DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Rolls-Royce

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Rolls-Royce Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Rolls-Royce Engine Services-Oakland Inc. Test Cell Upgrade Project OAKLAND, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: Port of Oakland 530 Water Street Oakland, California 94607 Contact: Colleen Liang Port Environmental Scientist [email protected] Date: April 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE ......................................................................................... 1 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ..................................................................................................... 1 2.1 PROJECT TITLE ..................................................................................................................... 1 2.2 LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS ....................................................................................... 1 2.3 CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER ............................................................................... 1 2.4 PROJECT LOCATION .............................................................................................................. 2 2.5 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING DISTRICT ............................................................. 2 2.6 SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING ............................................................................... 2 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................... 5 3.1 PROJECT CONTEXT ............................................................................................................... 5 3.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................................... 5 3.3 PROJECT–RELATED APPROVALS, AGREEMENTS, AND PERMITS .............................................. 6 3.4 PROJECT SCHEDULE ............................................................................................................. 6 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED .............................................. 15 4.1 AESTHETICS ........................................................................................................................ 17 4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ......................................................................... 18 4.3 AIR QUALITY ....................................................................................................................... 19 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .................................................................................................... 25 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................................... 40 4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS .......................................................................................................... 44 4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ............................................................................................ 47 4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ............................................................................... 49 4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ...................................................................................... 54 4.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING .................................................................................................. 57 4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................................... 62 4.12 NOISE ............................................................................................................................... 63 4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING ............................................................................................... 75 4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES ............................................................................................................. 76 4.15 RECREATION ..................................................................................................................... 77 4.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC ............................................................................................... 78 4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ...................................................................................... 81 4.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ........................................................................... 84 5.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 86 CHECKLIST INFORMATION SOURCES .......................................................................................... 86 SETTING REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 87 6.0 LIST OF ACRONYMS .......................................................................................................... 89 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1. PROJECT AREA LOCATION MAP ...................................................................................... 3 FIGURE 2. AERIAL OF THE PROJECT AREA ...................................................................................... 4 FIGURE 3A. TEST CELL WALL ELEVATIONS ..................................................................................... 7 FIGURE 3B. TEST CELL GROUND FLOOR PLAN ................................................................................ 8 FIGURE 4A. TEST CELL GROUND FLOOR SECTIONS (INDOOR/OUTDOOR) ......................................... 9 FIGURE 4B. OUTDOOR AREA PLAN ................................................................................................ 10 i FIGURE 4C. OUTDOOR TEST CELL SECTIONS AND DETAILS ........................................................... 11 FIGURE 4D. OUTDOOR OIL/WATER SEPARATOR ............................................................................ 12 FIGURE 4E. OUTDOOR HOLDING TANK .......................................................................................... 13 FIGURE 5. BIOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES IN THE STUDY AREA ............................................................ 30 FIGURE 6. CNDDB PLANT OCCURRENCES WITHIN 2 MILES OF PROJECT AREA .............................. 32 FIGURE 7. CNDDB WILDLIFE OCCURRENCES WITHIN 2 MILES OF PROJECT AREA ......................... 33 FIGURE 8. AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENT ................................................................................... 70 FIGURE 9. LONG-TERM NOISE MEASUREMENT, LOCATION 1 .......................................................... 71 FIGURE 10. LONG-TERM NOISE MEASUREMENT, LOCATION 2 ........................................................ 71 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1. TEST CELL PROJECT CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS ESTIMATE ........................................... 22 TABLE 2. TEST CELL PROJECT – CHANGES IN OPERATING EMISSIONS ........................................... 23 TABLE 3. WILDLIFE AND PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED IN THE STUDY AREA ...................................... 27 TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF BIOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA. ................................ 29 TABLE 5. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE RECEIVING NOISE LEVEL STANDARDS (DBA) ............................... 65 TABLE 6. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE RECEIVING NOISE LEVEL STANDARDS FROM TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION OR DEMOLITION (DBA) ......................................................................................... 66 TABLE 7. ALAMEDA COUNTY ALUC NOISE COMPATIBILITY CRITERIA ............................................. 68 TABLE 8. OAKLAND GENERAL PLAN NOISE LAND USE COMPATIBILITY MATRIX ............................... 69 TABLE 9. SHORT-TERM AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENTS, 8 JANUARY 2013 .................................. 72 TABLE 10. CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE GENERATION ......................................................... 74 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES APPENDIX B. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ii 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE This Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts is being prepared to conform to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute and Guidelines (California Code of Regulations 15000 et. seq.). This Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration evaluates the potential environmental impacts which might reasonably be anticipated to result from implementation of the Rolls-Royce Engine Services – Oakland Inc. (RRESO) Test Cell Upgrade Project (Proposed Project). The Port of Oakland (Port) is the Lead Agency as defined under CEQA Guidelines Section 15050. Per CEQA Guidelines 15300.2(e), a categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. The provisions in Government Code Section 65962.5 are commonly referred to as the "Cortese List" (after the Legislator who authored the legislation that enacted it) and relate to hazardous material sites. The list, or a site's presence on the list, has bearing on the local permitting process as well as on compliance with the CEQA. The Proposed Project cannot qualify for a categorical exemption because the site is listed on the Cortese list. The purpose of an Initial Study is to provide the Lead Agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare and Environmental Impact Report or a Negative Declaration for the Proposed Project. A Negative Declaration briefly describes the reason that a Proposed Project would result in a significant effect on the environment, and
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.
    [Show full text]
  • California Highways & Public Works, May-June 1962
    P ~Jmited States of America PgtOCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 07th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION Vol. 108 WASHINGTON, MONDAY, 1dIAY 21, 1962 1Vo, g0 A~~' en~Zx tragic to our economy and to our etFOrts to Fourth, ovr State highway commission is The California Highway Program remain apace with our population increases composed of dedicated and intelligent men if this. total highway construction program who are appointed for overlapping terms, in were seriouslq curtailed for any reason. order to provide continuity, and they are EXTENSION OF REMARKS Second. I want to say thaw I am convinced required by law to take a statewide and not os California's Department of Public Works and a sectional viewpoint. State law spells out Division of Highways cooperate fully, com- in detail the procedure to be fflllowed by HON. GEORGE P. MILLER pleCely, and in honesty with the T7.S. Bureau the State highway commission, including OF CALIf'ORNIA of Public Roads. The regional office of the the requirement that public hearings be held Bureau of Public Roads Yor certain Western IN THE HOIISE OF REPRESENTATIVES on a rather heavy schedule. I have insisted, States is In Ban FYancisco anfl the State office as Governor Snight and Governor Warren Tuesday, M¢y 8, 1962 of the Bureau o1 Public Roads is right here insisted, that members of the highway com- in Sacramento where there is daily contact Mr. GEORGE P. MILLER. Mr. mission be nonpartisan in their conduct o1 between the California highway people and highway policy matters. Our commission is Speaker,from time to time, from various the Federal highway people.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Coast Guard Island Southshore Center
    JACK LONDON SQUARE Oakland Ferry Terminal EMBARCADERO 80 OAKLAN Al DeWitt 2014 Metropolitan O’Club Yacht Club D Bicycle Shop Bike/Walk Path California Gompers Arkansas Enterprise Caution: Noisy, Narrow and Dangerous Bike Locker Bridge with Steps Trail through Posey Tube Alameda Road Stairs Fire Station Bike Path-Caution Mulvaney 9 Pyro Bus Stop Protected Bike Lane Mars Texas Shasta Õ Flint Cimarron Ct Gas Station & Air Bike Lane Narrow Boardwalk WILLIE STARGELL Public Restroom Bike Route 6 EMBARCADERO Public Phone Park Glenview Gate Shopping Center Coast RUBY BRIDGES Guard 80 SCHOOL Island North Star Rd Oakland Yacht Club Eagle Rd Encinal Yacht Club Pickering Dr Campbell Blvd McCulloch Wakefield Dr Icarus Dr Spencer Rd Dr Brush St Dr BASE ro SCHOOL1900 Mun Bear Rd Hudson 1800 1800 1700 ACADEMY OF 1800 Dennison St 1700 ALAMEDA China Clipper EMBARCADERO 100 200 1800 ALAMEDA 400 Alameda Yacht Club 100 500 300 ANIMAL 1700 FortmanThoroughfare Way Cruiser 1600 Hibbard 100 NEACLC SHELTE Red Sails R Bohemia 1500 Alaska Packer 1600 200 200 2000 600 Island Yacht Club 100 1500 900 1000 200 1000 1599 29th Ave 1600 1500 1400 1800 800 23rd Ave 1400 1400 Esterbrook Kennedy Bikers: Take underpass on 29th Avenue ALAMEDA PARK 900 1600 to stay on East 7th Street 1300 Chapman Street East 7th St FRUITVALE Queen’s 1500 1000 1300 1400 BART 1100 1200 1500 Ford St Glascock Street 1300 400 King’s 1300 1400 Derby St 1300 1600 1200 1200 1300 8 900 1700 2000 1300 1100 Stairs East 8th St 1200 1800 1900 1200 Ballena Bay 1900 1200 2400 Yacht Club 1900 Lancaster
    [Show full text]
  • March 2021 | City of Alameda, California
    March 2021 | City of Alameda, California DRAFT ALAMEDA GENERAL PLAN 2040 CONTENTS 04 MARCH 2021 City of Alameda, California MOBILITY ELEMENT 78 01 05 GENERAL PLAN ORGANIZATION + THEMES 6 HOUSING ELEMENT FROM 2014 02 06 LAND USE + CITY DESIGN ELEMENT 22 PARKS + OPEN SPACE ELEMENT 100 03 07 CONSERVATION + CLIMATE ACTION 54 HEALTH + SAFETY ELEMENT 116 ELEMENT MARCH 2021 DRAFT 1 ALAMEDA GENERAL PLAN 2040 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD: PRESIDENT Alan H. Teague VICE PRESIDENT Asheshh Saheba BOARD MEMBERS Xiomara Cisneros Ronald Curtis Hanson Hom Rona Rothenberg Teresa Ruiz POLICY, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS: Amie MacPhee, AICP, Cultivate, Consulting Planner Sheffield Hale, Cultivate, Consulting Planner Candice Miller, Cultivate, Lead Graphic Designer PHOTOGRAPHY: Amie MacPhee Maurice Ramirez Alain McLaughlin MARCH 2021 DRAFT 3 ALAMEDA GENERAL PLAN 2040 FORWARD Preparation of the Alameda General Plan 2040 began in 2018 and took shape over a three-year period during which time residents, businesses, community groups, and decision-makers reviewed, revised and refined plan goals, policy statements and priorities, and associated recommended actions. In 2020, the Alameda Planning Board held four public forums to review and discuss the draft General Plan. Over 1,500 individuals provided written comments and suggestions for improvements to the draft Plan through the General Plan update website. General Plan 2040 also benefited from recommendations and suggestions from: ≠ Commission on People with Disabilities ≠ Golden
    [Show full text]
  • 19% Kaiser 19.0% Self Pay 4% Other 2% Parcel Tax 8
    Kate McKenna, AICP, Executive Officer, Monterey LAFCo and Deputy Executive Officer, CALAFCO Martha Poyatos, Executive Officer, San Mateo County LAFCo Tom Petersen, David McGhee, Executive Director Chief Executive Officer Association of California Healthcare Districts Established in 1946 First Healthcare District-Sequoia First District Hospital- Lompoc VMC Current # active districts-76 ACHD formed in 1951 Some, but not all, receive property tax $ Urban Rural Present in 37 of the 58 counties Del Norte Siskiyou Modoc Trinity Shasta Lassen Humboldt California Tehama Plumas Healthcare Districts by County Mendocino Glenn Butte Sierra Nevada Yuba Colusa Placer Lake Sutter 37/58 = 64% of Ca. Counties Yolo El Dorado Sonoma Napa Sacramento Alpine Amador Solano Marin San Calaveras Costa Tuolumne Mono Contra Joaquin San Francisco Alameda San Stanislaus Mariposa Mateo Santa Clara Merced Santa Madera Cruz San Fresno Inyo Benito Tulare Monterey Kings San Luis Obispo Kern San Bernardino Santa Barbara Ventura Los Angeles Orange Riverside San Diego Imperial Hospital Clinic Skilled Nursing/Long Term Care Ambulance Adult Day Care Community Education Community Grants Varies by economic profile of community served Physician shortages, primary and specialty Technical and professional staff shortages Capital formation Unfunded state mandates Managed care Mother Nature on occasion Collaborative relationships likely to increase: . Marin/Sonoma/Palm Drive Northern California Healthcare Authority New Healthcare Districts may form Benefit of ACA ??? Questions? DAVID McGHEE TOM PETERSEN Chief Executive Officer Executive Director Association of California Association of California Healthcare Districts Healthcare Districts 2969 Prospect Park Drive, 2969 Prospect Park Drive, Suite 260 Suite 260 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 Ph: 916-266-5226 Ph: 916-266-5210 Fx: 916-266-0317 Fx: 916-266-0317 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Break Colin J.
    [Show full text]
  • Land Use + City Design Element
    02 LAND USE + CITY DESIGN ELEMENT The Land Use and City Design Element establishes goals, policies and actions to ensure the orderly development of the community and to provide a sustainable, safe and healthy environment for all Alamedans. The Element establishes how land uses are to be distributed across the city and where new development may be accommodated in support of General Plan, Climate Action and Resiliency Plan, Transportation Choices Plan, and the regional sustainable communities strategy, Plan Bay Area goals and policies. The policies in this element are intended to provide for the health, safety, housing, employment, service, and recreational needs of all Alamedans. LAND USE + CITY DESIGN ELEMENT ALAMEDA GENERAL PLAN 2040 02 THE GOALS OF THE LAND USE + CITY DESIGN ELEMENT ARE: GOAL 1 CHARACTER Maintain and enhance safe, healthy, sustainable, complete and connected neighborhoods, districts, and waterfronts that support a high quality of life and fair and equitable access to affordable housing, employment, education, recreation, transportation, services, and participation in public decision making. GOAL 2 GOAL 3 GOAL 4 ECONOMY SUSTAINABILITY DESIGN Strengthen and diversify the Make Alameda a more sustainable Promote sustainable, high-quality, Alameda business community and environmentally sensitive, accessible city design. and economy. waterfront community. MARCH 2021 DRAFT 23 80 02 ALAMEDA GENERAL PLAN 2040 LAND USE + CITY DESIGN ELEMENT to Berkeley 980 580 Lake Merritt 880 Oakland Ferry OAKLAND Terminal Main Street Ferry Terminal
    [Show full text]
  • 1960 3 in the 1920'S, Concrete Mortar Was Pasted Over the Entire Walls and Ceiling
    :`^" .,,. .,~ .. y , ~ „~ ~, w~ . - -- r,.,.e:: ~ :,,. - r a~ ~.,.~,. _ ~ .~ . ~K., w~~ .. ..~ r. ,~,:.~ s~ 'M~~ ~s ~ II ~..~ ,.~ ~~ • ~ i ,N~s ,. ~~~~~~ '~• ~ " traffic moving from State Sign Roufe 89, lower left, into Squaw Valley in February during Winter Olympics of 7960. Squaw Peak is peak farthest left, Ki-22 is to the Left and below it. Two sections of Navy's compacted snow parking area are nearly ~Iled with cars, another at right center about half filled. Games area ~5 concentrated beyond parking spaces. Roaci along right side of valley is for o~cial cars and local residents—cars are entering pt left on compacted snow road• See story on Olympics tragic on page 35. California Hig hwa Y s a,nd Public Works Official Journal of the Division of Highways, Department of Public Works, State of California Vol. 39 March-April Nos. 3-4 CONTENTS Page StateGrowth -------------------------- ------ ----------------------------------- -------- - 2- Crossroads------------------------------------------ ------ ----------------- ------ -- 3 By Loren Barnett, Construction Engineer,District VIII U.S. 50 FreewaY ---------------------------------------- ------ ----------------- --- $ By L. M. Petersen, Design Engineer,District IV Conference --------------------------------- ----- ----------------------- -------- 10 Webster St. Tube 11 -------------------- ------------ —- -- ---------------- ------ By P. E. Parker, Senior Bridge Engineerand H. J. Whitlock, Senior Electrical Engineer Freeways in District IV __ _____ 13 By P. J. Sinclair, Assistant Slate
    [Show full text]
  • North-South Greenway Gap Closure Project Future Central Marin Ferry Connector to the Greenbrae Pedestrian Overcrossing
    NORTH-SOUTH GREENWAY GAP CLOSURE PROJECT FUTURE CENTRAL MARIN FERRY CONNECTOR TO THE GREENBRAE PEDESTRIAN OVERCROSSING CENTRAL MARIN FERRY CONNECTOR HIGHWAY 101 GREENBRAE PEDESTRIAN OVER- CROSSING N CORTE MADERA CREEK PATHWAY SLOPE AT BRIDGE OVER CORTE MADERA CREEK 35" EXISTING ROADWAY PROFILE EXISTING ROADWAY PROFILE (6% GRADE) (8.5% GRADE) NEW PATHWAY PROFILE (MAX. 5% GRADE) 24" EXISTING BENT CAPS SOUTH SIDE NORTH SIDE BOTTOM OF CHANNEL VERTICAL SCALE 10 TIMES HORIZONTAL SCALE ADA Ramp Requirements ·0,1 /$1',1* !6/23( ·0$; ,192.(6$'$5$035(48,5(0(176 5,6( Ramp to Overcrossing | 1:12 Chengdu, China 6/23( 127$´5$03µ3(5$'$ Berkeley 1-80 Bridge Ramp | 1:20 Berkeley, CA PROJECT EXTENTS NORTH-SOUTH GREENWAY GAP CLOSURE PROJECT: CMFC TO GREENBRAE POC SEGMENT Lucky Drive Sandra Marker Trail Sir Frances Drake Blvd Tamal Vista Blvd Wornum Drive Fifer Avenue Fifer GREENBRAE Nellen Avenue POC CMFC SMART Old Redwood Highway Bridge Sir Frances Drake Blvd Connection Location TBD Railroad Right of Way LARKSPUR FERRY TERMINAL NORTH-SOUTH GREENWAY Existing Bike/Ped Pathways GAP CLOSURE PROJECT Bike Routes CMFC to Greenbrae POC Segment Railroad Right of Way Segment 8. VISIBILITY OF PATHWAY USERS BY MOTORISTS 10. EXAMPLES OF LIGHTING FEATURES GROUND-LEVEL LIGHTING STANDARD STREET LIGHTS MID-LEVEL LIGHTING ON A PATHWAY ON A PATHWAY A C FH B D G E 11. EXAMPLES OF PATHWAY WIDTHS San Mateo Bridge Pathway | San Mateo, CA Carquinez Bridge Pathway | Vallejo, CA Golden Gate Pathway | San Francisco, CA Wooden Bridge Pathway | Larkspur CA 8’ Wide 12’ Wide 10’ Wide 10’ Wide Northbound Off-Ramp Pathway | Larkspur, CA Cal Park Tunnel Pathway | San Rafael, CA Greenbrae Pedestrian Overcrossing | Larkspur, CA Berkeley 1-80 Bridge Pathway | Berkeley, CA 4’ Wide 11.5’ Wide 8’ Wide 15.5’ Wide 12.
    [Show full text]
  • Bike Map of Alameda
    JACK LONDON SQUARE Oakland Ferry Terminal EMBARCADERO 80 OAKLAND Al DeWitt 2016 Mit Metropolitan ch Yacht Club O’Club ESTUARY ell Av PARK e C I T Y O F O A K L A N D Mosley Ave C I T Y O F A L A M E D A Bike / Walk Path Gilmore St Alameda Dewitt St Landing Caution: Noisy, Narrow and Dangerous Shopping Trail through Posey Tube Alameda Road Carnevale St Center Stairs Bike Repair/Air Station Singleton Ave MulvaneyPyro Mars Shasta Texas Flint Cimarron Ct Protected Bike Lane Narrow Boardwalk Bette Street Fifth Street Gas Station & Air 6 WILLIE STARGELL EMBARCADERO Glenview Coast RUBY BRIDGES Guard 80 SCHOOL Island North Star Rd Oakland Yacht Club Eagle Rd ASTI Encinal Yacht Club SCHOOL Pickering Dr Campbell Blvd McCulloch Wakeeld Dr Icarus Dr NEACLC Dr SCHOOL Spencer Rd Brush St Dr BASE ro 1900 SCHOOL WOODSTOCK Mun Bear Rd Hudson 1800 PARK JEAN SWEENEY 1800 OPEN SPACE 1700 PARK ACADEMY OF 1800 Campbell Blvd 1700 China Clipper EMBARCADERO ALAMEDA 1800 100 200 ALAMEDA 400 Alameda Yacht Club 100 300 500 ANIMAL ISLAND 1700 Fortman Way Cruiser 1600 ThoroughfareHibbard 100 SHELTER Red Sails HIGH FUTURE DEVELOPMENT Bohemia A ST. A SCHOOL 1500 ST. B Clement Alaska Packer 1600 C ST. C Ave. 200200 ST. D LONGFELLOW St Ohlone 2000 600 El PARK Ct. Island Yacht Club 100 1500 1000 900 Ct. 200 1000 1599 8 29th Ave 1600 1500 1400 1800 800 23rd Ave ENCINAL MAYA LIN JR & SR 1400 SCHOOL HIGH 1400 Kennedy Bikers: Take underpass on 29th Avenue ALAMEDA PARK SCHOOL Esterbrook 900 1600 to stay on East 7th Street 1300 Chapman Street East 7th St FRUITVALE Queen’s 1500
    [Show full text]
  • Nutt, Redfield & Valentine Statement of Qualifications 2008
    NRV Nutt, Redfield & Valentine Statement of Qualifications 2008 NUTT, REDFIELD AND VALENTINE ______________________________________________________________________________ Legal Firm Name Nutt, Redfield and Valentine Location and Telephone Number 9048 Hazel Oak Ct Orangevale, California 95662 916-989-4234 FAX 916-989-0117 Date of Establishment May 1, 1992 Type of Organization Partnership Number of Personnel 6 Banking Reference First Northern Bank 11 West Coast Street Woodland, CA 95695 ______________________________________________________________________________ Nutt, Redfield and Valentine is a professional partnership of Richard V. Nutt, Charles Redfield and Robert N. Valentine. This firm was formed in 1992 to offer the combined talents of a highly experienced team of bridge engineers. The focus of the firm is on providing individualized quality bridge engineering services to its clients. The following paragraphs summarize the personal experience and qualifications of the Principals of Nutt, Redfield and Valentine (NRV). Detailed resumes and project descriptions follow this section. The background of Richard Nutt is unique in that it encompasses both bridge design and applied research work with Applied Technology Council (ATC) and others over many years. In addition to bridge design related to several new and seismically retrofitted bridge structures, he was a key member of the design teams for the San Francisco Oakland Bay Bridge and the new Benicia-Martinez Bridge in northern California. He also managed and directed a number of applied
    [Show full text]
  • Alameda–North Bay Farm Island Pipeline Crossings Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
    EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT Alameda–North Bay Farm Island Pipeline Crossings Project Draft Environmental Impact Report JULY 2016 One Embarcadero Center, Suite 740 San Francisco, CA 94111 650-373-1200 www.panoramaenv.com EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT Alameda–North Bay Farm Island Pipeline Crossings Project Draft Environmental Impact Report JULY 2016 Prepared for: East Bay Municipal Utility District Water Distribution Planning Division 375 11th Street Oakland, CA 94607 Prepared by: Panorama Environmental, Inc. One Embarcadero Center, Suite 740 San Francisco, CA 94111 650-373-1200 [email protected] One Embarcadero Center, Suite 740 San Francisco, CA 94111 650-373-1200 www.panoramaenv.com TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................................. i Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... ES-1 ES.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... ES-1 ES.2 Background ...................................................................................................................... ES-1 ES.3 Project Description .......................................................................................................... ES-1 ES.4 Summary of Impacts ......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]