DOCSLIB.ORG

Pleasanton Ridge Land Use Plan Table of Contents

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pleasanton Ridge Land Use Plan Table of Contents Land Use Plan for Pleasanton Ridge Regional Park July 17, 2012 Planning/Stewardship/GIS Services Department East Bay Regional Park District 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, California 94605 Land Use Plan for Pleasanton Ridge Regional Park Adopted: July 17, 2012 Resolution No.: 2012 - 7 - 184 Planning/Stewardship/GIS Services Department East Bay Regional Park District 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, California 94605 Pleasanton Ridge Land Use Plan Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Overview .................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1.1 Chapter Summaries……………………………………………….……….. ....................... 1 1.1.2 Setting ........................................................................................................................... 2 1.1.2.1 Study Area ....................................................................................................... 2 1.1.2.2 Location ........................................................................................................... 2 1.1.2.3 Site Characteristics…………………….………………………….. ..................... 4 1.1.2.4 Park Access ..................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Project Purpose & Goals ........................................................................................................... 6 1.2.1 Purpose ........................................................................................................................ 6 1.2.2 Goals ............................................................................................................................ 6 1.3 Planning Process ....................................................................................................................... 8 1.3.1 Background ................................................................................................................... 8 1.3.2 Data Gathering, Mapping & Documentation ................................................................. 8 1.3.3 Meetings & Public Queries ........................................................................................... 9 1.3.3.1 Meetings .......................................................................................................... 9 1.3.3.2 Distribution of Planning Process Documentation ............................................ 9 1.4 Parkland Classification & Land Use Policy Consistency…….……………….. ......................... 10 1.4.1 Parkland Classification - Regional Park Designation ................................................. 10 1.4.2 Land Use Policy Consistency ..................................................................................... 10 1.4.2.1 Prior Planning Studies .................................................................................... 10 1.4.2.2 EBRPD Master Plan (1997) ............................................................................ 11 1.4.2.3 Wildland Management Policies & Guidelines (EBRPD 2001) ........................ 11 1.4.3 Park Facility Naming…….…………………………………………….…….. ................... 12 CHAPTER 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2.1 Overview of Land Use Plan Recommendations…….…………………………….. .................... 13 2.2 Parkland Challenges …….………………………………………………….……….. .................... 14 2.2.1 Resource Challenges ................................................................................................. 14 2.2.1.1 Topography & Soils ....................................................................................... 14 2.2.1.2 Biological Resources ..................................................................................... 14 2.2.1.3 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................ 15 2.2.2 Public Access & Recreation Challenges .................................................................... 15 2.2.2.1 Staging & Trailheads ..................................................................................... 15 2.2.2.2 Inclusive Trail Use ........................................................................................ 15 Universal Access .................................................................................... 15 EBRPD 1997 Master Plan & District Ordinance 38 ................................ 16 2.2.2.3 Inter-Agency Coordination ............................................................................ 16 2.2.3 Maintenance & Operations Challenges ..................................................................... 17 2.2.3.1 Staffing .......................................................................................................... 17 2.2.3.2 Facilities ......................................................................................................... 17 2.2.4 Permits, Agreements & Easements Challenges ........................................................ 17 2.2.4.1 Private Access Easements in the Park.......................................................... 17 2.2.4.2 Emergency Vehicle Maintenance Access (EVMA) …….……….. ................. 18 2.2.4.3 Pleasanton Ridge Conservation Easement …….……………….. .................. 18 2.3 Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 18 2.3.1 Resource Recommendations .................................................................................... 18 2.3.1.1 Biological Resources ..................................................................................... 18 2.3.1.2 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................ 19 2.3.1.3 Biological & Cultural Resource Monitoring ................................................... 19 2.3.2 Recreation Recommendations .................................................................................. 19 2.3.2.1 Recreation Facilities & Infrastructure ............................................................ 19 2.3.2.2 Interpretive & Recreation Programs ............................................................. 20 2.3.3 Maintenance & Operations Recommendations………….……………….. ................... 20 2.3.3.1 Public Safety…….………………………………………………….. ................... 20 2.3.3.2 Maintenance & Operations Facilities ........................................................... 20 2.3.3.3 Land Use Agreements ................................................................................... 21 2.4 Implementation of the LUP…….……………………………………….…………….. .................. 21 2.4.1 Authorization & Phasing…….………………………………………...…….. .................. 21 2.4.2 Permitting…….……………………………………………………………….. .................. 22 CHAPTER 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS Section 3.1 - Park Setting ..................................................................................................................... 25 3.1.1 Parkland Creation…….……………….. ....................................................................... 25 3.1.1.1 Parkland Vision .............................................................................................. 25 3.1.1.2 Parkland Jurisdictions .................................................................................... 26 3.1.2 Park Environment…….……………….. ....................................................................... 26 3.1.2.1 Topography, Geology & Soils ........................................................................ 26 Topography…….……………….. ............................................................. 26 Geology ................................................................................................... 28 Seismic & Landslide Hazards ........................................................... 28 Soils......................................................................................................... 29 3.1.2.2 Air & Sounds .................................................................................................. 29 Climate…….……………….. .................................................................... 29 Temperature & Precipitation ................................................................... 29 Wind…….……………….. ........................................................................ 29 Air Quality…….……………….. ................................................................ 30 Potential Effects of Global Climate Change on the Park ........................ 30 Predominant Sounds …….……………….. .............................................. 31 3.1.2.3 Hydrology & Water Resources …….……………….. ..................................... 31 Watershed…….……………….. ............................................................... 31 Surface Water & Drainage Pattern ......................................................... 31 Seasonal Drainages …….……………….. ............................................... 32 Ponds, Springs & Seeps …….……………….. ........................................ 32 Groundwater ........................................................................................... 33 3.1.2.4 Biological Resources Overview…….……………….. ..................................... 33 Data Collection ...................................................................................... 33 Methodology…….……………….. ..................................................... 33 Plant & Wildlife Surveys .................................................................. 33 3.1.2.5 Plant Communities & Associated Wildlife …….……………….. ....................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • "National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary."
    Intro 1996 National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands The Fish and Wildlife Service has prepared a National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary (1996 National List). The 1996 National List is a draft revision of the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1988 National Summary (Reed 1988) (1988 National List). The 1996 National List is provided to encourage additional public review and comments on the draft regional wetland indicator assignments. The 1996 National List reflects a significant amount of new information that has become available since 1988 on the wetland affinity of vascular plants. This new information has resulted from the extensive use of the 1988 National List in the field by individuals involved in wetland and other resource inventories, wetland identification and delineation, and wetland research. Interim Regional Interagency Review Panel (Regional Panel) changes in indicator status as well as additions and deletions to the 1988 National List were documented in Regional supplements. The National List was originally developed as an appendix to the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al.1979) to aid in the consistent application of this classification system for wetlands in the field.. The 1996 National List also was developed to aid in determining the presence of hydrophytic vegetation in the Clean Water Act Section 404 wetland regulatory program and in the implementation of the swampbuster provisions of the Food Security Act. While not required by law or regulation, the Fish and Wildlife Service is making the 1996 National List available for review and comment.
    [Show full text]
  • Plum Crazy: Rediscovering Our Lost Prunus Resources W.R
    Plum Crazy: Rediscovering Our Lost Prunus Resources W.R. Okie1 U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service, Southeastern Fruit and Tree Nut Research Laboratory, 21 Dunbar Road, Byron, GA 31008 Recent utilization of genetic resources of peach [Prunus persica (‘Quetta’ from India, ‘John Rivers’ from England, and ‘Lippiatts’ (L.) Batsch] and Japanese plum (P. salicina Lindl. and hybrids) has from New Zealand) were critical to the development of modern been limited in the United States compared with that of many crops. nectarines in California (Taylor, 1959). However, most fresh-market Difficulties in collection, importation, and quarantine throughput have peach breeding programs in the United States have used germplasm limited the germplasm available. Prunus is more difficult to preserve developed in the United States for cultivar development (Okie, 1998). because more space is needed than for small fruit crops, and the shorter Only in New Jersey was there extensive hybridization with imported life of trees relative to other tree crops because of disease and insect clones, and most of these hybrids have not resulted in named cultivars problems. Lack of suitable rootstocks has also reduced tree life. The (Blake and Edgerton, 1946). trend toward fewer breeding programs, most of which emphasize In recent years, interest in collecting and utilizing novel germplasm “short-term” (long-term compared to most crops) commercial cultivar has increased. For example, non-melting clingstone peaches from development to meet immediate industry needs, has also contributed Mexico and Brazil have been used in the joint USDA–Univ. of to reduced use of exotic material. Georgia–Univ. of Florida breeding program for the development of Probably all modern commercial peaches grown in the United early ripening, non-melting, fresh-market peaches for low-chill areas States are related to ‘Chinese Cling’, a peach imported from China (Beckman and Sherman, 1996).
    [Show full text]
  • Vascular Plants at Fort Ross State Historic Park
    19005 Coast Highway One, Jenner, CA 95450 ■ 707.847.3437 ■ [email protected] ■ www.fortross.org Title: Vascular Plants at Fort Ross State Historic Park Author(s): Dorothy Scherer Published by: California Native Plant Society i Source: Fort Ross Conservancy Library URL: www.fortross.org Fort Ross Conservancy (FRC) asks that you acknowledge FRC as the source of the content; if you use material from FRC online, we request that you link directly to the URL provided. If you use the content offline, we ask that you credit the source as follows: “Courtesy of Fort Ross Conservancy, www.fortross.org.” Fort Ross Conservancy, a 501(c)(3) and California State Park cooperating association, connects people to the history and beauty of Fort Ross and Salt Point State Parks. © Fort Ross Conservancy, 19005 Coast Highway One, Jenner, CA 95450, 707-847-3437 .~ ) VASCULAR PLANTS of FORT ROSS STATE HISTORIC PARK SONOMA COUNTY A PLANT COMMUNITIES PROJECT DOROTHY KING YOUNG CHAPTER CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY DOROTHY SCHERER, CHAIRPERSON DECEMBER 30, 1999 ) Vascular Plants of Fort Ross State Historic Park August 18, 2000 Family Botanical Name Common Name Plant Habitat Listed/ Community Comments Ferns & Fern Allies: Azollaceae/Mosquito Fern Azo/la filiculoides Mosquito Fern wp Blechnaceae/Deer Fern Blechnum spicant Deer Fern RV mp,sp Woodwardia fimbriata Giant Chain Fern RV wp Oennstaedtiaceae/Bracken Fern Pleridium aquilinum var. pubescens Bracken, Brake CG,CC,CF mh T Oryopteridaceae/Wood Fern Athyrium filix-femina var. cyclosorum Western lady Fern RV sp,wp Dryopteris arguta Coastal Wood Fern OS op,st Dryopteris expansa Spreading Wood Fern RV sp,wp Polystichum munitum Western Sword Fern CF mh,mp Equisetaceae/Horsetail Equisetum arvense Common Horsetail RV ds,mp Equisetum hyemale ssp.affine Common Scouring Rush RV mp,sg Equisetum laevigatum Smooth Scouring Rush mp,sg Equisetum telmateia ssp.
    [Show full text]
  • 2005 Pleasanton Plan 2025
    2005 Pleasanton Plan 2025 7. CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT Table of Contents page page BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE.................................................. 7-1 Tables SUSTAINABILITY ........................................................................ 7-1 Table 7-1 Potential Wildlife Species of Concern in the RESOURCE CONSERVATION ..................................................... 7-2 Planning Area ........................................................... 7-3 Animal Life.......................................................................... 7-2 Table 7-2 Potential Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Plants Plant Life............................................................................. 7-4 in the Planning Area .................................................. 7-6 Soil Resources ..................................................................... 7-9 Table 7-3 Historic Neighborhoods and Structures ..................... 7-15 Sand and Gravel............................................................... 7-10 Cultural Resources............................................................. 7-11 Figures OPEN SPACE LANDS............................................................... 7-18 Figure 7-1 Generalized Land Cover, 2005 .................................. 7-5 Recreational Open Space................................................... 7-18 Figure 7-2 Aggregate Resources and Reclamation ...................... 7-12 Water Management, Habitat, and Recreation...................... 7-24 Figure 7-3 Historic Neighborhoods
    [Show full text]
  • Sunol Quarry Conservation Plan
    Conservation Plan For Sunol Quarry SMP-30 Site A Conservation Plan by Oliver de Silva, Inc. to Enhance the Biological Resources of the Sunol Quarry SMP-30 Project Area in Alameda County, California December 15, 2008 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Conservation Plan was prepared by Oliver de Silva, Inc., the Alameda Creek Alliance, and the Center for Biological Diversity, to protect and enhance the biological resources in the vicinity of the Sunol Quarry Site in the Sunol Valley. The conservation measures in this plan will significantly reduce the potential impacts of Sunol Quarry mining operations on native wildlife species and their habitats, will provide further mitigation for unavoidable biological impacts, and will benefit special-status species and their habitats in the vicinity of the project. As detailed herein, Oliver de Silva (“ODS”) will fund, implement and monitor the avoidance, mitigation, and restoration measures detailed in this Conservation Plan to best protect and conserve special-status species and their habitats prior to and during the development of quarry operations at the Sunol Quarry, under Surface Mining Permit 30 (“SMP-30”), Revised SMP-30 and Further Revised SMP-30. In 2006 ODS submitted a proposal for a mining lease in the Sunol Valley, SMP-30. ODS contemplates additional, future mining operations at the SMP-30 site, subject to the Approval of a revised surface mining permit for the site (“Revised SMP-30”) and a further revised surface mining permit for the site (“Further Revised SMP-30”). Activities under SMP-30 and Revised SMP-30 are separate and distinct projects, with independent utility, from mining activities at Apperson Ridge pursuant to SMP-17 and Revised SMP-17.
    [Show full text]
  • Palouse Forbs for Landscaping
    More Palouse Forbs for Landscaping. by David M. Skinner, Paul Warnick, Bill French, and Mary Fauci November, 2005 The following is an additional list of native forbs which may be found in the Palouse region. These forbs may be less suitable for the landscape because of growth habit, aggressiveness, difficulty in propagating and growing, rarity, or it simply may be that we haven’t yet tried to do anything with them. For a list of Palouse forbs which may be more suitable for landscaping and about which we have more information to share, please see “Characteristics and Uses of Native Palouse Forbs in Landscaping.” Nomenclature used in this document also follows Hitchcock, C. Leo, and Arthur Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. Univ. of Washington Press. Seattle, WA. In order to facilitate searching for a particular species, we have included some common names and alternate scientific names, but this is by no means intended to be a comprehensive source of common names or synonyms. Detailed information on propagation of many native species can be found at <http://nativeplants.for.uidaho.edu/network/search.asp?SearchType=Continental> Agastache urticifolia is probably too large a plant for a small garden. Requires a moist site. Easy to grow from seed. Plants have a minty smell and a very interesting flower. Common names include nettle-leafed giant hyssop, horsemint. Agoseris grandiflora is not a particularly attractive plant, it looks rather like a weed. Short-lived and attracts rodents, which eat the taproot and kill the plants. Easy to grow from seed, which is wind-borne and goes everywhere.
    [Show full text]
  • Fort Ord Natural Reserve Plant List
    UCSC Fort Ord Natural Reserve Plants Below is the most recently updated plant list for UCSC Fort Ord Natural Reserve. * non-native taxon ? presence in question Listed Species Information: CNPS Listed - as designated by the California Rare Plant Ranks (formerly known as CNPS Lists). More information at http://www.cnps.org/cnps/rareplants/ranking.php Cal IPC Listed - an inventory that categorizes exotic and invasive plants as High, Moderate, or Limited, reflecting the level of each species' negative ecological impact in California. More information at http://www.cal-ipc.org More information about Federal and State threatened and endangered species listings can be found at https://www.fws.gov/endangered/ (US) and http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/ t_e_spp/ (CA). FAMILY NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME LISTED Ferns AZOLLACEAE - Mosquito Fern American water fern, mosquito fern, Family Azolla filiculoides ? Mosquito fern, Pacific mosquitofern DENNSTAEDTIACEAE - Bracken Hairy brackenfern, Western bracken Family Pteridium aquilinum var. pubescens fern DRYOPTERIDACEAE - Shield or California wood fern, Coastal wood wood fern family Dryopteris arguta fern, Shield fern Common horsetail rush, Common horsetail, field horsetail, Field EQUISETACEAE - Horsetail Family Equisetum arvense horsetail Equisetum telmateia ssp. braunii Giant horse tail, Giant horsetail Pentagramma triangularis ssp. PTERIDACEAE - Brake Family triangularis Gold back fern Gymnosperms CUPRESSACEAE - Cypress Family Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey cypress CNPS - 1B.2, Cal IPC
    [Show full text]
  • The Pubescent-Fruited Species of Prunus of the Southwestern States
    THE PUBESCENT-FRUITED SPECIES OF PRUNUS OF THE SOUTHWESTERN STATES By SIMS C. MASON, Arboriculturist, Crop Physiology and Breeding Investigations, Bureau of Plant Industry INTRODUCTION The species of the genus Prunus described in this article occupy a unique position in the flora of the western United States from the fact that their relationship with the wild plums of the country is remote and they are more closely allied to some of the Asiatic species of this genus. Their economic importance arises chiefly from their close adaptation to the climatic and soil conditions of the Southwest, where fluctuations of heat and cold, severe drought, and considerable alkalinity of the soil must be endured by most tree crops. Adaptable stocks for the cultivated forms of Prunus capable of meeting such conditions are eagerly sought. Species with such characters which are capable of being hybridized with the old-established cultivated forms of the genus offer attractive possibilities to the plant breeder. This is especially true of the one edible-fruited form, Prunus texana, which affords in aroma and flavor of fruit most attractive characters for combi- nation with other stone fruits of larger size and more staple commercial character. Instead of forming a homogeneous group, as has usually been be- lieved, these species fall into small groups of quite diverse character and affinities. To the plant breeder and student of their economic possibilities these relationships are of such importance that the following detailed study of them is deemed essential
    [Show full text]
  • Taming the Wild Beach Plum
    Taming the Wild Beach Plum Richard H. Uva Beach plum is a conspicuous shrub of coastal plant communities in the north- eastern United States because of its prolific bloom, prized fruit, and perseverance in a seemingly hostile environment. Several attempts have been made to bring this wild fruit into cultivation. ’ve known the beach plum (Prunus maritima Marsh.) I since childhood on Cape Cod, where it was the only woody plant in the sea of dune grass that sepa- rated the ocean from the rest of the world. Michael Dirr writes in his Manual of Cultivated Plants that “This species abounds on Cape Cod, Massachusetts, and is one of the Cape Codder’s cher- ALL PHOTOGRAPHS ARE BY THE AUTHOR ished plants.” In fact, I would say that Cape Codders feel a sense of entitlement to the species and its fruit. The beach plum is much appreciated for its profuse white bloom in spring, but it is in late summer, when people gather the fruit from the wild for jelly and other preserves, that its impor- The fruits of Prunus maritima are small plums—one-half to an inch (1.5 to tance to the local culture becomes 2.5 cm) in diameter—that ripen from late August through September. most apparent. The long-time gatherers have secret spots and favorite bushes, breviligulata), beach pea (Lathyrus maritimus), and strangers carrying pails in the dunes are and seaside goldenrod (Solidago sempervirens). viewed with suspicion. In a good crop year the When I learned that William Clark of the Cape race to harvest is so competitive that the fruit Cod Cooperative Extension and a small group of is sometimes picked when barely ripe.
    [Show full text]
  • Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration Sunol Long Term Improvements Project Planning Department Case No
    SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING DEPARTMENT Written comments should be sent to: Timothy Johnston 1650 Mission Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94103 [email protected] Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration Sunol Long Term Improvements Project Planning Department Case No. 2012.0054E Preliminary MND Publication Date: February 18, 2015 Preliminary MND Public Comment Period: February 18, 2015–March 20, 2015 Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration Date: February 18, 2015 Case No.: 2012.0054E Project Title: 505 Paloma Road, Sunol, CA Sunol Long Term Improvements Project Parcel Nos.: 96-375-12-2; 96-375-14 Project Site Size: Approximately 44 acres including access and staging areas Lead Agency: San Francisco Planning Department Staff Contact: Timothy Johnston – (415) 575-9035 [email protected] PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) proposes to implement the Sunol Long Term Improvements (SLTI) Project (the “project”), which is comprised of two main elements: improvements to the existing Sunol Corporation Yard (Sunol Yard) and development of a new interpretive center, to be named “the Alameda Creek Watershed Center” (Watershed Center), in the vicinity of the Sunol Water Temple. The proposed project site is located in a primarily rural setting, south of the Town of Sunol and west of the State Route 84/Interstate 680 junction, in Alameda County, California. Adjoining the project site are gravel quarry operations, the Sunol Water Temple and Agricultural Park, Alameda Creek, Arroyo de la Laguna, SFPUC water supply facilities, and the Town of Sunol. The project would be implemented at two areas within the SFPUC property located 505 Paloma Road, in Sunol, CA.
    [Show full text]
  • THE POL&IHATXON STATUS of PRUNUS SUBCQRDATA by LEWIS
    THE POL&IHATXON STATUS OF PRUNUS SUBCQRDATA by LEWIS ANGLE BAMMEfiS A THESIS submittod to 0KEO0M STATE COLt«EGB in partial fulfillsont of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIBSCI June 1949 APPROVED: Head of pe^artment of Horticulture In Charge of Major ... i tyf fin' i in — w—r i ,.,... i Chairman of School Graduate Committee ' -*• .~.- -— ^. ^. ^^_^y^ Dean of Graduate School 7— 3" ; ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to express his grateful appre- ciation for the valuable assistance rendered by the many persons cooperating in this atudy* He is particularly Indebted to Professor Henry Hartmen, whose guidance and generous help carried this work to its completion. To A* H. Roberts, Assistant Horticulturaliat of the Experi- ment Station, the author is deeply indebted for helpful assistance in all phases of the problem without which the study would not have reached a successful conclusion, L. A, H. Tmm OF CONTESTS Paga Introduction ..*.......... 1 History ............ 1 Burbank^s work with the wild plum » ... 1 Sisson plvtm ............ 2 Botanical Bascription * . ........ 4 Original desorlption ....»...* 4 Sargent's description. ....*.•. 4 Variety g^lloggii ....... ♦ . 9 Variety ftyegana ...... * -« . 10 Delimitations ............. 11 Variety selection and testing * . * . II Follina^ion studies ......... 11 Rootstook studies ••...••... 11 Botanical relationship and aeearate descriptions. • • . • « • • . 11 Origin of hybrid types . « . ♦ « » . * IS Seed or Timeliness of The Study •s; Development of plum in southern Oregon ... IS Orchard culture in XaUfce County . , . * 13 Distribution • . • . • . Sarly writers* reports ........ 15 Soil preference ...» « . • . 16 Most productive plants . .♦».♦. 16 Factor of location ......... 16 fruit Setting .......... 19 Processes taking place within the flower . * 19 Formation of pollen and embryo sac * ..
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Planning Department
    SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING DEPARTMENT PUBLIC NOTICE 1650 Mission St. 3ovemof's Offiee of Planning &Researc h Suite 400 San Francisco , DEC 04 2019 Availability of Recirculated Portions of CA 94103-2479 Draft Environmental Impact Report Re ceptio n: STATE CLEARINGHOUSE 415.558.6378 Date: December 4, 2019 Fax: Case No.: 2015-004827ENV 415 .558.6409 Project Title: SFPUC Alameda Creek Recapture Project Pl anning Location: Alameda County on watershed lands owned by Informati on: 415.558.6377 the City and County of San Francisco Project Sponsor: Antonia Sivyer, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (415) 554-2474 Staff Contact: Chris Kern, Principal Planner - (415) 575-9037 [email protected] The San Francisco Planning Department has prepared recirculated portions of the draft environmental impact report (EIR) in connection with this project. The report is available for public review and can be accessed online at the planning department's website at: https:ljsfplanning.org/environrnental-review-docurnents. Paper copies are also available at the: Planning Information Center at 1660 Mission Street, 1st Floor, San Francisco; San Francisco Main Library, 100 Larkin Street, San Francisco, California; and Alameda County Main Library, 2450 Stevenson Boulevard, Fremont, California. Referenced materials are available for review at the planning department's office on the fourth floor of 1650 Mission Street as part of Case File Number 2015- 004827ENV. Project Description: The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) is proposing the Alameda Creek Recapture Project (ACRP) as part of improvements to its regional water system. The ACRP is a water supply project that would be located in the Sunol Valley in Alameda County on lands owned by the City and County of San Francisco and managed by the SFPUC.
    [Show full text]