DOCSLIB.ORG

Open Spac E, Parks, and Conse Rvation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

6 OPEN SPACE, PARKS, OPEN SPACE, AND CONSERVATION A. OVERVIEW This chapter incorporates the state-mandated “open space” and “conservation” elements. It addresses the management of San Leandro’s park and open space areas, the conservation of natural resources such as soil, water, and natural habitat, and the reduction of greenhouse gases associated with climate change. Its goals and policies address a broad range of issues, with the common purpose of improving recreational opportunities, protecting the city’s natural environment, and growing more sustainably. San Leandro’s parks are a source of pride and enjoyment for the entire community and accommodate recreational activities for all segments of the population. The city is home to a world-class golf course, a scenic shoreline trail system, a large regional park, and numerous smaller neighborhood and community parks. These parks offer a range of leisure time experiences, from the quiet contemplation of nature to active sports like swimming and soccer. While parks are recognized as essential to San Leandro’s quality of life, there are also deficiencies that must be addressed. Some of the parks need rehabilitation and updating. Others require design changes to address safety issues and use conflicts. Some neighborhoods lack convenient access to parks and would benefit from additional open space and recreational facilities. 6-1 SAN LEANDRO GEN E R A L PLAN OPEN SPACE, PARKS, A ND CONSERVATION Changing demographics have led to the demand for new recreational programs, while population growth has placed greater demands on existing facilities. The ability to fund park improvements, and even meet basic maintenance needs, remains a challenge. The General Plan includes policies and programs to address this challenge and others to ensure that the city’s parks remain an asset for years to come. In addition to the parks, San Leandro contains other significant open spaces. These areas contain diverse ecosystems, including wetlands near the shoreline, riparian woodlands along San Leandro Creek, and grasslands in the hills and at Oyster Bay Regional Shoreline. Even the city’s residential neighborhoods provide an “urban forest,” with trees and shrubs providing habitat for birds and small mammals. These ecosystems must be managed to avoid their degradation and ensure the long-term sustenance of plant and animal life. Ultimately, a healthy natural environment can enhance public health, local aesthetics, and civic pride. Another mission of this Element is to promote conservation practices among San Leandro residents and businesses. Three areas are emphasized: water conservation, recycling, and energy conservation. A number of programs are presented to reduce the consumption of non- renewable resources and promote more sustainable alternatives. In each case, there is a need for greater awareness of why conservation is needed and the contributions that each San Leandro resident or business can make toward achieving conservation goals. Finally, this Element provides a framework for responding to the challenge of global climate change at the local level, including a variety of land use, transportation, and energy-related measures. The City has adopted a Climate Action Plan which identifies more specific strategies for meeting state goals. Measures to improve resilience in response to rising sea levels, drought, and severe weather, are addressed in the Environmental Hazards Element. 6-2 SAN LEANDRO GENERAL PLAN OPEN SPACE, PARKS, A ND CONSERVATION B. OPEN SPACE State guidelines require that four types of open space be identified and analyzed in the General Plan: Open Space for Recreation. This category includes the city’s park system, as well as schoolyards, athletic fields, the regional parks, and other areas used for recreation. The management of these areas is covered by Goals OSC-1 through OSC-4. Open Space for the Protection of Natural Resources. In San Leandro, this category includes the Shoreline Marshlands, the riparian areas along San Leandro Creek, and the offshore waters of San Francisco Bay. These areas will remain undeveloped in the future to protect natural habitat, including se veral endangered or threatened species. These areas are covered by Goals OSC-5 and OSC-6. Open Space for the Managed Production of Resources. This category includes agricultural land, commercial fishing grounds, timber harvest areas, quarries, and other areas used for resource production. At one time, such open spaces were abundant in San Leandro, consisting primarily of farms and orchards. Virtually all of these areas have been converted to urban uses. The soil and mineral resources which support resource production in San Leandro are addressed later in this chapter. Open Space for Public Health and Safety. This includes the “no build” zone along the Hayward Fault, unstable slopes in the San Leandro Hills, and the floodways along local creeks and flood control channels. These areas are addressed in detail in Chapter 7. Open space areas are shown on Figure 3-3 (Land Use Diagram). Two of the categories on the map—(1) Parks and Recreation and (2) Resource Conservation Areas—have been used to delineate open space in the city. 6-3 SAN LEANDRO GEN E R A L PLAN OPEN SPACE, PARKS, A ND CONSERVATION C. PARKS City Parks Park Classification San Leandro has 104 acres of City-owned parks, including three community parks, 12 neighborhood parks, seven mini-parks, and four special use recreation areas. The City also operates a 178-acre municipal golf course and a 462-berth public marina. The location of these parks is shown on Figure 6-1. Table 6-1 includes the acreage of each park, along with the acreage of other open space areas in the city. The other open space areas include 19 acres of improved open space at Oyster Bay Regional Shoreline and 82 acres of school athletic fields and playgrounds. Most of the city’s parks were developed in the two decades following World War II. The post-war population boom brought about a great increase in recreational needs and large parks such as Washington Manor, Stenzel, Halcyon, Bonaire were incorporated in the subdivisions developed at that time. Several of the post-war era parks were developed collaboratively with schools, supplementing the city’s park system and providing access to special facilities such as swimming pools and running tracks. In the early 1960s, the Marina Park, boat basin, and golf courses were developed through a major land reclamation and redevelopment program. The Shoreline area soon became the city’s flagship park. Most of the parks created since 1970 have been small “pocket” parks under an acre in size, developed on vacant parcels or within subdivisions. 6-4 SAN LEANDRO GENERAL PLAN OPEN SPACE, PARKS, A ND CONSERVATION Figure 6-1 San Leandro Park System 6-5 SAN LEANDRO GEN E R A L PLAN OPEN SPACE, PARKS, A ND CONSERVATION San Leandro’s Parks Regional Parks are typically larger than 30 acres and include a mix of conservation areas and active recreation areas. They draw visitors from beyond the city limits and may feature unique natural features or regional attractions. Oyster Bay Regional Shoreline, which is operated by East Bay Regional Park District, is the only regional park within San Leandro. Community Parks range in size from 5 to 30 acres. Each park serves multiple neighborhoods and contains a wide variety of active and passive recreational facilities. The City’s three community parks are Marina, Washington Manor, and Chabot. Neighborhood Parks are typically 2 to 10 acres in size and provide for the daily recreational needs of area residents. They often have large lawn areas for informal sports and play activities. They may include facilities such as tennis courts and tot lots, but usually do not include major facilities such as lighted ballfields. Examples include Bonaire and Memorial. Mini-Parks or “pocket parks” are usually less than an acre in size and accommodate small recreational facilities such as picnic tables and tot lots. Such parks are often included in new developments, in accordance with the City’s Subdivision Ordinance and parkland dedication requirements. Special Use Parks include facilities which serve a specific need or population group. Examples include the Heath Tennis Courts, the San Leandro Ball Park, and Farelly Pool. Golf Courses include the 178-acre Monarch Bay public golf complex. This complex consists of the 18-hole Tony Lema and 9-hole Marina Golf Courses, and a driving range, pro-shop, and clubhouse. School Facilities include sports fields, hard court areas, lawns, and other facilities at 14 school campuses in San Leandro. These facilities are owned by the San Leandro and San Lorenzo Unified School District. Joint use agreements have been developed for some of these facilities which allow access by the general public when school is not in session. 6-6 SAN LEANDRO GENERAL PLAN OPEN SPACE, PARKS, A ND CONSERVATION TABLE 6-1 PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES IN SAN LEANDRO PARKS Acres SCHOOL FACILITIES Acres Regional Parks 19.0 School Facilities 81.7 Oyster Bay (*) 19.0 Bancroft 4.2 Corvallis 6.0 Community Parks 36.7 Dayton 0.5 Chabot 4.8 Garfield 4.3 Marina 17.9 Jefferson 5.6 Washington Manor 14.0 Lewelling 5.2 Neighborhood Parks 42.2 Madison 6.4 McKinley 3.2 Bonaire 5.4 Monroe 2.8 Cherry Grove 7.0 Muir 11.1 Floresta 0.8 Roosevelt 3.9 Grover Cleveland 1.0 San Leandro HS 15.6 Halcyon 4.9 Washington 1.3 McCartney 1.6 Washington Manor 4.9 Memorial 2.7 Wilson 6.7 Mulford 1.4 Siempre Verde 1.8 Stenzel 9.3 Thrasher
Recommended publications
  • Alameda, a Geographical History, by Imelda Merlin

    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.
  • Section 3.4 Biological Resources 3.4- Biological Resources

    Section 3.4 Biological Resources 3.4- Biological Resources

    SECTION 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4- BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This section discusses the existing sensitive biological resources of the San Francisco Bay Estuary (the Estuary) that could be affected by project-related construction and locally increased levels of boating use, identifies potential impacts to those resources, and recommends mitigation strategies to reduce or eliminate those impacts. The Initial Study for this project identified potentially significant impacts on shorebirds and rafting waterbirds, marine mammals (harbor seals), and wetlands habitats and species. The potential for spread of invasive species also was identified as a possible impact. 3.4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SETTING HABITATS WITHIN AND AROUND SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY The vegetation and wildlife of bayland environments varies among geographic subregions in the bay (Figure 3.4-1), and also with the predominant land uses: urban (commercial, residential, industrial/port), urban/wildland interface, rural, and agricultural. For the purposes of discussion of biological resources, the Estuary is divided into Suisun Bay, San Pablo Bay, Central San Francisco Bay, and South San Francisco Bay (See Figure 3.4-2). The general landscape structure of the Estuary’s vegetation and habitats within the geographic scope of the WT is described below. URBAN SHORELINES Urban shorelines in the San Francisco Estuary are generally formed by artificial fill and structures armored with revetments, seawalls, rip-rap, pilings, and other structures. Waterways and embayments adjacent to urban shores are often dredged. With some important exceptions, tidal wetland vegetation and habitats adjacent to urban shores are often formed on steep slopes, and are relatively recently formed (historic infilled sediment) in narrow strips.
  • About WETA Present Future a Plan for Expanded Bay Area Ferry Service

    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.
  • Pinolecreeksedimentfinal

    Pinolecreeksedimentfinal

    Pinole Creek Watershed Sediment Source Assessment January 2005 Prepared by the San Francisco Estuary Institute for USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service and Contra Costa Resource Conservation District San Francisco Estuary Institute The Regional Watershed Program was founded in 1998 to assist local and regional environmental management and the public to understand, characterize and manage environmental resources in the watersheds of the Bay Area. Our intent is to help develop a regional picture of watershed condition and downstream effects through a solid foundation of literature review and peer- review, and the application of a range of science methodologies, empirical data collection and interpretation in watersheds around the Bay Area. Over this time period, the Regional Watershed Program has worked with Bay Area local government bodies, universities, government research organizations, Resource Conservation Districts (RCDs) and local community and environmental groups in the Counties of Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara, San Mateo, and San Francisco. We have also fulfilled technical advisory roles for groups doing similar work outside the Bay Area. This report should be referenced as: Pearce, S., McKee, L., and Shonkoff, S., 2005. Pinole Creek Watershed Sediment Source Assessment. A technical report of the Regional Watershed Program, San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI), Oakland, California. SFEI Contribution no. 316, 102 pp. ii San Francisco Estuary Institute ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors gratefully
  • USGS Open-File Report 03-485

    USGS Open-File Report 03-485

    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Proceedings of the Hayward Fault Workshop, Eastern San Francisco Bay Area, California, September 19-20, 2003 Edited By David A. Ponce1, Roland Bürgmann2, Russell W. Graymer1, James J. Lienkaemper1, Diane E. Moore1, and David P. Schwartz1 Open-File Report 03-485 Rodgers Cr Fault Petaluma Novato San Pablo Bay Pinole Pt Pittsburg San Rafael Concord Richmond Pleasant Hill El Cerrito Mill Valley Walnut Creek Berkeley Hayward Fault Danville OAKLAND SAN FRANCISCO San Francisco Bay Daly City San Leandro Dublin Livermore Hayward San Mateo FREMONT Calaveras Fault Half Moon Bay Menlo Park Sunnyvale SAN JOSE 2003 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 1U.S. Geological Survey, 345 Middlefield Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025 2U.C. Berkeley, Dept. of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 389 McCone Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Proceedings of the Hayward Fault Workshop, Eastern San Francisco Bay Area, California, September 19-20, 2003 Edited By David A. Ponce1, Roland Bürgmann2, Russell W. Graymer1, James J. Lienkaemper1, Diane E. Moore1, and David P. Schwartz1 Open-File Report 03-485 2003 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 1U.S. Geological Survey, 345 Middlefield Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025 2U.C. Berkeley, Dept. of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 389 McCone Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................1
  • Environmental Hazards Incorporates the State-Mandated “Safety” and “Noise” Elements of the General Plan

    Environmental Hazards Incorporates the State-Mandated “Safety” and “Noise” Elements of the General Plan

    7 HAZARDS ENVIRONMENTAL A. OVERVIEW Environmental Hazards incorporates the state-mandated “Safety” and “Noise” elements of the General Plan. The Chapter addresses natural and man-made hazards in the City, including earthquakes, landslides, floods, sea level rise, wildfire, air and water pollution, hazardous materials, and aviation accidents. It includes a summary of emergency preparedness in San Leandro, with policies that provide the foundation for disaster planning in the City. The Element also addresses noise issues, with the dual objective of mitigating existing noise problems and avoiding future disturbances and conflicts. The overall purpose of this Element is to minimize the potential for damage and injury resulting from environmental hazards. The State Government Code requires that the Element identify and evaluate the hazards that are present and establish appropriate goals, policies, and action programs to reduce those hazards to acceptable levels. Environmental hazards define basic constraints to land use that must be reflected in how and where development takes place. Public education is critical to the successful implementation of this Element. Although San Leandrans are generally aware that the City is located in “earthquake country,” there is still much that can be done to improve readiness and response when disaster strikes. The Environmental Hazards Element takes a pro-active approach to emergency preparedness, emphasizing mitigation and reduced exposure to hazards as well as response and recovery. This Element is closely coordinated with the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP), a federally mandated plan to reduce exposure to hazards and ensure eligibility for federal disaster preparedness and relief funds. 7-1 SAN LEANDRO GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD S The Element also sets forth a pro-active strategy for addressing noise issues in the community.
  • Battle on Many Fronts

    Battle on Many Fronts

    RISING REALITY The Risk The Embarcadero The Future The Shorelines Resources Battle on many fronts The Bay Area faces a common threat along its shores, but must meet it with an array of ambitious and creative responses By John King November 2016 Boardwalks along the edge of the Alviso Salt Marsh restoration project allow visitors to enjoy the surrounding area on the edge of San Francisco Bay in Alviso. Michael Macor, The Chronicle The levee that rings Oakland International Airport seemingly has nothing in common with the salt­crusted stretch of flat land alongside Menlo Park’s Bayfront Park. One is a 7­foot­high line of boulders, an engineered barrier between the tidal flows that surge in through the Golden Gate twice daily and the runways used by 10,000 commercial flights every month. The other is quiet desolation, a white void dotted with stagnant pools of water. Both, though, are examples of the Bay Area shoreline at risk from the long­term effects of sea level rise — and reminders that there’s no single way to prepare for what might lie ahead. RISINGThe REALITY correct remed yThe in someRisk areas The of Embarcadero shoreline will in vTheolv eFuture forms of naThetural Shorelines healing, wi thResources restored and managed marshes that provide habitat for wildlife and trails for people. But when major public investments or large residential communities are at risk, barriers might be needed to keep out water that wants to come in. It’s a future where now­isolated salt ponds near Silicon Valley would be reunited with the larger bay, while North Bay farmland is turned back into marshes.
  • Restoring San Francisco Bay

    Restoring San Francisco Bay

    Restoring San Francisco Bay Amy Hutzel Coastal Conservancy Photo credit: Rick Lewis 150 years of urbanization has altered San Francisco Bay (1850) (1998) We have had a massive impact on the Bay over the last century We’ve filled thousands of acres We’ve dumped garbage IMPORTANCE OF TIDAL MARSH • Growing threat: Climate Change Photo credit: Vivian Reed • Build up of sediment and vegetation takes time. • Higher starting elevation means marshes survive sea-level rise for longer. San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority Mission: To raise and allocate resources for the restoration, enhancement, protection, and enjoyment of wetlands and wildlife habitat in the San Francisco Bay and along its shoreline. The San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority was created by Save The Bay and others through 2008 legislation. Its mandate is to propose new public funding mechanisms to voters for Bay marsh restoration; then provide grants to accelerate wetland restoration, flood protection, and public access to Bay. Governing Board comprised of elected officials from each quadrant of the Bay Area; Advisory Committee represents many community interests. It currently has no funding to carry out Photo credit: Vivian Reed its important mission. Clean and Healthy Bay Ballot Measure: Measure AA June 2016 ballot measure to accelerate Bay wetlands restoration $12/parcel/year for 20 years, would generate ~$500 million for restoration projects around the Bay Strong majority of nine-county Bay Area voters are supportive; needs 2/3 support in all nine counties, cumulatively, to pass Examples of Projects Anticipated to be Eligible For Funding: • Eden Landing (Alameda) • Chelsea Wetlands (Contra Costa) • Bel Marin Keys (Marin) • Edgerly Island (Napa) • Yosemite Slough (San Francisco) • Ravenswood Ponds (San Mateo) • Alviso Ponds (Santa Clara) • Benicia Shoreline (Solano) • Skaggs Island (Sonoma) Clean and Healthy Bay Ballot Measure: Measure AA Restoring vital fish, bird and wildlife habitat.
  • Executive Director's Recommendation Regarding Proposed Cease And

    Executive Director's Recommendation Regarding Proposed Cease And

    May 16, 2019 TO: Enforcement Committee Members FROM: Larry Goldzband, Executive Director, (415/352-3653; [email protected]) Marc Zeppetello, Chief Counsel, (415/352-3655; [email protected]) Karen Donovan, Attorney III, (415/352-3628; [email protected]) SUBJECT: Executive Director’s Recommendation Regarding Proposed Cease and Desist and Civil Penalty Order No. CDO 2019.001.00 Salt River Construction Corporation and Richard Moseley (For Committee consideration on May 16, 2019) Executive Director’s Recommendation The Executive Director recommends that the Enforcement Committee adopt this Recommended Enforcement Decision including the proposed Cease and Desist and Civil Penalty Order No. CCD2019.001.00 (“Order”) to Salt River Construction Corporation and Richard Moseley (“SRCC”), for the reasons stated below. This matter arises out of an enforcement action commenced by BCDC staff in June of 2018 after BCDC received information from witnesses regarding the unauthorized activities. The matter was previously presented to the Enforcement Committee on February 21, 2019. After the Committee voted to recommend the adoption of the proposed Cease and Desist and Civil Penalty Order, the Commission remanded the matter to the Committee on April 18, 2019, in order to allow Mr. Moseley to appear and present his position. Staff Report I. SUMMARY OF THE BACKGROUND ON THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS A. Background Facts The Complaint alleges three separate violations. The first alleged violation occurred on property near Schoonmaker Point Marina, located in Richardson’s Bay in Marin County. On November 25, 2017, a San Francisco Baykeeper patrol boat operator witnessed a barge near Schoonmaker Marina being propelled by an excavator bucket.
  • Active Wetland Habitat Projects of the San

    Active Wetland Habitat Projects of the San

    ACTIVE WETLAND HABITAT PROJECTS OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY JOINT VENTURE The SFBJV tracks and facilitates habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement projects throughout the nine Bay Area Projects listed Alphabetically by County counties. This map shows where a variety of active wetland habitat projects with identified funding needs are currently ALAMEDA COUNTY MAP ACRES FUND. NEED MARIN COUNTY (continued) MAP ACRES FUND. NEED underway. For a more comprehensive list of all the projects we track, visit: www.sfbayjv.org/projects.php Alameda Creek Fisheries Restoration 1 NA $12,000,000 McInnis Marsh Habitat Restoration 33 180 $17,500,000 Alameda Point Restoration 2 660 TBD Novato Deer Island Tidal Wetlands Restoration 34 194 $7,000,000 Coyote Hills Regional Park - Restoration and Public Prey enhancement for sea ducks - a novel approach 3 306 $12,000,000 35 3.8 $300,000 Access Project to subtidal habitat restoration Hayward Shoreline Habitat Restoration 4 324 $5,000,000 Redwood Creek Restoration at Muir Beach, Phase 5 36 46 $8,200,000 Hoffman Marsh Restoration Project - McLaughlin 5 40 $2,500,000 Spinnaker Marsh Restoration 37 17 $3,000,000 Eastshore State Park Intertidal Habitat Improvement Project - McLaughlin 6 4 $1,000,000 Tennessee Valley Wetlands Restoration 38 5 $600,000 Eastshore State Park Martin Luther King Jr. Regional Shoreline - Water 7 200 $3,000,000 Tiscornia Marsh Restoration 39 16 $1,500,000 Quality Project Oakland Gateway Shoreline - Restoration and 8 200 $12,000,000 Tomales Dunes Wetlands 40 2 $0 Public Access Project Off-shore Bird Habitat Project - McLaughlin 9 1 $1,500,000 NAPA COUNTY MAP ACRES FUND.
  • San Francisco Bay Plan

    San Francisco Bay Plan

    San Francisco Bay Plan San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission In memory of Senator J. Eugene McAteer, a leader in efforts to plan for the conservation of San Francisco Bay and the development of its shoreline. Photo Credits: Michael Bry: Inside front cover, facing Part I, facing Part II Richard Persoff: Facing Part III Rondal Partridge: Facing Part V, Inside back cover Mike Schweizer: Page 34 Port of Oakland: Page 11 Port of San Francisco: Page 68 Commission Staff: Facing Part IV, Page 59 Map Source: Tidal features, salt ponds, and other diked areas, derived from the EcoAtlas Version 1.0bc, 1996, San Francisco Estuary Institute. STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, Governor SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 50 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 2600 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 PHONE: (415) 352-3600 January 2008 To the Citizens of the San Francisco Bay Region and Friends of San Francisco Bay Everywhere: The San Francisco Bay Plan was completed and adopted by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission in 1968 and submitted to the California Legislature and Governor in January 1969. The Bay Plan was prepared by the Commission over a three-year period pursuant to the McAteer-Petris Act of 1965 which established the Commission as a temporary agency to prepare an enforceable plan to guide the future protection and use of San Francisco Bay and its shoreline. In 1969, the Legislature acted upon the Commission’s recommendations in the Bay Plan and revised the McAteer-Petris Act by designating the Commission as the agency responsible for maintaining and carrying out the provisions of the Act and the Bay Plan for the protection of the Bay and its great natural resources and the development of the Bay and shore- line to their highest potential with a minimum of Bay fill.
  • (Oncorhynchus Mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California

    (Oncorhynchus Mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California

    Historical Distribution and Current Status of Steelhead/Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California Robert A. Leidy, Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA Gordon S. Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA Brett N. Harvey, John Muir Institute of the Environment, University of California, Davis, CA This report should be cited as: Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, B.N. Harvey. 2005. Historical distribution and current status of steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration TABLE OF CONTENTS Forward p. 3 Introduction p. 5 Methods p. 7 Determining Historical Distribution and Current Status; Information Presented in the Report; Table Headings and Terms Defined; Mapping Methods Contra Costa County p. 13 Marsh Creek Watershed; Mt. Diablo Creek Watershed; Walnut Creek Watershed; Rodeo Creek Watershed; Refugio Creek Watershed; Pinole Creek Watershed; Garrity Creek Watershed; San Pablo Creek Watershed; Wildcat Creek Watershed; Cerrito Creek Watershed Contra Costa County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 39 Alameda County p. 45 Codornices Creek Watershed; Strawberry Creek Watershed; Temescal Creek Watershed; Glen Echo Creek Watershed; Sausal Creek Watershed; Peralta Creek Watershed; Lion Creek Watershed; Arroyo Viejo Watershed; San Leandro Creek Watershed; San Lorenzo Creek Watershed; Alameda Creek Watershed; Laguna Creek (Arroyo de la Laguna) Watershed Alameda County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 91 Santa Clara County p. 97 Coyote Creek Watershed; Guadalupe River Watershed; San Tomas Aquino Creek/Saratoga Creek Watershed; Calabazas Creek Watershed; Stevens Creek Watershed; Permanente Creek Watershed; Adobe Creek Watershed; Matadero Creek/Barron Creek Watershed Santa Clara County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p.