DOCSLIB.ORG

Mare Island Specific Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mare Island Specific Plan MARE ISLAND SPECIFIC PLAN ADOPTED - MARCH 1999 AMENDED AND RESTATED - DECEMBER 2005 AMENDED – JULY 2007 AMENDED – JUNE 2008 AMENDED – JUNE 2013 AMENDED – AUGUST 2013 Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES/PLATES...................................................................................................... vii LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................... viii LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................................. viii 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 THE VISION FOR MARE ISLAND .................................................................... 1 1.2 PLANNING FOR THE REUSE OF MARE ISLAND ......................................... 2 1.3 REUSE GOALS AND CONCEPTS ..................................................................... 3 1.4 FRAMEWORK FOR CHANGE ........................................................................... 4 1.4.1 Policies ................................................................................................... 4 1.5 SETTING ............................................................................................................... 5 1.5.1 Location ................................................................................................. 5 1.5.2 Plan Area ................................................................................................ 7 1.5.3 Ownership ............................................................................................ 10 1.6 HISTORY OF MARE ISLAND .......................................................................... 11 1.6.1 History Prior to Base Realignment and Closure .................................. 11 1.6.2 Reuse Process....................................................................................... 13 1.7 RELATIONSHIP TO THE CITY OF VALLEJO GENERAL PLAN ................ 15 1.8 JURISDICTIONAL RELATIONSHIPS ............................................................. 19 1.8.1 Federal Government............................................................................. 19 1.8.2 State of California ................................................................................ 19 1.8.3 City of Vallejo...................................................................................... 20 2.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................ 22 2.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 22 2.2 SIGNIFICANCE OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ................................................ 22 2.3 HISTORIC DESIGNATIONS AND LISTINGS ................................................ 22 2.3.1 Federal Designations and Programs ..................................................... 23 2.3.2 State Designations and Programs......................................................... 27 2.3.3 Local Designations............................................................................... 28 2.3.4 Preservation Incentives ........................................................................ 29 2.4 PRESERVATION GOALS AND POLICIES ..................................................... 30 MARE ISLAND SPECIFIC PLAN 2005 PAGE i 2.4.1 General Plan Goals .............................................................................. 31 2.4.2 Reuse Program Policies ....................................................................... 31 2.4.3 Additional Specific Plan Policies......................................................... 32 2.5 HISTORIC PROJECT GUIDELINES ................................................................ 32 2.5.1 .............................................................................................................. 33 2.5.2 Development Review Process.............................................................. 41 2.6 Design Guidelines for the Historic District ......................................................... 42 2.7 INTERIM MAINTENANCE OF RESOURCES ................................................ 42 2.8 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES................................................................. 43 2.8.1 Archaeological Resources Protection Policy ....................................... 43 2.8.2 Summary of Archaeological Resources ............................................... 43 2.9 PLANNING AND REVIEW ............................................................................... 45 3.0 LAND USE ...................................................................................................................... 46 3.1 LAND USE POLICIES AND PRACTICES ....................................................... 46 3.1.1 Land Use Policies ................................................................................ 46 3.2 LAND USE CATEGORIES ................................................................................ 47 3.2.1 Federal Transfer ................................................................................... 49 3.2.2 Dredge Ponds ....................................................................................... 49 3.2.3 Conservation Easement ........................................................................ 49 3.2.4 Open Space .......................................................................................... 49 3.2.5 Developed Recreation .......................................................................... 49 3.2.6 Educational/Civic ................................................................................. 50 3.2.7 Residential............................................................................................ 50 3.2.8 Mixed Use ............................................................................................ 52 3.2.9 Industrial .............................................................................................. 54 3.2.10 Ancillary Uses ...................................................................................... 55 3.2.11 Uses Requiring Major Conditional Use Permits .................................. 55 3.2.12 Uses Requiring Site Development Permit ........................................... 56 3.3 LAND USE PLAN OVERVIEW ........................................................................ 56 3.3.1 Mixed-Use Office/Research & Development ...................................... 57 3.3.1 Industrial .............................................................................................. 57 3.3.2 Mixed-Use Employment ...................................................................... 57 3.3.3 Mixed-Use Civic, Retail and Office Commercial ................................ 57 MARE ISLAND SPECIFIC PLAN 2005 PAGE ii 3.3.4 Educational/Civic ................................................................................. 58 3.3.5 Residential............................................................................................ 58 3.3.6 Open Space .......................................................................................... 58 3.3.7 Island Destinations ............................................................................... 59 3.4 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE .............................................................................. 61 3.4.1 Neighborhood Parks............................................................................. 63 3.4.2 Community Parks................................................................................. 64 3.4.3 District/Citywide Parks ........................................................................ 64 3.4.4 Urban Parks .......................................................................................... 65 3.4.5 Pocket Parks ......................................................................................... 66 3.5 LAND USE PROGRAM BY REUSE AREA ..................................................... 67 3.5.1 Reuse Area 1A (North Island Industrial Park) ..................................... 69 3.5.2 Reuse Area 1B (Northwest Industrial Area) ........................................ 69 3.5.3 Reuse Area 2A (Town Center) ............................................................ 70 3.5.4 Reuse Area 2B (West Business Park) .................................................. 71 3.5.5 Reuse Area 3A (Waterfront Business Campus)................................... 71 3.5.6 Reuse Area 3B (Waterfront Mixed Use) ............................................. 72 3.5.7 Reuse Area 4 (Historic Core) ............................................................... 72 3.5.8 Reuse Area 5 (Waterfront Industrial Park) .......................................... 74 3.5.9 Reuse Area 6 (North Residential Village) ........................................... 74 3.5.10 Reuse Area 7 (Community Park) ......................................................... 75 3.5.11 Reuse Area 8 (South Residential Village) ........................................... 75 3.5.12 Reuse Area 9 (University Area) ........................................................... 75 3.5.13 Reuse Area 10A (South Island Business Park) .................................... 76 3.5.14 Reuse Area 10B (Army Reserve) ........................................................ 76 3.5.15 Reuse Area 11 (Golf Course) ............................................................... 77 3.5.16 Reuse Area 12 (Regional Park)...........................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sacramento District 1325 J Street Sacramento, California Contract: DACA05-97-D-0013, Task 0001 FOSTER WHEELER ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION
    CALIFORNIA HISTORIC MILITARY BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES INVENTORY VOLUME II: THE HISTORY AND HISTORIC RESOURCES OF THE MILITARY IN CALIFORNIA, 1769-1989 by Stephen D. Mikesell Prepared for: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sacramento District 1325 J Street Sacramento, California Contract: DACA05-97-D-0013, Task 0001 FOSTER WHEELER ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION Prepared by: JRP JRP HISTORICAL CONSULTING SERVICES Davis, California 95616 March 2000 California llistoric Military Buildings and Stnictures Inventory, Volume II CONTENTS CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................................... i FIGURES ....................................................................................................................................... iii LIST OF ACRONYMS .................................................................................................................. iv PREFACE .................................................................................................................................... viii 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1-1 2.0 COLONIAL ERA (1769-1846) .............................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Spanish-Mexican Era Buildings Owned by the Military ............................................... 2-8 2.2 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • CALIFORNIA FISH and GAME ' CONSERVATION of WILDLIFE THROUGH EDUCATION'
    REPRINT FROM CALIFORNIA FISH and GAME ' CONSERVATION OF WILDLIFE THROUGH EDUCATION' . VOLUME 50 APRIL 1964 NUMBER 2 ANNUAL ABUNDANCE OF YOUNG STRIPED BASS, ROCCUS SAXATILIS, IN THE SACRAMENTO- SAN JOAQUIN DELTA, CALIFORNIA' HAROLD K. CHADWICK Inland Fisheries Branch California Department of Fish and Game INTRODUCTION A reliable index of striped bass spawning success would serve two important management purposes. First, it would enable us to determine if recruitment is directly related to spawning success. If it is, we could predict important changes in the fishery three years in advance. Second, it would give insight into environmental factors responsible for good and poor year-classes. Besides increasing our understanding of the bass population, this knowledge might be used to improve recruit- ment by modifying water development plans in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta under the State Water Resources Development System. Fyke net samples provided the earliest information on young bass distribution (Hatton, 1940). They were not promising for estimating abundance, and subsequent sampling of eggs and larvae with plankton nets also had important limitations (Calhoun and Woodhull, 1948; Cal- houn, Woodhull, and Johnson, 1950). An exploratory survey with tow nets in the early summer of 1947 (Calhoun and Woodhull, 1948) found bass about an inch long dis- tributed throughout the lower Sacramento-San Joaquin River system except in the Sacramento River above Isleton. This suggested the best index of spawning success would be the abundance of bass about an inch long, measured by tow netting. In 1948 and 1949 extensive tow net surveys were made to measure the relative abundance of young bass in the Delta between Rio Vista and Pittsburg (Erkkila et al., 1950).
    [Show full text]
  • Historic Context Statement City of Benicia February 2011 Benicia, CA
    Historic Context Statement City of Benicia February 2011 Benicia, CA Prepared for City of Benicia Department of Public Works & Community Development Prepared by page & turnbull, inc. 1000 Sansome Street, Ste. 200, San Francisco CA 94111 415.362.5154 / www.page-turnbull.com Benicia Historic Context Statement FOREWORD “Benicia is a very pretty place; the situation is well chosen, the land gradually sloping back from the water, with ample space for the spread of the town. The anchorage is excellent, vessels of the largest size being able to tie so near shore as to land goods without lightering. The back country, including the Napa and Sonoma Valleys, is one of the finest agriculture districts in California. Notwithstanding these advantages, Benicia must always remain inferior in commercial advantages, both to San Francisco and Sacramento City.”1 So wrote Bayard Taylor in 1850, less than three years after Benicia’s founding, and another three years before the city would—at least briefly—serve as the capital of California. In the century that followed, Taylor’s assessment was echoed by many authors—that although Benicia had all the ingredients for a great metropolis, it was destined to remain in the shadow of others. Yet these assessments only tell a half truth. While Benicia never became the great commercial center envisioned by its founders, its role in Northern California history is nevertheless one that far outstrips the scale of its geography or the number of its citizens. Benicia gave rise to the first large industrial works in California, hosted the largest train ferries ever constructed, and housed the West Coast’s primary ordnance facility for over 100 years.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Sediment / Unlock Alameda Creek
    PUBLIC SEDIMENT / UNLOCK ALAMEDA CREEK WWW.RESILIENTBAYAREA.ORG ◄ BAYLANDS = LIVING INFRA STR CTY\, E' j(II( ........ • 400 +-' -L C Based on preliminary 0 analysis by SFfl. A more , detailed analysis is beinq E TIDAL MARSH conducted as part of -l/) the Healthy Watersheds l/) ro Resilient Aaylands E project (hwrb.sfei.org) +-' C QJ E "'O MUDFLAT QJ V1 SAC-SJ DELTA 0 1 Sediment supply was estimated by 'Sediment demand was estimated multiplying the current average using a mudflat soil bulK density of annual c;ediment load valuec; from 1.5 q c;ediment/rm c;oil (Brew and McKee et al. (in prep) by the number Williams :?010), a tidal marsh soil of years between 201 r and2100. bulK density ot 0.4 g sed1m ent / cm 3 c;oil (Callaway et al. :?010), and baywide mudflat and marsh area circa 2009 (BAARI vl). BAYLANDS TODAY BAYLANDS 2100 WITH 3' SLR LOW SEDIMENT SUPPLY BAYLANDS 2100 WITH 7' SLR LOW SEDIMENT SUPPLY WE MUST LOOK UPSTREAM TRIBUTARIES FEED THE BAY SONOMA CREEK NAPA RIVER PETALUMA CREEK WALNUT CREEK ALAMEDA CREEK COYOTE CREEK GUADALUPE CREEK ALAMEDA CREEK SEDIMENTSHED ALAMEDA CREEK ALAMEDA CREEK WATERSHED - 660 SQMI OAKLAND ALAMEDA CREEK WATERSHED SAN FRANCISCO SAN JOSE THE CREEK BUILT AN ALLUVIAL FAN AND FED THE BAY ALAMEDA CREEK SOUTH BAY NILES CONE ALLUVIAL FAN HIGH SEDIMENT FEEDS MARSHES TIDAL WETLANDS IT HAS BEEN LOCKED IN PLACE OVER TIME LIVERMORE PLEASANTON SUNOL UNION CITY NILES SAN MATEO BRIDGE EDEN LANDING FREMONT NEWARK LOW SEDIMENT CARGILL SALT PONDS DUMBARTON BRIDGE SEDIMENT FLOWS ARE HIGHLY MODIFIED SEDIMENT IS STUCK IN CHANNEL IMPOUNDED BY DAMS UPSTREAM REDUCED SUPPLY TO THE BAY AND VULNERABILITIES ARE EXACERBATED BY CLIMATE CHANGE EROSION SUBSIDENCE SEA LEVEL RISE THE FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL SAN MATEO BRIDGE UNION CITY NILES RUBBER DAMS BART WEIR EDEN LANDING PONDS HEAD OF TIDE FREMONT 880 NEWARK TIDAL EXTENT FLUVIAL EXTENT DUMBARTON BRIDGE.
    [Show full text]
  • San Pablo Bay and Marin Islands National Wildlife Refuges - Refuges in the North Bay by Bryan Winton
    San Pablo Bay NWR Tideline Newsletter Archives San Pablo Bay and Marin Islands National Wildlife Refuges - Refuges in the North Bay by Bryan Winton Editor’s Note: In March 2003, the National Wildlife Refuge System will be celebrating its 100th anniversary. This system is the world’s most unique network of lands and waters set aside specifically for the conservation of fish, wildlife and plants. President Theodore Roosevelt established the first refuge, 3- acre Pelican Island Bird Reservation in Florida’s Indian River Lagoon, in 1903. Roosevelt went on to create 55 more refuges before he left office in 1909; today the refuge system encompasses more than 535 units spread over 94 million acres. Leading up to 2003, the Tideline will feature each national wildlife refuge in the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex. This complex is made up of seven Refuges (soon to be eight) located throughout the San Francisco Bay Area and headquartered at Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge in Fremont. We hope these articles will enhance your appreciation of the uniqueness of each refuge and the diversity of habitats and wildlife in the San Francisco Bay Area. San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge Tucked away in the northern reaches of the San Francisco Bay estuary lies a body of water and land unique to the San Francisco Bay Area. Every winter, thousands of canvasbacks - one of North America’s largest and fastest flying ducks, will descend into San Pablo Bay and the San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge. This refuge not only boasts the largest wintering population of canvasbacks on the west coast, it protects the largest remaining contiguous patch of pickleweed-dominated tidal marsh found in the northern San Francisco Bay - habitat critical to Aerial view of San Pablo Bay NWR the survival of the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse.
    [Show full text]
  • The Fishing Industry and Martinez-Benicia Ferry
    The Fishing Industry and Martinez-Benicia Ferry Courtesy of the Contra Costa Historical Society Some of the first Italian immigrants to arrive in Martinez settled in the Grangers' Wharf area and established a fishing village complete with grocery stores, bakeries, barber shop, boarding house, and restaurants. The City of Martinez leased the land to the fishermen for $1.00 a year. Although Alhambra Creek, the creek used by the fishermen, was dredged for accessibility, the boats often needed a high tide to get in and out. The fishing nets, made of linen, required much upkeep. During the fishing season, the linen nets were dipped weekly in a tanning solution, put on racks to dry, and repaired. The Italian fishermen called these tanning vats “karates.” The karates, built by the fishermen's union, are still visible and Courtesy of the Martinez Historical Society can be seen near Alhambra Creek. Fishermen repairing nets. The Grangers' Wharf area. A ferry can be seen in the distance. Courtesy of the Conta Costa Historical Society The Martinez-Benicia Ferry was the first established In 1850, Contra Costa County was established and and longest operating ferry service in the San Francisco required ferry operations to be licensed. During the same Bay area. year, application was made and a license granted to Oliver In 1847, ferry service was established between Coffin to operate a ferry between Martinez and Benicia. Benicia and Martinez by Dr. Robert Semple, the In November of 1854, the Contra Costa County founder of Benicia. The first boats were small sail and Court of Sessions directed that the ferry operating oar-powered scows, and operated on an occasional basis between Martinez and Benicia make half-hourly trips across Carquinez Strait.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Appendix U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Maintenance
    APPENDIX U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS MAINTENANCE DREDGING PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS SAN FRANCISCO BAY-DELTA, CA 7/21/15 PROJECT NAME: OAKLAND HARBOR, CA OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION Oakland Harbor is a high-use, deep-draft harbor located in Alameda County, California. The Port of Oakland is the major container facility in San Francisco Bay and is a National Strategic Port. The project was recently deepened from -45’ to 50-feet’ It is the third largest container port on the West coast and the fifth largest in the nation. The project includes annual maintenance dredging the Inner and Outer Harbors to a depth of -50 feet MLLW and provides for inspection and maintenance of parallel rubble-mound jetties that form the entrance to Oakland Inner Harbor, monitoring the Sonoma Baylands Wetland Demonstration Site, and for payment to Alameda County for Operations and Maintenance (O&M) of the Fruitvale Avenue Railroad Bridge. AUTHORIZATION: River and Harbor Acts of 1910, 1917, 1922, 1928, 1930, 1945, and 1962, Water Resource Development Acts of 1986 and 1999 FISCAL YEAR 2013 ACTUAL: $20,903,212 FISCAL YEAR 2014 ALLOCATION: $21,848,310 . CONFERENCE AMOUNT FOR FY 2015: $21,970,000 BUDGETED AMOUNT FOR FY 2016: M: $14,725,000 O: $275,000 T: $15,000,000 1/ DESCRIPTIONS OF WORK AND JUSTIFICATIONS FOR FY 2016: N: $15,000,000 - Funding will be used for annual contract maintenance dredging of the Inner and Outer Harbor Channels to 49-feet deep. Amount also includes annual operation of the Fruitvale Avenue Railroad Bridge. PROJECT NAME: REDWOOD CITY HARBOR, CA OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION Redwood City Harbor is located on San Francisco Bay in San Mateo County.
    [Show full text]
  • The Voyage Home U.S. Windsurfing Nationals Bay Bridge Closure
    AYAY ROSSINGSROSSINGS “The VoiceBB of the Waterfront” CC August 2007 Vol.8, No.8 The Voyage Home Long-Haul Freighter Journey Bay Bridge Closure Behind the Labor Day Project U.S. Windsurfi ng Nationals Competition at Crissy Field Complete Ferry Schedules for all SF Lines Upscale. Downtown. Voted Best Restaurant 4 Years Running For $300,000 less. Lunch & Dinner Daily Banquets Corporate Events www.scomas.com (415)771-4383 Fisherman’s Wharf on Pier 47 Foot of Jones on Jefferson Street Zinfandel, Syrah and more. Rich, ripe, fruit-forward Zins, Syrahs–and more– Eight Orchids in downtown that get top scores from critics and Wine Spectator. Oakland’s Chinatown is Visit us to taste your way through the best of California. redefining urban style and city convenience. At a price you won’t find anywhere in San Francisco. Discover unparalleled luxury in these exceptional condominium homes. Affordably priced from the high $300,000s. The Sales Center and furnished model at 425 7th Street are open Monday 1 to 6 and Tuesday-Sunday 11 to 6. WINERY & TASTING ROOM 2900 Main Street, Alameda, CA 94501 Complimentary Wine Tasting Accessible by San Francisco Bay ferry, we’re just feet from the Alameda Terminal! Open Daily 11–6 510-835-8808 8orchidsmovie.com 510-865-7007 Exclusively represented by The Reiser Group www.RosenblumCellars.com 2 August 2007 BAYCROSSINGS www.baycrossings.com columns feature 15 SAILING ADVENTURES 12 THE VOYAGE HOME 12 Making Your Sailboat Bay Bridge Sand Takes Look Good Long Trip from Canada guides by Scott Alumbaugh by Tom Paiva 07 WATERFRONT
    [Show full text]
  • 18-1246 PC M 11-12-2020.Pdf
    Communication from Public Name: Daniel Gaines Date Submitted: 11/12/2020 12:54 PM Council File No: 18-1246 Comments for Public Posting: This ordinance, if passed, would essentially ignore our housing crisis and prioritize tourists over long term tenants and the wealthy over people who desperately need housing. As someone who works in homeless services, I see firsthand how the shortage of housing is a public health issue for the folks I serve, and we know that deaths of unhoused individuals have skyrocketed in recent months. LA is in a state of emergency when it comes to housing and I implore the council to alleviate the crisis of houselessness BEFORE focusing on lodgings for tourists who all have homes to return to. It is unconscionable for our City to consider removing housing from the long-term rental market at a time when tenants are being displaced and and homelessness is increasing. If passed, this ordinance will potentially remove 14,740 homes from the long term rental market in Los Angeles. (LA Times: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-12-19/los-angeles-vacation-rentals-city-council-considers-loosening-rules) In these dire times, we are asking PLUM to please consider who really needs their protection: working Angelenos trying to stay in their homes, or the wealthiest among us trying to profit from second homes they don’t actually live in? Communication from Public Name: Stella Grey Date Submitted: 11/11/2020 11:51 PM Council File No: 18-1246 Comments for Public Posting: Dear members of the Committee, Our neighborhood known as Bird Streets already bears the brunt of party houses epidemic.
    [Show full text]
  • Status of Ospreys Nesting on San Francisco Bay ANTHONY J
    STATUS OF OSPREYS NESTING ON SAN FRANCISCO BAY ANTHONY J. BRAKE, 1201 Brickyard Way, Richmond, California 94801; [email protected] HARVEY A. WILSON, 1113 Otis Drive, Alameda, California 94501; [email protected] ROBIN LEONG, 336 Benson Avenue, Vallejo, California 94590 ALLEN M. FISH, Golden Gate Raptor Observatory, Building 1064, Fort Cronkhite, Sausalito, California 94965 ABSTRACT: Historical records from the early 1900s, as well as surveys updated in the late 1980s and more recent information from local breeding bird atlases, in- dicate that Ospreys rarely nested on San Francisco Bay prior to 2005. In 2013, we surveyed nesting Ospreys baywide and located 26 nesting pairs, 17 of which were successful and fledged 44 young. We also report on findings from previous annual nest surveys of a portion of San Francisco Bay beginning in 1999. These results demonstrate a greater breeding abundance than has previously been recognized. The density of Osprey nests is highest near the north end of San Francisco Bay, but nesting also appears to be expanding southward. Nearly all of the nests observed were built on artificial structures, some of which were inappropriate and required nests to be removed. Over half of unsuccessful pairs experienced significant human disturbance. We recommend that conservation efforts focus on reducing this ratio, and to help do so, we urge erecting nest platforms as part of efforts to deter nesting when it conflicts with human activity. The Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) is a diurnal, piscivorous raptor that breeds or winters in a variety of habitats on all continents except Antarctica. Upon reaching maturity, the birds typically return close to their natal site to breed.
    [Show full text]