December 6, 2016
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. -
Section 3.4 Biological Resources 3.4- Biological Resources
SECTION 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4- BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This section discusses the existing sensitive biological resources of the San Francisco Bay Estuary (the Estuary) that could be affected by project-related construction and locally increased levels of boating use, identifies potential impacts to those resources, and recommends mitigation strategies to reduce or eliminate those impacts. The Initial Study for this project identified potentially significant impacts on shorebirds and rafting waterbirds, marine mammals (harbor seals), and wetlands habitats and species. The potential for spread of invasive species also was identified as a possible impact. 3.4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SETTING HABITATS WITHIN AND AROUND SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY The vegetation and wildlife of bayland environments varies among geographic subregions in the bay (Figure 3.4-1), and also with the predominant land uses: urban (commercial, residential, industrial/port), urban/wildland interface, rural, and agricultural. For the purposes of discussion of biological resources, the Estuary is divided into Suisun Bay, San Pablo Bay, Central San Francisco Bay, and South San Francisco Bay (See Figure 3.4-2). The general landscape structure of the Estuary’s vegetation and habitats within the geographic scope of the WT is described below. URBAN SHORELINES Urban shorelines in the San Francisco Estuary are generally formed by artificial fill and structures armored with revetments, seawalls, rip-rap, pilings, and other structures. Waterways and embayments adjacent to urban shores are often dredged. With some important exceptions, tidal wetland vegetation and habitats adjacent to urban shores are often formed on steep slopes, and are relatively recently formed (historic infilled sediment) in narrow strips. -
East Bay Regional Park District
East Bay~ Regional Park District TO: PARK ADVISORY COMMITTEE FROM: GLENN KIRBY, CHAIR SUBJECT: PARK ADVISORY COMMITTEE March 24, 2014 Location: Peralta Oaks Court 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, CA 6:45 pm Social and Refreshments REGULAR MEETING 7:00 p.m. 1. Approval of Minutes - February 24, 2014 2. Introductions 3. Public Comments 7:15 p.m. 4. Presentations: (I) a. Introduction of Cultural Services Coordinator - Jim O'Connor, AGM Operations (I) b. Statewide Drought Effects - Jim O'Connor, AGM Operations & Anne Scheer, Chief of Parks (I) c. Regional Parks Foundation Updates - Carol Johnson, AGM Public Affairs 8:00 p.m. 5. PAC Member Comments· 6. Report from the Vice Chair - John Mercurio 7. Board Committee Reports 8. Status of Recommendations 9. Old Business 10. New Business 11. Adjournment - Next Meeting April 28, 2014 (A) Action (I) Information (R) Recommendation ATTACHMENTS 1. CSC Memo 2. Drought Press Release 3. Regional Parks Foundation Memo 4. Work Plan 2014 5. Status of Recommendations 6. Articles & Correspondence Unapproved Meeting Minutes PARK ADVISORY COMMITTEE February 24, 2014 ATTENDING: Kirby, Madsen, Madison, Godfrey, Kern, Coffey, Vann, Mercurio, Bank, Palacios, Simmons, Beyaert, Volin, Coomber, Shalaby, Gregory NOTATTENDING: Best, Pellegrini, DeMarcus, Yee STAFF ATTENDING: Barial, Pfuehler, Scheer, Johnson GUESTS: Director John Sutter PUBLIC: None. The meeting began at 7:05 p.m. I. Approval of Minutes: PAC member Beyaert moved and PAC member Coomber seconded approval of the January 27, 2014 minutes with one correction. The motion passed unanimously. PAC members Madison and Madsen abstained due to absence from the meeting. 2. Introductions: PAC Chair Kirby asked PAC members, staff and the public to introduce themselves. -
LV Scoping Report
APPENDIX A Notices and Public Involvement A-1. Scoping Report A-2. CCWD CEQA Notice of Completion A-3. Reclamation Notice of Availability Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion Project A-1 February 2009 Draft EIS/EIR A-1 SCOPING REPORT Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion Project February 2009 Draft EIS/EIR LOS VAQUEROS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT Scoping Report U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region April 2008 LOS VAQUEROS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT Scoping Report U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region April 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion Project Scoping Report Page 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Proposed Action 1 1. Project Objectives 2 2. Reservoir Expansion Alternatives 4 3.0 Opportunities for Public Comment 7 1. Notification 7 2. Information Open House and Public Scoping Meetings 7 4.0 Summary of Scoping Comments 8 1. Commenting Parties 9 2. Comments Received During the Scoping Process (Written and Oral) 9 5.0 Consideration of Issues Raised in Scoping Process 15 1. Alternatives and Baseline Condition 16 2. Biological Resources 16 3. Cultural/Historical Resources 17 4. Surface Water Hydrology and Water Quality 17 5. Water Supply 17 6. Recreation 17 7. Geology 17 8. Land Use 18 9. Transportation and Circulation 18 10. Construction-Related Issues 18 11. Growth-Inducing Effects 18 12. Cumulative Effects 18 13. Other Issues 19 Appendices A. Notice of Intent A-1 B. CEQA Agency Consultation and Public Scoping B-1 B-1 Notice of Preparation B-1 B-2 NOP Mailing List B-2 B-3 Office of Planning and Research Filing Acknowledgement B-3 Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion Project i ESA / 201110 Scoping Report April 2008 Table of Contents Page C. -
Battle on Many Fronts
RISING REALITY The Risk The Embarcadero The Future The Shorelines Resources Battle on many fronts The Bay Area faces a common threat along its shores, but must meet it with an array of ambitious and creative responses By John King November 2016 Boardwalks along the edge of the Alviso Salt Marsh restoration project allow visitors to enjoy the surrounding area on the edge of San Francisco Bay in Alviso. Michael Macor, The Chronicle The levee that rings Oakland International Airport seemingly has nothing in common with the saltcrusted stretch of flat land alongside Menlo Park’s Bayfront Park. One is a 7foothigh line of boulders, an engineered barrier between the tidal flows that surge in through the Golden Gate twice daily and the runways used by 10,000 commercial flights every month. The other is quiet desolation, a white void dotted with stagnant pools of water. Both, though, are examples of the Bay Area shoreline at risk from the longterm effects of sea level rise — and reminders that there’s no single way to prepare for what might lie ahead. RISINGThe REALITY correct remed yThe in someRisk areas The of Embarcadero shoreline will in vTheolv eFuture forms of naThetural Shorelines healing, wi thResources restored and managed marshes that provide habitat for wildlife and trails for people. But when major public investments or large residential communities are at risk, barriers might be needed to keep out water that wants to come in. It’s a future where nowisolated salt ponds near Silicon Valley would be reunited with the larger bay, while North Bay farmland is turned back into marshes. -
Executive Director's Recommendation Regarding Proposed Cease And
May 16, 2019 TO: Enforcement Committee Members FROM: Larry Goldzband, Executive Director, (415/352-3653; [email protected]) Marc Zeppetello, Chief Counsel, (415/352-3655; [email protected]) Karen Donovan, Attorney III, (415/352-3628; [email protected]) SUBJECT: Executive Director’s Recommendation Regarding Proposed Cease and Desist and Civil Penalty Order No. CDO 2019.001.00 Salt River Construction Corporation and Richard Moseley (For Committee consideration on May 16, 2019) Executive Director’s Recommendation The Executive Director recommends that the Enforcement Committee adopt this Recommended Enforcement Decision including the proposed Cease and Desist and Civil Penalty Order No. CCD2019.001.00 (“Order”) to Salt River Construction Corporation and Richard Moseley (“SRCC”), for the reasons stated below. This matter arises out of an enforcement action commenced by BCDC staff in June of 2018 after BCDC received information from witnesses regarding the unauthorized activities. The matter was previously presented to the Enforcement Committee on February 21, 2019. After the Committee voted to recommend the adoption of the proposed Cease and Desist and Civil Penalty Order, the Commission remanded the matter to the Committee on April 18, 2019, in order to allow Mr. Moseley to appear and present his position. Staff Report I. SUMMARY OF THE BACKGROUND ON THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS A. Background Facts The Complaint alleges three separate violations. The first alleged violation occurred on property near Schoonmaker Point Marina, located in Richardson’s Bay in Marin County. On November 25, 2017, a San Francisco Baykeeper patrol boat operator witnessed a barge near Schoonmaker Marina being propelled by an excavator bucket. -
San Francisco Bay Plan
San Francisco Bay Plan San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission In memory of Senator J. Eugene McAteer, a leader in efforts to plan for the conservation of San Francisco Bay and the development of its shoreline. Photo Credits: Michael Bry: Inside front cover, facing Part I, facing Part II Richard Persoff: Facing Part III Rondal Partridge: Facing Part V, Inside back cover Mike Schweizer: Page 34 Port of Oakland: Page 11 Port of San Francisco: Page 68 Commission Staff: Facing Part IV, Page 59 Map Source: Tidal features, salt ponds, and other diked areas, derived from the EcoAtlas Version 1.0bc, 1996, San Francisco Estuary Institute. STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, Governor SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 50 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 2600 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 PHONE: (415) 352-3600 January 2008 To the Citizens of the San Francisco Bay Region and Friends of San Francisco Bay Everywhere: The San Francisco Bay Plan was completed and adopted by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission in 1968 and submitted to the California Legislature and Governor in January 1969. The Bay Plan was prepared by the Commission over a three-year period pursuant to the McAteer-Petris Act of 1965 which established the Commission as a temporary agency to prepare an enforceable plan to guide the future protection and use of San Francisco Bay and its shoreline. In 1969, the Legislature acted upon the Commission’s recommendations in the Bay Plan and revised the McAteer-Petris Act by designating the Commission as the agency responsible for maintaining and carrying out the provisions of the Act and the Bay Plan for the protection of the Bay and its great natural resources and the development of the Bay and shore- line to their highest potential with a minimum of Bay fill. -
(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. -
I Regional Oral History Office University of California the Bancroft
i Regional Oral History Office University of California The Bancroft Library Berkeley, California CHARLES SEIM The Bay Bridge Oral History Project Interviews conducted by Sam Redman in 2012 Copyright © 2013 by the California Department of Transportation This series of interviews was funded through a contract with the Oakland Museum of California, the California Department of Transportation, the California Transportation Commission, and the Bay Area Toll Authority ii 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 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 a legal agreement between the University of California and Charles Seim dated September 4, 2012. The manuscript is thereby made available for research purposes. All literary rights in the manuscript, including the right to publish, are hereby transferred to and reserved by The California Department of Transportation. -
Abundance and Distribution of Shorebirds in the San Francisco Bay Area
WESTERN BIRDS Volume 33, Number 2, 2002 ABUNDANCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF SHOREBIRDS IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA LYNNE E. STENZEL, CATHERINE M. HICKEY, JANET E. KJELMYR, and GARY W. PAGE, Point ReyesBird Observatory,4990 ShorelineHighway, Stinson Beach, California 94970 ABSTRACT: On 13 comprehensivecensuses of the San Francisco-SanPablo Bay estuaryand associatedwetlands we counted325,000-396,000 shorebirds (Charadrii)from mid-Augustto mid-September(fall) and in November(early winter), 225,000 from late Januaryto February(late winter); and 589,000-932,000 in late April (spring).Twenty-three of the 38 speciesoccurred on all fall, earlywinter, and springcounts. Median counts in one or moreseasons exceeded 10,000 for 10 of the 23 species,were 1,000-10,000 for 4 of the species,and were less than 1,000 for 9 of the species.On risingtides, while tidal fiats were exposed,those fiats held the majorityof individualsof 12 speciesgroups (encompassing 19 species);salt ponds usuallyheld the majorityof 5 speciesgroups (encompassing 7 species); 1 specieswas primarilyon tidal fiatsand in other wetlandtypes. Most speciesgroups tended to concentratein greaterproportion, relative to the extent of tidal fiat, either in the geographiccenter of the estuaryor in the southernregions of the bay. Shorebirds' densitiesvaried among 14 divisionsof the unvegetatedtidal fiats. Most species groups occurredconsistently in higherdensities in someareas than in others;however, most tidalfiats held relativelyhigh densitiesfor at leastone speciesgroup in at leastone season.Areas supportingthe highesttotal shorebirddensities were also the ones supportinghighest total shorebird biomass, another measure of overallshorebird use. Tidalfiats distinguished most frequenfiy by highdensities or biomasswere on the east sideof centralSan FranciscoBay andadjacent to the activesalt ponds on the eastand southshores of southSan FranciscoBay and alongthe Napa River,which flowsinto San Pablo Bay. -
The San Francisco Bridge Company Was Dredging the Oakland Estuary on Wednesday, January 7, 1920, Near the High Street Bridge. Wh
I S S U E N U m b E r 1 • A P r IL 2 0 1 8 by Dennis Evanosky An Oakland Tribune photographer set up his camera on Webb Avenue just across from Fire Station #1 and took this panoramic photograph of the damage caused by the 1920 Park Street Fire. The panorama stretches from the Joseph Knowland home and the Southern Pacific Railroad station on Lincoln Avenue on the right to Webb Avenue and the extent of the fire damage along Park Street and at Bank Alley on the left. Image: Oakland Tribune. he San FranciSco Bridge company was stored bicarbonate of soda in the water tank. When the Tdredging the Oakland Estuary on Wednesday, January 7, firefighters added sulfuric acid to the mix, pressure from 1920, near the High Street Bridge. While work was under- the ensuing chemical reaction forced water from the tank way, the company damaged the fourteen-inch main that and into the hoses. Firefighters also arrived at the Lincoln carried water into Alameda. “Dredger Breaks City Water Avenue blaze aboard a Waterous pumper, likely Waterous’ Main,” the Evening Times-Star told its readers. The timing first single-engine fire truck, which the prolific manufac- couldn’t have been worse. turer had delivered to AFD in 1908. At 2:44 p.m., the next day, fire broke out in the packing AFD also used a Seagrave triple-combination truck to room of William and Earl Bolt’s Kellogg Express Company fight the blaze. This truck contained a water tank, a pump at 2418 Lincoln Avenue, just across the street from the to deliver the water and hoses to disperse the water onto Southern Pacific Railroad (SP) station that stood on the site the fire. -
Update 2013 November 2013
East Contra Costa County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update 2013 November 2013 East County Water Management Association CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT City of Pittsburg East Contra Costa County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update The East County Water Management Association (ECWMA) will soon begin to update its Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP), originally developed in June 2006. The Update is being funded by the ECWMA agencies and a planning grant from the California Department of Water Resources. An IRWMP is a collaborative effort to manage all aspects of water resources in a region. IRWMPs cross jurisdictional, watershed, and political boundaries; involve multiple agencies, stakeholders, individuals, and groups; and attempt to address the issues and differing perspectives of all the entities involved through mutually beneficial solutions. The East Contra Costa County IRWMP Update will consist of: Updating the document to the lastest guidelines and standards, including the development of new integrated projects Developing a plan for groundwater and salt/nutrient management in the Pittsburg Plain Basin Continuing public outreach, including to disadvantaged communities More information about IRWMPs may be found at http://www.water.ca.gov/irwm/. If you would like more information about the IRWMP Update or would like to participate in upcoming public meetings, please contact Marie Valmores at [email protected]. Contra Costa County November 17, 2001 Creek and Watershed Symposium http://www.eccc-irwm.org/ East County Water Management Association CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT City of Pittsburg East Contra Costa County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update The East County Water Management Association (ECWMA) will soon begin to update its Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP), originally developed in June 2006.