DOCSLIB.ORG

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT BART Seismic Retrofit Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT BART Seismic Retrofit Project ,/Ê-iÃVÊ,iÌÀvÌÊ*ÀiVÌ iÀiiÞÊÃÊ/ÕiÊÌÊÌ iÊÌ}iÀÞÊ-ÌÀiiÌÊ-Ì>ÌÊ 6," /Ê-- -- / 1°-°Ê i«>ÀÌiÌÊvÊ/À>ëÀÌ>Ì i`iÀ>Ê} Ü>ÞÊ`ÃÌÀ>Ì >`ÊÌ i -Ì>ÌiÊvÊ >vÀ>Ê i«>ÀÌiÌÊvÊ/À>ëÀÌ>Ì ÊV«iÀ>ÌÊÜÌ ÊÌ i ->ÊÀ>VÃVÊ >ÞÊÀi>Ê,>«`Ê/À>ÃÌÊ ÃÌÀVÌ Õ}ÕÃÌÊÓääx &42!.3 4/ 0/ %. 2 - 4! 4 4 2 )/ ! 0 . % $ 5 . )4 ! % )# $ 2 34 -% !4%3/&! BART Seismic Retrofit Project Berkeley Hills Tunnel to the Montgomery Street Station ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Submitted Pursuant to: 42 U.S.C. 4332 (2) (C) U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration and the State of California Department of Transportation In cooperation with San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District Date JANIE LAYTON Manager of Environmental Compliance San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District Date JOANN CULLOM District 4 Office of Local Assistance California Department of Transportation Date GENE K. FONG Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration August 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY ..............................................................................................................................................S-1 S.1 Purpose of this Document.................................................................................................S-1 S.2 Project Summary ................................................................................................................S-1 S.3 Identification of Agency Roles .........................................................................................S-3 S.4 Purpose of the Project........................................................................................................S-4 S.5 Summary of Environmental Impacts ..............................................................................S-4 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Location of Proposed Action ............................................................................................1-1 1.3 Description of the Existing BART System ......................................................................1-2 1.4 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action ..............................................................1-6 2.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................................2-1 2.1 Alternative Development Process ...................................................................................2-1 2.2 Proposed Action.................................................................................................................2-1 2.2.1 Transbay Tube .......................................................................................................2-1 2.2.2 Transition Structures ..........................................................................................2-16 2.2.2.1 San Francisco Transition Structure ...................................................2-16 2.2.2.2 Oakland Transition Structure ............................................................2-33 2.2.3 Aerial Guideways ...............................................................................................2-34 2.2.4 Stations .................................................................................................................2-41 2.2.4.1 Rockridge Station ................................................................................2-42 2.2.4.2 MacArthur Station...............................................................................2-45 2.2.4.3 West Oakland Station .........................................................................2-45 2.2.5 Other Seismic Retrofit Activities.......................................................................2-46 2.2.6 Dredged Material Reuse/Disposal Options....................................................2-47 2.2.6.1 Dredged Material Reuse within the Project.....................................2-48 2.2.6.2 Dredged Material Reuse/Disposal Options outside the Project .............................................................................................2-50 2.2.7 Schedule................................................................................................................2-54 2.3 No-Action Alternative.....................................................................................................2-54 2.4 Design Variations Considered but Eliminated from Further Evaluation .........................................................................................................................2-56 2.4.1 Transbay Tube .....................................................................................................2-56 2.4.2 Transition Structures ..........................................................................................2-57 2.4.3 Aerial Guideways ...............................................................................................2-57 3.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION..........................................3.0-1 3.1 Water Resources ..............................................................................................................3.1-1 3.1.1 Existing Setting...................................................................................................3.1-1 3.1.1.1 San Francisco Bay Water Resources.................................................3.1-1 3.1.1.2 Upland Water Resources..................................................................3.1-4 3.1.2 Proposed Action.................................................................................................3.1-8 3.1.2.1 Factors for Evaluating Impacts.........................................................3.1-8 3.1.2.2 Impacts and Mitigation......................................................................3.1-8 BART Seismic Retrofit EA August 2005 i Table of Contents 3.1.2.3 Dredged Material Reuse/Disposal Impacts and Mitigation ..........................................................................................3.1-12 3.2 Noise .................................................................................................................................3.2-1 3.2.1 Existing Setting...................................................................................................3.2-1 3.2.1.1 Acoustical Fundamentals ..................................................................3.2-1 3.2.1.2 Existing Noise Environment.............................................................3.2-1 3.2.1.3 Noise Survey and Sensitive Receptor Identification .....................3.2-1 3.2.2 Proposed Action.................................................................................................3.2-7 3.2.2.1 Factors for Evaluating Impacts.........................................................3.2-7 3.2.2.2 Impacts and Mitigation......................................................................3.2-7 3.2.2.3 Dredged Material Reuse/Disposal Impacts and Mitigation ..........................................................................................3.2-14 3.3 Cultural Resources..........................................................................................................3.3-1 3.3.1 Existing Setting...................................................................................................3.3-1 3.3.1.1 Archaeological Resources..................................................................3.3-1 3.3.1.2 Historic Architectural Resources......................................................3.3-2 3.3.2 Proposed Action.................................................................................................3.3-4 3.3.2.1 Factors for Evaluating Impacts.........................................................3.3-4 3.3.2.2 Impacts and Mitigation......................................................................3.3-4 3.3.2.3 Dredged Material Reuse/Disposal Impacts and Mitigation ............................................................................................3.3-6 3.4 Transportation .................................................................................................................3.4-1 3.4.1 Traffic/Ground Transportation .......................................................................3.4-1 3.4.1.1 Existing Setting ...................................................................................3.4-1 3.4.1.2 Proposed Action ...............................................................................3.4-12 3.4.2 Vessel Transportation......................................................................................3.4-19 3.4.2.1 Existing Setting .................................................................................3.4-19 3.4.2.2 Proposed Action ...............................................................................3.4-23 3.5 Geology/Seismicity ........................................................................................................3.5-1 3.5.1 Existing Setting...................................................................................................3.5-1 3.5.1.1 Regional Geologic Setting .................................................................3.5-1 3.5.1.2 Regional Seismicity ............................................................................3.5-1 3.5.1.3 Geologic Conditions in the Project Area .........................................3.5-3
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Please Refrain from Wearing Scented Products (Perfume, Cologne
    SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT 300 Lakeside Drive, P. O. Box 12688, Oakland, CA 94604-2688 NOTICE OF MEETING AND AGENDA BOND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE Wednesday, July 26, 2017 4:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m. COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Marian Breitbart, Michael Day, Daren Gee, Christine D. Johnson, Michael McGill, Anu Natarajan, John Post Meeting of the Bond Oversight Committee on Wednesday, July 26, 2017, at 4:00 p.m. The Meeting will be held in the 1800 Conference Room, 300 Lakeside Dr., 18th Floor, Oakland, California. AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER A. Roll Call. 2. INTRODUCTION OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 3. INTRODUCTION OF BART STAFF 4. COMMITTEE ROLE A. Controller-Treasurer’s Office is official point of contact for all matters B. Audio recording of meetings C. Meeting Agendas/Minutes D. Annual Report writing and approval process E. Request for photos and bio for website F. Clipper Card/Travel reimbursement G. Introduce process of selecting Committee Chair and Vice Chair 5. PRESENTATION: MEASURE RR OVERALL PROGRAM 6. PRESENTATION: STATUS OF BONDS SOLD 7. Q&A WITH STAFF 8. STAFF REQUEST TO PRESENT ASSET MANAGEMENT AT NEXT MEETING 9. SETTING NEXT MEETING DATE AND AGENDA 10. PUBLIC COMMENT Please refrain from wearing scented products (perfume, cologne, after-shave, etc.) to this meeting, as there may be people in attendance susceptible to environmental illnesses. BART provides services/accommodations upon request to persons with disabilities and individuals who are limited English proficient who wish to address BART Board matters. A request must be made within one and five days in advance of a Board or committee meeting, depending on the service requested.
    [Show full text]
  • The Third Crossing
    The Third Crossing A Megaproject in a Megaregion www.thirdcrossing.org Final Report, February 2017 Transportation Planning Studio Department of City and Regional Planning, University of California, Berkeley Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the Department of City and Regional Planning (DCRP) at the College of Environmental Design (CED) at UC Berkeley, the University of California Transportation Center and Institute of Transportation Studies (ITS), UC Berkeley for support. A special thanks also goes to the helpful feedback from studio instructor Karen Trapenberg Frick and UC Berkeley faculty and researchers including Jesus Barajas and Jason Corburn. We also acknowledge the tremendous support and insights from colleagues at numerous public agencies and non-profit organizations throughout California. A very special thanks goes to David Ory, Michael Reilly, and Fletcher Foti of MTC for their gracious support in running regional travel and land use models, and to Professor Paul Waddell and Sam Blanchard of UrbanSim, Inc. for lending their resources and expertise in land use modeling. We also thank our classmates Joseph Poirier and Lee Reis; as well as David Eifler, Teresa Caldeira, Jennifer Wolch, Robert Cervero, Elizabeth Deakin, Malla Hadley, Leslie Huang and other colleagues at CED; and, Alexandre Bayen, Laura Melendy and Jeanne Marie Acceturo of ITS Berkeley. About Us We are a team of 15 graduate students in City Planning, Transportation Engineering, and Public Health. This project aims to facilitate a conversation about the future of transportation between the East Bay and San Francisco and in the larger Northern California megaregion. We are part of the Department of City and Regional Planning in the UC Berkeley College of Environmental Design, with support from the University of California Transportation Center and The Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Berkeley.
    [Show full text]
  • AQ Conformity Amended PBA 2040 Supplemental Report Mar.2018
    TRANSPORTATION-AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY ANALYSIS FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT Metropolitan Transportation Commission Association of Bay Area Governments MARCH 2018 Metropolitan Transportation Commission Jake Mackenzie, Chair Dorene M. Giacopini Julie Pierce Sonoma County and Cities U.S. Department of Transportation Association of Bay Area Governments Scott Haggerty, Vice Chair Federal D. Glover Alameda County Contra Costa County Bijan Sartipi California State Alicia C. Aguirre Anne W. Halsted Transportation Agency Cities of San Mateo County San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Libby Schaaf Tom Azumbrado Oakland Mayor’s Appointee U.S. Department of Housing Nick Josefowitz and Urban Development San Francisco Mayor’s Appointee Warren Slocum San Mateo County Jeannie Bruins Jane Kim Cities of Santa Clara County City and County of San Francisco James P. Spering Solano County and Cities Damon Connolly Sam Liccardo Marin County and Cities San Jose Mayor’s Appointee Amy R. Worth Cities of Contra Costa County Dave Cortese Alfredo Pedroza Santa Clara County Napa County and Cities Carol Dutra-Vernaci Cities of Alameda County Association of Bay Area Governments Supervisor David Rabbit Supervisor David Cortese Councilmember Pradeep Gupta ABAG President Santa Clara City of South San Francisco / County of Sonoma San Mateo Supervisor Erin Hannigan Mayor Greg Scharff Solano Mayor Liz Gibbons ABAG Vice President City of Campbell / Santa Clara City of Palo Alto Representatives From Mayor Len Augustine Cities in Each County City of Vacaville
    [Show full text]
  • Attachment C: Index of Transformative Projects & Strategies Submitted Project Names May Have Been Updated Slightly Since Submission
    METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS PROJECT PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT Attachment C: Index of Transformative Projects & Strategies Submitted Project names may have been updated slightly since submission. Incomplete submissions were omitted from this list. Not all projects shown met the criteria for the Transformative Projects competition. Transformative Projects Aerial Tram Lines (San Francisco to North Bay and East Bay) Air Shuttle Network (Livermore to Central Valley) BART First/Last Mile Gondola Services Drone Delivery Network Dumbarton Gondola Line Electric Vertical Take Off and Landing Aircraft and Ports Flying Car Transit Network Mountain View International Airport Aerial Oakland/Alameda Gondola Network Regional Helicopter Network Automated Bus and Rail Service + Frequency Increase Autonomous TNC Service in Urban Areas AV Shuttle Circulators AV Shuttle System AV Shuttle System for BART Station Areas Autonomous Benicia Autonomous Bus Network Technologies Contra Costa Autonomous Shuttle Program I-80 Corridor Overhaul Mountain View AV Shuttle System AV Shuttles at Rockridge and 12th St BART Stations BART Evening Frequency Increase BART Extension from Civic Center to Ocean Beach BART Extension from E. Santa Clara to Eastridge Transit Center BART Extension from Santa Clara to Tasman Drive BART Extension from Hayward to Millbrae BART Extension from Millbrae to San Jose (x4) BART Extension from Millbrae to Santa Clara BART Extension from Milpitas to Martinez (via I-680) BART Extension from Milpitas to
    [Show full text]
  • A Strategy to Improve Public Transit with an Environmentally Friendly Ferry System
    A Strategy to Improve Public Transit with an Environmentally Friendly Ferry System Final Implementation & Operations Plan July 2003 San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority Dear Governor Davis and Members of the California Legislature: After two years of work, the San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Finally, as the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) Authority (WTA) is delivering an Implementation and Operations details, this system is environmentally responsible. Plan. It is a viable strategy to improve Bay Area public transit with an environmentally friendly ferry system. It is a well- From beginning to end, this plan is built on solid, conservative thought-out plan calling for a sensible transportation investment. technical data and financial assumptions. If the State of California It shows how the existing and new individual ferry routes can adopts this plan and it is funded, we can begin making expanded form a well-integrated water-transit system that provides good water transit a reality. connections to other transit. The current economy makes it tough to find funds for new When you enacted Senate Bill 428 in October 1999, the WTA programs, even those as worthy as expanded Bay Area water was formed and empowered to create a plan for new and expanded transit. The Authority understands the economic challenges it water transit services and related ground transportation faces and is already working hard to overcome that hurdle. terminal access services. It was further mandated that the Today, the Authority’s future is unclear, pending your consideration. Authority must study ridership demand, cost-effectiveness But the prospects for expanded Bay Area water transit — and and expanded water transit’s environmental impact.
    [Show full text]
  • EMMA Official Statement
    NEW ISSUE – BOOK ENTRY ONLY RATINGS: Moody’s (2020 Bonds): Aaa Long Term Standard & Poor’s (2020C-1 Bonds): AAA Short Term Standard & Poor’s (2020C-2 Bonds): A-1+ See “Ratings” herein. In the opinion of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Bond Counsel to the District, based upon an analysis of existing laws, regulations, rulings and court decisions, and assuming, among other matters, the accuracy of certain representations and compliance with certain covenants, interest on the 2020C-1 Bonds is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes under Section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. In the further opinion of Bond Counsel, interest on the 2020C-1 Bonds is not a specific preference item for purposes of the federal alternative minimum tax. Bond Counsel is also of the opinion that interest on the 2020 Bonds is exempt from State of California personal income taxes. Bond Counsel further observes that interest on the 2020C-2 Bonds is not excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes under Section 103 of the Code. Bond Counsel expresses no opinion regarding any other tax consequences related to the ownership or disposition of, or the amount, accrual or receipt of interest on, the 2020 Bonds. See “TAX MATTERS.” $700,000,000 SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS $625,005,000 $74,995,000 (ELECTION OF 2016), (ELECTION OF 2016), 2020 SERIES C-1 2020 SERIES C-2 (FEDERALLY TAXABLE) (GREEN BONDS) (GREEN BONDS) Dated: Date of Delivery Due: As shown on inside cover The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District General Obligation Bonds (Election of 2016), 2020 Series C-1 (Green Bonds) (the “2020C-1 Bonds”) and 2020 Series C-2 (Federally Taxable) (Green Bonds) (the “2020C-2 Bonds” and, together with the 2020C-1 Bonds, the “2020 Bonds”) are being issued to finance specific acquisition, construction and improvement projects for District facilities approved by the voters and to pay the costs of issuance of the 2020 Bonds.
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of Downtown San Francisco Expanding Downtown’S Capacity for Transit-Oriented Jobs
    THE FUTURE OF DOWNTOWN SAN FRANCISCO EXPANDING DOWNTOWN’S CAPACITY FOR TRANSIT-ORIENTED JOBS SPUR REPORT Adopted by the SPUR Board of Directors on January 21, 2009 Released March 2009 The primary author of this report were Egon Terplan, Ellen Lou, Anthony Bruzzone, James Rogers, Brian Stokle, Jeff Tumlin and George Williams with assistance from Frank Fudem, Val Menotti, Michael Powell, Libby Seifel, Chi-Hsin Shao, John Sugrue and Jessica Zenk SPUR 654 Mission St., San Francisco, California 94105 www.spur.org SPUR | March 2009 INDEX Introduction ________________________________________________________________________ 3 I. The Problem: Regional job sprawl and the decline of transit-served central business districts _ 6 II. The Solution: The best environmental and economic response for the region is to expand our dynamic, transit-served central business districts _______________________________________ 16 III. The Constraints: We are running out of capacity in downtown San Francisco to accommodate much new employment growth _______________________________________________________ 20 The Zoning Constraint: Downtown San Francisco is running out of zoned space for jobs. 20 The Transportation Constraint: Our regional transportation system — roads and trains — is nearing capacity at key points in our downtown. 29 IV. Recommendations: How to create the downtown of the future __________________________ 39 Land use and zoning recommendations 39 Transportation policy recommendations: Transit, bicycling and roadways 49 Conclusion _______________________________________________________________________ 66 The Future of Downtown San Francisco 2 INTRODUCTION Since 1990, Bay Area residents have been driving nearly 50 million more miles each day. Regionally, transit ridership to work fell from a high of 11.4 percent in 1980 to around 9.4 percent in 2000.
    [Show full text]
  • Map of All Transbay Bus Lines
    ORINDA CITY COUNTRY OFFICES ORINDA OrindaWY. BART PABLO CLUB PO FOOTHILL SQUARE CASTRO VALLEY BART ORINDA ROCKRIDGE BART OAKLAND AIRPORT CAMINO ASHBY BART PINOLE RD. VALLEY Upper San Leandro HAYWARD BART Reservoir MISSION PEAK REGIONAL PRESERVE APPIAN KENNEDY GROVE 19TH ST. BART/ 12TH ST. BART LAKE MERRITT BART FREMONT BART REGIONAL MACARTHUR BART UPTOWN TRANSIT WY. RECREATIONAL C A AREA CENTER MISSION PEAK S ADMIN. T CROW FAIRVIEW REGIONAL PT. WILSON R RD. ROC BLDG. PINOLE RD. O KHUR PRESERVE REDWOOD ST AV. 580 San Pablo Reservoir RD. MID. SCH. R APPIAN REDWOOD C MARKETPLACE AV. A RD. A N PO MADISON N AMEND C RD. Y H O STONEBRAE RD. AV. N APPIAN 80 RD. A DR. ELEM. SCH. CENTER PINOLE VISTA RD. RD. CENTER DON CASTRO D. DAM R VIEW PROCTOR WY. CENTER Y SAN REDWOOD AITKEN AV. REGIONAL NAOMI DR. RD. COST RICHMOND PKWY. LE RD. EDDY ST. SHEILA ST. BLVD. OHLONE MONUMENT PEAK L V PABLO RD. FRUITVALE BART COMM. RECREATION E A A RD. SAN LEANDRO BART BAY FAIR BART HEYER N REGIONAL LL W & SR. CTR. COLLEGE I TRANSIT CENTER V EY VIE SAN PABLO AREA MISSION BRUHNES EASTMONT RD. P PRESERVE DR. WY. DAM WILLOW PARK SEAVIEW OLIVE HYDE AMPHITHEATER CREEKSIDE - RD. REDWOOD ACE COMM. CTR. RD. MID. SCH. A AV. OLINDA TRANSIT CENTER ST. GLEN ELLEN DR. Z PO PUBLIC SHAWN MISSION COLISEUM BART N DE ANZA/ DAM CENTER FremontA MAY PINEHURST DELTA GOLF COURSE NILES MUSEUM R PO AV. HIGH SCH. PABLO ANTHONY CHABOT W BLVD. O ANTHONY CHABOT O BRYANT OF LOCAL SAN O SKYLINE C N REGIONAL PARK D HISTORY RD.
    [Show full text]
  • Nureg/Cr-7206 Pnnl-23701
    NUREG/CR-7206 PNNL-23701 Spent Fuel Transportation Package Response to the MacArthur Maze Fire Scenario Final Report Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards NUREG/CR-7206 PNNL-23701 Spent Fuel Transportation Package Response to the MacArthur Maze Fire Scenario Final Report Manuscript Completed: July 2016 Date Published: October 2016 Prepared by: H. E. Adkins, Jr.1, J. M. Cuta1, N. A. Klymyshyn1, S. R. Suffield1, C. S. Bajwa2, K. B. McGrattan3, C. E. Beyer1, and A. Sotomayor-Rivera4 1Pacific Northwest National Laboratory P. O. Box 999 Richland, WA 99352 2International Atomic Energy Agency Vienna International Centre P.O. Box 100 A-1400 Vienna, Austria 3National Institute of Standards and Technology Engineering Laboratory 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8600 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8600 4U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission J. Piotter, NRC Project Manager NRC Job Code J5710 Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards ABSTRACT The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has established requirements for packaging and transportation of spent nuclear fuel assemblies under normal conditions of transport and for hypothetical accident conditions. Real-world accidents of greater severity are possible, but are of much lower probability, and the probability of such an accident involving a spent nuclear fuel (SNF) package is even lower. However, because of the potential consequences, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has undertaken the examination of specific accidents to determine the potential consequences to an SNF package. The MacArthur Maze accident of April 2007, which did not involve SNF, was selected for evaluation because of the severity of the fire and the unusual structural consequences, in which the heat from the fire caused the overhead roadway segments to collapse onto the roadway where the fire was burning.
    [Show full text]
  • Hon. Mayor and Members of the City Council
    Hon. Mayor and Members of the City Council: This is the report for the week ending January 18th, 2019. 1. Meeting Notes The next City Council meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, nd January 22 . Closed Session begins at 5:30 PM, and the Regular Meeting of the Richmond City Council will begin at 6:30 PM. The agenda may be found by clicking this link: January 22nd City Council Agenda. 2. Upcoming Events MLK National Day of Service at Parchester Garden 1 Join us at the garden at Parchester Park (900 Williams Drive, Richmond, CA) from 10:00 AM - 2:00 PM on Monday, January 21, 2019! The Parchester Village Children's Edible Garden was created by Richmond Love Your Block mini-grant recipients Patricia Duncan Hall and Raynard Lozano. Established in 2016, the garden provides residents with fresh vegetables each year, including peppers, squash, and several varieties of tomatoes. The community has since decided to dedicate the garden to late community activist Mary "Peace" Head, who was a World War II Rosie and known to many as "Mayor of Parchester". In preparation for the garden dedication, Parchester Neighborhood Council, the Office of Mayor Tom Butt, Richmond Love Your Block, Richmond Tool Library, and #Parchester residents are hosting a #communitygarden work day. We will be adding new soil to the planter boxes, planting seeds and/or seedlings, removing weeds, and spreading mulch. Tools, supplies, and refreshments will be provided for volunteers. For more information, e-mail [email protected]. Volunteer Opportunities in Richmond on January 21st – Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
    [Show full text]
  • PROPOSED BUDGET FY 2020-2021 We Encourage You to Download the Electronic Copy of This Book Which Is Available to All on Our Website
    GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE, HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT PROPOSED BUDGET FY 2020-2021 We encourage you to download the electronic copy of this book which is available to all on our website: www.goldengate.org. All images, unless otherwise noted, are from the holdings of the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District. Images may not be used without permission from the GGBHTD. GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT FISCAL YEAR 20/21 PROPOSED BUDGET Denis J. Mulligan, General Manager Prepared by the Finance Office: Joseph M. Wire, Auditor‐Controller Jennifer H. Mennucci, Director of Budget & Electronic Revenue Amy E. Frye, Director of Capital and Grant Programs Lehnee D. Salazar, Principal Budget and Program Analyst Daniel Gomez, Budget and Program Analyst Jacob L. Brown, Capital & Grant Programs Analyst Mydria Clark, Editor Special thanks to the District Officers, the Deputy General Managers, and their respective staff Table of Contents The Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) presented a Distinguished Budget Presentation award to the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District for its annual budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2019. In order to receive this award, a government unit must publish a budget document that meets program criteria as a policy document, an operations guide, a financial plan and a communications device. This award is valid for a period of one year only. We believe our current budget continues to conform to program requirements and we are submitting it to GFOA to determine its eligibility for another award. Page 2 Golden Gate Bridge, Highway & Transportation District All references to page numbers and appendices are linked throughout the document.
    [Show full text]
  • Timeline of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge Seismic Retrofit: Milestones in Decision-Making, Financing, and Construction
    Timeline of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge Seismic Retrofit: Milestones in Decision-Making, Financing, and Construction By Daniel Pollak IBSN 1-58703-197-3 TIMELINE OF THE SAN FRANCISCO-OAKLAND BAY BRIDGE SEISMIC RETROFIT This annotated timeline on the history of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge was requested by Assemblymember Wilma Chan in her capacity as Chair of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. In August 2004, the Committee requested that the California State Auditor perform an audit of the implementation of the California Department of Transportation’s Toll Bridge Seismic Retrofit Program. The following chronology begins in 1929, but emphasizes the period from 1989 to the present, beginning with the Loma Prieta earthquake of October 1989. That earthquake revealed the seismic vulnerability of the Bay Bridge. This timeline focuses on the efforts to seismically retrofit the Bay Bridge, especially the project to rebuild its eastern span (the portion running from Oakland to Yerba Buena Island). 1 9 2 9 October 1929 President Hoover appoints commission to investigate bridge feasibility. President Herbert Hoover and California Governor C. C. Young appoint the Hoover- Young San Francisco Bay Bridge Commission, to investigate the feasibility of constructing a San Francisco-Oakland bridge.1 1 9 3 0 August 1930 Bridge Commission reports that bridge is feasible and necessary. The Hoover-Young Commission concludes that construction of the bridge is both feasible and necessary to the development of the region.2 1 9 3 3 July 9, 1933 Construction begins. The California Department of Public Works begins construction of the San Francisco- Oakland Bay Bridge, the world’s longest steel structure.3 California Research Bureau, California State Library 1 1 9 3 6 November 12, 1936 The Bay Bridge opens.
    [Show full text]