DOCSLIB.ORG

Terminal Four Wharf, Warehouse, and Pile Removal Project Draft IS/MND

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Terminal Four Wharf, Warehouse, and Pile Removal Project Draft IS/MND Draft TERMINAL FOUR WHARF, WAREHOUSE, AND PILE REMOVAL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared for March 2020 California State Coastal Conservancy Draft TERMINAL FOUR WHARF, WAREHOUSE, AND PILE REMOVAL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared for March 2020 California State Coastal Conservancy 180 Grand Avenue Suite 1050 Oakland, CA 94612 510.839.5066 esassoc.com Bend Orlando San Jose Camarillo Pasadena Santa Monica Delray Beach Petaluma Sarasota Destin Portland Seattle Irvine Sacramento Tampa Los Angeles San Diego Oakland San Francisco 201700638 OUR COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABILITY | ESA helps a variety of public and private sector clients plan and prepare for climate change and emerging regulations that limit GHG emissions. ESA is a registered assessor with the California Climate Action Registry, a Climate Leader, and founding reporter for the Climate Registry. ESA is also a corporate member of the U.S. Green Building Council and the Business Council on Climate Change (BC3). Internally, ESA has adopted a Sustainability Vision and Policy Statement and a plan to reduce waste and energy within our operations. This document was produced using recycled paper. TABLE OF CONTENTS Terminal Four Wharf, Warehouse, and Piling Removal Project – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page Chapter 1, Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Purpose of This Document .................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Organization of This Document ........................................................................... 1-2 Chapter 2, Project Description .......................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Project Purpose, Need, and Objectives ............................................................... 2-1 2.2 Project Location and Ownership .......................................................................... 2-3 2.3 Overview of Project Site ...................................................................................... 2-3 2.4 Construction Activities ......................................................................................... 2-7 2.5 Construction Best Management Practices and Other Environmental Protection Measures ........................................................................................ 2-18 2.6 Operation and Maintenance .............................................................................. 2-25 2.7 Required Permits and Approvals ....................................................................... 2-26 Chapter 3, Initial Study ...................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ......................................................... 3-1 3.2 Environmental Checklist ...................................................................................... 3-3 3.2.1 Aesthetics .............................................................................................. 3-3 3.2.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ...................................................... 3-6 3.2.3 Air Quality .............................................................................................. 3-8 3.2.4 Biological Resources ........................................................................... 3-13 3.2.5 Cultural Resources .............................................................................. 3-35 3.2.6 Energy ................................................................................................. 3-45 3.2.7 Geology and Soils ............................................................................... 3-46 3.2.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................ 3-49 3.2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...................................................... 3-51 3.2.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................... 3-55 3.2.11 Land Use and Planning ....................................................................... 3-58 3.2.12 Mineral Resources............................................................................... 3-59 3.2.13 Noise ................................................................................................... 3-60 3.2.14 Population and Housing ...................................................................... 3-63 3.2.15 Public Services .................................................................................... 3-64 3.2.16 Recreation ........................................................................................... 3-65 3.2.17 Transportation ..................................................................................... 3-66 3.2.18 Tribal Cultural Resources .................................................................... 3-69 3.2.19 Utilities and Service Systems .............................................................. 3-71 3.2.20 Wildfire ................................................................................................ 3-74 3.2.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ..................................................... 3-75 Terminal Four Wharf, Warehouse, and Piling Removal Project i ESA / 201700638 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2020 Table of Contents Page Appendices A. Photographs: Existing Conditions at Terminal Four Wharf ............................................A-1 B. Air Quality Supporting Information .................................................................................B-1 C. Supplemental Material for Biological Resources ........................................................... C-1 List of Figures Figure 2-1 Project Site Location ........................................................................................ 2-4 Figure 2-2 Project Site, Access and Staging ..................................................................... 2-5 Figure 2-3 Demolition and Pile Removal Areas ................................................................. 2-8 Figure 2-4 Enhanced Rock Slope Protection Design Grading and Typical Cross Section ........................................................................................................ 2-14 Figure 2-5a Enhanced Rock Slope Protection Design Plan – Living Crown and Toe Treatment ............................................................................................ 2-15 Figure 2-5b Enhanced Rock Slope Protection Design Plan – Living Crown and Toe Treatment ............................................................................................ 2-16 Figure 2-6 Construction Schedule ................................................................................... 2-18 List of Tables Table 2-1 Selected Site Characteristics ........................................................................... 2-6 Table 2-2 Construction Equipment ................................................................................... 2-9 Table 2-3 Daily Truck Trips by Construction Activity ........................................................ 2-9 Table 3-1 Debris Removal Activities Emissions ............................................................. 3-10 Table 3-2 Potentially Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. and the State in the Wetland Delineation Study Area .............................................. 3-32 Table 3-3 Removal and Addition of Fill to Tidal Waters (within 7.59 ft NAVD88) in the Project Area ...................................................................................... 3-33 Table 3-4 Landfill Classification and Capacity ................................................................ 3-72 Terminal Four Wharf, Warehouse, and Piling Removal Project ii ESA / 201700638 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2020 CHAPTER 1 Introduction 1.1 Purpose of This Document The primary purpose of this document is to present decision makers and the public with information concerning the environmental consequences of implementing the Terminal Four Wharf, Warehouse, and Piling Removal Project (project) proposed at Point San Pablo Terminal Four (Terminal Four or project site). A detailed description of the project is provided in Chapter 2 of this document. This draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared by the California State Coastal Conservancy (SCC) in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)1 and the CEQA Guidelines.2 The SCC serves as the lead agency for development of this document (i.e., the public agency with principal responsibility for approving the project) and is also the applicant proposing to carry out the project. An Initial Study (IS) is prepared by a lead agency to determine whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment and is used to determine the type of CEQA document to be prepared. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, a lead agency shall prepare a mitigated negative declaration (MND) when the IS identifies potentially significant effects but revisions are made to the project that would avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant impacts would occur. This IS/MND is being circulated for public and agency review. Written comments on the Draft IS/MND may be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on April 9, 2020 to: Marilyn Latta State
Load more

Recommended publications
  • C<Uoln I£ »-I<;U Q£O SKU Op <U Rtf Uu> L, . 3 Kl 5 Z
    c <u o Ln I £ f—i »-i <; u Z Q O £ p o < S u K Z U 3 rtf 2 §u u > L, u £ a o . 3 Kl 5 z « £ > r A couple of visits by you to City Council meetings on June 2 and June 9 will almost certainly mean $15*000 worth of free hot lunches for Washington School children next year. On June 2 the Community Development Commission recom­ mendation to spend $1 5 ,0 0 0 next year for these children will be on Council agenda. The Council will probably send it to committee. The staff will probably recommend its passage and also funding for free hot lunches for two other schools. Then it will probably come up for a vote June 9 or maybe June 1 6 . We are doing trail-breaking work here. These lunches will be paid for by Federal block-grant funds and matched by Federal Nutri­ tion funds. The city has the money because the Potrero project cost less than expected. It won't cost the school district a cent. And it won't raise your property taxes. Thirty-three percent (33%) of these kids are on welfare. But they are our kids - they go to school in our community. Our community includes these children as well as people who are threatened by ammonia tanks. So even if you don't have children, and maybe especially if you don't have children - PLEAoE GO TO THESE MEETINGS. You people in Brickyard Cove - and on Western Drive - the councilmen know who you are.
    [Show full text]
  • Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan Contra Costa Transportation Authority
    Steering Committee Draft | Ocotber 2020 Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan Contra Costa Transportation Authority Steering Committee Draft | Ocotber 2020 Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan Contra Costa Transportation Authority Prepared By: 1625 Shattuck Avenue Suite 300 Berkeley, California 94709 510.848.3815 ORANGE COUNTY • BAY AREA • SACRAMENTO • CENTRAL COAST • LOS ANGELES • INLAND EMPIRE • SAN DIEGO www.placeworks.com Table of Contents List of Figures & Tables ii Executive Summary 3 1. Introduction 13 1.1 Metropolitan Transportation Commission Lifeline Transportation Program 13 1.2 CBTP Guidelines 14 1.3 2004 Richmond-Area CBTP 15 1.4 Current Richmond Area CBTP 15 1.5 COVID-19 and CBTP Development 17 2. Study Area Profile 18 2.1 Demographic Analysis 18 2.2 Transportation Patterns 24 2.3 Transportation Network 28 3. Previous Studies and Mobility Gaps 33 3.1 Local Studies 33 3.2 Countywide Studies 37 3.3 Current Studies 39 3.4 Thematic Mobility Challenges 40 4. Outreach and Engagement Summary 43 4.1 CBTP Advisor Groups 43 4.2 Outreach Strategy 44 4.3 Outreach Awareness 44 4.4 Outreach Results 46 4.5 Outreach Summary 54 5. Methodology and Recommendations 56 5.1 COVID-19 and CBTP Development 56 5.2 Evaluation Criteria 57 5.3 Evaluation Process 60 5.4 Recommended Projects and Plans 62 Appendix A Existing Conditions Report Appendix B Outreach Materials and Results Appendix C Recommendations Scoring Results Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan i Contra Costa Transportation Authority List of Figures
    [Show full text]
  • Birding Northern California by Jean Richmond
    BIRDING NORTHERN CALIFORNIA Site Guides to 72 of the Best Birding Spots by Jean Richmond Written for Mt. Diablo Audubon Society 1985 Dedicated to my husband, Rich Cover drawing by Harry Adamson Sketches by Marv Reif Graphics by dk graphics © 1985, 2008 Mt. Diablo Audubon Society All rights reserved. This book may not be reproduced in whole or in part by any means without prior permission of MDAS. P.O. Box 53 Walnut Creek, California 94596 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction . How To Use This Guide .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Birding Etiquette .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Terminology. Park Information .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 5 One Last Word. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 5 Map Symbols Used. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 6 Acknowledgements .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 6 Map With Numerical Index To Guides .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 8 The Guides. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 10 Where The Birds Are. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 158 Recommended References .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 165 Index Of Birding Locations. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 166 5 6 Birding Northern California This book is a guide to many birding areas in northern California, primarily within 100 miles of the San Francisco Bay Area and easily birded on a one-day outing. Also included are several favorite spots which local birders
    [Show full text]
  • Solanoexpress Bus Routes Transit Information Fairfield Transportation Center Fairfield
    Regional Transit Map Transit REGIONAL TRANSIT DIAGRAM To To Eureka Clearlake Information Mendocino Transit DOWNTOWN AREA TRANSIT CONNECTIONS Authority To Ukiah Lake Oakland Mendocino Transit 12th Street Oakland City Center BART: Greyhound BART, AC Transit FA FA 19th Street Oakland BART: FA BART, AC Transit Cloverdale San Francisco Yolobus To Davis Civic Center/UN Plaza BART: Winters Fairfi eld and Suisun Transit SolanoExpress is Solano SolanoExpress is Solano BART, Muni, Golden Gate Transit, SamTrans Fairfield 101 Embarcadero BART & Ferry Terminal: County’s intercity transit connection. County’s intercity transit connection. BART, Golden Gate Transit, Muni, SamTrans, (FAST) is the local transit system Baylink, Alameda/Oakland Ferry, Alameda Harbor Faireld and Healdsburg Bay Ferry, Blue & Gold Fleet, Amtrak CA Thruway Suisun Transit SolanoExpress routes connect cities SolanoExpress routes connect cities Transit To Sacramento for Fairfi eld and Suisun City and also Mongomery Street BART: Healdsburg BART, Muni, Golden Gate Transit, SamTrans Dixon within the county and provide service within the county and provide service Calistoga Readi- operates many of the SolanoExpress (Operated by FAST) (Operated by SolTrans) Handi Powell Street BART: Transportation Ride Van Calistoga BART, Muni, Golden Gate Transit, SamTrans regional routes. Please visit www.fasttransit. to neighboring counties, BART, and the ferry. to neighboring counties, BART, and the ferry. San Francisco Caltrain at 4th & King: Dixon Windsor Deer Caltrain, Muni, Amtrak CA Thruway org or call 707-422-BUSS (707-422-2877) for For more information, call (800) 535-6883 or For more information, call (800) 535-6883 or Park Transbay Temporary Terminal: Guerneville AC Transit, Muni, Golden Gate Transit, SamTrans, 80 visit www.solanoexpress.com.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Solano Express Bus Routes Transit Information Pleasant Hill Station Area Contra Costa Centre
    Fare Information effective January 1, 2016 Senior3 Adult/ (65+) Youth2 County Connection & (6-64) For more detailed information about BART Disabled service, please see the BART Schedule, BART 1 Transit CASH FARES (exact change only) Regional Transit Map System Map, and other BART information REGIONAL TRANSIT DIAGRAM displays in this station. Regular Ride $2.00 $1.00 To To Express Ride (900 series route numbers) $2.25 $1.00 Eureka Clearlake Information Mendocino Transit DOWNTOWN AREA TRANSIT CONNECTIONS PREPAID FARES Authority To Ukiah Lake Oakland ® 4 $2.00 $1.00 Mendocino Transit 12th Street Oakland City Center BART: Clipper Cash Value Greyhound BART, AC Transit 19th Street Oakland BART: 5 $3.75 $1.75 BART, AC Transit Day Pass Cloverdale San Francisco Yolobus To Davis Discount Regular/Express 20-Ride Pass N/A $15.00 Civic Center/UN Plaza BART: Winters BART, Muni, Golden Gate Transit, SamTrans Commuter Card (20 Regular+BART Transfer-Rides) $40.00 N/A Pleasant Hill 101 Embarcadero BART & Ferry Terminal: BART, Golden Gate Transit, Muni, SamTrans, Baylink, Alameda/Oakland Ferry, Alameda Harbor Faireld and 6 $60.00 N/A Healdsburg Bay Ferry, Blue & Gold Fleet, Amtrak CA Thruway Suisun Transit East Bay Regional Local 31-Day Transit To Sacramento Mongomery Street BART: Healdsburg BART, Muni, Golden Gate Transit, SamTrans Dixon 6 $70.00 N/A Calistoga Readi- County Connection (CCCTA) effective January 1, 2016 East Bay Regional Express 31-Day Handi Powell Street BART: San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Fare Information Station Area Ride BART Red* Ticket
    [Show full text]
  • Volume I - Finalfinal Eireir
    FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT POINT MOLATE MIXED-USE TRIBAL DESTINATION RESORT AND CASINO FEBRUARY 2011 VOLUMEVOLUME I - FINALFINAL EIREIR LEAD AGENCY City of Richmond 450 Civic Center Plaza Richmond, CA 94804 LEAD AGENCY FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT POINT MOLATE MIXED-USE TRIBAL DESTINATION RESORT AND CASINO FEBRUARY 2011 VOLUMEVOLUME I - FINALFINAL EIREIR FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT POINT MOLATE MIXED-USE TRIBAL DESTINATION RESORT AND CASINO VOLUMEVOLUME I - FINALFINAL EIREIR FEBRUARY 2011 LEAD AGENCY: PREPARED BY: City of Richmond Analytical Environmental Services 450 Civic Center Plaza 1801 7th Street, Suite 100 Richmond, CA 94804 Sacramento, CA 95811 (916) 447-3479 www.analyticalcorp.com TABLE OF CONTENTS POINT MOLATE MIXED-USE TRIBAL DESTINATION RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT FINAL EIR VOLUME I – FINAL EIR 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Organization of the Final EIR ....................................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Changes and Edits to Draft EIS/EIR ............................................................................................ 1-2 2.0 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS/EIR ................................................................................ 2-1 2.1 Organization of Comments ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Castro Point Railway the PLUNGE’S ORIGINAL 1926 CLOCK IS RE-HUNG TODAY September 1, 2010
    www.PointRichmondHistory.org Vol. XXIX No. 2 September/October, 2010 $3.00 Castro Point Railway THE PLUNGE’S ORIGINAL 1926 CLOCK IS RE-HUNG TODAY September 1, 2010 Meeting outside the locked Plunge this morning at 10 am were “The Clockman” Steve Kowalski, “Pony- tail Bruce" Audrestech, and David Vincent. A city employee happened to arrive at the same time, allowing entry to the building. The old clock was reinforced on the back by Steve with a new wooden cover. A ½ inch wooden frame on the back, with a steel top cross bar had been added. This allows the electric cord to hide in its recesses as the new plug outlet was flush with the new wall. The old clock originally was a key wind-up, but was long-ago converted to electricity. The little sticker on the face of the clock for the clock repair service has an Oakland address, without a zone number or zip code; the telephone has Highgate as the prefix to the number. Finding two more extension ladders was easier than expected, and two quick trips to Whale Point Marine Supply supplied the final requirements. Steve then added two lag bolts with large fender-washers to the studs in the wall. Returning to the floor all then signed their names to the new frame and dated the event. With three 20 foot extension ladders, side by side, Bruce and Steve walked the clock up the ladder. David’s feet rested on the bottom of the ladders to stabilize the climb, and with his free hand, taking photos of the installation.
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Resources Survey Report for the San Francisco Bay Trail at Point Molate, Contra Costa County, California
    Appendix D CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT Cultural Resources Survey Report for the San Francisco Bay Trail at Point Molate, Contra Costa County, California Prepared on Behalf of: Prepared By: East Bay Regional Park District NCE 2950 Peralta Oaks Court, P.O. Box 1760 P.O. Box 5381 Zephyr Cove, NV 89448 Oakland, CA 94605 NCE Project Number: 567.04.55 March 2018 Jeremy Hall With Contributions From: Cultural Resources Specialist Chad Moffett and Tim Smith NCE Architectural Historians Mead & Hunt ADMINISTRATIVE SUMMARY In 2009, the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) entered into an agreement for the donation of an easement for the San Francisco Bay Trail (Bay Trail) along the shoreline of their southernmost property on the San Pablo Peninsula at Point Molate. In 2013-14, the EBRPD hired NCE to conduct an alignment study for a Class I bike path and as a result, recorded the trail easement. Recently, the Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA) approved the installation of a bike and pedestrian path on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge to Marine Street, near Point Richmond, which would connect to the EBRPD’s easement at Stenmark Drive. The combined projects will connect trail users from both Richmond and Marin County to the San Pablo Peninsula. The proposed Bay Trail at Point Molate will be approximately 2.5 miles and extend north along the shoreline, through Chevron’s property, to the Point Molate Beach Park and Navel Fuel Depot property, owned and managed by the City of Richmond, giving the public access to the shoreline and the ability to connect to the Park via foot or bicycle.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft TISCORNIA ESTATE SPECIFIC PLAN/EIR Submitted to the City Of
    Draft TISCORNIA ESTATE SPECIFIC PLAN/EIR Submittee th o dt Cit f Richmonyo d by Wagstaf Bradd an f y Urban and Environmental Planners Landscape Architects with Assistance from Goodrich Traffic Group Traffic Consultants Darwin Myers Associates Geotechnical Engineers David Chavez and Associates Archaeologists January 15, 1986 CONTENTS Page 1. PLAN SUMMARY 1 II. INTRODUCTION 5 . PlaA n Purpose 5 B. Plan Background 6 III. PLANNING AREA 9 . RegionaA l Location 9 . LocaB l Setting 9 C. General Site Character/sties 9 D. Parcelization and Ownership 17 . PLAIV N GOALS 23 . GeneraA l Lan Goale dUs s 23 B. Visual and Natural Resource Goals 24 . CapitaC l Improvemen Implementatiod an t n Goals 25 V. LAND USE AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT 27 A. General Land Use and Conservation Concept 27 B. Residential Development Areas 30 . OpeC n Spac Conservatiod ean n Areas 38 VI. CIRCULATION ELEMENT 43 A. Planning Area Roadway System 43 B. Internal Roadway Improvements 45 . ExternaC l Roadway Improvements 47 . CirculatioD n Element Policies 48 VII. PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT 49 A. Sewer Service 49 B. Water Service 49 . StorC m Drainage 53 D. Fire Protection Service 54 E. Police Protection Service 55 F. Gas and Electricity 55 VIII. FINANCING AND IMPLEMENTATION ELEMENT 57 . DevelopmenA t Revie Regulatiod wan n 57 B. Required Capital Improvements 58 . ApportionmenC f Capitao t l Improvement Cost Responsibilities 58 D. Timing of Capital Improvements 63 Page IX. SPECIFIC PLAN RELATIONSHIP LOCAO ST L GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES 65 A. City of Richmond General Plan 65 B. City of Richmond Zoning Ordinance 68 .
    [Show full text]
  • The Bay Leaf California Native Plant Society • East Bay Chapter Alameda & Contra Costa Counties
    February, 2020 The Bay Leaf California Native Plant Society • East Bay Chapter Alameda & Contra Costa Counties www.ebcnps.org www.nativeherenursery.org MEMBERS’ MEETING A Farallon Floranal: The Ecology and Plants of the Faral- he has authored or co-authored over 180 papers in scientific lon Islands journals and four books, and has described a new species of Speaker: Peter Pyle shearwater (Puffinus bryani) and named it after his grandfa- Wednesday, February 26, 7:30 pm ther, Edwin Bryan. Peter currently works as a staff biologist Location: Garden Room, Orinda Public Library for the Institute for Bird Populations in Point Reyes Station. The Farallon Islands, part of the City and County of San East Bay CNPS members meetings are free of charge and Francisco, is a National Wildlife Refuge located 27 miles open to everyone. This month’s meeting takes place in the west of the Golden Gate Bridge. Cold ocean currents and Garden Room of the Orinda Public Library at 26 Orinda other environmental factors there lead to high ocean pro- Way, Orinda 94563, a few blocks from the Orinda BART ductivity and a thriving marine wildlife ecology. Biologists station. The Garden Room is on the second floor of the working for PRBO/Point Blue Conservation Science and building, accessible by stairs or an elevator. Email pro- the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have resided on South- [email protected] if you have questions. east Farallon Island every day since April 1968, studying all aspects of the island’s environment and ecology. Peter Pyle Next Month’s Program spent over 2,100 nights at the island’s biological station in 1980-2003, primarily focused on birds, marine mam- Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • BART-To-Oakland International Airport Title VI Equity Analysis
    BART-to-Oakland International Airport Title VI Equity Analysis May 2014 Prepared for: San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District Prepared by: CDM Smith Corey, Canapary & Galanis Research Table of Contents Section 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1-1 Section 2 Public Outreach .......................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Public Comments ........................................................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.2.1 New Service Input .......................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2.2 Fare Preference Input ................................................................................................................................... 2-2 2.3 Limited English Proficient (LEP) Community Comments ........................................................................ 2-3 2.4 Airport Employee Comments ................................................................................................................................ 2-3 Section 3 Project Description ................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Project New Fare ........................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]