DOCSLIB.ORG

Background and Setting 2:Chapter

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Background and Setting 2:Chapter Background and Setting 2:chapter Public Draft: October 2015 Richmond Bay Specific Plan | 2-1 Chapter 2: Background and Setting 2.1 Historic Context The Plan Area was first developed in the 1920s when the waterfront developer Fred Parr deepened the Santa Fe Canal, using the dredged earth to create 210 acres of new land along Richmond’s southern shoreline. Parr was eager to develop, and new businesses moved in, most notably a cannery and two shipping terminals; the Ford Motors Assembly Plant also opened in 1931. The most formative event to shape the history of the Richmond Bay was Parr convincing Henry Kaiser to open a series of four shipbuilding yards in the Plan Area in 1940. During World War II, the Kaiser-Permanente Shipyards constructed more ships for the armed forces than any other American shipyard. Three shifts ran around the clock, as other area industries (such as Ford Motors and California Cap Company) also shifted to wartime production. Richmond’s population quintupled in three years, from 20,000 to over 100,000 residents. Workers arrived to the area from all over the Bay Area via the Shipyard Railway, operated by the Key System connecting Richmond to the East Bay and San Francisco. The shipyards closed at the end of WWII. The Richmond Field Station was established in 1950 with the closure of the California Cap Company, and the Ford Building ceased operations in 1956 as the area fell into a period of decline. Reinvestment began in the mid-1980s with the development Aerial photo of the Kaiser shipyards during World War II of the Marina Bay neighborhood and inner harbor and has continued with the development of additional residential neighborhoods and light-industrial and commercial uses. The industrial history of the Richmond Bay greatly influenced the built form of the Plan Area, with little attention to place- making. Rail and industry are still dominant factors defining the challenges and opportunities that characterize the site today. 2-2 | Richmond Bay Specific Plan Public Draft: October 2015 Chapter 2: Background and Setting 2.2 Summary of Existing Conditions h h h R t h o d h t o h M h t s t e t t v t h e 8 lt n 0 o B A 0 t 4 h p 4 6 5 u d 2 t 2 Nevin e 2 Nevin 3 9 r n 3 g 2 3 m 9 t a t 3 K l 1 t h 3 h il h a 3 t t d s t N V ev s e in r h h 7 R 9 7 MacDonald 1 h 2.2.1 DEMOGRAPHICS t t 1 y d d t 3 2 S r 2 r E 5 5 4 d a h 7 4 3 t t s 3 r 2 h a r n p 3 h n h 3 t 4 t d d t Richmond PDAs a t 2 e y y e o r Bissell 6 0 t e n a n h G r 6 h t 4 s t w 4 H 2 2 u h h l t d B t i 4 t s t s r 6 h 4 2 C t a ell B w t h The SRPDA includes census tracts 3790 and 3800. These 9 i 4 h 8 s e o s a s 1 t r e l h l t l y 5 C l ha t 1 B Tract 1 us n h s 3 Cens l h C or 1 t o t 1 7 st 1 1 5 or 5 2 F Chansl I tracts, which include areas that are outside of the Plan 3 1 4 21 8 Ohio Ohio Ohio 0 3790 h t hio h O t h h t h h s t h t t Center Area, were home to approximately 11,823 residents in t d h h t 1 d t t 1 9 7 3 r 9 n d 20 7 1 Florida Florida 5 3 2 t Florida 2 1 3 h 800 2 3 n h t 4 47 s I h t h 2 h n 2 t t a ler 9 8 1 Wal 2010, about 11% of Richmond’s total population (US t 0 lm l 4 8 2 u 0 3 4 d h P Maine 1 t Maine Maine r 1 2 Wall h 3 3 h h h h t t t t t t h 1 Census). It is ethnically and racially diverse, with 35 2 t 7 Taft d 7 9 s 5 5 h u h t 2 Virginia t 1 1 n 1 1 o h 8 Over end t 6 4 2 h S t t h on h Johns 3 0 3 4 s t t percent of residents identifying as African American and t h 6 N h 5 t 1 h 8 4 s Cutting t 2 t u 4 h 1 1 2 5 n t S 5 h 2 t 1 H h S t n 1 4 P 33 percent as Hispanic or Latino. t e laz t o 2 p a 1 P r o g Fall ot er h 3 f h s r e h t f 1 t m t H i t n 1 h h h h 1 0 t t t t s a in 9 d g State 4 3 r 3 n 6 k 5 7 9 1 le 2 Berk d 1 1 1 1 2 y C n 33 a 2 r Bell h t I E ls 5 580 x o 9 In 2011 the SRPDA included 6,082 jobs, with Wright it 1 n Potrero f 0B 4 r h h t d t a t r h h 7 t o 9 te 3 Cyp manufacturing, construction, retail trade, and wholesale 1 Meeker ress 8 L W 1 Meeker 4 a M th ic 6 g e d a 4 n d Creely Carlos trade representing over half of the jobs in the SRPDA, i n e k a y M s r l n M S l i a e a h r a E t P d r H with one out of every four jobs in manufacturing. a D e i M 5 ri n a 5 M v e r Gately Alameda C e a h t w t a n a d a B e 6 0 S n Offsh y e k ore 4 t 8 n a E t e a H Regatta e h I y l t x h W a a t it M h c 7 t r e 7 The area largely mirrors demographic conditions seen in b l 4 1 i all r 9 f H 1 c 5 f o B e ay d 5 t l a u si r d h 5 m s M r e t a ha the City of Richmond as a whole. Although the SRPDA’s 6 S 9 1 w C Te e 4 5 e t n e t i h M a v B d s y e v ll M r u o median household income of $47,500 is approximately i u P 1 a c e g oin o e t c w a t I 5 B d t i Se sab n e n el t o U Re e d gio r $7,000 lower than the City’s, the SRPDA and City have n sula win nal e na nin S Pe uth ho y S o re I S S line 5 a r m te comparable per capita income levels due to the SRPDA’s Richm 8 n a ut n ond M n to ed arina Bay 0 J S g o M tin a n a u smaller average household size. S q H u t t e r i o ee n o S sn t a re n F C et il L le a o u F For many households in the SRPDA, housing is not r lu n T is Va ay m B b I i h affordable. More than half of all renters paid more than o a 8 h h R R t h o d h t o h M h t s c t e t t v 0 t h e s 8 lt y n 0 o B A i 0 t 4 h p 4 6 5 u c d 2 t d 2 Nevin e 2 P Nevin 3 9 r 3 n n g 2 3 m 9 t i a t 3 K a l 1 t h 3 h il h a r n i 3 t e t d s t N 30 percent of their income on housing, with 28 percent V ev s e F in r h h 7 R 9 7 MacDonald 1 r t t h 1 y d 3 n l d t S a c 2 r 2 r tr E 5 5 4 a n d J h 4 e a 7 C e 3 t t S s 3 r 2 h a a r n p 3 h n h 3 t 4 t d d t Richmond PDAs a t 2 e y paying 50 percent or more.o For owner-occupied units, c y e r Bissell 6 0 t e n a n h G r 6 h u t 4 s t w 4 H 2 2 u h h l t d B t i 4 z t s t s r 6 h 4 2 C t a ell B w t h 9 i I 4 h 8 s z e o s a s 1 t r e s l h l t l y 5 C l ha t 1 B Tract a i 1 us n h s 3 more than 60 percent of homeowners paid more than 30 Cens l h C or 1 t b o t 1 7 st 1 1 e 5 or 5 2 F Chansl I 3 l 1 4 21 8 Ohio Ohipercento ofO theirhio income0 on housing, with more than 40 3790 h t hio h O t h h t h h s t h t t Center t d h h t 1 d t t 1 9 7 3 r 9 n d 20 7 1 Florida Florida 5 3 2 t Florida 2 1 3 h 800 2 3 n h t 4 47 s I h t h 2 h n 2 t percent paying 50 percent or more.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fall 2011  510 520 3876
    BPWA Walks Walks take place rain or shine and last 2-3 hours unless otherwise noted. They are free and Berkeley’s open to all. Walks are divided into four types: Theme Friendly Power Self Guided Questions about the walks? Contact Keith Skinner: [email protected] Vol. 14 No. 3 BerkeleyPaths Path Wanderers Association Fall 2011 510 520 3876. October 9, Sunday - 2nd An- BPWA Annual Meeting Oct. 20 nual Long Walk - 9 a.m. Leaders: Keith Skinner, Colleen Neff, To Feature Greenbelt Alliance — Sandy Friedland Sandy Friedland Can the Bay Area continue to gain way people live.” A graduate of Stanford Meeting Place: El Cerrito BART station, University, Matt worked for an envi- main entrance near Central population without sacrificing precious Transit: BART - Richmond line farmland, losing open space and harm- ronmental group in Sacramento before All day walk that includes portions of Al- ing the environment? The members of he joined Greenbelt. His responsibilities bany Hill, Pt. Isabel, Bay Trail, Albany Bulb, Greenbelt Alliance are doing everything include meeting with city council members East Shore Park, Aquatic Park, Sisterna they can to answer those questions with District, and Santa Fe Right-of-Way, ending a resounding “Yes.” Berkeley Path at North Berkeley BART. See further details Wanderers Asso- in the article on page 2. Be sure to bring a ciation is proud to water bottle and bag lunch. No dogs, please. feature Greenbelt October 22, Saturday - Bay Alliance at our Trail Exploration on New Landfill Annual Meeting Thursday, October Loop - 9:30 a.m. 20, at the Hillside Club (2286 Cedar Leaders: Sandra & Bruce Beyaert.
    [Show full text]
  • Foster City, a Planned Community in the San Francisco Bay Area
    FOS T ER CI T Y - A NEW CI T Y ON T HE BAY A TRIBU T E T O PROFESSOR MI C HAEL MCDOUGALL KAL V IN PLATT As a tribute to Michael McDougall, long-time friend and colleague, Kalvin Platt revisits the Kalvin Platt, FAIA, is project for Foster City, a planned community in the San Francisco Bay Area. Mike was a Chairman of the SWA Group, an International principal planner and designer of this successful story of a new community which, as early Planning and Landscape as 1958, pioneered several planning and urban design maxims that we value today in good Architectural consulting place-making and sustainability. Foster City is a lesson for all of us. firm with 7 offices and award winning projects around the world. Mr. Platt has In the early 1960s; when I came to California as a planner and joined Wilsey, Ham, and Blair, an extensive experience Engineering and Planning Company in Millbrae; I met Michael McDougall. He was working on Foster in Planning New Towns and Communities, City, a new town along the San Francisco Bay. The sinuous “Venice-like” lagoon system that formed Sustainable Land the backbone of the plan amazed me with its inherent beauty and appropriateness to the natural Planning, Urban sloughs that ran along the Bay. What also amazed me was that this was a Master Planned New Design and Park and Town, the first significant effort of this post-WWII large scale planning concept in California and it had Conservation Planning. begun to be built as planned.
    [Show full text]
  • BAYLANDS & CREEKS South San Francisco
    Oak_Mus_Baylands_SideA_6_7_05.pdf 6/14/2005 11:52:36 AM M12 M10 M27 M10A 121°00'00" M28 R1 For adjoining area see Creek & Watershed Map of Fremont & Vicinity 37°30' 37°30' 1 1- Dumbarton Pt. M11 - R1 M26 N Fremont e A in rr reek L ( o te C L y alien a o C L g a Agua Fria Creek in u d gu e n e A Green Point M a o N l w - a R2 ry 1 C L r e a M8 e g k u ) M7 n SF2 a R3 e F L Lin in D e M6 e in E L Creek A22 Toroges Slou M1 gh C ine Ravenswood L Slough M5 Open Space e ra Preserve lb A Cooley Landing L i A23 Coyote Creek Lagoon n M3 e M2 C M4 e B Palo Alto Lin d Baylands Nature Mu Preserve S East Palo Alto loug A21 h Calaveras Point A19 e B Station A20 Lin C see For adjoining area oy Island ote Sand Point e A Lucy Evans Lin Baylands Nature Creek Interpretive Center Newby Island A9 San Knapp F Map of Milpitas & North San Jose Creek & Watershed ra Hooks Island n Tract c A i l s Palo Alto v A17 q i ui s to Creek Baylands Nature A6 o A14 A15 Preserve h g G u u a o Milpitas l Long Point d a S A10 A18 l u d p Creek l A3N e e i f Creek & Watershed Map of Palo Alto & Vicinity Creek & Watershed Calera y A16 Berryessa a M M n A1 A13 a i h A11 l San Jose / Santa Clara s g la a u o Don Edwards San Francisco Bay rd Water Pollution Control Plant B l h S g Creek d u National Wildlife Refuge o ew lo lo Vi F S Environmental Education Center .
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Sediment Transport in the San Francisco Bay Coastal System: an Overview
    Marine Geology 345 (2013) 3–17 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Marine Geology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/margeo Sediment transport in the San Francisco Bay Coastal System: An overview Patrick L. Barnard a,⁎, David H. Schoellhamer b,c, Bruce E. Jaffe a, Lester J. McKee d a U.S. Geological Survey, Pacific Coastal and Marine Science Center, Santa Cruz, CA, USA b U.S. Geological Survey, California Water Science Center, Sacramento, CA, USA c University of California, Davis, USA d San Francisco Estuary Institute, Richmond, CA, USA article info abstract Article history: The papers in this special issue feature state-of-the-art approaches to understanding the physical processes Received 29 March 2012 related to sediment transport and geomorphology of complex coastal–estuarine systems. Here we focus on Received in revised form 9 April 2013 the San Francisco Bay Coastal System, extending from the lower San Joaquin–Sacramento Delta, through the Accepted 13 April 2013 Bay, and along the adjacent outer Pacific Coast. San Francisco Bay is an urbanized estuary that is impacted by Available online 20 April 2013 numerous anthropogenic activities common to many large estuaries, including a mining legacy, channel dredging, aggregate mining, reservoirs, freshwater diversion, watershed modifications, urban run-off, ship traffic, exotic Keywords: sediment transport species introductions, land reclamation, and wetland restoration. The Golden Gate strait is the sole inlet 9 3 estuaries connecting the Bay to the Pacific Ocean, and serves as the conduit for a tidal flow of ~8 × 10 m /day, in addition circulation to the transport of mud, sand, biogenic material, nutrients, and pollutants.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4.4 Cultural Resources
    Section 4.4 Cultural Resources 4.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES 4.4.1 Introduction This section presents information on known and potentially existing cultural resources at the RBC site and analyzes the potential for development under the proposed 2014 LRDP to affect those resources. Information and analysis in this section is based on previous archaeological surveys (see Section 4.4.5) and those conducted for the current project: Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Richmond Bay Campus, Alameda County (GANDA 2013) and Historic Properties Survey Report for Richmond Bay Campus (Tetra Tech 2013). Cultural resources can be prehistoric, Native American, or historic. Prehistoric resources are artifacts from human activities that predate written records; these are generally identified in isolated finds or sites. Prehistoric resources are typically archaeological and can include village sites, temporary camps, lithic scatters, roasting pits/hearths, milling features, petroglyphs, rock features, and burial plots. Historic resources are properties, structures, or built items from human activities that coincide with the epoch of written records. Historic resources can include archaeological remains and architectural structures. Historic archaeological sites include townsites, homesteads, agricultural or ranching features, mining-related features, refuse concentrations, and features or artifacts associated with early military and industrial land uses. Historic architectural resources can include houses, cabins, barns, lighthouses, other constructed buildings, and bridges. Generally, architectural resources that are over 50 years old are considered for evaluation for their historic significance. Public and agency NOP comments related to cultural resources are summarized below: For construction activities proposed in a state right-of-way, Caltrans requires that project environmental documentation include results of a current Northwest Information Center archaeological records search.
    [Show full text]
  • Goga Wrfr.Pdf
    The National Park Service Water Resources Division is responsible for providing water resources management policy and guidelines, planning, technical assistance, training, and operational support to units of the National Park System. Program areas include water rights, water resources planning, regulatory guidance and review, hydrology, water quality, watershed management, watershed studies, and aquatic ecology. Technical Reports The National Park Service disseminates the results of biological, physical, and social research through the Natural Resources Technical Report Series. Natural resources inventories and monitoring activities, scientific literature reviews, bibliographies, and proceedings of technical workshops and conferences are also disseminated through this series. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the National Park Service. Copies of this report are available from the following: National Park Service (970) 225-3500 Water Resources Division 1201 Oak Ridge Drive, Suite 250 Fort Collins, CO 80525 National Park Service (303) 969-2130 Technical Information Center Denver Service Center P.O. Box 25287 Denver, CO 80225-0287 Cover photos: Top: Golden Gate Bridge, Don Weeks Middle: Rodeo Lagoon, Joel Wagner Bottom: Crissy Field, Joel Wagner ii CONTENTS Contents, iii List of Figures, iv Executive Summary, 1 Introduction, 7 Water Resources Planning, 9 Location and Demography, 11 Description of Natural Resources, 12 Climate, 12 Physiography, 12 Geology, 13 Soils, 13
    [Show full text]
  • Surficial Characteristics of the Bay Floor of South San Francisco, San Pablo, and Suisun Bays, California by John L Chin1 and H
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Surficial characteristics of the bay floor of South San Francisco, San Pablo, and Suisun Bays, California by John L Chin1 and H. Edward Clifton1 Open-File Report 90-665 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards (or with the North American Stratigraphic Code). Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. 1 U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California 94025 1990 INTRODUCTION San Francisco Bay is the largest estuary on the Pacific Coast of the United States. Although the hydrology and biology of the bay have been extensively studied, almost no studies have been conducted on the surficial characteristics and composition of the bay floor, and how physical processes both form and modify it into different morphologies. Rubin and McCulloch (1979) conducted such a study in central San Francisco Bay. This study was designed to study the southern and northern parts of the bay in a manner analogous to that of Rubin and McCulloch (1979). Our reconnaissance investigation characterizes the surficial morphology of the bay floor as revealed by side-scan sonar imaging and high-resolution bathymetry and deduces the general nature of sedimentation, bedload sediment transport directions, and areas of deposition versus erosion. Our results should apply to current issues involving sedimentation, dredging, pollution, and the disposal of dredge spoils in the San Francisco Bay system and the highly developed urban areas that border it.
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Bay Joint Venture
    The San Francisco Bay Joint Venture Management Board Bay Area Audubon Council Bay Area Open Space Council Bay Conservation and Development Commission The Bay Institute The San Francisco Bay Joint Venture Bay Planning Coalition California State Coastal Conservancy Celebrating years of partnerships protecting wetlands and wildlife California Department of Fish and Game California Resources Agency 15 Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge Contra Costa Mosquito and Vector Control District Ducks Unlimited National Audubon Society National Fish and Wildlife Foundation NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service Natural Resources Conservation Service Pacific Gas and Electric Company PRBO Conservation Science SF Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Estuary Partnership Save the Bay Sierra Club U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Geological Survey Wildlife Conservation Board 735B Center Boulevard, Fairfax, CA 94930 415-259-0334 www.sfbayjv.org www.yourwetlands.org The San Francisco Bay Area is breathtaking! As Chair of the San Francisco Bay Joint Venture, I would like to personally thank our partners It’s no wonder so many of us live here – 7.15 million of us, according to the 2010 census. Each one of us has our for their ongoing support of our critical mission and goals in honor of our 15 year anniversary. own mental image of “the Bay Area.” For some it may be the place where the Pacific Ocean flows beneath the This retrospective is a testament to the significant achievements we’ve made together. I look Golden Gate Bridge, for others it might be somewhere along the East Bay Regional Parks shoreline, or from one forward to the next 15 years of even bigger wins for wetland habitat.
    [Show full text]
  • Portolá Trail and Development of Foster City Our Vision Table of Contents to Discover the Past and Imagine the Future
    Winter 2014-2015 LaThe Journal of the SanPeninsula Mateo County Historical Association, Volume xliii, No. 1 Portolá Trail and Development of Foster City Our Vision Table of Contents To discover the past and imagine the future. Is it Time for a Portolá Trail Designation in San Mateo County? ....................... 3 by Paul O. Reimer, P.E. Our Mission Development of Foster City: A Photo Essay .................................................... 15 To enrich, excite and by T. Jack Foster, Jr. educate through understanding, preserving The San Mateo County Historical Association Board of Directors and interpreting the history Paul Barulich, Chairman; Barbara Pierce, Vice Chairwoman; Shawn DeLuna, Secretary; of San Mateo County. Dee Tolles, Treasurer; Thomas Ames; Alpio Barbara; Keith Bautista; Sandra McLellan Behling; John Blake; Elaine Breeze; David Canepa; Tracy De Leuw; Dee Eva; Ted Everett; Accredited Pat Hawkins; Mark Jamison; Peggy Bort Jones; Doug Keyston; John LaTorra; Joan by the American Alliance Levy; Emmet W. MacCorkle; Karen S. McCown; Nick Marikian; Olivia Garcia Martinez; Gene Mullin; Bob Oyster; Patrick Ryan; Paul Shepherd; John Shroyer; Bill Stronck; of Museums. Joseph Welch III; Shawn White and Mitchell P. Postel, President. President’s Advisory Board Albert A. Acena; Arthur H. Bredenbeck; John Clinton; Robert M. Desky; T. Jack Foster, The San Mateo County Jr.; Umang Gupta; Greg Munks; Phill Raiser; Cynthia L. Schreurs and John Schrup. Historical Association Leadership Council operates the San Mateo John C. Adams, Wells Fargo; Jenny Johnson, Franklin Templeton Investments; Barry County History Museum Jolette, San Mateo Credit Union and Paul Shepherd, Cargill. and Archives at the old San Mateo County Courthouse La Peninsula located in Redwood City, Carmen J.
    [Show full text]
  • Marina Bay Trail Guide San Francisco Bay Trail Richmond, California
    Marina Bay Trail Guide San Francisco Bay Trail Richmond, California Rosie the Riveter / World War Il Home Front National Historical Park National Park Service U.S. Department of the !nterior Richmond, California i-l i I 2.'l mito i iPoint Richmond RICIJMOND MARIN.A BAY TRAIL n A century ago Marina Bay u)as a land that dissolueMnto tidal marsh at the edge(r+ \ i, \ of the great estuary we call San Froncisco Bay. One-could find shell mounds left sY by the Huchiun tribe of natiue Ohlone and watclt'""Soiting aessels ply the bay with Y ,J_r ' ,# + passengers and cargo. The arriual of Standard Off ond the Sonta Fe Railrood at q the beginning of the 20th century sparked a transformatioryffitnis hndscope that continues &, Y $ Harbor Mt today. The Marina Bay segment of the San Francisco Bay lfuit Offers us neu opportunities @EGIE to explore the history, wildlife, and scenery of Richmondffilynamic southesstern shore. Future site of Rosie the Riveterl WWll Home Front National Historical Park Visitor Center Map Legend Sheridan Point r ,.' B ft EIE .. Bay Trail suitable for walking, biking, roller skating & wheelchair access ? V Distance markers and mileage #g.9--o--,,t,* betweentwomarkers Ford Assembly MARI Stair access to San Francisco Bay Building ) Built in 1930, the Richmond Ford RICHMO Home Front tr visitor lnformation Motor Co. Plant was the largest Iucretia RICHMOND lnterpretive Markers assembly plant on the West Coast. t Edwards \ During WWII, it switched to the |,|[lil Restrooms Historical markers throughout the \ @EtrM@ Marina are easy to spot from a assembly of combat vehicles.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]