I ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I I I I I I I I GEORGE MILLER JR. MEMORIAL REGIONAL SHORELINE I· ~
• East Bay Regional Park District .. I ,~ , "t ". 2· .
. . -_&- .. - • EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
RESOLUTION No. 1976..;5-123
May 18, 1976
DETERMINATION TO PROCEED FOLLOWING FINAL EIR FOR PROJECT KNOWN AS DEVELOPMENT OFA REGIONAL SHORELINE PARK, PHASES 1-5, AT GEORGE MILLER JR. REGIONAL SHORELINE
WHEREAS, under the direction of Lewis Crutcher, Chief of Planning and Design, Bissell & Karn has prepared a Final EJR for the Project known as Phases 1-5 Development at George Miller Jr. Regional Shoreline; and
WHEREAS, Staff has presented and the Board has reviewed and considered the Final EJR this date; and
WHEREAS,a Draft EJR was prepared for the Project and circulated to agencies having jurisdiction by law, clearinghouses individuals, libraries, and newspape~ on April 2, 1976; and
WHEREAS, following public notice a public hearing on the Draft EIR was held on April 21, 1976, at Richmond; and
WHEREAS, all comments and recommendationS received on the Draft EIR, and the District's response to significant environmental points raised thereby have been incorporated into the Final fIR and considered by the Board;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board certifies that this Final ElR has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEGA) and with the State and Park District Guidelines which implement CEQA;and
BElT ,FURTHER RESOLVED that this Board finds that Phases 1-5 of the Project wi II not have a significant effect on the environment; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Phases 1-5 of the Project are hereby approved end the General Manager is directed to proceed with the Project; Phase 6 is withdrawn from this Project for further study; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Environmental Coordinator. is hereby directed to file a Notice of Determination for this Project, in the Office of the County Clerk of Contra Costa County, and with the Secretdry for Resources, if appropriate by May 20, 1976.
Moved by Director Paul J.BOdger, seconded by Director Mary lee Jefferds, and adopted this 18th day of May, 1976, by the following vote:
FOR: Directors Paul J. Badger, Fred C. Blumberg, Howard L. Cogswell, William F. Jardin, Mary Lee Jefferds,1iCr1an R. Kessel, and John J. Leavi tt • AGAINST: Directo~ none. ABSENT: Directo~ none. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT for GEORGE MILLER JR. REGIONAL SHORELINE RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA
As Proposed by
EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA
Prepared by
Bi ssell & Karn, Inc. 2551 Merced Street San Leandro, California
Note: Refer to 12/20/83 LUDP for plan of hillside area
BISSELL & KARN, INC .. CIVIL ENGINEERS 2551 MERCED STREET, SAN LEANDRO, CALIFORNIA 94577 • (415) 483.2170
March, 1976
Mr. Richard Trudeau East Bay Regional Park District 11500 Skyline Boulevard #6069 Oakland, CA 94619 Dear Mr. Trudeau: We respectfully submit this Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed George ~·liller Jr. Memorial Regional Shoreline in Richmond, California. This report was prepared in compliance with the State of California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (as amended), and follows the guidelines for implementation of that act promulgated by the office of the Secretary for Resources. It should be noted for the record that the firm of Bissell & Karn, Inc., is a consultant to the District on the engineering aspects of the proposed park development. Appreciation is extended to the East Bay Regional Park District staff for their cooperation in supplying basic information essential to the report, and for their detailed reviews of the contents. Very truly yours,
BISSELL & KARN, INC. BY~d~ Richard H. Karn RViK:s Enclosure
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page 1 SUMMARY ...... 1 A. Proposed Project. 1 B. Impacts.... 2
~ PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3
A. Location. . . . 3 B. Objective. . . . 3 C. Project Proposal...... 3 D. Background and Community Interest . . . . . 9 E. Legal, Policy and Institutional Constraints 14
3 EXISTING SETTING AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. 23 A. The Region ...... 23 B. The Site...... 26 C. Geologic ...... 31 D. Biologic ...... 34 E. Hydrologic - Climate .. 36 F. Visual. - Aesthetic .. 39 G. Traffi c·...... 42 H. Facil Hies - Util ities. 46 I. Historic - Archaeologic 46 J. Energy...... 47
4 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 49 5 IRREVERSIBLE EFFECTS. 50 6 MITIGATION MEASURES . 51
-, ,- i,n,BLE OF CONEiHS CO;;' T
7 AL TERi'iATIVES TO PROPOSED PROJECT.
"n ;> ~,-" Q,'" ! 1 ," • I ~J."; '- \...... O,::f~Y';a 1. .
, " Differert Phasing of ~he Project '- ; . 'lore or L.ess Pat'l~ir.q ... :~. O~her R.ecrea.t4onai CSES ... iL O;:her Lal~d Uses ...... :.: 1., Other Scher.es Considered v. r 8 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM ArID LONG- TERi·1 PRODUCTIV ITY. . . . . 9 GROWTH INoue ING Ii~P,D,CTS ...... -..'~ REFERENCES. . " , ...... I ••••••• .I I •• ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSt.;LTED ...... ,: J~PFEr~D:X ;\ -., VEj~ET.rTICN .!3.:-iO ~/IILOlIFE L:S~~ ...... ~ . . . . . APPENDIX B - FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Public Hearing Comments and Responses .. 67 Bruce O. Beyaert, letter and response .. 68 Corps of Engineers, letter and response .. 71 Caltrans, letter and response ...... 73 Department of Fish and Game, letter and response 74 B.C.D.C., letter and response ...... 76 LIST OF PLATES Location PLATE 1 LOCATION MAP. Front PLATE 2 VICINITY MAP. Front PLATE 3 PROPOSED SITE PLAN. Back PLATE 4 DEVELOPMENT PHASES. Back PLATE 5 PHASE 2 DEVELOPMENT Back PLATE 6 DISTRICT OWNERSHIP. Back PLATE 7 WINDS ...... Page 36 a PLATE 8 BATHYMETRIC DATA. Page 37 a I? , lEG E NO [. .] Population residing within 30 minutes driving time of Richmond Shoreline. NOR T H o I 2 4 • &- plate 1 approx. scale in miles LOCATION MAP W. MAC DON A t 0 8t V O. RICHMOND em ~ SAN RAfAEL BRIDGE 0- W W a: 0- l W V} a:W 0- -:: V} ,./WASHINGTON o SCHOOL ~ M N CYPRESS POINT HOffMAN B t V O. TO BERKELEY GEORGE MILLER JR. MEMORIAL REGIONAL SHORELINE IJI--e .r -V 1- ~ ('\ ..p '):. ""I »' 1- 1.- (' o~ RICHMON~j!l!;KYARD 1.- / YACHT Cl~OVE ~ ,j' ~/. (' (' ·TERMINAL #. 1 (RESIDENTIAL) POINT :.. E L o ~Q CHANN POTRERO HARBOR t9 .,~... ~ ""1)- ~ "RE:l. WATER l~. ~, \ -<>n__ ~_ k '~,... ~ RICHMOND INNER HARBOR NOR T H opprox. scale in feel - plate 2 VICINITY M'AP SUMMARY 1 1. SUM MAR Y A. PROPOSED PROJECT The East Bay Regional Park District proposes to develop a regional shoreline park on San Francisco Bay at Point Richmond in Richmond, California. The location is shown on Plates 1 and 2, and the proposed development plan on Plate 3. The proposed park will include approximately 41 acres of flat land between Garrard Boulevard and the Santa Fe Railroad tracks, access along a narrow strip of shoreline west of the tracks, and the operation of the existing Kellers Beach park. Improvements proposed in the 41 acre flat land area include a 6 acre saltwater lagoon, approximately 25 acres of irrigated turf meadows for picnicking and day use, a 9 acre group day camping area, and off-street parking for 50 cars initially with the potential for ex panding parking to 300 cars on peak days. Paths, picnic tables, and restrooms will also be provided. A pedestrian overcrossing will be constructed to provide access from the parking and meadow areas across the Santa Fe tracks to the shoreline and Kellers Beach. The proposed improvements will be constructed in 6 Phases. Preliminary work involved in Phase 1 is complete. Phase 2 is proposed for immediate . construction, and will provide park improvements as shown on the Plate 5. The pedestrian overcrossing will be constructed in Phase 3, the lagoon in Phase 4, remaining park improvements in the 41 acre flat land area in Phase 5, and the small fishing groin along the shoreline in Phase 6. The timing of Phases 4 through 6 is dependent on the deposition of dredge spoils by Santa Fe on a portion of the site, and the drying and redistribution of that material before those park improvements can be installed. The project is estimated to cost about $1,982,000, with Phase 2 the only work funded for immediate construction at an estimated cost of $500,000. -1- The District has approximately $600,000 in tax revenues and $250,000 in grant funds to develop and operate the facility through 1982. Construction is proposed to begin in the summer of 1976. B. IMPACTS The most significant impact of the proposed project will be the benefits resulting from increased regional recreational opportunities including increased public access to the Bay shoreline. Several significant adverse impacts will result from the project. The influx of park users to the area will increase traffic on Garrard Boulevard and in the Point Richmond area. There is a potential that motorcyclists using the Potrero Hills may create a security problem for the park and will adversely affect noise levels in the area. This impact should be minimized or eliminated as the control of motorcycle activity anticipated by the District is achieved. The 3 to 4 acres of Bay fill proposed in Phases 3 and 6 will reduce the volume and surface area of the Bay. The vegetation and some wildlife/marine life existing on the site will be lost. Construction impacts will include principally increased noise and dust. They will be relatively short term but will be repeated at different locations on the site over a span of years as the different phases are constructed. -2- PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2 2. PRO J E C T DES C RIP T ION A. LOCATION The project site is located in Contra Costa County in the City of Richmond (Plate 1, Location Map, and Plate 2, Vicinity Map). The area under construction as a regional park is located on Point Richmond, the highly visible and historic promontory on the City's shoreline south of the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge. The specific area proposed for development at this time is the flatland area shown in more detail on Plate 2, Vicinity Map, whth is bounded by Garrard Boulevard on the east, the Garrard Boulevard tunnel and Western Drive on the north, and the Bay Terminals Company tank farm adjacent to the Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad ferry slip on the south. B. OBJECTIVE The project objective is to develop a regional shoreline recreational area on San Francisco Bay to provide open space and public access to the Bay shoreline. C. PROJECT PROPOSAL The proposed shoreline recreational area is shown on Plate 3, Site Plan. Park development will be phased to allow: (1) completion of a portion of the park for immediate public use; (2) to accommodate the prior right of the Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company to dispose of dredge spoils on a portion of the site; and (3) to match park improve ments with the limited funds available. The District is pursuing the acquisition of property east of Garrard Boulevard to preserve the ridgetops and part of the slopes in open space (Plate 6). This area is not part of the proposed project and is not evaluated in this EIR except as it affects the site. -3- When completed the shoreline recreational area will cover approximately 41 acres between Garrard Boulevard and the tracks. This area will include a shallow saltwater lagoon of approximately 6 acres, meadow areas of irrigated turf for picnicking and general day use totaling approximately 25 acres, a group day camping area totaling approximately 9 acres, associated landscaping, and parking for 50 cars initially, with the potential for expanding off-street parking to 300 cars on peak days. An overcrossing will be constructed over the Santa Fe tracks to provide access to approximately 2,500 feet of Bay shoreline along the west side of the tracks, and to serve as a link to the existing Kellers Beach park. It is anticipated that in addition to providing a water edge experience the lagoon can provide some fishing for the few fish that survive.the intake pump. A detailed description of the proposed improvements is included in dis cussion of the construction phases below. The various phases of construction are outlined on Plate 4, and are shown in more detail on Plates ref·erred to in the discussion. PHASE 1: (Completed September 1975.) Emergency riprap repair along 850 feet of shoreline south from Kel1ers Beach,. site fencing, and culvert extensions. (See discussion under Background, Section 2.0., below.) PHASE 2: (Plate 5.) Initial park improvements will be constructed in this phase, and a portion of the site prepared to receive dredge spoils to be deposited by Santa Fe (see Background discussion in Section 2.0. below). Approx imately 28 acres will be affected by ex~avation and filling. The top 2 to 3 feet will be excavated from the 13 acre dredge spoil area to create a basin for receiving the semi-liquid spoils. This will yield about 56,000 cubic -4- yards of earth material. This material will be deposited as fill 3 to 4 feet deep on the 12 acres to be improved as park. In addition, about 24,000 cubic yards will be excavated from the north portion of the lagoon (3 acres) for fill in the park area. This part of the lagoon will then be completed in Phase 5. The fill placed in the park area will be spread and con toured to about elevations 10-12 feet MSL. The,spur tracks through the park will be raised to elevation 10 feet MSL. The existing drainage swale across the site will be filled and approximately 2,400 linear feet of storm drain pipe in stalled. A parking lot for 50 cars will be constructed, and the District will suggest to the City that Garrard Boulevard near Western Drive be signed for "no parkingll. Approximately 4 acres of irrigated meadows will be installed, approximately 7 acres of irrigated tree landscaping, 20 picnic units, bicycle and walking paths, including a path ramp up to Garrard Boulevard for a link to Kellers Beach, and chemical toilets will be added. Earthfill and land scaping will be mounded and contoured along the tracks to partially screen the tracks from view. Water mains will be installed to serve the picnic area and the irrigation system. No earthfill will be imported to the site during Phase 2. Prior to the construction of the pedestrian overpass in Phase 3, access to the Bay shoreline along the west side of the Santa Fe tracks will be available from Kel1ers Beach to only the Phase 1 portion of the shoreline (see Plate 4 and Section 2.0. discussion below on Phase 1 shore protection work already accomplished). In Phase 2, public access to the southern part of the shoreline will not be ava il abl e. Phase 2 Estimated Cost: $500,000* *Estimatesare rounded to nearest $1,000 and include engineering and contingencies. -5- PHASE 3: (Plate 4.) Construction of the pedestrian overcrossing a provide access to the entire 2,500 feet of shoreline and a connection to Kellers Beach. This will involve installation of foundations (poss~bly pile supported), columns, and a staircase or ramp at each end. The structure has not been designed, however it is anticipated that it would be 23 to 25 feet above the tracks and be entirely enclosed by pro , tective fencing or other materials to prevent accidents or interference with train traffic below. Whether the over crossing will be clear span or supported at mid span has not been decided. Founding of the structure on the Bay side of the tracks will require placement of fill and protective riprap to create a landing area. This will involve an area of filling extending not more than 20 feet from shore. Phase 3 Estimated Cost: $200,000* Note: No funds are available for construction of Phases 3 through 6 before 1982. Grant funds would be re quired to construct these phases before that time. PHASE 4: (Plate 4.) The lagoon will be completed in this phase. Thi s cannot take pl ace, however, unti 1 dredge spoil shave been placed by Santa Fe, and have dried sufficiently to be worked and excavated. Deposition is expected to occur by March 1977 (see discussion in Section 2.0. below). From the time of deposition at least two summers will be required to dry the material. The lagoon will be supplied by saltwater pumped from the Bay. A water intake pipeline and pump will be installed under the Santa Fe tracks and out into the Bay. The distance is not know but the intent will be to locate the intake where water depths are sufficient to avoid taking in near bottom water heavy with sediment. Plate 3 shows *Estimates are rounded to nearest $1,000 and include engineering and contingencies. -6- the pipeline extended about 400 feet from shore. It is proposed that the pump be driven by a windmill. The pump and windmill are shown located about 100 feet offshore with a catwalk leading out to the windmill platform. Electrical motor and service will be provided to drive a back-up pump. The lagoon outlet will be connected to the storm drain system installed in Phase 2. Construction will involve excavation of 20,000-30,000 cubic yards of dried dredge spoil and placement of that material as fill for contoured mounds around the lagoon and in th~ Phase 5 park area. Water surface area will be about 6 acres. The lowest point in the lagoon will be the outfall at about elevation +1 foot MSL. The bottom elevation at the intake will be near elevation 2.5 feet MSL. Ground elevations around the lagoon will vary from 10-20 feet MSL and side slopes will vary from a maximum of 4 horizontal to 1 vertical (4:1) to a minimum near 10:1 according to the variations in size and shape of the contoured mounds placed around the lagoon. The lagoon side slopes will be provided with wave erosion protection, although the specific measures have not yet been designed. It is anticipated that the lagoon water level will be maintained within 1 foot of elevation 6 MSL. Water depths will then vary between a minimum of 2.5 at the inlet to 6 feet maximum at the outlet. Water volume is roughly esti mated at 15-18 acre feet. Phase 4 Estimated Cost: $253,000* PHASE 5: This phase will complete park improvements east of the Santa Fe tracks. Finish grading will be accomplished to *Estimates are rounded to nearest $1,000 and include engineering and contingencies. -7- provide for about 8 acres of irrigated meadows, approxi mately 13 acres of irrigated tree landscaping, toilet structures, paths, 50 picnic units, and 150 parking spaces. Parking will be divided by adding 50 spaces to the parking in the Phase 2 area, and providing 100 spaces in the Phase 5 area. Consideration has been given to adding an additional 100 off-street parking spaces to handle over flow. No decision has been made, nor are location and timing specified. Phase 5 Estimated Cost: $642,000* PHASE 6: Construction of a fishing groin west of the tracks. This will involve about 25,000 cubic yards of Bay fill, resulting in a filled area of 3.5 to 4 acres. Protection against wave erosion will require placement of approxi mately 1,900 linear feet of heavy rock riprap similar to that existing along the shoreline at present. Landscaping, beach, and paths would complete the groin. Phase 6 Estimated Cost: $387,000* TOTAL ESTIMATED COST (all Phases):$1,982,000* A warehouse on 3.3 acres fronting on Garrard Boulevard is leased to Georgia Pacific Corporation. This is included in the park area, but will not be used for park purposes, until the lease expires or is terminated (see Section 2.0. below). A spur track serving this site and the spur crossing to the east side of Garrard Boulevard will also remain. *Estimates are rounded to nearest $1,000 and include engineering and contingencies. -8- D. BACKGROUND AND COMMUNITY INTEREST Development of recreational and park opportunities along the Bay shoreline in \~estern Contra Costa County has been a community objective for many years. One of the earliest studies of this shoreline which recognized the park potential of the Point Richmond area was described in liThe Report of the Mayor's Shoreline Study Committee" dated September 1954. Since that time, considerable effort has been devoted by many citizens, community organizations, the City, and the East Bay Regional Park District toward achieving a shoreline park in the Point Richmond area. Kellers Beach, a small City-owned park (see Plate 2), located at Western Drive and Garrard Boulevard, includes picnic facilities and a small beach which are heavily used on summer weekends. The demand on this park demonstrates the need for more park facilities in this area. The East Bay Regional Park District has been involved in park planning and development along the West Contra Costa shoreline for many years. Prior to 1964, the District's main intentions were focused on Point Pinole and other potential park developments. In 1967 the District produced liThe Point Richmond Preliminary Investigation" which gave special recognition to the magnificent view from Nickols Knob, and the unique visual and aesthetic features of the area. The development of a Point Richmond Regional Park was suggested by the Contra Costa Shoreline Parks Committee, who foresaw the park as being primarily open space to be kept as natural as possible. In 1968 negotiations for the acquisition of land for a Point Richmond Park were initiated between the District and the Atchison Topeka and the Santa Fe Railway Company. The decision to purchase 8.5 acres of flatland between Garrard Boulevard and the tracks bordering the Bay (see Plates 3 and 6) was made in 1970. This 8.5 acre area now forms the most southern portion of the site. -9- About this same time, the City of Richmond began an in-depth study to establish a plan for the conservation and development of Richmond's coastline and adjacent upland areas. Environmental and ecological concerns and recreational needs were integral parts of the study. The City's mayor appointed a Waterfront Development Committee to oversee the study and prepare the report. In January 1973 the Committee submitted the completed Richmond Coastline Plan. The plan was adopted that year. The background information gathered for the study is in the form of staff reports that are detailed and comprehensive and represent significant research and irivestigation. These reports have been drawn on in the preparation of thisEIR (Reference 2). The District's proposed purchase of 8.5 acres of land in 1971 made apparent the need for determining the kind of park .the community wanted. A series of public hearings was held in the Richmond area in November and December of 1971 and February of 1972. Citizens and community organi zations were encouraged to express the type of park facilities they wanted. The District engaged as consultants the park planning firm of Arbegast and Newton to assist and advise the District during the hearing process, to make a research study of the area, and to utilize the information gathered from the hearings and the study to develop a recommended park plan. The result of their work appears in the report published in May 1973 entitled "UTP-TESS, Urban Threshold Park - Total Environment Study Site" (Reference 4). Throughout the park planning process the record indicates that the public was encouraged to participate, and did so via several channels, including public hearings, the Mayor's Waterfront Development Committee, partici pation in the development of the City's Coastline Plan, regular East Bay Regional Park District board meetings, and via the numerous community organizations active in th~ Richmond area. A list of organization~ that were represented during the planning process included (but certainly was not limited to) the following: -10- Sierra Club (Reference 21) Save San Francisco Bay Association (Reference 22) People for Open Space (Reference 23) Associated Sportsmen Richmond Ramblers Richmond Model Cities Agency Contra Costa Bay Watchers Richmond Teens Richmond Boys Club The list of public agencies and official study and advisory committees that have had interest or responsibility in the park planning process includes more than twenty separate entities. Some of these are discussed in Section 3.C. A synopsis of public input received at public hearings is included in Reference 4. A park plan for the 8.5 acre site was developed by Arbegast and Newton. It was recognized that the 8.5 acres were too small to adequately fulfill all the park needs expressed by the community, so the plan concentrated on providing and enhancing access to the Bay shoreline. Landfill along the Bay side of the Santa Fe tracks was proposed in the form of a series of groins intended to increase the useable land and beach area. The original 8.5 acres were to serve primarily as a parking and staging area, with access across the tracks to the Bay to be provided via an overpass (References 6 and 7). This plan then became the basis for review by public agencies and the Santa Fe Railway. Land areas included in the proposal are shown on Plate 6 and included the 8.5 acres of flatland acquired in fee from Santa Fe between Garrard Boulevard and the tracks immediately north of the Bay Terminals Company tank farm, the two 20-foot wide access and utility easements across the tracks at the northwest corner of the 8.5 acre site, and the shoreline easement along the west side of the tracks. The shoreline easement covers a strip 48 feet wide from 12 feet to 60 feet west of the centerline of the track closest to the Bay, and extends north along the tracks to Kellers Beach. The District also acquired from Santa Fe approximately 44.3 acres of water area which ex tends approximately 2,000 feet west of the tracks (Plate 6). -11- Extensive analysis was made of this proposal to construct a series of groins along the Bay front, including an analysis of the Bay bottom, tides, shore protection, and the overpass structure. A formal proposal for development of the park was made to the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Discussions were also held with the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Estimated costs for the work coupled with concerns by BCDC staff regarding the amount of proposed fill led to a decision to modify the groin concept. Concurrent with this analysis the District was continuing negotiations with Santa Fe for the acquisition of additional flatland area between Garrard Boulevard and the tracks. An agreement was finally reached for the purchase in fee of the remaining 32.3 acre area between Garrard Boulevard and the Santa Fe tracks north of the original 8.5 acre purchase (Plate 6). This purchase was subject to a lease by Georgia Pacific of 3.3 acres improved by a warehouse and loading do~ks. The lease is for three 5-year periods (15 years), and has approximately 13 years remaining. Santa Fe reserved easements totaling approximately 1.24 acres for two spur tracks crossing the property. The reservations provide for the continued use of the tracks. One of the spurs serves the warehouse. The other leads to -property on the east side of Garrard Boulevard. Relocation of the 20 foot wide access easement across the mainline tracks to the Bay shoreline was also agreed to, but exact location of the easement has not yet been established. It will coincide with the location of the overpass proposed as Phase 3 at the northwest corner of the site. The purchase agreement with Santa Fe also provides that 100,000 cubic yards of dredge spoil can be deposited on the 32 acre site by Santa Fe within a two year period from the date of purchase, which was March 18, 1975. The exact location and manner of disposal is not specified. Santa Fe has the responsibility for obtaining the necessary public agency approvals which may include an environmental impact report. It is an ticipated that the environmental review process will provide a means for -12- influencing the location and circumstances of discharge of the spoils to avoid conflict with proposed park improvements. The District expects that these dredge spoils can be restricted to the area shown on Plate 5. The original plan for park development was revised by the District in the light of the increased acreage. Significant changes from the original plan are: (1) modification of the groin concept; (2) add.ition of the saltwater lagoon; (3) relocation of the shoreline access overcrossing to the northwest corner of the property; and (4) the reduction in overcrossing size and carrying capacity from pedestrian and light vehicles to pedestrians only. Vehicular access to the groin now proposed (Phase 6) is available through Kellers Beach. The District is under obligation to fence the mainline Santa Fe tracks. In addition, it was recognized during the investigation of the groin con cept that approximately 800 feet of shoreline just south of Kellers Beach was in bad need of repair to the riprap protection along the shoreline. The repair work gave the opportunity to provide trail access along the shoreline within the District's easement. Thus, the Phase 1 work was undertaken in 1975 to repair the riprap and to install fencing along the tracks to prohibit uncontrolled crossing of the tracks by the public. The fencing runs along the entire west and south park boundaries (east side of the tracks), and also along the west side of the tracks about 850 feet south from Kellers Beach, ending with a short section down to the waters edge. Phase 1 work received a negative declaration under the District's environmental assessment procedures. Since the acquisition of land in the park area, the District has been negotiating with the City of Richmond for the transfer of ownership and operation of Kel1ers Beach to the District. A draft agreement has been under consideration since May 1973. This transfer may also include 100 acres of offshore water area and the old rifle range property across Garrard Boulevard which are owned by the City. -13- The present park plan is based on extensive investigations and deliberations by the community regarding shoreline public access and the recreational needs of Richmond and nearby areas. Regional needs were also considered. The fulfillment of local and regional recreational needs at other locations along the West Contra Costa co~stline will not be discussed in this report. Interested readers are referred to the City's Coastline Plan and the District's own Master Plan discussed in Section 3.C (References 1 and 5). This brief background shows that a number of alternatives have already been examined and that physical and environmental factors have shaped the development of the plan. It also indicates that the public has been involved in the formulation of the plan. This involvement should bring a generally higher level of understanding and evaluation into the environmental review process. E. LEGAL, POLICY, AND INSTITUTIONAL CONSTRAINTS 1. General: A number of public agencies are involved in the review and approval of park improvements along the shoreline of San Francisco Bay. The various restraints and controls affecting development of the proposed park, including private and public interests, are described below. a. East Bay Regional Park District The proposed George Miller Jr. Regional Shoreline is in conformance with the District's Master Plan adopted December 4, 1973. The Plan also shows in this area a regional bicycle/hiking trail along the coastline ftom Point San Pablo to Point Richmond and around Point Potrero to an - . intersection with a trail link along Garrard Boulevard to downtown Richmond. Although no specific regional trail improvements are proposed, paths within the proposed park can later be incorporated in the regional system (Reference 5). -1~- The District, by Board action on September 2, 1975, formally adopted as policy the six phase program for George Miller Jr. Memorial Shoreline development described earlier as the project proposal. The approval included the "lagoon concept" (as opposed to the "meadow concept" which excluded a lagoon). At the same time the District moved to re-amend the Land and Water Conservation Grant with the State Department of Parks and Recreation and U. S. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation which provides for federal matching fund assistance in improving the park (see discussion below in paragraph d.). b. City of Richmond The City of Richmond has long recognized the need for expanded park facilities in this area. As noted earlier, the City·s Coastline Plan completed in 1973 established a number of policies regarding public access and park use affecting the Point Richmond area and the proposed park in particular. In general, the proposed park conforms to these po 1i c i es (Reference 1). The Coastline Plan reflects the City·s current land use policies in the park area. Both the Coastline Plan and the General Plan Open Space and Conservation Elements designate the site as park, including Nickols ,Knob. The Potrero Hills are designated Preservation Area with the long .- term expectation that the hill areas would be preserved in open space. The 8.5 acre flatland area is zoned C-R, Community Reserve District, the proper zoning for park use. The remaining 32.3 acre area is zoned M-l, Research and Manufacturing District. The Nickols Knob site presently owned by the District is zoned C-R. Most of the remainder of -15- the Potrero Hills remains zoned R-l, Residential District. The Bay Terminals Company site immediately to the south is zoned M-3, Industrial, as is the remainder of the shoreline around Ferry Point to Brickyard Cove. The Point Richmond residential district north of the proposed park (north of Western Drive) is zoned R-l, Residential. The hill land roughly south of the rifle range is affected by a Special Features Additive (S.F.A.) designation which requires special review of any development proposals with the intent of preserving the ridgetop, limiting grading and construction on steep slopes, and con serving natural features (Reference 17). An understanding of the trend of future development in the area of the ·park can be obtained by reviewing the applicable Coastline Plan policies. They are summarized as follows: 1. Land Use: Encouragement of residential development on the south facing slopes of the Potrero Hills (see Plate 2) above Brickyard Cove, and the future residential development of the east facing lower slopes of the Potrero Hills above Canal Boulevard; development of additional Point Richmond housing on existing vacant lots; encouragement of port and marina related development in the Point Richmond Terminal 1 area between Ferry Point and Brickyard Cove. 2. Transportation: Promote extension of Garrard Boulevard around Point Richmond to join Canal Boulevard; designate the resultant loop road a scenic highway; increase public transit service - link to BART; develop convenient bicycle and pedestrian trails; encourage development of a system of hiking and bicycling trails along the coastline. 3. Public Access: Require of major new developments free permanently guaranteed public access to the shoreline; encourage passenger -16- service on the rail loop around Point Richmond and Point Potrero; require adequate parking at shoreline public access points; urge that bus routes connect population centers and BART to shoreline points of interest. 4. Scenic Highways: Schedule Garrard Boulevard-Canal Boulevard loop construction and designate as a scenic highway; schedule future extensions of the scenic loop across the low saddle immediately north of Ferry Point, and across the saddle immediately northwest of Point Potrero; designate viewpoints on these scenic loop extensions. 5. Conservation: Curtail motorbike activity on the Potrero Hills and urge the East Bay Regional Park District to designate a site for this activity; initiate, with ... local, regional, state and federal agencies, studies ... of intergovernmental participation in environmental resource management; recognize the Potrero Hills and the adjoining flatland park area as grass land and brush habitat; recognize the water area west of the proposed park shore line as a herring spawning ground. 6. Open Space: Establish corridors of open space as links between ... urbanized areas and the waterfront. Use trails ... along with Nickols Knob and the Potrero Hills. 7. Regional Recreation: A standard of 8 acres per 1,000 population was adopted as the desired minimum area for shoreline-related regional recreation; assist the East Bay Regional Park District in creating ... trails and scenic drives ... ; encourage and assist the East Bay Regional Park District to acquire, develop, and manage for public use: trails, fishing sites, beaches, parks, viewpoints, etc.; promote shoreline sites or piers for public fishing ... in the vicinity of Ferry Point; encourage development of George Miller Jr. Memorial Regional Shoreline ... and urge -17- expansion of the site to provide a more adequate regional faci1ity (this comment referred at the time to expansion of the original 8.5 acre park site). 8. Form and Appearance: Give highest priority to preserving and enhanci ng. .. the 1andmark character of (the coast1 i ne). .. hi 11 s ; designate the ... remains of the brickworks at Brickyard Cove ... as historical landmark. c. The .Atchison Topeka and the Santa Fe Railway Company In addition to the provisions for deposit of dredge spoils and for the fencing requirements, the easements and grant deeds to the District, and the agreements between the District and Santa Fe contain a number of reservations, conditions, or restrictions which provide protection of the public and/or the railroad. Some of these restrictions affect park development, especially those which prohibit uncontrolled access across the tracks. Public access is allowed only by an overcrossing; at-grade crossing is permitted only at stated times to District service vehicles and maintenance crews. In addition to access control, the documents include: specifications for liability insurance; requirements for reim bursement of expenses for any supervision necessary by Santa Fe staff or for damages to Santa Fe property; definition of obligations of the District for maintenance of the embankment and riprap; description of required safety measures during construction or maintenance; provisions for reversion of easement areas to Santa Fe upon termination of use or failure to use within specified time limits;and the reservations of subsurface mineral rights by Santa Fe. d. State Department of Parks and Recreation and the United States Bureau of Outdoor Recreation In 1971 the District sought and received grant funding approval for $250,000 from the Land and Water Conservation Fund Program. The funds were for development of the original 8.5 acre park site and are valid for a 4-year peri od. However, foll owi n9 the changes in scope descri bed -18- earlier, the grant was modified and renewed, and is currently extended until September 1977. The funds are administered by the State Department of Parks and Recreation under the guidance of the United States Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. The grant calls for reimbursement to the District of 50% of expended funds up to a maximum of $250,000. The Department of of Parks and Recreation must approve the Park District development plans. The Phase 2 plan has been forwarded to them-~r their approval. e. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) The Bay Conservation and Development Commission"s staff has been involved in extensive review of the original park development plans dis cussed earlier (the groin concept). The BCDC staff report was in essence an environmental analysis and has been drawn on also for the preparation of this EIR (Reference 8). It was due primarily to BCDC"s concern over large amounts of Bay fill that the groin concept was modified. BCDC's jurisdiction extends to 100 feetin/and beyond the high tide line, and their interest lies primarily in preserving the Bay, and in assuring public access to the Bay shoreline. For the present park proposal. BCDC will review and issue permits for all work on the Bay side of the tracks. The proposed Phase 2 work will apparently not require their specific permit approval. with the possible exception of the storm drain outfall (see Plate 3). Subsequent phases will require a BCDC permit for the overpass landing on the Bay side of the tracks, any associated Bay fill necessary to establish a groin, and those inlet facilities crossing the tracks and extending into the Bay that are required for operation of the lagoon (Reference 13). f. The United States Army Corps of Engineers The Corps of Engineers was also involved in discussions with the District on the earlier groin concept park plan. Their jurisdiction extends to all tidal areas below the Mean Higher High Water line (esti mated to be elevation 3.06 mean sea level datum at this site), including -19- the tidal slough which presently drains the inland area of the site via a culvert under the Santa Fe Railroad tracks just south of Kellers Beach. Their primary interest is in regulating the filling of water and wetland areas. The inland area is generally out of their jurisdiction with the possible exception of the tidal slough mentioned above. The proposed improvements that are within their jurisdiction are the same as those on the Bay side of the tracks that are within BCDC's jurisdiction. A permit will definitely be required for these improvements. Processing of the permit (and the associated environmental impact statement) can take from one to two years depending on the complexity of the project. Phase 2 work may also require a Corps permit for the elimination of the existing slough and the installation of the replacement storm drain system (Reference 14). Exact determination of the need for a permit for the storm drain will be decided by the Corps after they have reviewed the project as it is pre sently proposed, including consideration of future phases and the miti gation aspects of the proposed salt water lagoon. g. San Franc is co Regi ona 1 i~a te r Qua 1ity Contro 1 Bo ard (WQCB) The Water Quality Control Board's interest is in any water or waste water discharge made to San Francisco Bay. None are involved in earlier phases of the project, and the need for the Water Quality Control Board's approval is not anticipated. However, Phase 4 development of the salt water lagoon will require the Board's review and, potentially, the issuance of a discharge permit or certification. The Board's concern will be adequate circulation, vegetation growth, sedimentation, algae and the use of the chemicals to control algae and other marine plant growth, all of which could affect the quality of the water subsequently discharged to the Bay (Reference 15). -20- h. State Department of Fish and Game The State Department of Fish and Game's interests are primarily the protection of fish and wildlife, particularly in streams or lakes. On projects where the Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction, the interests of fish and game are generally coordinated through the Corps (Reference 24). i. Public Utilities Commission (PUC) The Public Utilities Commission will be involved wherever proposed facilities encroach within the railroad rights of way. A permit will be required for the future pedestrian overpass. The grants of easements, temporary crossings, and utility encroachments will involve only negotia tions and approval by Santa Fe, but will be done under general PUC regu lations which apply to Santa Fe operations (Reference 16). j. Contra Costa County The County's Open Space Conservation Plan designated the park site as a major open space area. Development of the site as a regional shoreline is in conformance with the policies in the plan dealing with open space, aesthetic qualities, and Bay-Delta recreation (References 19 and 26). k. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) The Association of Bay Area Governments is particularly concerned with land use in the Bay Area, including open space and recreation uses. ABAG's Regional Plan 1970-1990 designates the shoreline park area as 'permanent open space. A recent (June 1975) Draft Report to the Regional Planning Committee of ABAG proposes criteria and standards for identifying "Areas of Critical Environmental Concern." This report is intended to aid in identifying regionally significant areas by assessing them against the criteria set forth in the report. The proposed project satisfies some of the criteria concerning proximity to urban areas and shoreline use, but -21- would satisfy more criteria with the inclusion in the park of the Potrero Hi 11 s (Reference 25). 2. Legal, Policy, and Institutional Constraints SUIl!l1ary: The proposed park is in conformance with the plans and policies of all affected agencies. Specific approvals must be obtained as follows: Agreement with Santa Fe on items affecting restrictions previously agreed to; Rezoning of the site and issuance of the necessary building and fill permits by the City of Richmond; Approval of plans by the State Department of Parks and Recreation, and the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation; Permit from BCDC; Permit from Corps of Engineers; Review and possible permit/certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board; Permit from the PUC for the pedestria.n overcrossing. -22- EXISTING SETTING AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 3 3. E X 1ST I N G SET TIN G AND E N V I RON MEN TAL I ~, PAC T S A. THE REGION 1. Existing Setting: As shown on Plate 1, the site is well located to serve urbanized areas of both the east and west Bay. The ten and fifteen mile circles of influence show that a significant portion of the popula tion of the Bay Area, including more than fifteen cities, resides within ten miles of the site. The shaded portion of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties includes the area within approximately 30 minutes driving time of the site. The City of Richmond has estimated in their Coastline Plan that by 1980 more than 800,000 people will reside within this 30-minute perimeter. Although parts of Marin County and San Francisco are also within 30 minutes of the site, the prime service area is Contra Costa and Alameda Counties where District tax revenues are derived. Richmond is situated on the Bay plain at the north end of the densely urbanized eastshore area of San Francisco Bay. The land consists of near level alluvial plains and former tidal marshes which have been filled and raised above the high tide line. Extensive marshes and mudflats still remain along the northern and northwestern shores. The west edge of the City is marked by the unique sharply rising ridge of hills stretching from Point San 'Pablo at the western tip to Point Richmond. At the east edge of the City,east of Interstate 80, the Berkeley Hills rise to form the border of the east Bay. The City is a transportation crossroads and industrial hub. The most heavily travelled highway in the east Bay, Interstate Route 80, passes along the east edge of the City. State Route 17 traverses the City westerly from 1-80 across the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge to Marin County, passing within 1/4 mile north of the park site. The Southern Pacific Transportation Company mainline serving the Bay Area passes through Richmond, and the Atchison Topeka and the Santa Fe Railway Company -23- mainline terminates in Richmond at the Point Richmond ferry slip, where trains are barged to San Francisco. The two railroads share a signifi cant switching and marshalling yard in the City. Richmond·s port facilities and industrial development are regionally significant. At the time the City·s Coastline Plan was published, Richmond·s port handled more tonnage than any other port in the Bay Area, due primarily to oil refining and distributing facilities. The Richmond Port Commission·s Terminal No.1 is located at the south terminus of Garrard Boulevard at Point Richmond (Plate 2). Only bulk liquids are handled at this terminal. Standard Oil Company·s long wharf projects into the Bay west of the park site. The City·s main port and marine facilities are located just east of Point Richmond and the Potrero Hills. Here the Harbor and Santa Fe Channels provide berthing facilities along the foot of the Potrero Hills. Canal Boulevard provides the main access to this industrialized area. The Port Commission leases Shipyard 3 located at Point Potrero at the southern terminus of Canal Boulevard. The main Harbor Channel and the whole south shoreline of the Potrero Hills are protected by the long breakwater extending west from Brooks Island. Other uses along Canal Boulevard include the City·s Sanitary District No.1 sewage treatment plant and the heliport (Plate 2). Other Regional Shoreline Parks in Richmond are Point Pinole, Brooks Island, and Point Isabel. In addition, the Master Plan suggests future acquisition for a shoreline recreational area in the San Pablo Creek Wildcat Creek area in Richmond. The Point Molate area is also a poten tial park land area. Future acquisition of a regional shoreline is also suggested by the Master Plan in the Berkeley-Emeryville area. The closest existing regional shoreline park south of Brooks Island ;s Alameda Beach. The closest inland regional parks and recreational lands include Wildcat Canyon (approximately 5 miles to the east), -24- Tilden Regional Park, Kennedy Grove, and Briones Regional Park (further to the east -- approximately 13 miles), and the extensive watershed lands of the East Bay Municipal Utility District around San Pablo and Briones Reservoirs. The unique features of the George Miller site are Bayshore frontage, the visual relationship to the most scenic and important aspects of San Francisco Bay, and a hilltop vantage from nearby Nickols Knob affording panoramic views. 2. Regional Impacts: The proposed park will have a beneficial impact on regional recreation opportunities. Increased public access to the Bay shoreline will partially fulfill the goals of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Establishment of this regional park in an urban area will be a step toward bringing regional scale recreation resources into the community, thus reducing the time and energy involved in travel ing to more distant sites. In evaluating the need for more regional recreation, the City's Coastline Plan concluded that even with this proposed park a deficit of coastline regional recreation areas will exist. In addition to satisfying specific recreation needs, a commitment of the land and shoreline to park use will have beneficial impacts on the appeal of greater Richmond for attracting and building stable residential popu lations. The acquisition of the parkland by the District has halted the industrialization of this small area of shoreline, and prevented encroach ment of development on the Point Richmond residential area. The reduction in industrially zoned land is not considered a significant adverse impact in view of the City's decision in the Coastline Plan to commit the site to recreational use. Development of the park will also be a step toward ful filling the City's policy of developing its shoreline as an asset by taking advantage of its unique physical character and historic and scenic values. Development of the area as a park is not in conflict with the plans of any regional agency. The regional issue of the proposed park is not whether more park area is necessary or desirable, but whether this particular site justifies the -25- expenditure of the District's revenues for the benefits received. This is a policy matter to be decided by the District and the community. To increase the regional recreation importance and attraction of the site, park use in the hill area east of Garrard Boulevard should be expanded. The District has recognized this and has purchased portions of the hill area as part of a program to preserve the hilltops (Plate 6). B. THE SITE 1. Existing Setting: The site is reached from the main part of RichmOnd and State Route 17 by taking Garrard Boulevard south through the tunnel under the Potrero Hills. A secondary but very circuitous access is available over the hills through the Point Richmond residential area. The 41-acre project site lying between Garrard Boulevard and the Santa Fe tracks is an old marsh and mudflat area that has been filled over the years to its present elevation by dredge spoils placed by Santa Fe Railway. The Santa Fe tracks separate the site from the Bay. The greater portion of the site lies approximately between elevations 5 and 8 feet Mean-Sea Level (MSL). The 8.5 acre portion at the south end has been raised with additional earthfill stockpiled for use in park development to elevation' 13 to 15 feet MSL .. The site has remained virtually unused, except for the existence of the Georgia Pacific warehouse and use as a repository for dredge spoils. There is no vegetation on the 8.5 acre area. The remainder is covered by a mix of grasses and brush reaching six to eight feet in height. A tidal slough carries storm drainage from the hill areas across the northern part of the site. The slough deepens to a flow line near elevation 1 foot MSL at the tracks, and is bordered by deteri orated levees varying to a maximum elevation of 9 feet MSL. An existing warehouse owned by the District (approximately 370 feet by 70 feet) is located on a 3.3 acre parcel fronting on Garrard Boulevard. Under the purchase agreement the wareh6usiwi~-to remain under lease to Georgia Pacific Company for 15 years (see discussion in Section 3.C.). -26- The warehouse area is paved and fenced, and sits on fill approximately 5 feet higher than the adjoining park land. The site is bounded on the west by the Santa Fe tracks which border the Bay on an earthfill embankment varying between 9 and 12 feet MSL (varies to 5 feet higher than the park site at the northwest corner). The tracks split from one mainline coming through the tunnel at Western Drive to three lines at the south boundary of the park. They split again as they approach the ferry slip (Plate 3). The added spurs provide space to store cars awaiting transport across the Bay, and to make up trains bound north. Railroad cars are often parked along these tracks and are moved back and forth as part of the normal process of loading and unloading the train barges and making up trains. A utility pole line parallels the east side of the tracks within the railroad right of way. Immediately south of the railroad tunnel, a rail spur enters the park site and runs across the site to the Georgia Pacific warehouse. A branch of this spur crosses Garrard Boulevard to the Industrial Telephone Systems building along the east side of Garrard Boulevard. These spurs vary in elevation but generally are about 2 to 3 feet above adjoining ground. West of the tracks the shoreline consists of an abrupt slope from the edge of the railroad embankment to the waters edge. The slope is entirely covered with heavy rock riprap to protect against erosion. There is no beach, although some mudflat area is exposed at low tide. The primary use of this shoreline is fishing. Tucked into the tiny cove at the foot of the hills below Western Drive and Garrard Boulevard lies Kellers Beach Park. The City presently owns and maintains the park. It is very popular with local residents, parti cularly in the summer. It is developed for picnicking and swimming, with restrooms, tables, benches, paved walks and patios, barbeques, an obser vation point with benches, and a small sand/gravel beach. It is well landscaped and features a broad expanse of the Bay. The park walkways connect to the improved shoreline access along the Santa Fe tracks recently completed as Phase 1 of the proposed park. No off-street -27- parking is provided at the park, and traffic congestion often results on Garrard Boulevard near Western Drive on peak days. Garrard Boulevard is an improved two-lane street with curb and gutter and utility pole lines on both sides. From a low point of approximately 10.5 feet MSL at the northeast corner of the site, the street grade rises gently to 42 feet MSL at the Garrard Tunnel. Storm drainage from the hills to the east crosses under the street at the low point. East of Garrard Boulevard lies the Potrero Hills, topped by Nickols Knob at elevation 370 feet MSL. Aporoximately 1/2 acre at the crest of Nickols Knob, including a small cluster of trees and an old radio station now used as a residence, is owned by the District. This site can be reached by following a steep paved drive from the end of Crest Avenue. In addition, the District is in the process of acquiring most of the hill land within the limits shown on Plate 6. At lower elevation (160 MSL) on the southwest facing slope above the park site, the East Bay Municipal Utility District maintains a large (70 feet high by 200 feet in diameter) concrete water storage tank. The tank is partially screened from view below by large pine trees, and is reached via a driveway from Garrard Boulevard. A single residence is situated at the intersection of the driveway with Garrard Boulevard. Further south on the east side of Garrard Boulevard, set back from the road about 150 feet on a flat at·the base of the hills, is the club house of the Richmond Ramblers Motorcycle Club. From here the eroded trails resulting from the hill climbing activities of motorcyclists cross the hills in all directions. Adjacent to the south is the old and now unused rifle range. Several buildings and the old target frames still stand. Next to this, between Garrard Boulevard and the steep hillside, is an old ware house building (approximately 320 feet long by 50 feet wide) now occupied by Industrial Telephone Sy~tems. These are the last improvements on the east side of Garrard Boulevard. The steep hillsides prevent building con struction further south. Aside from the facilities already described, the hills within view of the park site are undeveloped. They are marked by old road cuts and excava tions. Portions of old fences and utility pole lines cross the slopes and hilltops. The numerous motorcycle paths are cut deeply by erosion. -28- Heavily eroded gullies cut down the hillside where vegetation has been lost. Random trees dot the slopes. Garrard Boulevard terminates at the Santa Fe ferry slip and Terminal No.1. Here, Brickyard Cove Road continues around the point to the Richmond Yacht Club and the Brickyard Cove residential development, finally ending as a dirt road leading a short distance to the old Richmond brickworks. Adjacent to the brickworks is the PG&E gas storage tower -- a large verti cal cylinder several hundred feet high and more than 200 feet in diameter. It is visible at a distance of several miles, and can also be seen from the park site as it looms above the ridge line. Immediately to the south of the park a short strip of low lying brush covered land separates the park site from the Bay Terminals Company storage tanks and tanker truck and rail tank car loading platforms. Six tanks ranging to 30 feet high and 120 feet in diameter cover the land area between Garrard Boulevard and the Santa Fe tracks. The tanks are freshly painted, and are enclosed within a fenced and locked compound. , South of the Bay Terminals tank farm lies presently unused land adjoin- ing the Santa Fe ferry slip. Immediately to the east is the City's Terminal No.1 area, and adjacent to this is the Richmond Yacht Club. Northwest of the Garrard Boulevard tunnel the hills become marked by the winding roads and hillside residences of the Point Richmond district of the City. On the north side of the ridge, between the Garrard Boulevard tunnel and Cutting Boulevard, a small commercial center serves the sur rounding residential district. The distinctly Victorian character of a number of the older houses and buildings has attracted both residents and visitors who support the shops and other businesses and enjoy the unique community feeling. 2. Site Impacts: The change of land use to public recreation will increase the intensity of use and bring with it a number of other site -29- impacts. Grading on the site and the addition of fill will have the greatest adverse effect on the site. However, similar impacts have regularly occurred in the past as placement of Santa Fe's dredge spoils gradually built the site up. Initially, the change will be most apparent in the landscaping and parking lot. Completion of the lagoon and the pedestrian overcrossing will further alter the appearance. The Georgia Pacific warehouse will be phased out, resulting in either relocation to· another site or closure of the operation. The greatest impact on surrounding uses will be the increased traffic in the area. The presence of park users in close proximity to industrial facilities and the Santa Fe train operations holds a potential for causing nuisance and security problems. However, the District's experience has shown that the combination of increased numbers of people and the presence of security personnel can have the beneficial effect of preventing such problems •. Where nuisance problems have occurred upon opening of an area to park use, the occurrence of problems diminishes as people adjust to park boundaries and rules, and as the District, in cooperation with the City and surrounding owners, establishes the proper level of security ser vices. The most direct access to the publicly controll ed shorel ine on the west side of the tracks will be across the overpass at the north end of the park. To more conveniently reach the south end of the shoreline some people may break an opening in the park fence, or break an opening in fences south of the park and cross private property. The District pro poses to provide adequate security and proper maintenance of the boundary fence, and does not anticipate that this will beaome a problem. Although there appears to be little if any current use of the flatland park site by motorcyclists, the close priximity of the Richmond Rambler Clubhouse to the proposed parking lot will invite use of the parking lot and other improvements (e.g., toilet facilities) by motorcyclists not using the park per se. Control of motorcycle activities on the Potrero Hills has been a longstanding problem for City police. Hillclimbing -30- and trail riding result in trespass on private property, complaints of noise, and damage to the terrain. Efforts to control motorcyclists have not been successful (Reference 27). An inverse condemnation suit by motor cyclists, to enable continued use of the lands, most of which are under absentee ownership, was denied on appeal. Subsequent to this denial, the District purchased portions of the lands used by the motorcyclists, and further acquisition by the District is anticipated. The District ownership will provide the right to the District to control the use of much of the hill lands. Security enforcement is currently underway by the District's Public Safety Department, in cooperation with the City, and security prob lems and noise associated with the motorcycles should be reduced or eliminated. C. GEOLOGIC 1. Existing Setting: Several geologic and soils investigations have been made in and around the project area. The following discussion is drawn from these investigations (References 3, 4, 9 and 10). The hills that form the Point Potrero and Point Richmond peninsula have been variously referred to in other publications as the Potrero Hills, San Pablo Ridge, Potrero-San Pablo Hills, and San Pablo Peninsula. In this report they are referred to as the Potrero Hills (Plate 2). The entire ridge extending from Point San Pablo to Point Potrero will be called Potrero Ridge. Potrero Ridge is one of several southeast-northwest trending ridges which characterize the geology of the region. Others include the Berkeley hills and the Marin, Tiburon and San Quentin peninsulas. This particular ridge is unique in that it is disconnected from other ridge masses, and is separated from the Berkeley Hills to the east by a low alluvial plain and filled tideland area on which the main part of the City of Richmond is located. -31- Potrero Ridge is comprised of Franciscan formation, one of the oldest and most common rock formations in the coast ranges of California. The Potrero Hills are made up primarily of beds of sandstones and clay shales. The rocks are quite' hard and massive, and outcrops can be found along the hilltops. The beds alternate with each other, are relatively thin, and dip quite uniformly in a genera1 southwesterly direction between 40° and SOO below horizontal. Upland soils on the hills tend to be shallow soils formed from the weather ing of sandstones and shales. The steep slopes make the treat of erosion extreme when the soils are exposed by cuts or fills or vegetative cover is lost. Filled tidelands characterize most of the flatter areas around the base of the hills, including the proposed park site. These areas are subject to great variation i~ soil characteristics which affect development. The material used for fill as well as the underlying Bay muds often cause great problems in providing adequate foundations for construction of improvements. Topographic maps of the historic edge of Bay tidelands before reclamation show that the old shoreline roughly coincided with the location of existing Garrard Boulevard in the park vicinity. Cooper Clarke and Associates (Reference 9) reported that soil borings taken on the site indicate surface soils to be 6-8 feet of brown organic silty clay fill, perhaps hydraulically placed (these borings were taken prior to placement of the more recent earthfill added on the S.5 acre parcel). Underlying Bay muds varied in depth across the site from 59-1/2 feet near the southwest corner of the site to as little as 4-1/2 feet near the north end of the site. The Bay muds and the overlying fill will not support significant foundation loads without special attention to possible settlements. The site is located in the seismically active Bay area. Major active earthquake faults which will affect the site are the San Andreas Fault (approximately 14 miles to the west) and the Hayward Fault (approximately 3-1/2 miles to the east). The closest mapped fault is the San Pablo -32- Fault, about one mile northeast of the site in the vicinity of the Santa Fe and Harbor Channels. This fault is considered inactive. No faults have been identified in the immediate vicinity of the site, and no danger due to surface ground rupture is anticipated. The greatest danger will result from strong shaking of the site. Dames and Moore (Reference 10) reported that " ... this site would be expected to respond to earthquake forces by vibrating with relatively large amplitudes of ground motion and relatively low frequency compared to a site situated on firm soil or bed rock." 2. Geologic Impacts: The proposed Phase 2 work will not be significantly affected by geology or soils conditions. Long term settlement of the site must be anticipated, especially in connection with placement of fill in new areas and construction of mounds for landscaping. Care must be used in raising the spur tracks and in placement of fill in other areas which may support restrooms or other structures in future development of the park. The proposed park improvements should not be seriously affected by settlements. Long term integrity of the lagoon requires that the shore protection initially provided be maintained to prevent erosion, especially if the on-site clay/silt soils are used in confining the lagoon. Shoreline slopes should be constructed at a slope stable under earthquake loadings. Although danger is minimal, dredging of the lagoon may be necessary if slopes fail. Since the dredge spoils planned for disposal on the site QY Santa Fe (Plate 5) will be from saltwater, several years of leaching by winter rains will be necessary to remove salts before landscaping can be estab lished. Thts should not present a problem, since deposition of spoils is expected by March 1977 and installation of landscaping for Phases that would be affected (Phases 4 and 5) is expected sometime after 1982. A study was done by Dames and Moore of the pedestrian overcrossing ori ginally planned at the south end of the site (Reference 10). That study indicated that structure foundations must be designed to reflect the soil -33- conditions (silt/clay and Bay mud) and to provide necessary stability and safety during earthquakes. They recommend pile supported foundations. The Bay Conservation and Development Commission, Santa Fe, and the Public Utilities Commission will be involved in reviewing and approving the design of the overcrossing proposed for construction in Phase 3. Founding of the overpass on the Bay side of the tracks will pose special problems of construction, but no significant adverse impacts are anticipated. The earthfill groin of 3.5 to 4 acres proposed in Phase 6 will create a small mud wave and result in construction disturbances to the shoreline environment. Bay bottom muds will be disturbed, Bay waters will be clouded with silt and suspended solids, and minor marine life destruction . or displacement will occur. In view of the relatively short time of the disturbance (estimated at several months) and small size of the fill, adverse impacts are not expected to be significant. D. BIOLOGIC 1. Existing Setting: Arbegast and Newton's report (Reference 4) included an evaluation of the natural resources of the site and the Potrero Hills, and forms the basis for this section. The proposed park site supports "grasses, thistles, some Chapparal Broom and Elderberry, as well as Fennel and Blackberry ..• " Ice plant occurs in several places. To the northwest of the site, above Kellers Beach, the slopes have lithe appearance of a eucalyptus forest because of the I dominance of the tall trees." The hills to the east " ... are generally devoid of significant vegetation except for grasses and other herbaceous wil d flowers. II Areas between these ri dges or ri dge tops are covered with scrub and brush components ... " commonly known as Coyote Bush or Chapparal Broom. The hills are sprinkled randomly with Monterey Pines in various stages of growth which " ... will some day be seen as dominant elements on the hillside giving the site a different character from that which now exists. II As noted in the Petromark EIR (Reference 3) lithe existence of strong prevailing winds is one of several factors which has retarded vege tation growth and limited the types of species present." A list of plant -34- species noted in Arbegast and Newton's report can be found in AppendixA. The disturbances suffered by the site in the past have not been conducive to establishment of a variety of habitats and stable populations of natural wildlife that would be expected in the absence of man's activities. Strong prevailing winds, removal of the site over the years from the natural marsh condition, heavy riprap shoreline protection along the railroad, and a shallow mud bottom all combine to restrict the variety of wildlife and marine species existing at the site and along the Bay shore. No endangered species are anticipated at the site. A list of wildlife species either noted or expected at the site is included in Appendix A. The list notes a number of species of marine life which can be expected along the Bay shore, including fish that might be found offshore. The City's Coastline Study (Reference 2) noted that the shallow area offshore from the park site is a herring breeding ground, and is considered an area of "most value" in recognition of the importance of inter-tidal zones in supporting marine life. The report also notes that "San Pablo Ridge (i.e., Potrero Ridge) is not a vegetation or wildlife area of great importance", although significant herbaceous vegetation does occur. Fishermen regularly use the railroad embankment, and comments made at the public meetings indicated an interest by fishermen in enhancing fishing at this location. The bathymetric study reported in Section 3.E. indicates a flat bottom with no protected areas that might attract a resident fish population. 2. Biologic Impacts: Park improvement work, primarily regrading on the site, will eliminate virtually all the existing grass and brush vegeta tion. Landscaping will create new vegetation types to replace the exist ing. Details on proposed landscaping are not available. Options are available for establishing a variety of plant species to achieve different effects, including border screens and windbreaks. Some species of wildlife will be permanently displaced due to loss of habitat while others may re use the site after landscaping is completed. The disruption will last for -35- several years until completion of the lagoon and landscaping of the southern half of the park. Adverse biologic impacts are not considered significant. E. HYDROLOGIC-CLU4ATE 1. Existing Setting: The mild marine climate of the Bay Area provides a fairly consistent pattern of relatively warm winters and cool summers. Prevailing winds sweep in through the Golden Gate and turn northward. toward the site. This ocean air mass moderates the average range in daily temperatures to only about 15°. Summer days are charactertized by fog from late evenings through the night to midday. The warmest months are April and September. The average annual rainfall of 22.3 inches occurs mostly in the months November through April. The prevailing south to southwest winds are strongest in the late afternoon from May through August, and weaken and become more varied in direction during the winter months. Plate 7, taken from Arbegast and Newton's report (Reference 4) and the City's Coastline study (Reference 2), shows the passage of prevailing winds over the Potrero Hills area. It shows the effect the hills have of creating calm areas, primarily along the northeast base of the hills and locally along the east side of Garrard Boulevard across from the park site. At the same time, the hilltops are very windy, occasionally windy enough to curtail recreation uses. Because of the winds the site is relatively free of air contaminants. The industrial uses at Terminal No. 1 are not recognized as significant emitters of air pollutants, although they may occasionally be" the source of odors and fumes; The air quality is generally good in the vicinity of the site, and the number of days when established state and national air quality standards are exceeded are less than for the urban area the park will serve. The City's Coastline study background data (Reference 2) analyzes air quality in the Richmond area in detail and the interested reader is referred to that report and to the Petromark EIR (Reference 3). -36- DONALD BLVD. ~• KEY RELATIVELY CALM AREA PREVAILING WI NO FLOW PATTERN WIND PATTERN OVER ••••• HILLS HOFFMAN BLVD• ...w W ...DC VI o POINT POTRERO CHANNEL ISLAND N NOR T H w E 0 750 1500 3000 plate 7 5 WIND ROSE approx. scale in feet WINDS ""'! .... - The information shown on Plate 8 and presented below is based on the bathy metric study performed for the District by Dames and Moore (Reference 11). As shown on Plate 8, the tidelands bordering the park site are shallow, ranging in depth from ° to 6 feet below Mean Lower Low Water (the average height of the lowest of normal low tide levels). Extreme tide ranges extend 2.5 feet below and 7 feet above Mean Lower Low Water. When con verted to Mean Sea Level Elevation, the tide ranges from about elevation -5 feet to +4 feet. The Bay bottom slopes very gradua 11y from the shore line to about the 7 foot depth (approximately 3 feet in 4,000 feet) (Reference 11). No depressions or other variations in the Bay bottom that would attract and protect fish were found. The Bay bottom is regu larly exposed as mudflat in the vicinity of Kellers Beach, especially during minus tides (below Mean Lower Low Water). Tidal currents are not strong along the site, with a predicted maximum velocity near shore of less than 1 knot. Ebb and flood tide flow directions are shown on Plate 8. Near shore tide currents generally flow to the south parallel to the shoreline. Tidal currents do increase in offshore areas beyond the Standard Oil dock and the Santa Fe ferry. slip to approximately 2 knots. Surface runoff from the site is presently conveyed directly into the Bay through a culvert under the Santa Fe tracks near the northwest corner of the site .. Tidal action extends up the drainage channel into the site sev eral hundred feet. Two distinct drainage channels carry storm waters across Garrard Boulevard into the main channel. Storm drains exist under Garrard Boulevard to carry runoff from the hills to these two drainage channels, and through the site to the Bay. Occasional local flooding has occurred in the lowest areas of the site. Drainage along the railroad is carried north in a ditch inside the right of way to a separate culvert under the tracks. 2. Hydrologic-Climate Impacts: The proposed project will have no signi ficant adverse impacts on the hydrologic and climatic environments. However, cumulative adverse air quality impacts will occur on high use days when traffic is heaviest, thus contributing to the general lowering of air quality in downwind areas. Vehicular emissions will include carbon -37- CYPRESS POINT ~KEllER" BEACH \ p ... '""T , , PARK .> 1- 0 \ (i 5 IT E ., ..... <1' \ \ (i I I o I POINT RICHMOND (FERkY POINT) LEGEND ===~ EBB TIDE DIRECTION OF FLOW OCJCJCJCJ~O FLOOD TIDE DIRECTION OF FLOW NOR T H <> -4- UNDERWATER CONTOUR o 500 1000 plate 8 a pp rex. seal e --in feet BATHYMETRIC DATA monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons (HC), and oxides of nitrogen (NOX). Vehicles will be parking, starting engines, and moving at relatively low speeds. Emission rates of CO and HC tend to increase with lower speeds while the NOX emission rates tends to decrease. Computation of actual emissions has not been included here since the number of vehicles is not excessive, average attendance will be well below the 500 parking spaces ultimately to be available, and peak use will occur on weekends, primarily in the mid day hours, when air contaminant levels tend'to be lower. The dilutional effects of prevailing winds will help mitigate this minor impact. Further mitigation can occur through uncreased use of public transportation. Air quality impacts due to vehicular emissions are less at this close-in urban site as compared to a more remote location. The existing tidal drainage channel will be filled. Storm runoff from the site will be collected in .an underground storm drain system and con veyed to the Bay in virtually the same pattern as exists now, with insignificant net change in runoff quantities. The parking lot will represent the only significant area of increased impermeability. The project site has been subject to local flooding due to its low lying character. As filling continues during park development and placement of dredge spoils, on-site flooding of any significance will be eliminated. The creation of a salt water lagoon will represent the most significant change in site hydrologic conditions. The potential effects of a lagoon on water quality will be of concern to the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The proposed lagoon is planned to operate by pumping Bay water from an intake located offshore far enough to draw on water with minimum suspended solids and a relatively cool temperature. Pumping may be intermittent to avoid drawing in poor quality water at low tide. The water would be dis charged into the lagoon at the south end, and would flow by gravity and with the aid of wind to an outfall at the north end in a pattern intended to prevent backwaters and eddies. Water quality concerns will include maintaining water temperatures as cool as possible, minimizing nutrient levels, maintaining oxygen levels of the incoming Bay water, minimizing algae growth, and maintaiQing flushing action essential to all of the -38- II above goals. The speed of flow into the lagoon would be established in cooperation with the Regional Water Quality Control Board to provide adequate flushing. Storm runoff entering the lagoon would be restricted to adjacent slope runoff to minimize the addition of nutrients. No discharges will be added to the lagoon waters. Use of a gravity outfall, although affected by tides will permit emptying the lagoon at low tide in the event any problems develop. No significant adverse effects on water quality are expected through operation of the lagoon. The 3.5 to 4 acre Bay fill groin proposed as Phase 6 will alter near shore tidal currents. The most significant effect will be a slowing of current velocities between the groin and Kellers Beach. Tidal current velocities are already slow and littoral drift is minimal, and no signi ficant deposition of suspended material is anticipated. Wind-blown flotsam and jetsam will come from the south and pile up on the south shore of the groin. This will create a minor maintenance problem. In addition, the groin will decrease the surface area of the Bay, although at the same time it will increase the shoreline of the Bay. The loss of water surface area in the Bay will be partially offset by creation of the 6 acre salt water lagoon. These adverse impacts are cumulative, and by themselves are not of major significance. The collective significance must be weighed against the benefit to shoreline access and use provided by the groin. Without it, the existing rocky slope can really only be enjoyed by fishermen, and Kellers Beach would continue to provide the only usable water contact area. F. VISUAL-AESTHETIC 1. Existing Setting: As noted earlier, and as depicted on Plate 2, the park site and adjacent hills provide extraordinary views of the Bay. The park site between Garrard Boulevard and the Santa Fe tracks does not have unobstructed views of the Bay, however. Th~ protective fence along the railroad, and parked railroad cars, interfere with seeing the Bay itself. The surrounding hills and the distant shores of Marin County and San -39- Francisco are visible, however, and provide a feeling of remoteness from the urban environment, which is one of the greatest assets of the site. The sense of closeness to the Bay and the shoreline access to achieve that closeness are also aesthetic attributes of the site, although not necessarily superior in quality to other sites because of the separation from the Bay caused by the ra i 1 road embankment.: Views of the hills and the surrounding area from the site are marred by a number of features that detract from visual quality. These include the Bay Terminals Company tanks, the Pacific Gas and Electric Company gas storage tower which looms above the hills to the east, the East Bay Municipal Utility District water tank, the scars of erosion and motor cycle trails and utility pole lines crossing the hills, and the unattrac tive warehouses and buildings occupied by Georgia Pacific, Industrial Telephone and the Richmond Ramblers. The view from the ridge top and Nickols Knob is extraordinary under a variety of conditions. As noted in Arbegast and Newton1s report, the hills not only provide a magnificent viewshed to the west and south, they are also a viewshed in themselves as seen from vantage points along the Bay. They serve as an orientation landmark to residents in Richmond and nearby communities, and are also a nautical landmark for vessels on the Bay. • The acoustic environment around the site is relatively free of industrial and urban noise with the exception of noise from motorcycles on the Potrero Hills. This noise varies with the number of riders on the hills which is generally greatest on weekends. The status of motorcycle riding on the hills is discussed further in Section 3.B.2. The City1s Coastline Plan (Reference 1) provides more detail on motorcycle noise. Vehicles and trains will be the most significant long term source of noise. The Petromark EIR (Reference 3) reported ultimate traffic noise -40- levels along Garrard Boulevard of 70dBA (L10) extending inside the site approximately 200 feet. The noise is produced primarily by loaded truck traffic clumbing toward the Garrard Boulevard tunnel. 2. Visual-Aesthetic Impacts: Establishment of the park would be a step toward securing permanence of the existing visual benefits of the area. It will foreclose land uses which might mar or eliminate the view. The pedestrian overcrossing and the windmill will present the most obvious visual intrusions into views of the Bay. The overcrossing has not been de signed yet, but is expected to rise from 25 to 30 feet above the tracks, and be supported at each end, and possibly in the middle, by some form of column structure which will anchor the bridge and support either a stairway or ramp approach at each end. The adverse visual impact of the pedestrian overcrossing cannot be avoided, but proper design utilizing mounds and carefully selected materials for construction can blend the structure into the landscape and minimize the impact. Locating the structure at the northwest corner will help. Once completed, the overcrossing will afford dramatic views. This should be considered in design. The windmill will be a unique feature of the project. To some it may present an adverse visual impact, and to others its utilitarian and energy saving benefits may justify its presence on the skyline. There are wide variations in appearance and efficiency that are available now as a result of current energy research. ViewS from the park site will be enhanced on the one hand by raising the site with fill, but will be partially blocked by the mounding and trees and landscaping intended in part to screen the fence and train activity. There will be temporary impacts during construction that may adversely affect the aesthetic sense of users of the area and nearby residents. Construction equipment will be operating on the site to excavate and place earth and construct the parking lot and other improvements. Noise and dust from construction equipment and traffic will have minor adverse effects on the aesthetic environment. -41- Visual changes will continue to take place in the area surrounding the park site. Surrounding land zoned for industrial or residential development (Ferry Point and portions of the hills) will eventually be developed. Some changes, such as removal or improvement of the rifle range buildings, and eventual revegetation of barren and eroded hillsides, could enhance the appearance of the area. During the days of high use at the park, some people who now enjoy the solitude available at the site may view the influx of park crowds as an intrusion and adverse impact. The proposed park will lose aesthetic appeal for these people. The hill areas, too, may become more heavily ~sed than some may prefer. However, there will be times of light use to serve these preferences. Until control of motorcyclists is achieved, motorcycle noise will adversely affect use of the park by those people hoping to escape from the urban environment. In addition, the frontage of the park site along Garrard Boulevard will experience traffic noise which will exceed the noise level of 70dBA (L 10 ) suggested as a maximum in recreation and park areas by the United States Department of Transportation. During periods of peak traffic at the park, and during heavy truck passage along Garrard Boule vard, some park users in close proximity to ~he street may be bothered by noise exceeding this level. This traffic noise level is not severe, and truck traffic will generally not occur on the weekend days of peak park use. Nevertheless, on certain days traffic noise levels could detract from the aesthetic values of the park. G; TRAFFIC 1. Existing Setting: The following discussion is extracted from the letter report of Mr. John Forristal, Traffic Consultant (Reference 12). Garrard Boulevard adjacent to the site is a 48 foot wide roadway, with two traffic lanes, and on-street parking. As noted earlier, it is the sole direct access to the site and virtually all vehicular trips to the -42- site will end up traveling Garrard Boulevard and passing through the Garrard tunnel. North of the tunnel, Garrard Boulevard intersects State Route 17 and then becomes a four-lane street, ultimately ending at an intersection with Pennsylvania Avenue. The Garrard tunnel is a narrow two-lane facility with a pedestrian walkway on only one side. Western Drive intersects Garrard Boulevard just south of the tunnel, and during peak days at Kellers Beach, traffic slows to a crawl at times, affecting the flow of traffic through the tunnel. The City proposes lighting in the tunnel, but completion is some years away. Current traffic volumes on Garrard Boulevard are 1,530 vehicles per day south of the tunnel, 2,400 vehicles per day north of the tunnel, and 2,700 vehicles per day just south of State Route 17. Truck traffic is estimated at 10% of daily traffic. On weekends, when recreational acti vity is heaviest, volumes on Garrard Boulevard adjacent to the site increase to an estimated 1,800 vehicles per day. These volumes are rela tively light, and well within the capacity of the existing roadway section. Occasional congestion is experienced on Garrard Boulevard at Western Drive during peak summer weekend days. This is caused by improper utili zation of Garrard Boulevard for parking by vehicles visiting Kel1ers Beach rather than by a deficiency in capacity. A proposed revision to the street system in the project area is an exten sion of Brickyard Cove Road to Canal Boulevard, thus providing an outlet for the south leg of Garrard Boulevard. A continuous loop would circle the whole Ferry Point-Point Potrero area, consisting of Garrard Boulevard, Brickyard Cove Road, and Canal Boulevard. No construction date has been scheduled for the connecting route and it is not included in the City's six-year improvement program. 2. Traffic Impacts: Traffic levels generated by park use were estimated by assuming full use of ultimate on- and off-street parking proposed in the development plan. Park plans call for the immediate installation of an off-street parking area containing 50 stalls (Phase 2) with the future expansion of that area for an additional 50 stalls (Phase 5). The plan -43- also proposes parking for another 100 off-street spaces in Phase 5. Overflow parking for an additional 100 cars may be provided at an undertermined loca tion. The timing of these latter improvements has not been determined, but they would appear to be in the long range future. The net result assumeq for evaluation here would be an ultimate total of 300 off-street stalls. On peak days, parking can be expected to overflow into Garrard Boulevard for an estimated 200 on-street spaces, which gives a total of 500 spaces ivailable. A turnover rate of two vehicles per space during periods of maximum activity will produce four trips per space, or a total of 2,000 trips per maximum day. Since this would be a weekend day, it would increase the existing traffic from 1,800 vehicles per day to 3,800 vehicles per day, or by a factor of 110%. The final volume is still within a satisfactory service level for Garrard Boulevard. Existing congestion at Western Drive should be alleviated if parking restrictions suggested by the District are enforced along Garrard Boulevard near that intersection. Assuming average weekday trips at 750 per day would increase volumes from the current 1,500 vehicles per day to 2,250 vehicles per day. On the other major streets serving the area, the proportionate increases in traffic would not be significant. Projected traffic volumes on Garrard Boulevard would also be augmented by future expansion of the Brickyard Cove residential area, and nea~by industrial areas. Although there is no data on which to base traffic estimates, the limited extent of developable area would keep volumes well below the acceptable service level. The future extension of Brickyard Cove Road to Canal Boulevard would divert a certain number of trips from Garrard Boulevard, thereby reducing the ultimate traffic volumes. The volumes of projected traffic will be greatest on weekends and 9n summer weekdays. This will tend to minimize its impact on school activities on Garrard Boulevard north of the tunnel. For this reason, project traffic during times of pedestrian travel to and from school should not be a significant factor. As a result of these traffic increases, both vehi cular and pedestrian traffic will increase in the Point Richmond commer cial area. Some increase in vehicular traffic through nearby residential areas may also occur. -44- The City has proposed both Garrard Boulevard and State Route 17 for inclusion within a bicycle route system. Bicycle travel to a development of this nature could be a substantial portion of all traffic. However, passage through the Garrard tunnel would appear to be hampered by the narrow width of the pedestrian walk. It does not appear that bicycles could be ridden safety through the tunnel on the street pavement. It is not known if the state program would include improvements to increase the safety and ease of bicycle passage through the tunnel. Without improvements in width,the tunnel will impede the development of this mode of travel to the site. No public transportation is available in the proposed park area on the south side of Garrard tunnel. The nearest point of public transportation access is in the vicinity of the Richmond Plunge near West Richmond Avenue, Park Place and Railroad Avenue in the Point Richmond commercial district, about one-half mile from the park site. This location can be reached by taking the AC Transit Bus System from most points in the East Bay and in San Francisco. Service is avai'lable seven days a week at between 20 and 30 minute intervals on weekdays, and extending to 45 minutes to 1 hour intervals on weekends. The number 72M bus starts from downtown Oakland and runs the full length of San Pablo Avenue. Any of the feeders that cross San Pablo Avenue could provide a connecting link for residents of Oakland, Emeryville, Berkeley, El Cerrito and Albany. San Francisco residents can reach the park site by taking the L bus. The 72M bus provides a link to the Richmond BART Station located between Barrett and MacDonald on 16th Street in downtown Richmond. The link with BART provides public transportation access to the park for residents from as far away as Daly City, Fremont and Concord. Since BART does not presently operate on weekends, its utilization by park patrons will be limited. Notwithstanding traffic impacts and public transit resources, this type of urban park has the beneficial effect of reducing traffic associated with regional recreation by eliminating longer travel distances to more remote sites. -45- H. FACILITIES - UTILITIES 1. Existing Setting: Full utility services are available to the site. Sewer service is provided by the City·s Sanitary District No.1 (Reference 18), water service by East Bay Municipal' Utility District, gas and electric service by The Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and telephone service by The Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company. The sanitary sewer main in Garrard Boulevard is a 611 pressure main carrying waste from the Brickyard Cove - Ferry Point area through Garrard tunnel to the City·s treatment plant on the northeast side of the Potrero Hills. The nearest City Fire Station is located at 140 West Richmond Avenue in Point Richmond, less than one minute from the site. 2. Facilities - Utilities Impacts: The proposed project is not expected to have significant adverse impact on any utility services. Utility demands are relatively low. The primary demands will be for, irrigation water for landscaping. Sanitary sewer service i.s expected to be provided by gravity drain to the existing lift station near the Georgia Pacific warehouse. The Park District has a duty to provide police protection in the park area. The City of Richmond has a similar obligation to provide police services within the area. Since the jurisdictions are concurrent and overlap,it is expected that the District and the City will work out an agreement for furnishing police services in the park. I. HISTORIC - ARCHAEOLOGICAL 1. Existing Setting: Several features in the immediate area outside the park boundary have historic interest. The old Richmond Brickworks buildings and nvens are still standing although the site is only in limited use under its present owner. -46- The Santa Fe ferry slip has intrinsic as well as historic interest. The Potrero Hills are part of the historic landmark formed by the San Pablo Ridge as a whole. The Point Richmond residential area, primarily on the I north side of the ridge, bears an historic image with its old Victorian homes and the old firehouse. Several destroyed archaeologic sites have been noted close by. One site was located in the Point Richmond residential area, and another at Ferry Point. Both were destroyed during development. No known sites of impor tance are on or adjacent to the proposed park site (Reference 3). 2. Historic-Archaeologic Impacts: The proposed park ~hould have no significant adverse impact on any of the historic or archaeologic features in the area. J. ENERGY 1. Existing Setting: There is no existing energy usage related to the site, other than the industrial use (warehouse) which will continue. 2. Energy Impacts: Park facilities will be used only during daylight hours. Energy will be required to pump water from the Bay to the lagoon. The District is considering a wind driven pump with a backup electric motor driven system. The determination has not been made at this time. The electrical pump system could be placed in the same low priority category as decorative water fountains which were shut down during the energy crisis of 1973. This could be avoided by designing the lagoon for gravity flow. Unfortunately, this has several drawbacks. These are discussed under "Alternatives" in Section 7 below. If the pump system is shut down, the lagoon can be drained dry by gravity to avoid stagnation problems. Installation and maintenance of turf and landscaped areas will also require energy, either directly or indirectly, for mowing, irrigation and fertilizing. -47- Whether energy use is greatest for the lagoon or turf areas is not known. In any case, project energy requirements are not large compared with the level of energy usage that would result if the site were developed in accordance with the current industrial zoning. Energy consumption related to vehicular traffic to and from the park will be reduced at this urban site as compared to a more remote site. This benefit will offset energy consumption by proposed park facilities. -48- UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 4 4. U N ~ V 0 I DAB LEA D V E R S ElM PAC T S The long term adverse impacts which cannot be avoided are as follows: There will be loss of the existing vegetation on the site and some wildlife/marine life populations. The small tidal ditch draining the site will be eliminated. If an electrical motor pump system is used for the lagoon, there will be a continuing demand for energy. There will be increased demand on the District's or the City's security forces depending on the security arrangements still to be agreed to between the agencies. Cumulative adverse impacts will include increased traffic on Garrard Boulevard and in the Point Richmond area, and increased traffic congestion at Western Drive at peak hours. This in turn will incrementally increase air pollutants and noise levels on the site and in the surrounding area. Construction of the groin with 3 to 4 acres of Bay fill (Phase 6) will reduce Bay volume and surface area. The existing industrial warehouse use by Georgia'Pacific will be phased out at this location. -49- IRREVERSIBLE EFFECTS 5 5. I R REV E R SIB LEE F F E C T S The grading and placement of fill and dredge spoils on the site will be irreversible. The existing biologic features are renewable, and the land use change itself can be reversed. Creation of the lagoon, and installation of the overcrossing and other improvements are not considered irreversible. Park development maintains the site in open space and tends to permit a greater range of future options, thus minimizing those actions that are irreversible. -50- MITIGATION MEASURES 6 6. MIT I GAT ION MEA SUR E S Traffic congestion caused by on-street parking near Kellers Beach will be partially mitigated by provision of off-street parking within the proposed park. In addition, adverse traffic impacts can be partially mitigated by the extension of public transportation, primarily AC Transit System service, to the park. Initially, bus service could be intermittent to serve the peak use periods, expanding later as park de velopment is completed. Some time in the future, further mitigation would result if the City's goal of instituting a passenger rail service, or recreational railroad, on various rail lines along the coastline were achieved. Establishment of a safe bicycle route to the park would also reduce traffic impacts. The completion of the Canal Boulevard - Garrard Boulevard loop, and lighting in the tunnel are other possible measures. Landscape design can screen portions of the railroad, the boundary fence, the proposed parking lot, the warehouse and enclosure, and the less than attractive buildings across Garrard Boulevard. Other improvements should be designed to be unobtrusive, and in the case of the overcrossing special attention should be given to minimizing the appearance of a leggy man-made intrusion on the Bayscape as viewed from the park site and hills. Effective use of mounding may help achieve this. Thus, adverse visual-aesthetic impacts cannot be eliminated entirely, but can be at least partially mitigated by close attention by park designers to the need to enhance aesthetic impressions without overpowering the unique features of the site. The adverse energy impact associated with a pumped 1agoon can be mitigated if a wind driven pump can be made to satisfy the design requirements of water flow, water quality, etc. In any event, the energy impact does not appear to be so significant that the lagoon concept should be dropped. -51- The adverse biologic impacts will be largely mitigated by landscaping and the operation of the area as an open space park. Other measures which could enhance aspects of the park are: removal of old unused buildings such as the rifle range buildings and the phasing out of the Georgia Pacific warehouse operation; undergrounding of utility pole lines; and enhancement of offshore fish habitat by whatever means are reasonable, such as placement of underwater structures or riprap. -52- ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 7 7. A L T ERN A T IV EST 0 THE PRO P 0 SED PRO J E C T A. NO PROJECT This alternative would mean the regional park concept would be reduced to the original 8.5 acres or to no park at all. Development of the original 8.5 acre area would be restricted to a staging area and an overcrossing to the narrow shoreline strip. This alternative opposes the plans and policies of all public agencies involved and the expressed desires of the community at large. A regional recreation asset would eventually be lost to various land development schemes. The half-mile of shoreline now in the park could perhaps be maintained open to the public from Kellers Beach. However, such an expansion of shore use without solving the parking problem for Kellers Beach would simply aggravate the existing problem of inadequate access to the shoreline. B. DEFERRAL It appears the project could be deferred without significantly affecting the design and function of the final result. However, there area number of reasons why deferral would not be wise. There is broad support in the community for developing the park now. Delay or deferral would deprive the community of a needed recreational outlet. The matching fund agreement with the State requires park construction on a scheduled basis. Delay or deferral means funds would be lost. In addition, costs continue to escalate as time passes; administrative procedures for permits and approvals become more complicated; development on adjacent lands may infringe on park values; and unauthorized trespass could become a maintenance and liability problem. C. ANOTHER SITE Other regional shoreline recreation areas are proposed at the only other sites considered acceptable (see Section 3.A.). Studies by both the -53- District and the City show there is a shortage of shoreline park sites available to fulfill the community's needs. Thus, relocation of the park to another site would be equivalent to having fewer regional shoreline recreation areas. Relocation of the park to another site would not necessarily mean no park since the site could be developed as a City or County park. D. FULL DEVELOPMENT NOW This is a desirable alternative, but not obtainable without substantial shifting of priorities for funding of other park improvements in the Dis trict, which would mean facilities planned at other locations would not be constructed. Funds for full development now are simply not available. Moreover, the provision allowing disposal of dredge spoils by Santa Fe will delay completion of improvements until the spoils are deposited, dried, and regraded for the park. E. DIFFERENT PHASING OF THE PROJECT The proposed phasing takes into account the timing of dredge spoil disposal by Santa Fe, the requirement for park development to handle overflow from Kellers Beach (thus development at the north end first), and places lagoon development after initial park development. Alternative phasing could provide for first improvements at the south end, but this would be disconnected from Kellers Beach, and would require construction of the overpass at the same time -- in essence this is a return to the original 8.5 acre park plan. There appears to be no advantage to this. F. MORE OR LESS PARKING The amount of parking relates directly to the number of people the park will be allowed to serve. The District's present plan is to initially provide 50 spaces, and then, as demand dictates, increase parking off street to a maximum of 300 spaces, including overflow parking on peak days. The optimum level of use should be arrived at by closely monitoring park -54- use and the community's desires, and balancing expressed needs with the District's knowledge and experience regarding how much use the park can take without degrading the facilities and the recreational experiences provided by the park. Such a formula cannot always be accurately predeter mined. G. OTHER RECREATIONAL USES This alternative also relates directly to the number of people that will use the area. It also relates directly to expressions by the community. Arbegast & Newton (Reference 4) listed potential uses such a park could include. They ranged from more intensive -- used by more people -- to less intensive, open space only, uses. The proposed park seems to have flexi bility to incorporate more intensive uses, and at the sacrifice of picnic a~d restroom facilities, could be returned to open space only use. Judging from testimony at the public hearings, demand would be greatest for adding other uses -- such as a fishing pier, fields for organized athletics, a nature study area, etc. Another potential use would be relocation of the Pacific Locomotive Association museum from Point Molate to the Georgia Pacific warehouse. This would result in a reduction in the meadow area now proposed to ultimately replace the warehouse. Changes in either direction seem possible. Whatever changes might be formally proposed should be heard and evaluated by the District working with the Community as was done in the development of the proposed plan. H. OTHER LAND USES The site originally was planned for industrial development, and is currently zoned M-l, Research and Manufacturing. Thus another land use is possible. Soil conditions at the site require special foundation considerations and would be sufficient reason to not allow residential development. In view of the City's commitment in the Coastline plan to recreation and open space on the site, another land use is not likely to result. -55- I. OTHER SCHEMES CONSIDERED The most seriously considered alternative scheme for the concept of the park proposed the same type of uses, but excluded a lagoon. This would provide about 6 acres more of meadow/landscape area, and might reduce the energy impacts. The lagoon and its shoreline was proposed as a sub stitute for the additional beach and water contact area that would have been provided by the groins on the Bay side of the railroad. Without the lagoon, the shoreline contact is reduced to the one small groin now proposed, the riprapped slope of the railroad embankment, and Kellers Beach. Other schemes or variations have included a study of the relocation of the Santa Fe tracks, either against Garrard Boulevard at the base of the hills, or around the east side of the Potrero Hills. Santa Fe, of course, was not very receptive. In addition, new super railroad cars require such a large track radius that only a small gain in shoreline would result. Moreover, the cost for such work is very great. This would have provided an unobstructed park-shoreline relationship. Consideration was also given to locating parking for the park on the east side of the Potrero Hills, with the possibility of constructing a tram to carry park users over the hill to the park. Such a tram could serve the dual purpose of carrying people to the top of the hills for the view. As noted earlier in the lIenergyll discussion, Section 3.K., a gravity lagoon was considered, but had several drawbacks. The amount of water drawn in would vary with the rise and fall of the tides; the water quality would not be the best -- suspended solids wbuld be high because of the inflow at certain tide levels of roiled and muddy water; and flushing action would be poor which would very likely result in adverse water quality impacts. In addition, water levels in a gravity lagoon would be lower than a pumped lagoon relative to the finished ground elevation -56- of the park. The lagoon would have to be deeper accordingly, and stability of the track embankment could be jeopardized. J. MORE ACCESS TO THE SHORELINE Once on the west side of the tracks, access along the shoreline is un restricted (after park completion) but narrow. Only groins or Bay fill to create more beach would enhance the shoreline for park use. Access to the west side of the tracks, as presently proposed, will be limited to one overpass located toward the north end of the shoreline. This will be convenient and will be a good link to Kellers Beach, if paths leading to the crossing are not circuitous and the structure is easy to use. Access to the south end of the shoreline will not be conveniently available from this overpass -- primarily after full park development of the south end of the park takes place. People may climb the fence and cut holes in it and go around the south end of the park to reach the shoreline. This has the potential for becoming a maintenance and security problem for the District in trying to fulfull its agreement with Santa Fe to keep the public off the tracks. The alternative would be to construct another costly over crossing at the south end. -57- RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 8 8. R E L A T ION S HIP BET WEE N L 0 CAL S H 0 R T - T E R MUS E SAN 0 LON G - T E R M PRO 0 U C T I V I T Y Park use can be a short-term or long-term use. As a short-term use, the· proposed park will enhance the long-term productivitY'of the site. Recreational and open space use of land preserves the maximum number of future options and protects future productivity associated with those options*. This is especially true of this site which has limited future options. The potential use of the site for industrial development has not been foreclosed. * This statement does not imply that productivity associated with other options as greater or more desirable than the proposed park, and that the park use is merely a holding action until future options are exercised .. It merely states the advantage of park use as opposed to other damaging or irreversible uses. -58- GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS 9 9. G ROW T H - I N 0 U C I N G IMP ACT S The proposed park will not of itself induce growth. It will enhance the desirability of living in the Richmond area in one category of community need -- recreation. It will attract the public to the area, in the form of park users, and this-will have a carryover impact on the surrounding stores, shops, gas stations and other commercial establishments which will benefit from some increase in business. -59- REF ERE N C E S ;.. City of Richmond, Richmond Coastline Plan, January 31, 1973. 2. ~ Richmond Coastline Study, Information ~elease nos. 1, 2, 28, ::1.B, 4C, 40, 6-12, July 1971 - f\Ugust 1972. 3. , Draft Environmental Impact Report, Petro~ark, !nc., Encroachment Permit, June 20, 1974. 4 Arbegast & ~ewton, Recreation and Park Planners, UTP - TESS, Jrban Threshold Park - Total Environment Study Site, George ;,:iller, Jr. Memorial Regional Park, May 1973. 5. East Bay Regional Park District, :'~aster Plan, December £1, 1973. 6. , Summary of Envi ronmenta 1 Impact Report, George ['li11er, Jr. r~emorial Regional Park (n~ date). 7. , Environmental Impact Assessment, Phase lA George Miller,Jr. Memorial Regional Shoreline, December 3, 1974. 8~ , Supplerr.ent to Application for Permit from San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Corrmission for George Miller, Jr. Memorial Regional Park (no date). 9. Coocer-Clark &Associates, Foundation Enqineers and Engineering Geo~ogists,Report. Preliminary Soil Inv~stigation, Prooosed Railway Relocation, Point Richmond, West of Gerrard Bou'evard, Richmond, Calif., December 17.1973. 10. Dames & Moore, Consultants in the Environrrental and Applied Earth Sciences, Proqress Report, Proposed Overcrossing Structure, Proposed George P. ~'lil1er, Jr., Hemorial Park, Point Richrlcnd, Cal if., July 25, 1973. il; • Report, Field Investiaation of 8at~l'!rr:etry and Tidal Current Velocities, Proposed Point Richmond Recreation Area, Point Richmond, Calif., March 6, 1972. 12. John J. Forristal, Traffic Consultant, letter report on traffic impacts related to George Miller, Jr. Memorial Regional Shoreline, December 19, 1975. 13. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Corrmission, interview with Kent Watson, Staff Design Analyst. October 24, 1975. 'Ll.I, • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District, Ir.~el'vie\·i vlith Hans J. Lamm. Chief, Enforcement Sect~on; October 211·,1975. , c; Iv. San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board, irterview with Norman fl.. Rial, Sanitary Engineer, October 29, 1975. ~I"\ .... c· '.J- 16. Public Utilities Commission, interview \vith Robert ~·I. St ch, Supervisor, Traffic Engineering Section, October 24, i97 . 17. City of Richmond, Planning Depal~tment, contacts \'lith Charles Kroupa, Milton Nicholas, October-December, 1975, January 1976. 18. , Public \'iorks Department, intervie\I/ with Bob Dunn, October 16, 1975. 19. Contra Costa County Planning Department, phone interview vlith Jim Cutler, October 22, 1975, Ed Stout, December 29, 1975. 20. Contra Costa County Public Horks Department, (Flood Control), phone interview with Tom Burlingame, October 22, 1975. 21. Sierra Club, Bay Chapter, phone interview with Jean Siri, Octcbe~ 1975. 22. Save the Bay Association, phone contact, name not noted. 23. People for Open Space, phone interview with Dorothy Erskine _ October 1975. 24'. State of ,California, Department of Fish and Game, phone interviel'l with Bob Mapes, October 22, 1975. 707-397-4448. 25. Association of Say Area Governments, Christopher Hartzell, Regional Planner, phone contact December 29, 1975. 26. Contra Costa County, IIO pen Space Conservation P1an ll , adopted August 18, 1973. 27. City of Richmond, Police Department, Sargeant White, phone intervie'I/, January 16, 1976. -61- a R G A N I Z A T ION S AND PER S b N S CON S U L TED City of Richmond Planning Department - Charles Kroupa, Milton Nicholas Public Works Department - Bob Dunn Police Department - Sargeant White Fire Department - name not noted Arbegast & Newton, Recreation and Park Planners - David Arbegast Association of Bay Area Governments - Christopher Hartzell U. So. Army Corps of Engineers - Hans J. Larrm San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Corrmission - Kent Watson San Francisco Regi"onal Water Quality Control Board - Norman A. Rial State Department of Fish and Game - Bob Mapes State Public Utilities Commission - Robert W. Stich Contra Costa County Planning Department - Jim Culter Public Works Department (Flood Control) - Tom Burlingame Sierra Club, Bay Chapter - Jean Siri Save San Francisco Bay Association - name not noted People for Open Space - Dorothy Erskine John J. Forristal, Traffic Consultant East Bay Municipal Utility District Pacific Gas & Electric Company Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company A. C. Transit District -62- A P PEN 0 I X A Vegetation and \'/ildlife lists are quoted here from Arbegast~! Newton's UTP - TESS Report (Reference 4). VEGETATION Monterey Pine Pinus radiata Blue Gum Euca)yptus Eucalyptus globulus Coyote Bush or Chaparral Broom Baccharis pilularis yare consanguinea Poison Oak Rhus diversiloba Tree Lupine Lupinus arboreus ~Iil lows Salix sps. Elderberry Sambucus caerulea California Buckeye Aesculus californica Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia Christmas Berry or Toyon Heteromeles arbutifolia A list of the specific wildflowers and grasses existing on the site and the adjoining hill slopes: Grasses: Wild Oats Avena fatua Soft Chess Bromus mollis Foxta i 1 Grass Bromus rl1bens Cheat Grass Bromus tectorum Sedge Carex sp. Nutgrass Cyperus sp. Salt Grass Districhlis spicata ~~i1 d Rye Elymus triticoides Foxtai 1 Fescue Festuca megalura Farmer's Foxtail Hordeum leporinum Italian Ryegrass Lolium multiflorum r~onerma Monerma cylindrica Sickle Grass Parapholis incurva Canary Grass Phalaris minor Annual Bluegrass Poa pratensis Rabbitsfoot Grass Polypogon monspellensis Herbaceous Plants - there are many, but these are some of the commonest: Fie 1d ~1u s ta rd Brassica campestris Black Mustard Brassica nigra Shepherd's Purse Capsella bursa-pastoris Italian Thistle Carduus pycnocephalus Star Thistle Centaurea solstitalis Bull Thistle Cirsium vulgare -63- (Herbaceous Plants - continued) Slieet Feline 1 Foeniculum vulaare Smay·tweod or Knotweed Polygonum cocc~nium ~'!i1d Radish Raohanus sativus Curly Deck Rumex crispus SO't! Thistle Sanchus oleraceus Bracken Fetn Pteridium aquilinur.l Common Polypody Pclypcdium vulgare californic~ Soap Plant Chlorogalum pcmeridianum California Poppy Eschscholtzia californica Blue-eyed Grass Sisyrinchium bellum Indian Paint Brush Castilleja franciscana Checker Bloom Sidalcea malvaeflora Yarrow Achillea millefoiium Buttercup Ranunculus californicus Yeil ow Yarrow Eriophyllum confertiflorum Chrysopsis sp. Lomatiur.l sp. Cm'l Parsnip Heracleum lanatum Brodiaea sps. Brodiaea capitata. 8. :~.ilc\1en,J.. B. 1aya ' Ice Plant Mesembryanthemum edule. M. aequilaterale Red Valerian Centranthus ruber ;"1ule ls Ears \I!yethia angustifol ia Gum Heed Grindelia camporum ~·1i ner I s Lettuce Vontia perfoliata li~ormwocd Artemisia douglasiana Lupines Lupinus albifrons, and I)J::~er st'ectes Wild Cucumber or Manroot ~arah oreganus and M. f~baceus Yellow Primrose Oenothera caespitosa Mimulus sp. Mustang ;'1; nt Monardella lanceolata Buck\~heat Eriogonum sps. Godetia sp. Birdls foot trefoil Hi 11 r1orn; ng Glory Convolvulus subacaulis r. -c~- WILDLIFE The following list is not intended to be comprehensive: Barnacles Balandus glandula, Chthamulus dalli, and balanasimprovisus Periwinkles Littorina planaxis Rock Louse Ligia occidueritalis Beach Hoppers Orchestordia Californiana, O. cornicilata Beach Fleas Orchestra traskiana Bay Crab Hemigrapsus oregonensis California Mussel Mytilus californianus Other mollusks expected to be present include: Gemma gerrma Mya arenaria Mytilus edulis Protothaca staminea The following may be seen at various times: Green Surf Grasses Zostera marilinia Entermorpha ulva' Flat Bladed Kelp Genus Laminara Stiff Algae Genera Pelvitiopsis, Pelvetia and Fucus The probable fish offshore include: Northern Anchovy Jacksmel t Topsmelt Atherinopsis Staghorn Sculpin Leptocottus armatus Striped Bass Roccus saxatilis Starry Flounder Rubberlipped Perch Leopard Shark Speckled Sanddab Citharichthys stigmaeus Herring Clupea pallas; Cabezon Scopaenichthys A number ,of small segmented mud worms may also be found: Notomastus Lumbrineris Pol dora Capitella capitata Flat Worms Platyhelmenthes Ribbon Worms Nemerlea Ghost Shrimp Callianassa californiensis Rock Snail Thais emerginata -65- The species of land birds seen in the general area include: Turkey Vulture Robin Starling Western Meadowlark Redwing Blackbird Linnet American Goldfinch Brewers Blackbird White-crowned Sparrow California Quail (occasional) Ring-necked Pheasant Marsh Hawks Sparrow Hawks Mourning Doves Savannah Sparrow Water and Shore Birds seen: Wi 11 it Black-crowned Night Heron Ki 11 deer California and Western Gulls Avocet Scaup Ruddy Duck Common Scoter A few of the insects: Salt Marsh Fly . Anise Swallowtail . Cabbage Butterfly Animals (evidence indicates the presence of): Western Fence Lizard Gopher Ca 1iforni a Mol e Norway Rat Gopher Snake Rattlesnake -66- APPENDIX B FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, its subsequent guidelines and the planning policies of the East Bay Regional P~rk District, a draft EIR was completed and cir~ulated for review in March 1976. During the review period that included a Public Hearing on April 21,1976, comments were submitted on the contents of the report. The following pages, along with the previou~ sections of the draft document, constitute the final Environmental Impact Report. APPENDIX B - FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Public Hearing Comments and Responses: A public hearing was held on April 21, 1976, at the Richmond City Council Chambers. Comments upon the DEIR and the response to them are summarized below: Comment: The most important aspect of this, a shoreline park, is the park and bay association. This association may be lost by placing emphasis on the lagoon instead of the bay shoreline. Larger groins would be more effective in creating the bay relationship. The use of the lagoon has not been' covered in the report. Response: To provide the desired Park/Bay relationship railroad re location was studied. This proved to be infeasible. The original concept with emphasis on larger groins was dropped because of the difficul ty of gaining approval from BCDC. The purpose of the lagoon is to provide a water edge in the main portion of the park since access to the bay shoreline is so limited. It is expected to provide a pleasing back ground for the picnic and play meadows, trails, as well as support some informal use such as model boats and wading. The lagoon is also expected to support some wildlife. Comment: What kind of lagoon is it? Response: It will be shallow and is most closely compared to the lakes in Golden Gate Park. Comment: How will the runoff from the dredging be taken care of? Response: This is the responsibility of Santa Fe, who will be meeting the standards with RWQCG. Corranent: Will this be the last of the spoils? Response: Yes, -67- r.t~Y 1 0 REG tJ '78 7~ Belvedere Avenue Point Ri chmond, Ca. 94801 May 5, 1976 Ms. Earbara Kent East Bay Regional Park District 11500 Skyline Oakland, Ca. 94619 Dear Ms. Kent: I would like to offer some comments on the draft EIR prepared for the George Miller Jr. l-'emoriB.l Regional Shoreline Park. Overall, you have done a very good job in preparing this draft EIR. However, I believe that the following suggestions will help you enhance the environmental aspects of the project in a cost-effective manner: 1. LAGOON I suggest that a portion of the lagoon shoreline be plantec with suitable vegetation, e.g. cord grass, and an island created in the center to provide mitigating habitat for waterfowl. This would also provide a birdwatching recreational opportunity for park visitors. 2 •. RR BRIDGE As a mitigating measure to reduce the visual impact of the railroad bridge, 1 suggest plantings of mature trees.and vines. 3. NOISE On occasions there is a serious community noise problem caused by port aille radios and car radios being played at full volume at Keller's Beach and on adjacent streets. The new park can be expected to e·xacer bate this community nuisance, which is also an annoyance to many who visit a Bayehore park. The draft EIR fails to recognize this oroblem and consider mitigating measures. I urge that you plan to enforce a ban on loud olaying of radios as a mitigating measure for this adverse impact. . 4. FISHING GROIN I question the justification for this ;.5 to 4 acre bay fill. I frequently .... alk this shoreline •. In my experience, the present Point Richmond area shoreline is only very lightly used by fishermen. Therefore, I seriously ~uestion the need. to fill the Bay to create addi ti:mal shoreline. This phase of the project should be deferred pending a showing of need based on a survey of fishing intensity along the present shoreline. -68- 5. WINDfJILL All of the facts which! have Seen indicate that wind-generated elet*!' tricity is not economic. Unless there is a strong economic incentive to install a windmill, this concept ~hould be rejected in view of three significant adveree environmental impacts which would result: a. additional Bay fill, _ b. aesthetic degradation of the open Bay view, and c. _ noise. My neighbors who live near a windmill in Point Richmond are extremely upset by the visual intrusion it represents as well as the noise prob- 1 em caused when i t chan~es gears. The East Bay Regi onal Park Di stri ct should not inflict these problems on nearby residents and ~ark visitors. The added finds whi ch a windmill would reC!uire would be better invested in recreational facilities. Thank you very much for the opportunity to review this draft EIR. I hope th~t you will give these suggestions very serious consideration. Sincerely, /J ~~ PU~- O,L!-t3~~L~ ~. Bruce o. Beyaert - cc: BCDe P.S.: The planned 50 initial parking stalls are likely to be inade-- quate. Roughly half this many cars are found at Keller's Beach on a warm day. Therefore, more parking should be provided at the outset to eliminate the bad on-street parking situation. -69- RESPONSE TO COMMENTS BY· BRUCE O. BAYEART 1. LAGOON The lagoon shoreline will be planted and an island is proposed. It is expected that the lagoon will provide habitat for waterfowl. The size of the lagoon and its water circulation and drainage require ments will require that vegetation be limited to some extent. 2. -RAILROAD BRIDGE Suggestion noted. Landscaping including the area around the railroad overcrossing is included in the project. Plant material has not yet been specified. 3. NOISE The Park District has an Ordinance (No. 38, Section 908) in effect which prohibits "unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noises" which will apply to the park. 4. FISHING GROIN As discussed on page 8 and page 39 of the Report, the groin would also include a small beach area and trail to complement Kellers Beach and to provide a greater range of shoreline activities. The benefits derived from greater bay access must be weighed against the required bay fill. 5.· WINDMILL The pumping system is included in later phases of development and has not yet been designed. Preference will be given to energy conserving methods; ,wind power was expected to provide the most likely method. The Park District will include bay fill require ments, visual and noise considerations in their selection of the system. It should be noted that the proposal is for a wind-driven pump not a generator. 6. PARKING If the initial 50-car parking space is inadequate, sufficient area will be available to provide additional overflow (unpaved) capacity. -70- ..LG <"0. Iq",'-\.L\" I ~ \I '- I (' ~ l:' I'""l:"""'- DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY !1t.~V lZ. REC'O '76 SOUTH PACIFIC DIVISION, CORPS OF ENGINEERS - !::t ...... ~ 630 Sansome Street, Room 1216 . "'-", San Francisco, California 94111 [.1AY REPLY TO REC'D 76 ATTENTION Oil': SPDPD-R , 7 May 1976 Ms. Barbara Kent, Planner East Bay Regional Park District 11500 Skyline Boulevard Oakland, California 94619 Dear Ms. Kent: This is in response to your letter of 2 April 1976 in which you requested Corps of Engineers' review and comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for proposed park development at George Miller, Jr., Memorial Regional Shoreline. In accordance with our review procedures, this shall serve as the,consolidated response of the District Engineer, San 'Francisco, and the Division Engineer, South Pacific. Tidal data presented on page 37 of the DEIR indicate that "Extreme tide ranges extend 2.5'feet below and 7 feet above Mean Lower Low Water. When converted to Mean Sea Level Elevation, the tide ranges from about elevation -5 feet to +4 feet~1t Tidal bench mark data in this office indi cate that the highest' estimated tide in the project area is about 8-1/2 feet above mean lower low water, or about 6 feet above mean sea level; extreme low-tide data are correct as presented. It is suggested that high-tide data presented. in the report be revised. Pages 38 and 39 of the report indicate that the n ••• existing tidal drainage channel will be filled. 'Storm runoff from the site will be collected in an underground storm d'rain system ••• , n and that "Storm runoff entering the lagoon would be restricted to adjacent slope runoff ••• " and that "No dis charges wUl be added to the lagoon waters." It is doubtful that the pro posed storm drain system would be designed to convey storm water runoff for all storm intensities. The DEIR should discuss where excess runoff would go. In addition, quality of runoff should be discussed. Project-related parking lots, as an example, could adversely affect the quality of lagoon and Bay waters. These potential adverse impacts, should be presented and discussed in Chapters 3 and 4'of the report. -71- r SPDPD-R 7 May 1976 Ms. Barbara Kent Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this Draft Report. Sincerely yours, - ,//J/7~_,,-$.-i. ~/~AJG1?s~ Executive s stant Copy furnished: District Engineer, San Francisco, ATTN: SPNED-E (w/cy subject DEIR) RESPONSE TO DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY Paragraph 1. TIDAL DATA Acknowledged. The correction in-high tide data is noted. Pa~agraph 2. STORM DRAINAGE The proposed park storm drainage system will be designed to convey the ten years storm runoff in accordance with City of Richmond standards. Larger storms, such as a storm that may occur once in 100 years will very likely flood local areas generally in the same location and in the same manner as in the past. This means that excess storm runoff from east of Garrard Boulevard will back up at the entrance to culverts under Garrard Boulevard, eventually flood onto the street, and then flood adj acent areas of the park site (as it has in the past) that have not been filled to elevations near 12 MSC. As the storm recedes, flood water will be drained into street inlets and inlets within the park. Only in 'extreme flood situations would the lagoon be affected by flood wate.rs. The quality of storm runoff will not be significantly affected by park improvements. Street and parking lot runoff (Georgia Pacific warehouse parking lot) are already conveyed to the bay. Eventual elimination of the Georgia Pacific parking area will offset additions of parking within the park. -72- ""1::"'-1:"""'_ f{4'/ r'l REC'O 'iG April 28, 1976 4-CC-17 Comments of Caltrans, District 4, on East Bay Regional Park District's P~oposed George Miller Jr. MemorIal Regional Shoreline; State Clearinghouse No. 76041334. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed Regional Shoreline development at Point Richmond, contains mention (1st paragraph, Page 45) of a "State program" in relation to improvements needed to increase safety and ease of bicycle passage through the Garrard Tunnel. This "State program" should be identi fied as to ggency, purpose, and scope. Caltrans is not involved in any program that includes improvement of bicycle passage through the Garrard Tunnel. ~~~ Deputy District Director Caltrans, District 4 RESPONSE TO CALTRANS DEIR, page 45, paragraph 1 There is a mistake in the word~ng.... In t h e f ifth sentence "state program" should read "city program." -73- State of California ""eo,..eoT"-_ . The Resources Agency [:!i.{ r, RI:[' 76 Memorandum To L. Franl,:: GOl)d:::on, Projcct.r; Conrdinal,or Date: May 6 1 1976 ]J~16 Hinth strect Sacramento, Californi :;ast Bay Rc~ional Park Dist.rict 11500 :Jky1illC Dl vrl. Oakland, Callfonlia %619 From Department of Fish and Game Subject: Draf.t EIH on Geor::;e ~Iillcr, Jr. Hemorial RcLional :.ihoreline, Contrn Costa Count:, I SCH 760/+1334. :!c h 'fucfill area orthe fi::;hin::.; r;r:-lin in Phase 6 (!'a':r! 8) l1ill encro:1ch on Co valuablr. eel .:.:;ras:; bed. 'nH~ fishin:.; crain cCluld ::11:;0 disrup t. tidal currents in this area, furt.her advp.rsely affecti113 the ~ul ~rnss bcd. Eel zrass c011lflwuties are hizhly productiVl'.:' 3.11<1. for.n the ba:;c!:l of the food chnins 1:!ithin thc shallm'T buysnlan:; tho coast. TIle eel Grass beds provide important. food and cover arnas for many forms of invertebrates and fishes. 'illey are al::;o sisnificant reedin~ area::; for inicratory Naterfolo11. A pi1c-:nl1)porl:.cd ri;,hin~ pier \-:ould provide fishin~ access \od.thout the adverse effects nssocinted pith a fi::;hin~ crain. \!e ::;uzge::;t that this alternative be given pr~nary consid~rntinn. E'-~~ Director -74- RESPONSE TO DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME WILDLIFE VALUES The presence of the eel grass bed was not discussed in the DEIR. As pointed out, it is a productive commtmity and significant waterfowl feeding area. The eel grass bed is estimated to extend -approximately 200 feet from shore, covering approximately 10 acres in the immediate area of George Miller, Jr. Park. Construction of the groin as proposed would replace 2.5 acres (25%) of the bed and possibly disturb an additional 2 acres by disruption of tidal currents. CONSIDERATION OF PIER ALTERNATIVE TO PROPOSED GROIN Construction of a pile supported pier in place of solid fill would reduce the impacts on the bay by: --Less effect on bay surface and volume, --Reduce disruption of tidal currents. and --Reduce impact on eel grass community A pier would also provide the desired fishing access to the bay. Other recreational objectives including provision of a beach and trail would not be achieved. In past public hearings a strong community objection to a pier was a reoccurring comment. -75- EDMUND O. BROWN JR •• Gon,nor STATE Of CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 30 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO. CALIfORNIA 9.4102 PHONE: 59-3686 May 13, 1976 East Bay Regional Park District 11500 Skyline Boulevard Oakland, CA 94619 SUBJECT: George Miller, Jr. Memorial Regional Shoreline; Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH #76041334) Gentlemen: We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for George Miller, Jr. Memorial Regional Shoreline. While the Commission has not ~ad an opportunity to review the report, the staff has read it in light of the Commission's policies and jurisdiction, as stated in the McAteer-Petris Act and the San Francisco Bay Plan, and would like to offer some comments. As you know, the staff has long been interested in this project to improve access to and use of the shoreline. Therefore, we are pleased that the Park District is moving towards installation of necessary facilities to achieve these goals. We generally concur with most of the statements in the DEIR; however, we do have a few.concerns and comments. Our major concern has to do with the proposed 3.5 to 4 acre fill in the Bay outboard of the Santa Fe tracks. Since we are uncertain as to the proposed uses for the fill, it is difficult to offer complete comments. Page 8 and Plates 3 and 4 of the report clearly state that the fill will be a fishing groin. However, page 8 also states "beach" and the plates seem to indicate a small beach. Further, on page 39, middle paragraph, there is another implication that the fill would provide some "usable water contact area." Since the Commission will have to Ulti mately decide on fill in this location, it is important that the proposed uses of this fill be clearly and accurately discussed. With regard to uses on fill, if fishing is the primary or only use then a pile-supported platform might afford fishing access with less Bay coverage. Also, such a pier would have less impact on benthic organisms and tidal currents in this area. On the other hand, if the District decides to provide access for swimming at this location, some solid fill for this purpose could be approved by the Com mission as an appropriate water-related use. Also, minor amounts of fill for shoreline improvement could be authorized. We suggest the EIR indicate the purposes of the lagoon which seems to provide a desirable amenity and to offset, to some extent, the effect of the proposed fill·in the Bay. There should also be some discussion of whether the -76- East Bay Regional Park District May 13, 1976 Page Two lagoon could be used by swimmers, thereby; perhaps, reducing the amount of fill in the Bay necessary for this purpose~ The lagoon may also be able to provide an excellent fishing resource depending on the design, water-circulation and depth. Some information from the Department of Fish and Game indicates that some fish may prefer enclosed water areas and thus the concentration of fish populations may be higher than normal in such areas. While we understand that the lagoon would be an attractive focal point for the project, we suggest such a major park feature, complete with elaborate pumping facilities, might also be able to provide some recreation use. Of course BCDC policies require that fill in the Bay be minimized, which is a further reason for the District to investigate the possibility of using the lagoon for the uses now designated on the fill-in order to reduce or eliminate the fill. With regard to the remainder of the DEIR, we have a few detailed comments: Page 6. Phase 3; the project descript:i:lOn should. indicate the area of fill in the Bay that will be required for founding of the pedes trian overpass. Also, would it be possible for the founding point to-be combined with the fill that might later be placed for the . fishing groin? Page 19. BCDC Discussion: For your information, we have examined the area of the existing drainage channel inboard of the tracks and have determined that this channel is not subject to the Commission's jurisdiction. Page 34. Geologic Impacts: It is stated that the earthfill groin will create a "small" mud wave. Since a mud wave would constitute additional Bay fill, it is important to know approximately how big this mud wave might be. Page 36. Biologic Impacts: Although the geologic section makes some reference to "minor marine life destruction" from the place ment of the grOin, it would seem more appropriate for this section to make reference to the extent of loss or disruption of benthic organisms that would occur in the area of the proposed fill. We hope these comments will be helpful in the preparation of the final EIR. We appreciate this opportunity to comment and stand ready to cooperate with the Park District towards the attainment of improved public access to this portion of San Francisco Bay. Very truly yours, GJcHARLEs R. ROBERTS CRR/ls Executive Director -77- RESPONSE TO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 1. USE OF. FILL The purpose of the proposed fill is to provide additional bay shoreline with the range of activities normally associated with shoreline access. As a shoreline park, George Miller has severe limitation on its shoreline access. The existing rip-rapped rail road embankment is severe and uninviting. The fill proposal is. lntended to provide visual relief and amenities to complement the existing Kellers Beach. It is proposed that the area pro vide a sandy beach, similar to Kellers, a trail and landscaping in addition to the fishing possibilities off the protective rip rap. . The provision of a sandy beach provides an opportunity for swim ming. A structured swimming program with change rooms and life guard supervision is not included because of the heavy capital and operational costs involved. Swimming activity would not be restricted tmless water quality constituted a health hazard. 2. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED LAGOON See response to comment at public hearing. The remarks on swim ming from the fill area also apply to the lagoon. Fishing may be a viable activity if the lagoon circulation system does not tend to flush fish out. Fish planting will be considered if . this problem can be overcome. 3. OVERPASS As indicated in the report, the extent of the fill required would not exceed 20 feet beyond the existing railroad embankment. It would be possible to combine it with the fill proposed for the groin, or to use pilings. -78- s -4 & ,.. y N c 0 F R ,.. N c s fiSHING GROIN UUllt's IfACH -:: -G ...... ItD - lUNNEl 'ARK • RICHMOND INOUSUIAL HUI'HONE RAM.LEIIS SY5UMS MOlOIlCYCLE CLUI 050 150 300 N OLD ItIFU RANGE NICKOLS KNOB o BUILDINGS R p o T R E approx...... scale in feel T R o H H L L S plate 3 PROPOSED SITE PLAN Ii> \.l V LII (; (ION III rl\l' E ''., .S 1>, '( .'0" A 1\ w ,':::.' LL \ N c o ~: r /I l. t1 c 5 I "i;::;:~; ..::'.~~" ~ ,", ./ rlS.lllllG (~ftOIN .... -'~ ..".- .. ~.-" phase 3: I\HIf~'$ HArtl\ .' ""~';;:'-;;>\f",.-, ... ) 0 RAY. If.MItI' ~"', ..",,: . (OMPAH, ;~~~::':::~2::'~~:;:~:;:'~::;·':."h' ... ()VH'rl\<'~ \ \ ~(.;<.;~ ,,~~ goo."."" .!') (I) I r~~~ 81)1J~HI"'. y l~·~:~~.~:,J..",>· \\"l'I •..... /' ., I !" \1<:, ;("< E 8.M.lIll. phase '-"-11-- . ;~ .... ~ _ ... ." ,". W"HR r"'N~. .jJ // .... f! .\ \\, / .. :' ',-...... RI( HMONO J ./'\ ., Itll)lISHI"L 11IrrllOflt... \ !l" '''UI f R ~ .... SVSIIM\ .. ,/ \ /,\OlORCHlt (lUI '.'llf C'I ""PI' o SO ISO 300 N f) I (I P I I I r ~,rj ".; I' o 1.11)" 1'''"; S R p ofl 11 ( ) I( I approx...... scale in feet T r: , . H It '; 'phase plate 4 DEVELOPMENT PHASES '. ~ \J s ~ a '" Y N s c 0 -... f R A N c DREDGE SPOIL AREA -:: -G ...... D - TUNNEl '_u_--::a • RICHMOND INDun.l ... l TElE'HONE .... M.lUS SYSTIMS MOTO"CYCLE ClU' 050 ISO 300 N OLD .lfLE .... NGE NICKOLS KNOB 0 .UIlDINGS p 0 T R approx....- scale in feel f R 0 H H~- L L S plate 5 PHASE 2 DEVELOPMENT '. ) Cj '" PARCel 1 44.3t Ac. s ;.. y UT!lITY E ... SEMENT -1\ \\ 20 WIDE N 5 C 0 f R A N c • fit -- Ulltll's !lit _ ....y 'UMIN ... PARCEL 2 0 0 COMPANY l!r--- ' .. SH?RElINE E"'SEMEN 0 I .----PARCEL 8 O AlTERN ... TE ... CCESS "0',,,, ,..... ~' • E ... SEMENT LOCATION -'~O'tWIOE 0'- 00 /. :::--- """'-...... "1, PARCel .. I 8. 5~ At. PARC EL 6 27.8! Ac. A.T. & S.F. R.R. ORIGINAL PARK SITE P"'RK .OUNO.... ' • INDUSTRIAL UUPI10Nf SYSUMS 050 150 300 N 1/ o ~IIIINICKOL S KNOB R POT R l~f5IDENCE appro)(...... scale in feel T ER 0 • H ... PPROXIMATE BOUND ... RY OF HILL ... REA OWNED plate 6 BY DISTRICT OWNERSHIP