DOCSLIB.ORG

Petaluma General Plan 2025

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Petaluma General Plan 2025 Petaluma General Plan 2025 Draft Environmental Impact Report STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2004082065 Prepared for City of Petaluma by September 2006 Table of Contents Executive Summary................................................................................................... E-1 E.1 Proposed Project................................................................................................E-1 E.2 Alternatives to the Proposed General Plan .......................................................E-6 E.3 Areas of Controversy..........................................................................................E-8 E.4 Summary of Impacts & Environmentally Superior Alternative .....................E-9 1 Introduction...........................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Purpose and Use of This EIR.............................................................................1-1 1.2 The General Plan Preparation Process..............................................................1-2 1.3 Public Participation and Review .......................................................................1-2 1.4 EIR Approach and Assumptions.......................................................................1-3 1.5 Issues Addressed in This EIR.............................................................................1-4 1.6 Documents Incorporated by Reference ............................................................1-5 1.7 Organization of the Draft EIR ...........................................................................1-6 2 Project Description...............................................................................................2-1 2.1 Introduction and Background...........................................................................2-1 2.2 Regional Location and Planning Area...............................................................2-2 2.3 Purpose & Objectives of the Proposed General Plan .......................................2-7 2.4 Characteristics of the Proposed General Plan ................................................2-10 2.5 Key Policy Direction ........................................................................................2-21 2.6 Implementation of the Proposed General Plan..............................................2-23 3 Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis, and Mitigation............................... 3-1 3.1 Land Use..........................................................................................................3.1-1 3.2 Transportation ................................................................................................3.2-1 3.3 Parks and Recreation ......................................................................................3.3-1 3.4 Public Services.................................................................................................3.4-1 3.5 Public Utilities and Energy .............................................................................3.5-1 3.6 Hydrology........................................................................................................3.6-1 3.7 Geology, Seismicity, and Soils ........................................................................3.7-1 3.8 Biological Resources........................................................................................3.8-1 3.9 Noise ................................................................................................................3.9-1 3.10 Air Quality.....................................................................................................3.10-1 i 3.11 Visual Resources............................................................................................3.11-1 3.12 Cultural Resources........................................................................................3.12-1 3.13 Hazardous Material.......................................................................................3.13-1 4 Impact Overview...................................................................................................4-1 4.1 Significant Unavoidable Environmental Impacts ............................................4-1 4.2 Irreversible Environmental Changes.................................................................4-1 4.3 Growth-Inducing Impacts.................................................................................4-2 4.4 Cumulative Impacts...........................................................................................4-3 4.5 Impacts Found Not To Be Significant ..............................................................4-6 5 Analysis of Alternatives ..................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Background of Alternatives Development........................................................5-1 5.2 Description of Alternatives................................................................................5-2 5.3 Comparison of Alternatives...............................................................................5-6 5.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative............................................................5-22 6 Report Authors...................................................................................................6-1 7 Persons and Organization Consulted............................................................... 7-1 8 References........................................................................................................... 8-1 Glossary ................................................................................................................... G-1 ii Technical Appendices List Volume 1: Appendix A Survey of Residents (August 2002)...........................................................................................A-1 Notice of Preparation and Written Responses (August 2004) ...............................................A-2 Appendix B (Mobility) Draft Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan (July 2006)............................................................................ B-1 Traffic Model Development Report (September 2003) .......................................................... B-2 Volume 2: Appendix C Water Supply and Demand Analysis Report (June 2006).......................................................C-1 Volume 3: Appendix D Water Distribution System Master Plan (July 2006)...............................................................D-1 Appendix E (Surface Water) Facilities Review (Technical Memo 1, May 2003)................................................................... E-1 Operations & Maintenance Plan (Technical Memo 2, April 2003) ....................................... E-2 Volume 4: Appendix F Fiscal Impacts of the Preferred Plan (August 2006).................................................................F-1 Groundwater Feasibility Study (February 2004)......................................................................F-2 Biological Resources Review (Technical Memo 3, December 2003).……………………. F-3 Surface Water Model Calibration & Analysis Report (August 2006)…………………….. F-4 Appendix G Environmental Impact Report ................................................................................................G-1 iii List of Tables Table ES-1: Estimated Housing Units at Plan Buildout.......................................................... E-4 Table ES-2: Non-Residential Development at Plan Buildout (sq. ft.).................................... E-4 Table ES-3: Population and Employment ............................................................................... E-5 Table ES-4: Buildout Comparison – Proposed Plan and Alternatives................................... E-8 Table ES-5: Summary of Impacts and Proposed General Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact................................................................................................................... E-11 Table 2.1-1: Required Elements and Petaluma General Plan Elements..................................2-1 Table 2.4-1: Land Use Acreages Plan Buildout.......................................................................2-18 Table 2.4-2: Estimated Housing Units at Plan Buildout........................................................2-19 Table 2.4-3: Non-Residential Development at Plan Buildout (sf. ft.)...................................2-19 Table 2.4-4: Density and Intensity Assumptions Used in Buildout Projections ..................2-19 Table 2.4-5: Population and Employment..............................................................................2-20 Table 3.1-1: Petaluma UGB: Existing land Use Acreage (2004)...........................................3.1-2 Table 3.2-1: Journey to Work by Mode of Travel, Petaluma Residents...............................3.2-1 Table 3.2-2: Qualitative Description of Level of Service...................................................... 3.2-4 Table 3.2-3: Intersection Level of Service Criteria................................................................ 3.2-4 Table 3.2-4: Freeway Segment Level of Service Definitions................................................. 3.2-5 Table 3.2-5: Intersection Level of Service, Existing Conditions .......................................... 3.2-9 Table 3.2-6: Freeway Peak-Hour V/C Ratio and Existing LOS ......................................... 3.2-11 Table 3.2-7: Intersection Level of Service, Future with Project (Year 2025) Conditions..................................................................... 3.2-27 Table
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Major Streams and Watersheds of East Marin
    Ch ile no t å V S 29 al å le y Rd I D St d Major Streams and WatershedsR of East Marin San Anto o ni i o n R o d t 9å3 S n an A A å nton io Rd n a S Ma rs ha d ll R P s e e ta y lum e a R R d t L P a a k m e lu vi ta lle Pe R d W i lso n H ill Rd SOULAJULE RESERVOIR L 4 a 2 k e v il North Novato le R d 9 48 7 6 3 ay w 0 gh 1 i H e at St r an Ma in S 3 D 7 N r ova U to n B i lv t d 7å3 e å å n d 77 L å S s d t a n v l o t e B m s STAFFORD LAKE d m H i o S o i g A w h th N d w e o e r East Marin Schools v a to a R n to y A d å Bå 55 1 v R lv t G e å d å ra 0 å Blackpoint e n å å å 63 å S t 59 a A 1 1, ADALINE E KENT MIDDLE SCHOOL 34, LYNWOOD ELEM. SCHOOL 67, RING MOUNTAIN DAY SCHOOL å v ve å r m A h D u t r l 7 D o a n å e L b t o 32 ong r å å e å s å Av a il e 2, ALLAIRE SCHOOL 35, MADRONE CONTINUATION HIGH SCHOOLP 68, ROSS ELEM.
    [Show full text]
  • Codornices Creek Fish Passage and Habitat Improvement Project
    Codornices Creek Fish Passage and Habitat Improvement Project Conceptual Restoration Plan San Pablo Avenue to Monterey Avenue Codornices Creek Berkeley, California May 2005 Urban Creeks Council 1250 Addison Street, #107 Berkeley California 94702 FarWest Restoration Engineering 538 Santa Clara Ave Alameda, CA 94501 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose and Scope 1.2 About the Urban Creeks Council 1.3 Project Participants and Objectives 2.0 BACKGROUND AND EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.1 Watershed and Land Use 2.2 Historic Conditions 2.3 Streamflow Records 2.4 Historic Flooding 2.5 Existing Biological Resources 2.6 Prior Stream Habitat Assessments 2.7 Prior Fish Barrier Assessments 3.0 SUMMARY OF WORK PERFORMED UNDER THIS PROJECT 4.0 STREAMBANK STABILIZATION AND FISH BARRIER REMEDIATION ALTERNATIVES 4.1 Existing Channel Conditions 4.2 Preliminary Design for Habitat Improvements 4.2.1 St. Mary’s College High School 4.2.1.1 Proposed Bank Stabilization 4.3 Preliminary Design for Fish Barrier Modifications 4.3.1 Culvert Modifications 4.3.1.1 Evaluation of Culvert Barrier Modifications under Flood Flow Conditions 4.3.1.2 Previous Hydraulic Analysis of Culverts 4.3.1.3 Results of the Hydraulic Modeling of Baffled Culverts 4.3.2 Albina Street Bridge 4.3.2.1 Proposed Barrier Modification 4.3.2.2 Results of Flood Modeling 4.3.3 Concrete Channel Section Upstream from Albina Street Bridge 4.3.3.1 Proposed Barrier Modification 4.3.3.2 Results of Hydraulic Modeling 5.0 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES 6.0 COMMUNITY OUTREACH 6.1 CCWRAP Working Group 6.2 Community Meetings 6.3 Homeowner Interaction 6.4 Media 7.0 NEXT STEPS 8.0 REFERENCES i LIST of FIGURES Figure 1: Codornices Creek Watershed Map Figure 2: Flood Indicator Debris Line along Cornell Avenue Figure 3: O.
    [Show full text]
  • Flood Control & Water Conservation District
    Marin County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Zone 3 Advisory Board Meeting May 28, 2009 6:30 – 8:30 pm Mill Valley City Hall Council’s Chambers Meeting Agenda Approval of Meeting Minutes: November 8, 2007 Introduction of New Advisory Board Member Gary Lion Review of Brown Act and Form 700 Requirements Open Time for Items Not on the Agenda Project Status Reports A) Bothin Marsh – Coyote Creek Restoration and Flood Control Project B) Seminary Dr. Pump Station C) SCADA System D) Crest Marin Creek Flood Study E) Richardson Bay Tidal Flood Study F) Zone 3 Stormwater Master Plan Update G) Arroyo Corte Madera del Presidio Flood Study Advance Flood Warning Notification - ACMdP Sea-level Rise Discussion Maintenance Activities Update Zone 3 Budget FY 2008-2009 Schedule Next Meeting Brown Act & Form 700 Requirements Brown Act – What is it? Authored by Ralph M. Brown, an Assemblyman from Turlock, and enacted in 1953 by the California State Legislature in an effort to safeguard the public's right to access and participate in government meetings within the State. o Specifies advance notice for open public meetings. o Dictates to District staff specific administrative requirements for meetings. o Sets provisions on how board members can communicate information with one another. o Board members are asked to view County of Marin – Boards and Commissions Training Video highlighting important points of the Brown Act. Acknowledgement form must also be signed and returned. Brown Act & Form 700 Requirements Brown Act & Form 700 Requirements “The Mission of the FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION is to promote the integrity of representative state and local government in California through fair, impartial interpretation and enforcement of political campaign, lobbying, and conflict of interest laws.” www.fppc.ca.gov o Forms are to be filled out each year and submitted to the Clerk of the Marin County Board of Supervisors.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Codornices Creek Was Used for Dairying and Haying
    A Walk in the Upper Codornices Watershed by Susan Schwartz, President, Friends of Five Creeks Codornices is one of many small creeks flowing from the geologically young Berkeley Hills to San Francisco Bay. It is unusual only because is the only creek from Oakland into South Richmond to retain a substantially continuous channel from hills to Bay. This may be because the creek became the Berkeley-Albany border, making it bureaucratically difficult to bury most of it in pipes. Probably because of this relatively continuous open channel, Codornices the only creek from Oakland to North Richmond with a population of steelhead – ocean-going rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss; the two are the same species). Since steelhead are listed as threatened, great effort has gone into improving and expanding their habitat, particularly in the lower reaches, where the creek forms the border between Berkeley and Albany. The hills where Codornices rises are a geologic jumble. Some of the oldest rocks date from the age of dinosaurs. Formed far away, they were scraped from the Pacific Plate as it was forced beneath North America. One example is Pinnacle Rock in Remillard Park; its lavas erupted in distant tropical seas some 160 million years ago. By contrast, Indian, Mortar, and Grotto Rocks are bits of a much younger volcano that erupted somewhere near today’s Hollister much more recently, perhaps 13 million years ago. They were dragged north on the more recent sideways motion of clashing plates. Sediments washed from the Sierras and deposited at different times also have been mixed and pushed into odd angles.
    [Show full text]
  • Southern Sonoma County Storm Water Resources Plan
    Final - Update 1 SOUTHERN SONOMA COUNTY STORM WATER RESOURCES PLAN Prepared by May 2019 Sonoma Water Final - Update 1 SOUTHERN SONOMA COUNTY STORM WATER RESOURCES PLAN Prepared by May 2019 Sonoma Water 1425 N. McDowell Boulevard Suite 200 Petaluma, CA 94954 707.795.0900 www.esassoc.com Bend Oakland San Francisco Camarillo Orlando Santa Monica Delray Beach Pasadena Sarasota Destin Petaluma Seattle Irvine Portland Sunrise Los Angeles Sacramento Tampa Miami San Diego D170210.01 PLAN COLLABORATORS Funding has been provided in full or in part through an agreement with the State Water Resources Control Board using funds from Proposition 1. The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the foregoing, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. OUR COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABILITY | ESA helps a variety of public and private sector clients plan and prepare for climate change and emerging regulations that limit GHG emissions. ESA is a registered assessor with the California Climate Action Registry, a Climate Leader, and founding reporter for the Climate Registry. ESA is also a corporate member of the U.S. Green Building Council and the Business Council on Climate Change (BC3). Internally, ESA has adopted a Sustainability Vision and Policy Statement and a plan to reduce waste and energy within our operations. This document was produced using recycled paper. TABLE OF CONTENTS Southern Sonoma County Storm Water Resources Plan Page Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ ES-1 Background .............................................................................................................. ES-1 Southern Sonoma County Watersheds .................................................................... ES-1 Stakeholder Engagement and Plan Implementation ................................................ ES-4 Quantitative Methodologies and Identification and Prioritization of Projects ...........
    [Show full text]
  • A Walk in the Eastshore State Park Meetings
    . 2371 EUNICE STREET, BERKELEY, CA 94708 Dedicated to the preservation and restoration of public paths, steps and walkways in Berkeley for the use and enjoyment of all. Berkeley’s Berkeley Path Wanderers Association is a grassroots volunteer group of community members who have come together to increase public awareness of the City of Berkeley’s pathways. BPWA hopes to accomplish this goal through volunteer-led path walks; identification and accurate mapping of A Newsletter of the Berkeley Path Wanderers Association, Fall 1999 Vol. 2 No. 4 Berkeley’s complete path network; and eventual restoration of paths that have been ATHS blocked or obscured. We hope the final P outcome of the community effort will be the A Walk in the Eastshore State Park preservation and on-going maintenance of all The Bayshore Trail the paths, lanes and steps throughout Berkeley. now extends from the Richmond Marina to Point Isabel. The seg- ment from Point Isabel Meetings south to the Albany Bulb 7-9 pm Live Oak Park Recreation Center is nearing completion. Nov. 18 General Meeting Walking south from Flat Land paths the Albany Bulb, along possible speakers: Susan the privately owned Schwartz & Zasa Swanson waterfront of Golden Gate Fields, you can Jan. 20 Board Meeting enter the new Eastshore Feb. 17 General Meeting State Park south of Gilman. There is Pedestrian Transportations wonderful exploring in the undevel- near a remnant of the marsh at the con- by Christy Camp oped park from Seabreeze Market at fluence of Middle and Cerrito Creeks. University Avenue and Frontage Road, Firm land lay behind the sandy cres- Mar.
    [Show full text]
  • Marin County, California and Incorporated Areas
    VOLUME 1 OF 3 MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND INCORPORATED AREAS COMMUNITY NAME COMMUNITY NUMBER BELVEDERE, CITY OF 060429 Marin County CORTE MADERA, TOWN OF 065023 FAIRFAX, TOWN OF 060175 LARKSPUR, CITY OF 065040 MARIN COUNTY (UNINCORPORATED AREAS) 060173 MILL VALLEY, CITY OF 060177 NOVATO, CITY OF 060178 ROSS, TOWN OF 060179 SAN ANSELMO, TOWN OF 060180 SAN RAFAEL, CITY OF 065058 SAUSALITO, CITY OF 060182 TIBURON, TOWN OF 060430 REVISED March 16, 2016 Federal Emergency Management Agency FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 06041CV001C NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) may not contain all data available within the repository. It is advisable to contact the community repository for any additional data. Part or all of this FIS may be revised and republished at any time. In addition, part of this FIS may be revised by the Letter of Map Revision process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the FIS. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the user to consult with community officials and to check the community repository to obtain the most current FIS components. This FIS report was revised on March 16, 2016. Users should refer to Section 10.0, Revisions Description, for further information. Section 10.0 is intended to present the most up-to-date information for specific portions of this FIS report. Therefore, users of this FIS report should be aware that the information presented in Section 10.0 supersedes information in Sections 1.0 through 9.0 of this FIS report.
    [Show full text]
  • Oakland & Berkeley
    d divide atershe C W oun try C l u b B r 32 a S S S e n g c h h h an R B h e e e ifle ranch p p p R k k k h h h e e e a a a e r r r r d d 10 d Viejo C T T T Creek u n H C n r 9 a e e Creek r l e 26 w k o o o e e Highlan o o o os d o r s y B el B nch d d r d ra h M r ( r e G a Seco s o o o n n b V n e r y y ( y c c w a i c s C c r o h h a n h e o r r l d 31 r a a t a n H v r r S r t Palo A e e e i e e Creek m m m T escal 3 k w em r C o o o o B r n n n Lion F e t t t r ) ) ) a e Creek Creek h 25 s 2 t n k k e r im c e k h o e h C e 14 r e N ) r Viejo C k e C e o o o r t t t P i i i h r r r e C c r r r ra n e y y y l r r r t a a C r r 30 o e B B t B i b r .
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Significance - Local Agency Bridges March 2019 District 01 Del Norte County Bridge Bridge Name Location Historical Significance Year Number Built
    Structure Maintenance & SM&I Investigations Historical Significance - Local Agency Bridges March 2019 District 01 Del Norte County Bridge Bridge Name Location Historical Significance Year Number Built 01C0001 HOPPOW CREEK 500' E OF RT 101/169 SEP 5. Bridge not eligible for NRHP 1965 01C0002 HOPPOW CREEK WEST OF ROUTE 101/169 SEP 5. Bridge not eligible for NRHP 1965 01C0006 MIDDLE FORK SMITH RIVER 0.05 MI SE JCT SR199 5. Bridge not eligible for NRHP 1956 01C0008 GILBERT CREEK 0.8 MI S OF RT 101 5. Bridge not eligible for NRHP 1947 01C0009 ROWDY CREEK 1.75 MI E OF RTE 101 5. Bridge not eligible for NRHP 1962 01C0010 MIDDLE FORK SMITH RIVER 0.1 MILE N/O RTE 199 5. Bridge not eligible for NRHP 1960 01C0011 HUNTER CREEK 0.1 MI WEST OF RT101 5. Bridge not eligible for NRHP 1949 01C0012 SALT CREEK 0.4 MI WEST OF RTE 101 5. Bridge not eligible for NRHP 1958 01C0015 ROWDY CREEK 1/2 MI S OF RTE 101 5. Bridge not eligible for NRHP 1989 01C0017 JORDAN CREEK 3.7 MI N OF RTE 101 5. Bridge not eligible for NRHP 1954 01C0018 ELK CREEK 0.1 MILE NE/O RTE 199 5. Bridge not eligible for NRHP 1925 01C0020 SALT CREEK 0.1 MI N/O REQUA RD 5. Bridge not eligible for NRHP 1975 01C0022 SHEEP PEN CREEK 0.74 MI S/O SOUTH FORK RD 5. Bridge not eligible for NRHP 1975 01C0032 EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK 5 MI FROM ROUTE 199 5.
    [Show full text]
  • '~:~I=~~:..~C:E Record . Vote Cast ...'"',Recorirr1gjt ·
    -.1 t \fOL~ 14-N.o. 8 . ·.~7.' , SAN · FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA AUGUST, 1956 \ '~:~i=~~:..~c:e Record .. Vote Cast -1\iEMBER-· ·_ I·. .1·· ... E -a t.·. -_ , 1\'!EETlfNG ·postponed ·n ., u·..... ....., .. ... IIwI until September · 8th, 1956. · Rep.orts .from across the U.S. indicate that a record vote Because of the Labor Day was cast in the recent IUOE referendum on choice of Inter­ Holiday the regular member­ national union officers, and Local 3 jofned th1= parade· with ship rpeeting will be held on a most substantial response in balloting. ·· September 8th, 1~ ather . than Results of .. the referendum will 1 --. ------------'--- on the · 1st Saturday of the ~robably be announced in th€ next J For Genera·! President: 1ssue of the l'UOE Journal. Coun~ - William E . Maloney .......... ~ ....... 7295 ing of ballots was scheduled to H. o. Foss .................... ~ ................. 9862 start August 15. : , * * * Ne. w Of-. Col'nplete results on Local 3 vot- :"l:st General Vlce-Presldent: Please Note ,. ing are given here. .. I Wilham lVI. Welsh .................... 15,034 fice Addresses: The election committee com- Second General Vice-President: Reno Office -185 M ti posed of E . L. <Garrett, ' Harry A. J. Imhahn, ............................ 14,829 ar n .Metz, and Al Boardman, wishes to . Thircl General Vic:e -President: Ave., Reno, Nevada. Phone- state that it was very g~atifying , J. J. McDonald ........................ 15,066 FAirview 9-2336. to have so many members take Fourth General Vice-President: _ • . such ai~ interest in the election. J . J. Delaney ..... ....................... 14,633 San Jose· OffiCe- 760 Em- They said this shows widespread .F'fth G l.
    [Show full text]
  • The Bay Shore Then and Now
    Restoring and Protecting Nature in the Eastshore State Park Susan Schwartz, Friends of Five Creeks As the glaciers of the last Ice Age melted, some 8000 years ago, the rising Pacific gradually drowned the huge river that had poured through the Golden Gate toward the Farallons. With Native Americans there to watch, valleys became San Francisco, San Pablo, and Suisun Bays. Peaks of a range of hills older and west of today’s East Bay hills were left as islands – Albany Hill, Fleming Point, Pt. Isabel, Brooks Island, the Potrero Hills. From the still-rising hills of today, creeks carried soil and eroding rock to changing shoreline, while currents swept sand and mud from the Sacramento River along the shore. Together, these formed today’s “flatlands” as wet, grassy meadows. Opposite the Golden Gate, strong tidal currents swept away mud, leaving the heavier sand particles. A beach and low dunes thus formed a golden crescent along the shore from about today’s Virginia Street to the sandstone bluff at Fleming Point. North of that, a shallow inlet lapped the west edge of Albany Hill. Behind the sandy beach, Schoolhouse, Codornices, and Marin Creeks flowed into a tidal slough that wandered north behind the hill at Fleming Point. Creek mouths north and south of these – Strawberry and Cerrito Creeks – reached the Bay. At those two creek outlets, debris from thousands of years of Indian habitation formed large shell mounds. The map at right shows the original shoreline (dark and shaded) and the shoreline today. Settlers dredged the sand, bulldozed the shellmounds, and filled the Bay westward with garbage, construction debris, and mud from dredging projects.
    [Show full text]
  • Wild Edibles You Are Likely to See in Local Restoration Areas
    Edible and Useful Weeds and Wildland Plants of the East Bay This informal guide is meant to encourage you to get to know and enjoy the nature around you. The list isn’t complete and some details may be wrong. Additions and corrections welcome at [email protected]! Information and pictures of the plants can be found on the web. A good place to start is www.calflora.org, an excellent database of California plants with links to photos. If you are going to gather, please obey laws and use judgment. Stick to common, abundant plants. Unless your target is a weed, take only a small fraction of seeds or leaves. Be sure you can identify the target plant and similar toxic ones (list at http://www.plantsciences.ucdavis.edu/ce/king/PoisPlant/Tox-SCI.htm). Relishes from weeds: Young seed pods of wild radish and flowers of wild mustard are hard to beat for a tiny firecracker of taste. Try them on a spring walk! Fennel seeds give a hint of anise, and of course kids love yellow flowered “sour grass” – Bermuda buttercup (Oxalis pes-caprae). Invasive wild onion greens or bulb work in salads. Spices: Fennel pollen makes a great spice (check prices and recipes on the web). Wild celery is simply the domestic plant gone wilder and stronger. Bay leaves are great in cooking – stronger than “bought.” Salty zest for salads: Crunchy native pickleweed (Salicornia spp.) was a favorite with settlers and is showing up in some fancy restaurants. Invasive Salsola, a feathery-looking relative of tumbleweed, gives almost the same effect.
    [Show full text]