrix 29 Julia Price Site Scale Analysis: Treasure Island 34 Nico Wright Site Scale Analysis: Bothin Marsh 46 This publication financed initiated, guided, and published under the direction of CMG Landscape Architecture. Conclusion Closing Statements 58 Unless specifically referenced all photographs and Acknowledgments 60 graphic work by authors. Bibliography 62 San Francisco, 2019. Cover photo: Pump station fronting Shorebird Marsh. Corte Madera, CA RESEARCH INTRODUCTION BREADTH As human-induced climate change accelerates and impacts regional map coastal ecologies, designers must anticipate fast-changing conditions, while design must adapt to and mitigate the effects of climate change. With this task in mind, this research project investigates the needs of existing plant communities in the San plant communities Francisco Bay, explores how ecological dynamics are changing, of the Bay Edge and ultimately proposes a toolkit of tactics that designers can use to inform site designs. DEPTH landscape tactics matrix two case studies: Treasure Island Bothin Marsh APPROACH Working across scales, we began our research with a broad suggesting design adaptations for Treasure Island and Bothin survey of the Bay’s ecological history and current habitat Marsh.
  • Weekly Projects Bidding 8/13/2021

    Weekly Projects Bidding 8/13/2021

    Weekly Projects Bidding 8/13/2021 Reasonable care is given in gathering, compiling and furnishing the information contained herein which is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but the Planroom is not responsible or liable for errors, omissions or inaccuracies. Plan# Name Bid Date & Time OPR# Location Estimate Project Type Monday, August 16, 2021 OUTREACH MEETING (VIRTUAL) EVERGREEN VALLEY COLLEGE (EVC) STUDENT SERVICES Addenda: 0 COMPLEX (REQUEST FOR SUB BIDS) SC 8/16/21 10:00 AM 21-02526 San Jose School ONLINE Plan Issuer: XL Construction 408-240-6000 408-240-6001 THIS IS A VIRTUAL OUTREACH MEETING. REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED. SEE FLYER FOR DETAILS. The 74,000 sf Student Services Complex at Evergreen Valley College is part of the San Jose Evergreen Community College District's Measure X Bond Program. This is a new ground-up two -story complex including collaboration spaces, offices, storage, restrooms and supporting facilities. All subcontractors must be prequalified with XL Construction to bid the project. Please email [email protected] for a prequalification application link, and [email protected] if you are an Under Utilized Business Enterprise (SBE, WBE, MBE, VBE...). REFINISHING GYM AND STAGE FLOORS AT CALIFORNIA SCHOOL FOR THE BLIND Addenda: 0 8/16/21 12:00 PM 21-02463 Fremont State-Federal Plan Issuer: California Department of Education - Personnel Service Division 916-319-0800 000-000-0000 Contract #: BF210152 The Contractor shall provide all labor, equipment and materials necessary for preparing and refinishing the stage and gym floors, twice a year, at the California School for the Blind (CSB), located at 500 Walnut Avenue, Fremont.
  • Distribution and Abundance

    Distribution and Abundance

    DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE IN RELATION TO HABITAT AND LANDSCAPE FEATURES AND NEST SITE CHARACTERISTICS OF CALIFORNIA BLACK RAIL (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus) IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY ESTUARY FINAL REPORT To the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service March 2002 Hildie Spautz* and Nadav Nur, PhD Point Reyes Bird Observatory 4990 Shoreline Highway Stinson Beach, CA 94970 *corresponding author contact: [email protected] PRBO Black Rail Report to FWS 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY We conducted surveys for California Black Rails (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus) at 34 tidal salt marshes in San Pablo Bay, Suisun Bay, northern San Francisco Bay and western Marin County in 2000 and 2001 with the aims of: 1) providing the best current information on distribution and abundance of Black Rails, marsh by marsh, and total population size per bay region, 2) identifying vegetation, habitat, and landscape features that predict the presence of black rails, and 3) summarizing information on nesting and nest site characteristics. Abundance indices were higher at 8 marshes than in 1996 and earlier surveys, and lower in 4 others; with two showing no overall change. Of 13 marshes surveyed for the first time, Black Rails were detected at 7 sites. The absolute density calculated using the program DISTANCE averaged 2.63 (± 1.05 [S.E.]) birds/ha in San Pablo Bay and 3.44 birds/ha (± 0.73) in Suisun Bay. At each survey point we collected information on vegetation cover and structure, and calculated landscape metrics using ArcView GIS. We analyzed Black Rail presence or absence by first analyzing differences among marshes, and then by analyzing factors that influence detection of rails at each survey station.
  • Native Oyster Reef Construction Underway in Richmond San

    Native Oyster Reef Construction Underway in Richmond San

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Media Contact: Taylor Samuelson [email protected] 510-286-4182 April 19, 2019 Native Oyster Reef Construction Underway in Richmond San Francisco Bay Living Shorelines Project 350 Reef Structures will become habitat for Native Oysters and Pacific Herring Richmond, CA - From April 9-30, 350 oyster reef elements are being placed in nearshore areas to create a living shoreline near Giant Marsh at Point Pinole Regional Shoreline managed by East Bay Regional Park District in the City of Richmond. Eelgrass beds will be planted next to the reefs in the following weeks to create a habitat ideal for the recruitment of native Olympia oysters and other aquatic species. Living shorelines use nature-based infrastructure to create shoreline buffers that reduce the impacts from sea level rise and erosion, while creating habitat for fish and wildlife. Though a relatively new climate adaptation technique, living shorelines are proving to be an effective approach to protecting coastal resources and shoreline communities. The Giant Marsh project is one of a small number of living shoreline trial projects taking place in the San Francisco Bay, but is the only one that connects the submerged underwater habitats with adjacent wetlands and upland ecotone plant communities. This innovative demonstration project is testing a combined living shorelines approach with habitat elements at different tidal elevations at the same site, with a goal of encouraging other cities and partners to undertake this kind of climate adaptation habitat restoration project at additional sites in the bay. The multi-habitat project at Giant Marsh builds on lessons learned from the Coastal Conservancy’s living shoreline project constructed directly across the bay in San Rafael in 2012, which included the construction of oyster reefs and eelgrass beds.
  • 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

    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
  • 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

    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....................
  • Climate Change Adaptation Study APPENDIX

    Climate Change Adaptation Study APPENDIX

    City of Richmond Climate Change Adaptation Study APPENDIX City of Richmond Climate Action Plan Appendix F: Climate Change Adaptation Study Acknowledgements The City of Richmond has been an active participant in the Contra Costa County Adapting to Rising Tides Project, led by the Bay Conservation Development Commission (BCDC) in partnership with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the State Coastal Conservancy, the San Francisco Estuary Partnership, the San Francisco Estuary Institute, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, and consulting firm AECOM. Environmental Science Associates (ESA) completed this Adaptation Study in coordination with BCDC, relying in part on reports and maps developed for the Adapting to Rising Tides project to assess the City of Richmond’s vulnerabilities with respect to sea level rise and coastal flooding. City of Richmond Climate Action Plan F-i Appendix F: Climate Change Adaptation Study This page intentionally left blank F-ii City of Richmond Climate Action Plan Appendix F: Climate Change Adaptation Study Table of Contents Acknowledgements i 1. Executive Summary 1 1.1 Coastal Flooding 2 1.2 Water Supply 2 1.3 Critical Transportation Assets 3 1.4 Vulnerable Populations 3 1.5 Summary 3 2. Study Methodology 4 2.1 Scope and Organize 4 2.2 Assess 4 2.3 Define 4 2.4 Plan 5 2.5 Implement and Monitor 5 3. Setting 6 3.1 Statewide Climate Change Projections 6 3.2 Bay Area Region Climate Change Projections 7 3.3 Community Assets 8 3.4 Relevant Local Planning Initiatives 9 3.5 Relevant State and Regional Planning Initiatives 10 4.
  • Phillips 66 Propane Recovery Project Recirculated DEIR

    Phillips 66 Propane Recovery Project Recirculated DEIR

    PHILLIPS 66 PROPANE RECOVERY PROJECT Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2012072046 County File No. LP12-2073 Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development October 2014 PHILLIPS 66 PROPANE RECOVERY PROJECT Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2012072046 County File No. LP12-2073 Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development October 2014 Department of Conservation and Development Community Development Division 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 120546 TABLE OF CONTENTS Phillips 66 Propane Recovery Project Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report Page Executive Summary ....................................................................................................... ES-1 ES-1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... ES-1 ES-2 Project Objectives ............................................................................................. ES-2 ES-3 Project Setting and Location ............................................................................. ES-3 ES-4 Project Description ............................................................................................ ES-3 ES-5 Alternatives ....................................................................................................... ES-8 ES-6 Environmentally Superior Alternative ................................................................ ES-9 ES-7 Areas of Controversy and Issues to be Resolved ............................................
  • Urban Greening Plan Initial Study Checklist

    Urban Greening Plan Initial Study Checklist

    City of El Cerrito Urban Greening Plan Initial Study Checklist Public Review Draft October 2015 Lead Agency: City of El Cerrito 10890 San Pablo Avenue El Cerrito, CA 94530 City of El Cerrito Urban Greening Plan Initial Study Checklist Public Review Draft October 2015 Lead Agency: City of El Cerrito 10890 San Pablo Avenue El Cerrito, CA 94530 TABLE OF CONTENTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................. 1 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ............................................ 11 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ................................................................................................ 12 A. Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................... 12 B. Agricultural and Forest Resources ..................................................................................... 15 C. Air Quality ............................................................................................................................. 17 D. Biological Resources ............................................................................................................ 22 E. Cultural Resources................................................................................................................ 28 F. Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................. 32 G. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
  • California Clapper Rail ( Rallus Longirostris Obsoletus ) TE-807078-10

    California Clapper Rail ( Rallus Longirostris Obsoletus ) TE-807078-10

    2009 Annual Report: California Clapper Rail ( Rallus longirostris obsoletus ) TE-807078-10 Submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento December 16, 2009 Submitted by PRBO Conservation Science Leonard Liu 1, Julian Wood 1, and Mark Herzog 1 1PRBO Conservation Science, 3820 Cypress Drive #11, Petaluma, CA 94954 Contact: [email protected] Introduction The California Clapper Rail ( Rallus longirostris obsoletus ) is one of the most endangered species in California. The species is dependent on tidal wetlands, which have decreased over 75% from the historical extent in San Francisco Bay. A complete survey of its population and distribution within the San Francisco Bay Estuary was begun in 2005. In 2009, PRBO Conservation Science (PRBO) completed the fifth year of field work designed to provide an Estuary-wide abundance estimate and examine the temporal and spatial patterns in California Clapper Rail populations. Field work was performed in collaboration with partners conducting call-count surveys at complementary wetlands (Avocet Research Associates [ARA], California Department of Fish and Game, California Coastal Conservancy’s Invasive Spartina Project [ISP], and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). This report details PRBO’s California Clapper Rail surveys in 2009 under U.S. Fish and Wildlife service permit TE-807078-10. A more detailed report synthesizing 2009 and 2010 survey results from PRBO and its partners is forthcoming. Methods Call-count surveys were initiated January 15 and continued until May 6. All sites (Table 1) were surveyed 3 times by experienced permitted biologists using a point transect method, with 10 minutes per listening station. Listening stations primarily were located at marsh edges, levees bordering and within marshes, boardwalks, boat-accessible channels within the marsh, and in the case of 6 marshes in the North Bay, foot access within the marsh.