Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project

Comments and Responses for Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report

for the East Bay Regional Park District

SCH # 2012032072

May 21, 2015 SCH # 2012032072

May 21, 2015

Comments and Responses for Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report

Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project

for the East Bay Regional Park District

E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION...... 1 A. Purpose of the Environmental Impact Report...... 1 B. Environmental Review Process...... 2 Notice of Completion of Draft Supplemental EIR and Review Period ...... 2 Draft Supplemental EIR Availability for Public Review ...... 2 Agency Review...... 2 Public Hearing on Final Supplemental EIR, Certification, and Project Adoption ...... 2 C. Document Organization ...... 2 2 LIST OF COMMENTERS ...... 4 A. Overview...... 4 B. List of Those Who Commented on the Draft Supplemental EIR ...... 4 3 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ...... 7 A. Local Agencies ...... 7 City of Albany (J. Bond)...... 7 B. Non-Profit and Community-Based Groups...... 13 Mary Barnsdale, Albany Landfill Dog Owners Group & Friends (ALDOG) NOTE: Responses to the Mary Barnsdale (ALDOG) letter are contained in the separate "Supplement to Comments and Responses for Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project”, dated May 27, 2015. Sierra Club, San Francisco Bay Chapter...... 13 Sustainability, Parks, Recycling and Wildlife Legal Defense Fund...... 19 Point Isabel Dog Owners Association...... 33 Citizens for East Shore Parks ...... 36 Golden Gate Audubon Society...... 41 C. Private Firms and Individuals...... 75 Sander Caldwell...... 75 Mino de Angelis...... 79 Brad Smith ...... 82 Jeffrey Finn...... 85 Roisman and Armstrong...... 88 Paul Kaman...... 91 Evelyn Loughran...... 94 Andrea Lotker ...... 97 Jack Van Voast...... 100

I E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Karl Goldstein ...... 103 Wendy Oser...... 106 Constance Barich...... 110 Emma Yee...... 114 Susan Eason...... 118 Tom Nigman ...... 121 Barbara Ridley ...... 124 Deborah Bayer ...... 127 David Renertson ...... 130 Jen Beilik...... 133 Jim Rasmussen ...... 136 Meryl Simon...... 139 Paula McGinnis...... 142 Gina Telcocci ...... 145 Sharon Kerman...... 148 Sharon and Peter Kerman ...... 152 Amber Whitson ...... 156 Barbara Wagner ...... 159 Carolyn and Dwight Dillard...... 162 Caran Ruga ...... 166 Carol Bledsoe ...... 170 Cathy Condon ...... 173 Carolyn Willard ...... 176 Claudia J. Kawczynska...... 179 Dona Boatright ...... 183 Demaris Hammond ...... 186 Doppelt Wallace...... 189 Ellen Evans ...... 193 Ellen Gierson ...... 196 Edward Pais ...... 200 Elizabeth Weiss...... 203 Jackie Ato ...... 206 Jesse Freeman ...... 209 Kathy Roth ...... 213

II E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Kerstin Feist ...... 217 Laura Allen...... 221 Linda Yoshikawa ...... 224 Mary Barnsdale ...... 228 Mia Birdsong ...... 231 Marc, Roxanne, Natalie Kay...... 234 Nina Mazur...... 238 Pamela Fanning...... 241 Rachel Hall ...... 244 Sally Pugh...... 247 Sue von Baeyer...... 250 Wendy Schwartz...... 254 Mark Songey ...... 257 Alex Alexander ...... 260 caran96 ...... 264 Chris Fisher...... 267 Carol Ginsberg ...... 271 Cameron Woo ...... 274 Delia Carroll...... 277 Dona Gomez ...... 280 Deanna Niebuhr ...... 283 E.B. Freed ...... 286 Eileen Cohen...... 289 Elaine Joe...... 292 Elisa Kleven ...... 295 Ellen Hershey ...... 299 Emily Rosenberg ...... 308 Felicity Blau ...... 311 Joseph Como...... 314 Jackie Foster...... 317 John Williams...... 320 Karin Macdonald ...... 323 Kay Shen...... 326 Kiem Sie ...... 329

III E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Lynn Fraley ...... 332 Laura Myerson ...... 335 Lee Pullen ...... 338 Michael Farrell...... 341 Maureen Marsh...... 344 Martha M. Chase...... 347 MaiPhuong Nguyen ...... 350 Meno Vos ...... 354 Monika Schrag ...... 358 Steve Haflich...... 361 Winnie Kelly...... 364

TABLES

Table 2-1 Comment Letters and Transcripts on Draft Supplemental EIR...... 4

IV E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

1 INTRODUCTION

A. Purpose of the Environmental Impact Report This document responds to comments received during the public review period on the Draft Supplemental EIR dated December 22, 2014. The Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) was prepared to assess the potential environmental consequences of on and off- leash dog use as result of the proposed Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project (also referred to as “the Proposed Project” or “Project”) at the Albany Peninsula and the bay shoreline between Buchanan and Gilman Streets, in the cities of Albany and Berkeley, California.

Prior to the preparation of this SEIR, a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR or Final EIR) for the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project was released and certified in November 2012. Following the Final EIR’s certification, Sustainability, Parks, Recycling and Wildlife Defense Fund (SPRAWLDEF) filed litigation challenging the FEIR and the approvals made for the Project. In response, the Draft Supplemental EIR (DSEIR) was prepared to comply with the Alameda County Superior Court’s May 14, 2014 Final Statement of Decision in the SPRAWLDEF litigation. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was released on October 16, 2014, notifying responsible agencies and interested parties that an SEIR would be prepared for the project and indicating environmental topics that were anticipated to be addressed. The NOP was mailed to the State Clearinghouse (SCH), neighboring property owners, responsible public agencies, organizations, and to individuals and organizations that participated in project planning workshops and meetings or otherwise requested to be included on the District's project mailing list. The NOP included notification of a public scoping session that occurred on November 5, 2014 at District offices in Oakland.

As required by the Court’s decision, the DSEIR further addresses the existing dog use and enforcement of leash requirements at the Project site and the potential environmental impacts dogs might have on the Project site post Project implementation. The Supplemental EIR replaces the Final EIR’s discussion of the existing use of the Project site by dogs and analysis of environmental impacts caused by the additional dogs that will frequent the site as a result of the Project.1 The Draft Supplemental EIR describes the existing use of the Project site by dogs, establishing a dog use baseline for on and off-leash dogs at the Project site. The baseline includes average use and most intense use numbers for visitors with and without dogs, and for dogs on and off leash at all three areas of the Proposed Project site and for the Project site overall. The baseline also discusses the East Bay Regional Park District’s policies pertaining to on and off-leash dogs and enforcement of those polices. The Draft Supplemental EIR analyzes potential environmental impacts of dog use and identifies mitigation measures that would avoid or reduce potential significant impacts.

This Supplemental EIR has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The main objectives of CEQA are to disclose to decision makers and the public the significant environmental effect of proposed activities and to require agencies to avoid or reduce the environmental effects by implementing feasible alternatives or mitigation measures. The East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD, Park District, or District) is the lead agency for the Project.

1 Specifically, the Supplemental EIR replaces the discussion of dogs in the following sections of the 2012 FEIR: Chapter 3 (Current and Projected Site Use), Chapter 4.3 (Biological Resources), Chapter 4.5 (Geology and Soils), Chapter 4.8 (Hydrology and Water Quality), and Chapter 4.9 (Land Use and Planning).

1 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

This document and the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) together comprise the Final Supplemental EIR for the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project. This document, together with the Draft SEIR, will be presented to the East Bay Regional Park District Board of Directors at a public meeting to certify as a complete and adequate analysis of the environmental effects of the Project related to dogs, under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), prior to taking action to approve the Project. The EBRPD Board must consider the conclusions of the SEIR and make findings regarding that information as part of any approval.

B. Environmental Review Process Notice of Completion of Draft Supplemental EIR and Review Period A Notice of Completion of the Draft Supplemental EIR (NOC) was filed with the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). The public review period began on December 22, 2014, and ended on February 11, 2015.

Draft Supplemental EIR Availability for Public Review The Draft Supplemental EIR was made available for downloading from the EBRPD website at www.ebparks.org. A copy was also available the Albany Library at 1247 Marin Avenue, Albany.

The public was advised of the availability of the Draft Supplemental EIR through posting on and off the site in the Project vicinity, and through a Notice of Availability mailed to owners and occupants of property within 300 feet of the site, as required by law.

Agency Review According to CEQA, lead agencies are required to consult with public agencies having jurisdiction over a proposed project, and to provide the general public with an opportunity to comment on the environmental impact analysis that is prepared for a project. Several federal, State, and local agencies were contacted by EBRPD or through the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research and sent a copy of the Draft Supplemental EIR summary and/or a compact disk with the entire Draft Supplemental EIR.

Public Hearing on Final Supplemental EIR, Certification, and Project Adoption A Public Hearing will be held at an EBRPD Board meeting following publication of this Final Supplemental EIR. Certification of the SEIR and adoption of the Project will be considered at that meeting. Comments that concern the project description and project merits will be addressed through the staff report that will be made available at least three days prior to that meeting.

Notice of the meeting will be sent to the same parties that were notified of the publication of the Draft Supplemental EIR and any additional parties that request notification.

C. Document Organization This document is organized into the following chapters:

♦ Chapter 1: Introduction. This chapter discusses the use and organization of this Final Supplemental EIR.

2 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

♦ Chapter 2: List of Commenters. A tabular listing of names of organizations and individuals who commented on the Draft Supplemental EIR is included in this chapter. ♦ Chapter 3: Comments and Responses. This chapter contains reproductions of the letters received from organizations and individuals on the Draft Supplemental EIR, and responses to the comments.

3 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

2 LIST OF COMMENTERS

A. Overview This chapter lists the sources of all letters and comments received on the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project during the 45-day public review period from December 22, 2014 to February 11, 2015.

B. List of Those Who Commented on the Draft Supplemental EIR The comments are sorted in the following order: local agencies, non-profit and community-based groups, and private firms and individuals. No comments were received from state, regional, or county agencies. Comments within each category are arranged approximately in the order received. The commenters are identified by an abbreviation that is used in the table of responses and in annotations to the letters and transcripts in Chapter 3.

CEQA Section 15088 requires a response to comments that pertain to the significant environmental issues raised. Several other types of comments are included in these letters, such as those pertaining to: conditions of project approval, project merits, and other expressions of opinion. These latter types of comments do not require a response under CEQA.

TABLE 2-1 COMMENT LETTERS AND TRANSCRIPTS ON DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

Date Received Name Acronym LOCAL AGENCIES February 11, 2015 Jeff Bond City of Albany CA NON-PROFIT AND COMMUNITY-BASED GROUPS February 11, 2015 Mary Barnsdale, Albany Landfill Dog Owners Group & Friends ALDOG NOTE: Responses to the (ALDOG)Mary Barnsdale (ALDOG) letter are contained in the separate "Supplement to Comments and Responses for Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project”, dated May 27, 2015. February 2, 2015 Sierra Club SC2 February 2, 2015 Sustainability, Parks, Recycling and Wildlife Legal Defense Fund SPRAWLDEF February 11, 2015 Point Isabel Dog Owners Association PIDO February 11, 2015 Citizens for East Shore Parks CESP February 15, 2015 Golden Gate Audubon Society GGA PRIVATE FIRMS AND INDIVIDUALS December 23, 2014 Sander Caldwell SC1 January 10, 2015 Mino de Angelis MDA February 3, 2015 Brad Smith BS February 3, 2015 Jeffery Finn JF1 February 3, 2015 Roisman and Armstrong RA February 4, 2015 Paul Kaman PK February 6, 2015 Evelyn Loughran EL February 7, 2015 Andrea Lotker AL February 7, 2015 Jack Van Voast JVV

4 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

February 7, 2015 Karl Goldstein KG February 7, 2015 Wendy Oser WO February 8, 2015 Constance Barich CB1 February 8, 2015. Emma Yee EY February 8, 2015 Susan Eason SE February 8, 2015 Tom Nigman TN February 8, 2015 Barbara Ridley BR February 8, 2015 Deborah Bayer DB February 9, 2015 David Renertson DR February 9, 2015 Jen Beilik JB February 9, 2015 Jim Rasmussen JR February 9, 2015 Meryl Simon MS2 February 9, 2015 Paula McGinnis PMG February 9, 2015 Gina Telcocci GT February 9, 2015 Sharon Kerman SK February 9, 2015 Sharon and Peter Kerman SPK February 10, 2015 Amber Whitson AW February 10, 2015 Barbara Wagner BW February 10, 2015 Carolyn and Dwight Dillard CDD February 10, 2015 Caran Ruga CR February 10, 2015 Carol Bledsoe CB2 February 10, 2015 Cathy Condon CC February 10, 2015 Carolyn Willard CW1 February 10, 2015 Claudia J. Kawczynska CJK February 10, 2015 Dona Boatright DB February 10, 2015 Demaris Hammond DH February 10, 2015 Doppelt Wallace DW February 10, 2015 Ellen Evans EE February 10, 2015 Ellen Gierson EG February 10, 2015 Edward Pais EP February 10, 2015 Elizabeth Weiss EW February 10, 2015 Jackie Ato JA February 10, 2015 Jesse Freeman JF3 February 10, 2015 Kathy Roth KR February 10, 2015 Kerstin Feist KF February 10, 2015 Laura Allen LA February 10, 2015 Linda Yoshikawa LY February 10, 2015 Mary Barnsdale MB1 February 10, 2015 Mia Birdsong MB2 February 10, 2015 Marc, Roxanne, Natalie Kay MRNK February 10, 2015 Nina Mazur NM February 10, 2015 Pamela Fanning PF February 10, 2015 Rachel Hall RH February 10, 2015 Sally Pugh SP February 10, 2015 Sue von Baeyer SVB February 10, 2015 Wendy Schwartz WS February 10, 2015 Mark Songey MS February 11, 2015 Alex Alexander AA February 11, 2015 caran96 C96 February 11, 2015 Chris Fisher CF February 11, 2015 Carol Ginsberg CG February 11, 2015 Cameron Woo CW2 February 11, 2015 Delia Carroll DC February 11, 2015 Dona Gomez DG

5 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

February 11, 2015 Deanna Niebuhr DN February 11, 2015 E.B. Freed EBF February 11, 2015 Eileen Cohen EC February 11, 2015 Elaine Joe EJ February 11, 2015 Elisa Kleven EK February 11, 2015 Ellen Hershey EH February 11, 2015 Emily Rosenberg ER February 11, 2015 Felicity Blau FB February 11, 2015 Joseph Como JC February 11, 2015 Jackie Foster JF2 February 11, 2015 John Williams JW February 11, 2015 Karin Macdonald KM February 11, 2015 Kay Shen KS1 February 11, 2015 Kiem Sie KS2 February 11, 2015 Lynn Fraley LF February 11, 2015 Laura Myerson LM February 11, 2015 Lee Pullen LP February 11, 2015 Michael Farrell MF February 11, 2015 Maureen Marsh MM February 11, 2015 Martha M. Chase MMC February 11, 2015 MaiPhuong Nguyen MPN February 11, 2015 Meno Vos MV February 11, 2015 Monika Schrag MS1 February 11, 2015 Steve Haflich SH February 11, 2015 Winnie Kelly WK

6 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

3 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

Each comment letter or email listed in Chapter 2 is reproduced on the following pages, with individual comments identified by number. Responses follow each comment letter or email, identified by number.

A. Local Agencies City of Albany (J. Bond)

7 From: Jeff Bond To: Chris Barton Subject: RE: PRC meeting video - SEIR Albany Beach Project Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 4:47:28 PM

Chris,

Thank you for checking in. On January 29, 2015, our Parks and Recreation Commission held a special meeting to receive information from staﬀ and the public on the draft SEIR. At the meeting, ten members of the public commented on the project and environmental review. The link you received is the 40-minute video of the meeting. In summary, comments received include a request for more information on the appearance of the fencing that has been proposed as mitigation of potential impacts, comments about enforcement practices, and concern about impacts of dogs on birds and habitats. I encourage your EIR consultants to review the video and respond as appropriate.

Thanks,

Jeﬀ

Jeﬀ Bond CA-1 Community Development Director City of Albany 1000 San Pablo Avenue Albany, CA 94706 510-528-5769 [email protected]

From: Chris Barton [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 10:08 AM To: Jeff Bond Subject: FW: PRC meeting video - SEIR Albany Beach Project

Jeﬀ- We received the video below from an unknown sender. Can you conﬁrm if this video is for general information only or is meant to constitute the City’s comments on the Draft SEIR?

-Chris

From: Albany KALB [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 5:06 PM To: Bob Nisbet Subject: PRC meeting video - SEIR Albany Beach Project

A file has been sent to you from [email protected] via Hightail.

Meeting video for Jan 29, 2015 PRC meeting.

Also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc-L3ICUXnI http://www.albanyca.org/index.aspx?page=1314 2015-01-29_PRC-SEIR-Albany- Download Beach.mp4

Size: 885.6 MB Content will be available for download until February 18, 2015 17:06 PST.

E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment CA-1

The comment letter transmitted a video of a City of Albany Parks and Recreation Commission hearing on January 29, 2015 to receive comments on the draft SEIR. A transcript of the hearing was not provided with the comment letter. At the hearing, commissioners and the public commented on the following topics:

Comment CA-1A: requested more details on appearance of fencing at beach

Comment CA-1B: aesthetic impacts of fencing at beach

Comment CA-1C: supported enforcement of leash regulation at project site

Comment CA-1D: supported continued dog access at project site

Comment CA-1E: asked why enforcement will not be changed in spite of EBRPD budget increases

Comment CA-1F: supported an off-leash area on one of the smaller beaches at the site

Comment CA-1G: asked if alignment of Bay Trail segment would be on the existing road, or adjacent to the water

Comment CA-1H: impacts of dogs on wildlife and landscape

Comment CA-1I: proposed to relocate the fence around the burrowing owl area to wetlands at project site (to be “fence-neutral”)

Responses to the comments above are presented below, by number.

Response CA-1A While the fence for the sensitive biological resources at the beach area has not yet been designed, the future design would have the following characteristics: 1. Minimum four feet high. 2. Mesh material and size that: a. Allows wind-blown sand to pass for dune formation and stability, consistent with future beach and dune engineering recommendations. b. Prevents dogs from entering the preserve area 3. Four signs on the fence that notify visitors of resource protection area and prohibition on public access. 4. Sufficiently durable to withstand shifting sand environment and high winds. 5. One or two access gates for maintenance. 6. Durable top-wire or rail.

10 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response CA-1B As discussed in Response CA-1A, the fence would be approximately four feet high, with a semi- transparent mesh. The fence would enclose 1.1 acres of the 14.7-acre project site. Because the fence would not block views, would be limited in size, and would be located in a disturbed landscape characterized by a mix of natural and non-natural elements, the fence would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings, and the aesthetic impacts of the fence would be less than significant.

Response CA-1C The mitigation measures identified in the SEIR to protect sensitive biological and geological resources from park visitors and on and off-leash dogs consist of fences around those resources (see pages 24-30 and 32-33). Enforcement of dog leash requirements is not relied on by these mitigation measures to reduce impacts on sensitive biological and geological resources to a less-than-significant level. Enforcement of leash regulations at the project site is a matter of Park District policy, and this comment will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

Response CA-1D The Proposed Project would not change existing policy or enforcement regarding dogs. See Response SPRAWLDEF-11 for a discussion of enforcement of Ordinance 38.

Response CA-1E See Response SPRAWLDEF-11.

Response CA-1F The original 2012 EIR and the Draft SEIR evaluate the Project as proposed, as required by CEQA. The comments on the design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

Response CA-1G As discussed in the 2012 EIR, page 35, and shown in Figure 1.1-1, page 2 of the 2014 SEIR, the proposed Bay Trail alignment would be located along the existing paved Golden Gate Fields access road that extends north from the west end of Gilman Street, and the unpaved “jockey lot”, a shoreline parking lot. North of the “jockey lot”, the Bay Trail would be constructed along a steep slope to the west of the Golden Gate Fields parking lot. Between the bluff area and Albany Beach further to the north, the Bay Trail alignment follows the west edge of the Golden Gate Fields access road/parking lot as it slopes downward to Albany Beach.

11 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response CA-1H As discussed in the SEIR, all impacts of the Proposed Project, including potential impacts of dogs on biological and geological resources (see pages 24-30 and 32-33), would be reduced to a less-than- significant level by mitigation measures identified in the SEIR.

Response CA-1I The original 2012 EIR and the Draft SEIR evaluate the Project as proposed, as required by CEQA. The comments on the design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

12 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

B. Non-Profit and Community-Based Groups Sierra Club, San Francisco Bay Chapter

13 SC2-1

SC2-2 SC2-2 (cont.)

SC2-3

SC2-4

SC2-5 SC2-6 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comments SC2-1 through SC2-6 Response SC2-1 The SEIR analyzes the impacts of off-leash dog use on the entire Project site. Mitigation measures are required only where needed to reduce significant impacts identified in the SEIR. As discussed in the SEIR, the only significant impacts are on biological resources and geology and soils (see pages 24-30 and 32-33). The project will enhance and restore sensitive dune and wetland habitat from baseline disturbed marginal habitat values. Mitigation measures consisting of fences around planned sensitive biological and geological resources identified in the SEIR would mitigate the impacts of park visitors and on and off-leash dogs on these resources. Enforcement of dog leash requirements, and signage, is not needed to mitigate impacts on sensitive biological and geological resources, nor is enforcement or signage required to reduce the number of unleashed dogs in order to protect these resources. Although signage is expected to reduce dog-related impacts, as discussed on pages 26, 29, and 35 of the SEIR, it is not required to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.

The fences required in the mitigation measures discussed above would contain and protect the sensitive biological habitat identified in the SEIR. The remainder of the Project site, which has been disturbed and altered from its natural state, is not an environmentally sensitive resource, for reasons discussed in the SEIR.

The 2012 EIR analyzed a reasonable range of alternatives to the Proposed Project. Analysis of additional alternatives involving fencing or enforcement is not required to comply with CEQA.

Response SC2-2 The SEIR considers the impact of off-leash dog use on the entire site’s habitat. Existing biological resources on the Project site are discussed on pages 11-24 of the Draft SEIR. Potential impacts to biological resources, and mitigation measures required to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level, are discussed on pages 24-30. Existing geological resources on the Project site are discussed on pages 30-31 of the Draft SEIR. Potential impacts to biological resources, and mitigation measures required to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level, are discussed on pages 31-33. The fences required in the mitigation measures would contain and protect the sensitive biological habitat identified in the SEIR. The remainder of the Project site, which has been disturbed and altered from its natural state, is not an environmentally sensitive resource, for reasons discussed in the SEIR. The analysis in the Draft SEIR is at a level of detail that is sufficient to allow decision-makers to make informed decisions about the environmental impacts of the Project, and is sufficient for this SEIR to comply with CEQA. Additional analysis is not required.

Response SC2-3 The mitigation measures identified in the SEIR to protect sensitive biological and geological resources from park visitors and on and off-leash dogs consist of fences around those resources (see pages 24-30 and 32-33). Enforcement of dog leash requirements is not relied on or needed to reduce impacts on sensitive biological and geological resources to a less-than-significant level. Thus, the SEIR does not and legally need not analyze enforcement as a mitigation measure.

17 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

The 2012 EIR analyzed a reasonable range of alternatives to the Proposed Project. Analysis of alternative levels of enforcement is not required to comply with CEQA.

District enforcement policy, including patrols of the Project site, is discussed on pages 9-10 of the Draft SEIR, at a level of detail that is sufficient to allow decision-makers to make informed decisions about the environmental impacts of the Project, and that is sufficient for this SEIR to comply with CEQA. The SEIR described how the Park District currently enforces Ordinance 38 and how it expects to enforce the ordinance once the Project is completed. This complies with the Alameda County Superior Court’s May 14, 2014 Final Statement of Decision requiring any SEIR to discuss the Park District’s current and planned enforcement policy regarding off-leash dogs. Like all public agencies, the Park District must determine how it will allocate its limited resources for enforcement of its rules and regulations, including Ordinance 38. Because the District could not commit to increased enforcement of Ordinance 38, it analyzed the environmental impacts associated with dogs assuming that enforcement would not occur and provides mitigation for all significant impacts that result.

The comments states that an impact exists due to off-leash dogs at the beach in violation of law. This is an existing condition, not an impact of the Proposed Project.

Response SC2-4 Section 3.4, Land Use and Planning, p. 39-42, of the Draft SEIR discussed the existing conflicts between unleashed dogs and park users. The Draft SEIR did not identify any significant impacts due to conflicts between unleashed dogs and other park users. Thus, CEQA does not require that the SEIR identify mitigation.

The 2012 EIR analyzed a reasonable range of alternatives to the Proposed Project. Analysis of additional alternatives is not required to comply with CEQA.

Response SC2-5 The baseline (Existing Conditions) used in the SEIR’s analysis properly includes existing unlawful activity (off-leash dogs); the SEIR then compares the environmental impacts occurring with implementation of the Project to that baseline to evaluate the Project’s environmental impacts. (See Center for Biological Diversity v. Dept of Fish and Wildlife (2014) 224 Cal. App. 4th 1105, Citizens for East Shore Park v. California State Lands Com. (2011) 202 Cal. App. 4th 549, 561; CEQA Guidelines sec. 15125(a).)

Response SC2-6 The SEIR provides the information and analysis required by the Court’s decision. See Responses SC2-1 through SC2-5.

18 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Sustainability, Parks, Recycling and Wildlife Legal Defense Fund

19 SPRAWLDEF-1

SPRAWLDEF-2 SPRAWLDEF-3

SPRAWLDEF-4

SPRAWLDEF-5 SPRAWLDEF-6

SPRAWLDEF-7

SPRAWLDEF-8

SPRAWLDEF-9

SPRAWLDEF-10

SPRAWLDEF-11 SPRAWLDEF-12

SPRAWLDEF-13 SPRAWLDEF-13 (cont.)

SPRAWLDEF-14

SPRAWLDEF-15

SPRAWLDEF-16

SPRAWLDEF-17 SPRAWLDEF-17 (cont.) E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comments SPRAWLDEF-1 through SPRAWLDEF-17

Response SPRAWLDEF-1 The SEIR provides the information and analysis required by the Court’s decision. Section 3.4, Land Use and Planning, p. 39-42, of the SEIR discussed the existing conflicts between unleashed dogs and park users. The SEIR did not identify any significant impacts due to conflicts between unleashed dogs and other park users. Thus, CEQA does not require that the SEIR identify mitigation.

The Project would construct ADA accessible (wheelchair-accessible) segments of the San Francisco Bay Trail and parking facilities; thus, additional users in wheelchairs are anticipated. No conflicts between dogs and wheelchair users have been observed at Albany Beach, or other parks used by dogs such as Pt. Isabel Regional Shoreline and Oyster Bay Regional Shoreline.2,3,4 Therefore, it is not anticipated that dogs at the site would conflict with the additional wheelchair users generated by the Project.

Response SPRAWLDEF-2 Section 3.4 Land Use and Planning, pp. 38-42, of the SEIR addresses the potential land use conflicts between off-leash dogs and the greater number of expected visitors at the park. The SEIR explains that conflicts occur between dogs and between dogs and people, especially when dogs are off leash. The SEIR recognizes that off-leash dogs can create safety concerns for children and the elderly. The more dogs in a given area, the more likely conflicts with dogs will occur. On average 305 dogs currently use the Project area in a given day and 251 of those are off leash. Thus conflicts between off-leash dogs and people already occur at the site. For purposes of CEQA, the question is whether those conflicts will increase with construction of the Project. Because the number of dogs in a given area affects the number of conflicts dogs have with others, the SEIR evaluated the increase in dogs and the increase in park acreage that dogs could use. The SEIR calculated (1) the number of dogs (distinguishing between on-leash and off-leash dogs) in each of the different Project areas (the Albany Beach, the Bay Trail, and the Albany Neck), and (2) the acreage within the Project areas accessible to dogs. The SEIR then compared the ratio of dogs to park acreage before the Project to the ratio of dogs to park acreage after completion of the Project. The SEIR considered only the acreage that would be accessible to dogs. This analysis revealed that while 21 more unleashed dogs would frequent the Project site each day, they will have four acres more of public open space to play. Thus, the intensity of dogs will decrease from the current intensity of approximately 47 dogs per accessible acres to 35 dogs per accessible acre, a 26.6% decrease in the concentration of dogs.

This is a worst case analysis, since the SEIR based its calculations on the busiest day of the year at the busiest times of day and assumed the same ratio of dog users to non-dog users as exists today even though many Project elements will likely discourage off-leash dogs and decrease their numbers

2 Kevin Takei, Shoreline Unit Manager, East Bay Regional Park District, personal communication, 13 April 2015. 3 Scott Possin, Park Supervisor, Miller Knox Regional Shoreline, East Bay Regional Park District, personal communication, 15 April 2015. 4 Ralph Trujillo, Park Supervisor, Oyster Bay Regional Shoreline, East Bay Regional Park District, personal communication, 14 April 2015.

26 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

(i.e. signage containing specific public education about the impacts of dogs and the importance of keeping dogs on leash and Project improvements that attract non-dog users).

Mitigation measures are required only where needed to reduce significant impacts identified in the SEIR. As discussed in the SEIR, the only significant impacts are on biological resources and geology and soils (see pages 24-30 and 32-33). Mitigation measures consisting of fences around sensitive biological and geological resources identified in the SEIR would mitigate the impacts of park visitors and on and off-leash dogs. The fences would be designed to prevent park visitors, including off-leash dogs, from accessing the sensitive biological and geological resources. (See Response CA-1A for a discussion of fence design characteristics.) Enforcement of dog leash requirements and signage are not needed to mitigate impacts on sensitive biological and geological resources, nor is enforcement or signage required to reduce the number of unleashed dogs in order to protect these resources. Although signage is expected to reduce dog-related impacts, as discussed on pages 26, 29, and 35 of the SEIR, it is not required to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Response SPRAWLDEF-3 Table 2.1-2 on page 7 identifies the current number of dogs in each of the three Project areas, including the Bay Trail. In its analysis of environmental impacts associated with dogs, the SEIR assumed dogs will use all Project areas, including the Bay Trail.

Response SPRAWLDEF-4 The Park District has found that at Albany Beach and other parks that allow dogs, the dogs, including unleashed dogs, tend to stay with their owners and are disbursed throughout the site, rather than joining together in packs.5, 6, 7, 8 Sometimes, a single visitor or party brings two or three dogs. In addition, two dogs may play together. These dogs typically do not impact other visitors of the park as they are focused on playing with each other. Even if the SEIR had assumed dogs would congregate on the Albany Beach and Neck (as opposed to using the entire Project site), the additional acreage in these areas would still mean that the number of dogs per acre would decrease from existing conditions. As shown in Table 2.1-2, page 7 of the Draft SEIR, currently there are 295 dogs on the Neck and Beach areas of the Project site, which have a total of 9 accessible acres, as shown in Table 3.4-1, page 41. (Although the Proposed Project site also encompasses a third area, the San Francisco Bay Trail, this area is not part of the existing site. Thus, all 9 acres of the existing Project site are in the Neck and Beach areas.) The current density at the Neck and Beach areas is 32.78 dogs per acre. With a 6 percent increase in dogs on the Neck and Beach with the Project (as discussed on page 8 of the Draft SEIR), there would be 313 dogs on 10.1 acres. (As discussed on page 40 of the Draft SEIR, the total public acreage of the Proposed Project including Bay Trail would be 13 acres. Subtracting 2.9 acres in the Bay Trail area of the Proposed Project means that

5 Kevin Takei, Shoreline Unit Manager, East Bay Regional Park District, personal communication, 13 April 2015. 6 Scott Possin, Park Supervisor, Miller Knox Regional Shoreline, East Bay Regional Park District, personal communication, 15 April 2015. 7 Ralph Trujillo, Park Supervisor, Oyster Bay Regional Shoreline, East Bay Regional Park District, personal communication, 14 April 2015. 8 Shelley Miller, Park Supervisor, Del Valle Regional Park, East Bay Regional Park District, personal communication, 20 April 2015.

27 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

the public space at the Beach and Neck would be 10.1 acres.) With the Project, there would be a density of 30.99 dogs per acre at the Neck and Beach areas, which is a decrease from the current density.

Response SPRAWLDEF-5 The intensity of dogs in a given area directly affects the impact of dogs on the environment. The concentration of more dogs in a small area results in greater impacts to biology, hydrology, and geology, and in more conflicts between people and dogs. With the four acres of additional parkland for dogs, creation of a new trail between Buchanan and Gilman Streets, and improvements to the trail on the Albany Neck, visitors will use more of the Project site to walk their dogs and let them play, decreasing the number of dogs in any one area. This in turn will reduce the erosion caused by dogs currently at the Project site, as well as reducing the impact on water quality, reducing the threat to wildlife, and causing less damage to vegetation. The degree of erosion in an area increases as soil disturbance increases. Soil disturbance results from numerous factors, including dog activity. Water quality is dependent on the amount of contaminants released into the body of water. One source of contaminants is dog waste, which is related to the number of dogs. For similar reasons, harassment of wildlife and damage to vegetation is related to the number of dogs in a given area such as the Project site. The additional acreage will also provide more space for people and dogs, thus reducing conflicts between dogs and between dogs and people. (To the extent that the Project increases the number of visitors who do not bring dogs, this would not increase dog-related impacts.) As explained on pages 40-41 of the SEIR, the Project will decrease the intensity of dogs by 26.6% and decrease the existing impacts at the Project site caused by unleashed dogs. Thus, the Project would not result in a significant environmental impact due to the increase in unleashed dogs.

Response SPRAWLDEF-6 To the extent that additional non-dog users discourage dog users from using the Project site, this would reduce dog-related impacts. Comments received by EBRPD indicate that dog users seek to bring their dogs to areas where they will not disturb non-dog users. However, even without discouragement of dog-users, the anticipated concentration of visitors and dogs per acre at the Project site is expected to decrease, as discussed on pages 40-41 of the SEIR. This will in turn reduce the safety impacts of off-leash dogs to children and the elderly.

Response SPRAWLDEF-7 See Responses SPRAWLDEF-1, SPRAWLDEF-2, SPRAWLDEF-5, and SPRAWLDEF-6 for discussion of conflicts between dog-users and non-dog users and the basis for the SEIR’s conclusion that the Project will not result in significant impacts due to conflicts between unleashed dogs and other park users..

Response SPRAWLDEF-8 As noted by the comment, the SEIR concludes the change in dog-related land use impacts as a result of the Project would not be a significant impact as a result of the reduced number of dogs per acre. See Response SPRAWLDEF-2 for further discussion of the density of dogs. The SEIR also identifies other factors that support the SEIR’s conclusion that impacts from the increase in

28 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

unleashed dogs would not result in significant environmental impacts. For example, signage would educate park users about the obligation to keep dogs on leash and the importance of doing so, and the obligation to pick up dog waste. Currently no signs exist at the site. The new durable permanent signs, the provision of bag dispensers with bags, and containers for the disposal of dog waste would reduce the amount of dog waste that currently is on the Project site. As described in the SEIR, this has decreased the amount of dog waste at other parks and is likely to do so at the Proposed Project site as well.

Also, the addition of new and improvements to existing park amenities, such as the picnic area and Bay Trail, would increase the number of users that do not have dogs and thus make the Project site less attractive for park users that want to let their dogs off leash. Dog owners, especially those with off-leash dogs, do not like to take their dogs to places where they will bother other park users.9, 10 Thus, some current dog owners would go elsewhere or frequent the Project site during hours when fewer non-dog users are present, thus decreasing the number of dogs at the Project site. These factors further reduce the already insignificant land use impact associated with conflicts with off- leash dogs.

Response SPRAWLDEF-9 Section 3.4, Land Use and Planning, p. 39-42, of the SEIR discussed the existing conflicts between unleashed dogs and park users. As discussed in the SEIR, the Project would not result in significant impacts due to conflicts between unleashed dogs and other park users. Thus, CEQA does not require that the SEIR identify mitigation.

The Project would construct ADA accessible (wheelchair-accessible) parking facilities and segments of the San Francisco Bay Trail; thus, additional users in wheelchairs are anticipated. No conflicts between dogs and wheelchair users have been observed at Albany Beach, or other parks used by dogs such as Pt. Isabel Regional Shoreline and Oyster Bay Regional Shoreline.11,12,13 Therefore, it is not anticipated that dogs at the site would conflict with the additional wheelchair users generated by the Project.

The comment also states the SEIR should analyze the impacts associated with the owners of unleashed dogs due to their destruction of signs and animosity towards other users. These actions do not result in environmental impacts. The actions of dog owners do not have environmental impacts distinct from the impacts of their dogs.

9 See comment letter from Barbara Ridley (BR), which states “I would never dream of taking him there at other times, when the beach is full of families with young kids - not that this happens very often but on those rare warm days when it might be warm enough for humans to go in the water, I would never take my dog there because it would be no fun for me to have to worry about keeping him away from kids.” 10 Benjamin L. Hart, Melissa J. Bain, Lynette A. Hart, Program in Veterinary Behavioral Medicine, Center for Animals in Society, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California at Davis, Guidelines for Establishment and Maintenance of Successful Off- Leash Dog Exercise Areas, undated. 11 Kevin Takei, Shoreline Unit Manager, East Bay Regional Park District, personal communication, 13 April 2015. 12 Scott Possin, Park Supervisor, Miller Knox Regional Shoreline, East Bay Regional Park District, personal communication, 15 April 2015. 13 Ralph Trujillo, Park Supervisor, Oyster Bay Regional Shoreline, East Bay Regional Park District, personal communication, 14 April 2015.

29 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response SPRAWLDEF-10 Ordinance 38 applies to all East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) lands. Ordinance 38 does not apply to City of Albany lands, which include the existing parking lot at Buchanan Street, a portion of trail leading to the Albany Bulb, and the Albany Bulb itself.

As stated on page 9 of the Draft SEIR, Ordinance 38 contains the District’s official rules regarding dogs at the Project site. Ordinance 38 permits dogs in the Project site, but dogs must be on leash because all areas of the Project site are developed areas.

The only District Board meeting held in August 2104 did not consider dog-related issues.14 The most recent Board action involving dog leash rules was taken on 17 April 2012, and was specific to staging/parking areas adjacent to "undeveloped" areas where dogs are allowed off-leash. This is not applicable to the Proposed Project site because, as mentioned above, it is all "developed" parkland.

Response SPRAWLDEF-11 The SEIR discusses the Park District’s policy regarding off-leash dogs (Ordinance 38) in Section 2.2, pp. 9-10. The SEIR described how the Park District currently enforces Ordinance 38 and how it expects to enforce the ordinance once the Project is completed. This complies with the Alameda County Superior Court’s May 14, 2014 Final Statement of Decision requiring any SEIR to discuss the Park District’s current and planned enforcement policy regarding off-leash dogs. Like all public agencies, the Park District must determine how it will allocate its limited resources for enforcement of its rules and regulations, including Ordinance 38. The number of District officers has decreased by nearly 19 percent from 2008 staffing levels due to budget reductions, vacancies and officer injuries. Patrol reductions have limited the District Police Department's ability to respond to lower- priority issues, such as dog violations.15 Priority is given to crimes and incidents that threaten the health, safety and welfare of the public. District crime statistics from 2010 to present reflect 530 calls for service in the Albany/East Shore State Park area. The top five reported crimes were: warrant arrests, automobile burglaries, contacts for probation violations, illegal camping, and suspicious circumstances (which could lead to a number of different criminal acts). Other high frequency and high priority crimes that occurred were: bicycle accidents, burglary alarms, arson, hazardous materials, drug possession, verbal and physical altercations, indecent exposures, missing persons, weapons violations, stolen vehicles, thefts, and vandalism. In the past two years (2013- 2014), the Police Department has started to recover from the lowered staffing levels that occurred after 2008. However, the Police Department is currently operating with five officer vacancies, two community service officer vacancies, five student aide vacancies and two communication dispatcher vacancies. Due to retirements, officer injuries, vacations, and vacancies, the Department is consistently operating at a minimum of five vacant positions. In addition, the Park District has increased the amount of land purchased and operated since 2008, as well as developed new land for public use, generating more demand for police protection.

14 Chris Barton, Acting Environmental Programs Manager, Environmental Programs, East Bay Regional Park District, email to Michael Kent, Michael Kent & Associates, 12 May 2015. 15 Gretchen Rose, Administrative Lieutenant, Police Department, East Bay Regional Park District, email to Chris Barton, Acting Environmental Programs Manager, Environmental Programs, East Bay Regional Park District, 19 May 2015.

30 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

The comment makes clear that it disagrees with the Park District’s decisions regarding enforcement priorities, but CEQA merely requires that it disclose how it enforces its ordinance and take that into account when considering the Project’s impacts. Because the District could not commit to increased enforcement of Ordinance 38, it analyzed the environmental impacts associated with dogs assuming that enforcement would not occur and provides mitigation for all significant impacts that result. The mitigation measures suggested by the comment are not needed to reduce significant environmental impacts associated with dogs. They concern Park District policy and will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

Response SPRAWLDEF-12 Section 3.4, Land Use and Planning, p. 42-43, discussed the Project’s consistency with the Eastshore State Park General Plan, including OPER-5 and its restrictions on dog use at the Project site. Page 39 of Section 3.4, Land Use and Planning established the following standard of significance for land use and planning impacts related to conflicts with applicable planning documents: Land use and planning impacts associated with dogs would be considered significant if the aspects of the Project pertaining to dogs would “conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation . . . adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. In the event a conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy or regulations already exists, the land use and planning impacts associated with the Project would be considered significant if the Project would increase that conflict by substantially increasing the environmental impact that the policy, plan or regulation was meant to avoid or mitigate.”

The SEIR acknowledged the Project conflicts with OPER-5 but concluded the conflict does not result in a significant environmental impact because the conflict already exists and implementation of the Project will not increase that conflict by substantially increasing the environmental impact that the policy, plan or regulation was meant to avoid or mitigate.

Response SPRAWLDEF-13 CEQA requires that EIRs identify mitigation measures only when the EIR’s analysis of environmental impacts discloses a significant impact. With respect to dogs, the SEIR concluded dogs could have a significant impact on biological resources and geology and soils because increased park visitors, accompanied by dogs, could lead to trampling and other degradation and erosion of the enhanced dune mat vegetation and wetlands unless adequately protected. To mitigate these impacts to an insignificant level, the SEIR included mitigation requiring fencing around the enhanced dune and wetland area to prevent dogs and other park users from impacting this sensitive area. (SEIR pp. 27, 28, 30, 33). Because the SEIR did not identify any significant impacts associated with dogs related to land use and planning, it did not propose any mitigation measures.

See Response SPRAWLDEF-11 for discussion of District policy regarding off-leash dogs (Ordinance 38), District enforcement of Ordinance 38, and District enforcement priorities.

Response SPRAWLDEF-14 See Response SPRAWLDEF-12.

31 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response SPRAWLDEF-15 See Response SPRAWLDEF-13.

Response SPRAWLDEF-16 The signage at the site is an element of the Project, not a mitigation measure. In reaching its conclusions regarding the significance of environmental impacts associated with off-leash dogs, the SEIR does not rely on the effectiveness of signage to reduce significant impacts to an insignificant level. In any event, the signage proposed by the Project will be durable, permanent, limited to dog regulations, and mounted at a height of eight feet to be out of reach of vandals. This type of sign has been proven to be resistant to defacement.

Response SPRAWLDEF-17 As described in Responses SPRAWLDEF-9, SPRAWLDEF-13, SPRAWLDEF-15, and SPRAWLDEF-16, above, additional mitigation is not required to reduce any significant impacts associated with dogs identified in the SEIR. The East Bay Regional Park District is responsible for enforcement and patrolling at all the District’s lands, including the Project site. EBRPD has a mutual aid agreement with the Cities of Albany and Berkeley.16 The public can report incidents by calling the dispatch number that is publicly available on the District’s website, signs at District parks, the Yellow Pages online and paper directories, and Directory Assistance (411). A link for reporting “incidents” is featured prominently on the front page of the District’s website. The public can also call 911 for emergencies, call the City of Albany and City of Berkeley Police, and deliver complaints to District staff when they are performing routine maintenance or patrol. Complaints received by the public are referred to an appropriate officer or staff person, who responds as soon as possible in accordance with the priorities of the District and available personnel. The commenter’s suggestions for changes to District policy and other changes will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

16 Chris Barton, Acting Environmental Programs Manager, Environmental Programs, East Bay Regional Park District, personal communications, 24 March 2015 and 15 April 2015.

32 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Point Isabel Dog Owners Association

33 From: [email protected] To: Chris Barton Subject: comment on SEIR for Albany Beach project by PIDO Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 5:00:09 PM

Dear Mr. Barton,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Albany Beach project SEIR.

The board of Directors of Point Isabel Dog Owners & Friends (PIDO) reviewed the Albany Beach SEIR. We were impressed by the comprehensiveness of the report in addressing the questions and concerns about the environmental impacts on the Albany Beach by park visitors with dogs plus collecting and analyzing 200 hours of park visitor data.

The SEIR documented that there is a robustly diverse population of park visitors to Albany Beach and that the dogs accompanying many of the park visitors are neither degrading the habitat nor adversely impacting PIDO-1 wildlife. In fact, the SEIR noted that the cleanliness of the beach was in part due to the regularly scheduled cleanups by ALDOG.

PIDO urges the EBRPD Board of Directors to accept the SEIR findings, move forward with the Albany Beach project and improve the park going experience at Albany Beach for ALL of the diverse population of park goers, including people with their dogs (both on and off-leash).

PIDO has partnered with EBRPD at Pt. Isabel for 30 years and we look forward to continuing to work with you.

Sincerely, D. Sequoia, Chair, PIDO E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment PIDO-1 Response PIDO-1 As discussed in the SEIR, all impacts of the Proposed Project, including potential impacts of dogs on biological and geological resources (see pages 24-30 and 32-33), would be reduced to a less-than- significant level by mitigation measures identified in the SEIR.

35 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Citizens for East Shore Parks

36 Citizens for East Shore Parks Mail: PO Box 6087, Albany, Ca 94706 Office: 520 El Cerrito Plaza, El Cerrito CA 94530 Ph: 510. 524.5000 Fax: 510.524.5008 [email protected] www.eastshorepark.org wwwwwwww.eastshorepark.org

www.eastshorepark.org February 11, 2015 BY MAIL AND EMAIL Chris Barton Dwight Steele Emeritus Co-Chair East Bay Regional Park District (1914 - 2002) ASD Division, Fourth Floor

Sylvia McLaughlin 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Emeritus Co-Chair Oakland, CA 94605 Secretary

Robert Cheasty RE: CESP comments on Albany Beach draft SEIR President

Norman La Force Dear Mr. Barton: Vice President

Brian Parker Thank you for the opportunity to comment upon the Supplemental Environmental Recording Secretary Impact Report (SEIR) for the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project. SCH

Teddi Baggins #2012032072. Co-Treasurer Ed Bennett Citizens for East Shore Parks (CESP) would like to again reiterate its enthusiasm and Co-Treasurer support for the Project’s aim at improving habitat and enhancing recreation at the Board of Directors: Albany shoreline in McLaughlin Eastshore State Park. Marge Atkinson CESP-1 Ellen Barth Alan Carlton As stated in our letters of April 30, 2012 and Nov. 13, 2014, CESP commends East Bay Shirley Dean Patty Donald Regional Park District (EBRPD) for its plans to preserve and restore this heavily used Steve Granholm portion of McLaughlin Eastshore State Park. And, CESP looks forward to working with Jeff Inglis EBRPD on the completion of this important project to close the broken link in the San Robert Lieber Toni Mester Francisco Bay Trail. Sherry Padgett Doris Sloan Tony Sustak However, CESP also remains very concerned about the Project’s eﬀects on the health Peter Weiner of Bay Area wildlife and the ability for non-dog users to use the Park. The area in

Advisory Board: question where the project is destined is a treasure of very special interest. It covers Ken Bukowski the beach for the City of Albany and the approach to the beach, over sand dunes and Arthur Feinstein sensitive flora and fauna. The beach has been and can be again a place where wild CESP-2 Stana Hearne Larry Kolb birds can exist, where families can come for a day at the beach, and where small David Lewis children can picnic safely. However, the gradually increasing use of the entire site as a Mark Liolios well-publicized off leash spot for commercial dog walkers and off leash dog running Kitty McLean Betty Olds has begun to eclipse all other uses. Rich Walkling

Elected Officials: CESP was pleased to see the SEIR responds with an attempt to provide some data Hon. Tom Bates Hon. Whitney Dotson about oﬀ-leash dog use and enforcement. Unfortunately, the data show that almost Hon. Rochelle Nason half the current use is by those who ignore the leash requirements (ordinance 38) CESP-3 and that over a four-year period not one citation was issued. Executive Director: Patricia V. Jones Administrative Assistant Cameron Wilson

The mission of Citizens for East Shore Parks is to create a necklace of shoreline parks from the Oakland Estuary to the Carquinez Strait

Chris Barton, EBRPD Albany Beach draft SEIR Page 2

CESP was pleased to see the report state the Albany beach area is in its entirety an environmental sensitive habitat and recreational area that requires protection. Yet, even with the SEIR stating that most dog users are breaking the law and not being cited, EBRPD does not plan to change its law enforcement eﬀorts to protect CESP-4 the whole project area.

Enforcing the law can be done in a positive way. CESP recommends that EBRPD look to the City of Berkeley’s recent program at Cesar Chavez Park to end illegal feeding of wildlife in undertaking an eﬀort to enforce prohibitions on certain behavior in parks. The City worked with stakeholders to design an education, signage, CESP-5 and enforcement program to end illegal feeding. The program has thus far been successful and a willingness to enforce coupled with a robust ﬁne schedule is a critical element of the program.

Unfortunately (because we really want this project to move forward), CESP must agree with the findings of CESP-6 Golden Gate Audubon Society (GGAS) and the Sierra Club that the Albany Beach SEIR is not CEQA complaint for the following reasons: 1) the SEIR’s baseline determination is deficient, 2) the rate of increased dog activity CESP-7 is not supported by substantial evidence, 3) the analysis of off- and on-leash dog activity impacts is CESP-8 inadequate, 4) the SEIR fails to identify the effect of dog use effect on water quality as a significant impact, CESP-9 and 5) the SEIR’s mitigation analysis concerning enforcement of Ordinance 38 is arbitrary and unreasonable. CESP-10

CESP would urge EBRPD to respond to the excellent analysis and suggestions made in GGAS's letter of February 11, 2015 and the Sierra Club's letter of February 2, 1015 to ensure that this project will be completed CESP-11 in a way to show EBRPD to be the good steward of our natural environment as we know it to be.

CESP would like to thank the East Bay Regional Park District again for this opportunity to comment on the Albany Beach SEIR. CESP appreciates your dedication to healthy parks and look forward to the successful CESP-12 completion of this project in McLaughlin Eastshore State Park.

Sincerely,

Patricia V. Jones

Cc: CESP Board, EBRPD Board, Albany City Council/staﬀ, GGAS, Sierra Club

Supporting organizations include: Golden Gate Audubon Society— Sierra Club—Save the Bay— Oakland Waterfront Coalition— Berkeley Partners for Parks—California Native Plant Society—Ecology Center—Environmental Defense —Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge—Friends of Aquatic Park—Oceanic Society—Regional Parks Association —Urban Creeks Council—CA State Parks Foundation—Citizens for the Albany Shoreline—Contra Costa Hills Club—NRSOSA (Letterhead created by word processor)

E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comments CESP-1 through CESP-12 Response to CESP-1 The comment is noted.

Response CESP-2 See Responses CESP-3 through CESP-12, and Response SPRAWLDEF-5 for a discussion of conflicts between dogs and people.

Response CESP-3 The comment is noted.

Response CESP-4 Portions of the Project site are identified as sensitive biological and geological resources, as discussed on pages 24-30 and 32-33 of the SEIR. The remainder of the Project site, which has been disturbed and altered from its natural state, is not an environmentally sensitive resource, for reasons discussed in the SEIR.

See Response SPRAWLDEF-11 for a discussion of District enforcement of dog regulations.

Response CESP-5 As discussed in Response SPRAWLDEF-11, the measures suggested by the comment are not needed to reduce significant environmental impacts associated with dogs. They concern Park District policy and will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

Response CESP-6 See Responses CESP-7, CESP-8, CESP-9, and CESP-10, Responses GGA-1 through GGA-9, and Responses SC2-1 through SC2-6.

Response CESP-7 See Responses GGA-3, GGA-4, GGA-5, and GGA-6.

Response CESP-8 See Responses GGA-7.

Response CESP-9 See Response GGA-8.

39 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response CESP-10 See Responses SPRAWLDEF-11, SPRAWLDEF-13, and SPRAWLDEF-17.

Response CESP-11 See Responses GGA-1 through GGA-9 and SC2-1 through SC2-6.

Response CESP-12 The comment is noted.

40 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Golden Gate Audubon Society

41 GGA-1

GGA-2

GGA-3 GGA-3 (cont.)

GGA-4 GGA-4 (cont.)

GGA-5 GGA-5 (cont.)

GGA-6

GGA-7 GGA-7 (cont.) GGA-7 (cont.)

GGA-8 GGA-8 (cont.) GGA-8 (cont.)

GGA-9 GGA-9 (cont.) A Census of the Birdlife in the Eastshore State Park

October 2005 – September 2006

Prepared by Members of

Golden Gate Audubon 2530 San Pablo Avenue Suite G Berkeley, CA 94702

November 2006

Sponsored by

The San Francisco Foundation The California State Parks Foundation Eastshore State Park Census – 2005 – 2006 Final Report

Summary: Golden Gate Audubon conducted a census of birdlife in the Eastshore State Park from October 2005 to September 2006. Over 140 species of birds were seen in the park. Shorebird and waterfowl concentrations reached a peak in December, when over 23,000 birds were counted during one ebbing tide census. The report shows what areas of the park are most critical for birdlife, what species were found to nest in the park, and provides a checklist showing which species are found in the park during different seasons. Some suggestions for continued enhancement of the park for birdlife are provided.

Introduction: During the period when the Eastshore State Park (ESSP) was being developed, Golden Gate Audubon (GGA) suggested it would be helpful to future conservation efforts if a year-long census of bird activity could be conducted. This study was ultimately supported by East Bay Regional Parks, and a program was developed with the following objectives:

 Determine bird utilization of different habitats within the Park to support future improvements  Increase ESSP use by advertising birding opportunities and increasing public awareness of the park birdlife

GGA designed and conducted the census, as well as an associated field trip program, with financial support from two agencies:

 The San Francisco Foundation  The California State Parks Foundation

The program was developed in August and September 2005. GGA made the following commitments:

 To lead at least 24 well-advertised regularly scheduled nature walks to the Eastshore State Park with an estimated attendance of at least 20 people for each walk, starting in October 2005.  To design and manage a one-year census of the Park birdlife, showing habitat utilization, species diversity and numbers over a full year, starting in October 2005, including: o Development of census protocols o Training of volunteers for the census o Establishing a census calendar and assuring the presence of censusers o Managing the census data  To develop, print and distribute to all nature tour participants and to the community at large a flyer/brochure that describes Eastshore State Park and our goals for the Park. A “What you can do” message will be included in this brochure.

2  To publish a bird checklist for the Park that will be used to document the avian wildlife present in the Conservation Lands and attract supporters of the Eastshore State Park.  To organize targeted advocacy efforts and generate public support for the Park and wildlife restoration.

Later in the study, we decided to include a Breeding Bird Census, to enhance the information we could provide in a checklist. Protocols were developed and censusers added this task to their normal effort.

Results: All of the deliverables have been completed as of the date of this report. Accomplishments follow:

 Field trips: GGA led 24 field trips in various areas of the park over the course of the study year. The trips had an average attendance of about 20 people, and were conducted by 10 different leaders (Table 1). People had a variety of positive park experiences, from walks through the Berkeley Meadow to see wintering ducks and geese, to a dusk walk along the Richmond shoreline to listen for breeding Clapper Rails, to a bicycle / birding trip along the Bay Trail. We drew the following conclusions based on our bird walks:

o The Berkeley Meadow provides an excellent area for an introductory bird walk, with a variety of habitats. The trails are satisfactory for a relatively large group, and over the course of the year birders have seen an interesting list of species, detailed in the data tables. o The Bay Trail from Rydin Road to Meeker Slough is also an excellent birding walk, and the improvements being made just outside the park will add to the birding experience. o The Albany Bulb and Beach area are favorites of dog walkers, especially on weekends. The beach, which could be a good shorebird habitat, is not. The rocks surrounding the lagoon host a variety of relatively unusual shorebirds, like Black Oystercatcher, but the trail permits dog and human access to these roosting areas. The trails here are difficult for a group, especially if there is interest in viewing the lagoon. However, the mudflats north of the neck are rich with shorebirds, and the viewing area and trail near the highway are excellent places to study shorebirds. o Emeryville’s mudflats are one of the richest area for shorebirds (Fig. 4B, Fig. 5), but because viewing them is difficult, we did not lead field trips here. There is good access along Powell, but getting close to the shoreline is not easy. Since this is also probably breeding area for Clapper Rails1, perhaps this is also not desirable. The overlook in the master plan will add significantly to the birding experience here.

1 Personal communication, Leonard Liu (PRBO) to R.A. Lewis, August 2005.

3  Census: GGA completed 24 censuses, one high tide (in an effort to detect roosting areas) and one outgoing tide (to define foraging areas) each month. The censuses were held simultaneously at five different areas of the park, and followed protocols that were developed to census the same areas for the same period of time each month. About 50 people participated in the censuses (Table 2). Some conclusions follow:

o During the census period, over 140 species of birds were found in the park and its immediate surroundings. See Table 4, Park Checklist. o Shorebirds are present throughout the year, but peak in the winter months. Nearly 8,000 shorebirds were found in the November outgoing tide census (Figure 1). The most common wintering shorebirds are Western and Least Sandpipers, Black-bellied Plover, Dunlin, Willet and Marbled Godwit. o Waterfowl also peak at about the same time. Nearly 12,000 ducks and geese were found in the December outgoing tide census. The most common species were Greater and Lesser Scaup and Ruddy Duck. See Table 5 for a summary of common birds of the park. o A wide diversity of species was found throughout the park, from 93 species in the Berkeley Waterfront (Area 2) to 117 in the Berkeley Meadow (Area 3) and the Albany Waterfront (Area 4). See figure 2 o The highest density of shorebirds was, as expected, in areas that have significant mudflats. This includes the Emeryville Crescent, the Albany mudflats, and the South Richmond shoreline. See figure 4B. o Waterfowl were spread across all the aquatic areas of the park – figure 4C. o 35 species of birds were either confirmed or probable breeders, based on the Breeding Bird Survey conducted from April through August. Clapper Rails were confirmed in the Richmond Shoreline area. Most species were confirmed in Richmond or the Berkeley Meadow areas. See BBS data, Table 3. o The most significant high tide roosting areas include the Emeryville derelict piers and wharves along the Bay Bridge entry, the shorelines of the two marine reserves and the marshy peninsulas south and west of Meeker Slough in Richmond. Also important are the shell mounds south of Central Avenue in El Cerrito, and the breakwater along the South Richmond Shoreline north of Point Isabel. The outer breakwater along the Albany Lagoon and Point Emery are both frequented by rocky shoreline shorebirds (Oystercatchers, Whimbrel, Wandering Tattler, turnstones). See map, Figure 3, and Figure 5.

 Breeding Bird Survey (BBS): There was some evidence of breeding in the park for 50 species of birds. Table 3 shows the park areas where different breeding species were found, together with an indication of the degree of certainty for breeding. A total of 35 species were either confirmed or probable breeders; and 22 species were confirmed. The park areas with significant uplands hosted the most breeding birds, with the Berkeley Meadow (area 3) and Richmond Shoreline

4 (area 5) showing 11 and 13 species confirmed, respectively. Appendix II shows the protocol used for the BBS.

 A flyer about Park birdlife was prepared prior to the training programs in August 2005 (Appendix 1)

 A bird checklist has been developed (Table 4) and can be found at www.goldengateaudubon.org.

 An illustrated brochure, which includes the checklist, shows details of the birdlife of the Park. (Call 510.843.2222 or email [email protected] to get a copy).

Habitat Utilization and Conservation Opportunities:

 Area 1: The area adjacent to the Bay Bridge, which is right on the south edge of the park, offers roosting habitat for a wide variety of shorebirds, gulls and terns during high tide. The derelict piers are often covered with cormorants, and during migration, with Elegant Terns. High tide roosting areas seem to be at a premium in the park.  Area 2: The Brickyard cove seems to be especially favored by Whimbrel at outgoing tide.  Area 2: The small beach adjacent to the Seabreeze Restaurant is a well-known spot for shorebirds, with Black Turnstones being especially common here. The concentration of shorebirds on these small areas of sandy beach shows that it is “premium habitat.” The small beach on the south-east corner of the North Basin is similarly crowded with shorebirds at suitable tides.  Area 3: The Meadow was an exciting development to watch. There was a large variety of bird species, and potential future breeders, like Wilson’s Snipe and Barn Owl, were already prospecting. Some waterfowl bred in the meadow ponds, and it seems likely that additional species will use this area. Neither kite nor harrier bred there during the census year.  Area 4: The Albany Beach south of the “neck” is usually heavily used by dogs, and is nearly devoid of birds.  Area 4: The lagoon at the end of the Albany Bulb is surrounded by a rip-rap pathway. Black Oystercatchers use this area year-round, and turnstones and Wandering Tattlers rest here during migration. There is very little rocky shoreline habitat in the park. Since the pathway is continuous, dogs and walkers continually disturb the birds resting here. A break in the pathway, as suggested in the master plan, would be of value to enhance the habitat.  Area 5, outside the park boundaries: The shell islands adjacent to Central Avenue in El Cerrito are very effective roosting habitat, with Black-bellied Plover and Western Sandpipers covering the southern island, while Marbled Godwits, Willets and a number of other species occupy the north-western island. Perhaps a similar design could be considered in Emeryville.

5  Area 5: The breakwater going west from the shoreline in Richmond near the 51st entrance to the park is not often heavily used by shorebirds. It seems a good habitat for rocky shoreline birds. The enhanced mudflats east of the Bay Trail, just outside the park, are already being used as breeding area by avocets and Killdeer.  Area 5: Near Meeker Slough, west of the park, a large number of Black-bellied Plover, Marbled Godwits, avocets, stilts, curlew and Black Oystercatchers roost at high tide.

Methods

 A total of twelve high tide and twelve ebbing tide censuses were run, so there is not sufficient data to show real peak utilization of the park by shorebirds and waterfowl. However, the ebb and flow of the migration and use of the park by wintering birds is clearly evident.  The division of the park into census areas was done based on the master plan for the park, so areas 1-5 are identical to the master plan divisions. This can be seen in Figure 3.  Census days were selected as days with relatively high tides occurring during convenient morning hours, or for ebbing tides from relatively high tides occurring during morning hours. One monthly census was done on Wednesday, one on Saturday. During the breeding season, we tried to census early in the day, but kept the tidal selection strategy above.  The plots of seasonal variation of shorebirds and waterfowl are based on ebbing tide census data only.  The checklist is based on census data, fieldtrip data and reports to East Bay Birds, as well as personal notes. The abundance information relates to census data only, while the species shown includes all the above information. Only birds found during the census year are reported.  Censusers were trained in field identification and many were expert birders. Unusual birds were confirmed by review of the detailed report, or by other confirming observations.  Censusers noted areas of roosting bird concentrations on their maps, and this information was used to develop some of the conservation notes above.  The procedures for the Breeding Bird Survey were based on those in use for the Solano County Breeding Bird Survey, and are typical of other such surveys done in California.  Data was managed in an Access Database, and was manipulated in Excel for charts and tables. The detailed database is available from Golden Gate Audubon.  This report was written October 7, 2006, reviewed and finalized November 28, 2006.

6 Table 1

Field trips to ESSP sponsored by GGA during the census year, with trip leaders

October: [2] Bob Lewis, Rusty Scalf November: [3] Kathy Jarrett, Bob Lewis, Anne Hoff December: [3] Michael Butler, Marilyn Nasatir & Inge Svoboda January: [2] Bob Lewis, Anne Hoff February: [3] Kathy Jarrett, Bob Lewis, Dave Quady March: [2] Michael Butler, Bob Lewis April: [3] Bob Lewis (2), Rusty Scalf May: [1] Hilary Powers, Ruth Tobey June: [1] Dave Quady July: [1] Dave Quady August: [1] Rusty Scalf September: [2] Kathy Jarrett, Bob Lewis

Table 2 Census Participants

Mark Briggs – Design, Final Brochure and Checklist Judith Dunham – Final Brochure and Checklist Development Steve Granholm – Design Consultant Carolyn Kolka – Volunteer Coordination Bob Lewis – Census and Breeding Bird Protocols, Data Analysis, Final Report Samantha Murray -- Overall Coordination and Grant Management, Report Review Charlotte Nolan – Data Management Tara Zuardo -- Staff

Censusers Hoff, Anne Roethe, James Barth, Ellen Kretschmer, Doris Rogers, Phila Witherell Battagin, Bob Larkin, Jim Schultz, Bill Berenson, Betty Lawrence, Jill Snyder, Franz Berthelsen, Martha Lutz, Melanie P Sojourner, Elizabeth Bird, Ruth Joan Magowan, Clair Sorenson, Eric Bloom, Kay Maynard, Phil Stewart, Doug Butkus, Dolores Mena, Mona & Horacio Strandberg, Lynn Carville, Ed Nasatir, Marilyn Svoboda, Inge Cleere, Timothy J Nelson, Judith K Tanovitz, Ed Coddington, Terry Nolan, Charlotte Tobey, Ruth Coon, Robert & Carol Palmer, Gary & Cheryl Vaughan, Douglas Dales, Loring Pericoli, Ralph Vaughan, Robert & Greenberg, Corinne Quady, David Veronica Hand, Gabriel Richter, Mike & Ann Wilkinson, Jeff

7 Table 3

Eastshore State Park Breeding Bird Survey Status

Area Name 1 2 3 4 5 CO PR Canada Goose CO CO CO CO CO 5 0 Gadwall PO PR PR 0 2 Mallard PO CO CO PR CO 3 1 Cinnamon Teal PR 0 1 Ruddy Duck PR 0 1 Clark's Grebe PR 0 1 Double-crested Cormorant PO PO 0 0 Great Blue Heron CO 1 0 Green Heron PO 0 0 Black-crowned Night-Heron PO 0 0 Osprey PO 0 0 White-tailed Kite PO 0 0 Northern Harrier PO 0 0 Red-tailed Hawk PO PO 0 0 American Kestrel PR 0 1 Clapper Rail PR 0 1 Killdeer PO PR CO CO CO 3 1 Black Oystercatcher PO PO PO PO PO 0 0 Black-necked Stilt PO PO 0 0 American Avocet PO PO CO 1 0 Western Gull CO CO PO 2 0 Least Tern PO PR 0 1 Rock Pigeon PO 0 0 Mourning Dove PO PR CO PR PR 1 3 Anna's Hummingbird CO PO PR PO 1 1 Allen's Hummingbird PR PR 0 2 Northern Flicker PO 0 0 Black Phoebe PO PO PO 0 0 American Crow PO PO PO CO 1 0 Violet-green Swallow CO 1 0 Northern Rough-winged Swallow PO PO CO PR 1 1 Barn Swallow PO PO CO 1 0 Bushtit PO PO CO CO PR 2 1 Bewick's Wren PO CO 1 0 American Robin PR 0 1 Northern Mockingbird PO CO CO 2 0 European Starling PO PO PR CO 1 1 Orange-crowned Warbler PO 0 0 California Towhee PO PO PR PR PO 0 2 Savannah Sparrow PO PR PR 0 2 Song Sparrow CO PO CO PO PO 2 0 White-crowned Sparrow PO PO PO PR 0 1 Red-winged Blackbird PR CO PR CO 2 2 Western Meadowlark PO PO 0 0 Brewer's Blackbird PR CO CO 2 1 8 Brown-headed Cowbird PO PR PR PR 0 3 House Finch PO CO CO CO CO 4 0 Lesser Goldfinch PO PO PO PO 0 0 American Goldfinch PO PR PR CO PR 1 3 House Sparrow PO PR CO PR 1 2

Total Number Probable 0 5 12 8 11 Number Confirmed 3 4 11 8 13 22 Confirmed or Probable 3 9 23 16 24 35

PO = Possible Breeding PR = Probable Breeding CO = Confirmed Breeding

9 Table 4 Park Checklist (Sequence per AOU 47th Supplement, 7/6/06)

SP SU F W SP SU F W Ducks and Geese Sharp-shinned Hawk R Brant R Cooper’s Hawk R R U R Canada Goose * C C C C Red-shouldered Hawk R Gadwall * U U U U Red-tailed Hawk U U U U Eurasian Wigeon R U Falcons American Wigeon C R C C American Kestrel * R U U Mallard * C C C C Merlin R R Blue-winged Teal R Peregrine Falcon R R R R Cinnamon Teal R R Rails Northern Shoveler R U R Clapper Rail * R R R R Northern Pintail R R U U American Coot C C C Green-winged Teal C U C Shorebirds Canvasback U U R C Black-bellied Plover C C A A Redhead R U Semipalmated Plover U C C U Greater Scaup U R C A Killdeer * C C C C Lesser Scaup U C A Black Oystercatcher U C C U Surf Scoter C C C Black-necked Stilt U C C U Bufflehead C C C American Avocet * C C C A Common Goldeneye U R U C Spotted Sandpiper U U U U Red-breasted Merganser R U U Wandering Tattler R Ruddy Duck * C U A A Greater Yellowlegs U U C C Loons, Grebes Willet A A A A Common Loon R R Whimbrel C U C C Pied-billed Grebe R R U C Long-billed Curlew C C C C Horned Grebe U C C Marbled Godwit A A A A Eared Grebe R U C Ruddy Turnstone R Western Grebe C C C C Black Turnstone C C C C Clark’s Grebe * C U C C Surfbird R Pelicans, Cormorants Sanderling C U C C American White Pelican C R Western Sandpiper A A A A Brown Pelican R C C U Least Sandpiper C C C C Brandt’s Cormorant R R R Dunlin C R A A Double-crested Cormorant C A A A dowitcher sp. C C C C Pelagic Cormorant R U R Wilson's Snipe R Herons, Egrets Red-necked Phalarope R C C Great Blue Heron * U U U U Red Phalarope U Great Egret U U U U Gulls, Terns Snowy Egret C C C C Bonaparte’s Gull R Green Heron R Mew Gull U C Black-crowned Night-Heron R U R Ring-billed Gull C C C C Vultures, Hawks, Eagles California Gull U C A C Turkey Vulture U U U U Herring Gull R R Osprey U R U Western Gull * C C C C White-tailed Kite R R U U Glaucous-winged Gull U R U U Northern Harrier R R R U Least Tern* U C U

SP SU F W SP SU F W Caspian Tern U C Kinglet, Thrushes Common Tern R Ruby-crowned Kinglet R U U Forster’s Tern U C C C Swainson's Thrush R Elegant Tern A C Hermit Thrush R R Black Skimmer R American Robin * R R R Alcids Thrashers Common Murre R R Northern Mockingbird * U U U U Pigeons, doves Starling Rock Pigeon C U C C European Starling * C C C C Mourning Dove * C C C C Pipits Owls American Pipit R U Barn Owl R Waxwings Burrowing Owl R R Cedar Waxwing U U Swifts Warblers White-throated Swift R R U Orange-crowned Warbler R R Hummingbirds Yellow Warbler R R Anna’s Hummingbird * C C C C Yellow-rumped Warbler U U U Allen’s Hummingbird * U U R Common Yellowthroat R R Kingfisher Wilson’s Warbler R R Belted Kingfisher R R R Sparrows Woodpeckers Spotted Towhee R Downy Woodpecker R R R California Towhee * C C C C Northern Flicker R U U Brewer's Sparrow R Flycatchers Savannah Sparrow * U U U U Black Phoebe U U C U Fox Sparrow R U U Ash-throated Flycatcher R Song Sparrow * C C C C Western Kingbird R R Lincoln’s Sparrow R R Vireos White-crowned Sparrow * C U C C Warbling Vireo R Golden-crowned Sparrow C C C Corvids Grosbeaks, Buntings Western Scrub-Jay R Black-headed Grosbeak R American Crow * C C C C Blackbirds, Orioles Common Raven U R U U Red-winged Blackbird * C C C C Swallows Western Meadowlark C C C Tree Swallow R R Brewer’s Blackbird * C C C C Violet-green Swallow * R Brown-headed Cowbird * U U R N. Rough-winged Swallow * U U R Finches Cliff Swallow U U Purple Finch R Barn Swallow * C C R U House Finch * C A A C Chickadees, Wrens, etc. Lesser Goldfinch C C C U Chestnut-backed Chickadee R R R American Goldfinch * U C C U Bushtit * C C C C Weaver Finches Bewick’s Wren * R R U House Sparrow * U C C U House Wren R Marsh Wren R R

Table 5

High Counts for Common Species

Scaup sp 6594 Ruddy Duck 6004 Western Sandpiper 5482 Gull sp. 2652 Dunlin 1355 Black-bellied Plover 1151 Elegant Tern 1130 Willet 1061 Double-crested Cormorant 830 Marbled Godwit 771 House Finch 592 American Avocet 541 Red-winged Blackbird 486 Dowitcher sp. 400 California Gull 367 Least Sandpiper 352 Canada Goose 326 Forster’s Tern 291 White-crowned Sparrow 284 European Starling 277 Ring-billed Gull 268 Pied-billed Grebe 228 Bufflehead 227 Brewer’s Blackbird 227 Golden-crowned Sparrow 204 American Coot 200 Western Gull 195

Notes: These are minimum numbers for high counts, since some shorebirds were only identified as Western/Least or small shorebirds. The high count for Western Sandpiper was probably several hundred above 5500, taking this into consideration.

Both scaup species were identified during the census, but most were only identified generically. The high count for identified Greater Scaup was about 350 and for Lesser Scaup, about 300.

Both dowitcher species were identified during the census, but again, the number of birds reported generically far outnumbered those identified specifically.

12 Figure 1

Shorebird and Waterfowl Density at ESSP Outgoing Tide

12000

10000

8000

Count 6000 Shorebirds Waterfowl

4000

2000

0 10/1/2005 12/14/2005 2/8/2006 4/5/2006 6/3/2006 8/30/2006 Date

Figure 2 -- Total Species Seen = 147

Number of Species Seen in Each Park Area

140

120

100

60 Species Count

0 1 2 3 4 5 Area

13 Figure 3 – Map of Main Areas of the Park

14 Figure 4A -- Total Birds by Subarea Sum of 24 counts, 6 per season

40000

35000

30000

25000 Summer Spring 20000 Winter Fall 15000

10000

5000

3:Strip 4:Beach 4:Plateau 3:Meadow 5:Pt Isabel 1:Powell St 4:Neck/Bulb 3:North Basin 3:West Shore 1:Conservation 2:Sailing Basin 4:Open Water 5:Shell Islands 1:Marine Reserve2:Berkeley2:Brickyard Beach Cove 4:Marine Reserve 5:Hoffman Marsh 2:Brickyard Upland 2:Univ Ave Shoreline 5:51st/Meeker Slough 5:So Richmond Shoreline

Figure 4B -- Shorebirds by Subarea Sum of 24 counts, 6 per season

20000

18000

16000

14000

12000 Summer Spring 10000 Winter 8000 Fall

6000

4000

2000

15 Figure 4C -- Waterfowl by Subarea Sum of 24 counts, 6 per season

10000

9000

8000

7000

6000 Summer Spring 5000 Winter 4000 Fall

3000

2000

1000

3:Strip 4:Beach 3:Meadow 5:Pt Isabel 1:Powell St 4:Neck/Bulb 3:North Basin 3:West Shore 1:Conservation 2:Sailing Basin 4:Open Water 5:Shell Islands 1:Marine Reserve2:Berkeley2:Brickyard Beach Cove 4:Marine Reserve 5:Hoffman Marsh 2:Brickyard Upland 2:Univ Ave Shoreline 5:51st/Meeker Slough 5:So Richmond Shoreline

Notes:  Note scale differences in Figure 4 charts.  These results include all sightings during all 24 census counts, consisting of 3 high tide and three ebbing tide counts per season.  “Shorebirds” includes all members of the families Charadriidae, Haematopodidae, Recurvirostridae and Scolopacidae (Plovers, Oystercatchers, Stilts & Avocets and Sandpipers & Phalaropes).  “Waterfowl” include all members of the family Anatidae (Ducks, Geese and Swans).

16 Figure 5 -- Shorebird Counts during High Tides by Subarea and Season

10000

9000

8000

7000

6000 Summer Spring 5000 Winter 4000 Fall

3000

2000

1000

Notes:  Counts are the sum of three high tide counts for each season  Shorebirds are defined as noted in Figure 4  Roosting areas include the shoreline between high tide and highest high tide marks (approximated by censusers) as well as abandoned piers and breakwaters. In area 5.

17 Appendix I Welcome to the new Eastshore State Park!

East Shore State Park stretches for 8.5 miles along the shoreline of the East Bay, from Meeker Slough in Richmond to the Emeryville Crescent and the Bay Bridge. It offers great hiking and birding opportunities, as well as wonderful views across the bay. The park is divided into five major Management Zones, shown on the map on the reverse. 1,897 acres of the total 2,262 acres in the park are tidelands. The remaining upland area of 365 acres is divided into land for conservation and recreation. Much of the park is linked by the Bay Trail.

The mudflats at the Emeryville Crescent and Albany Shoreline are some of the richest habitat for shorebirds in the Bay Area. These areas have been designated as Marine Reserves, to protect the birds that depend on them for food during migration or during the winter.

The Berkeley Meadow is undergoing restoration to improve habitat for birds like Northern Harrier and Loggerhead Shrike, as well as amphibians, reptiles, small mammals and native plants. It will be fascinating to see how the wildlife changes as the habitat improves.

The Albany Bulb area provides views of shorebirds in the adjacent Marine Reserve, and hosts numerous small land birds. Burrowing Owls have nested here in past years. Will they return? The island at the western end of the bulb may serve as an important high tide roost for shorebirds. We’ll have to learn which areas of the park are most critical to bird and animal life, in order to protect or improve them.

The State Parks Commission’s General Plan for the Park identifies approximately 80% of the park’s 260 acres of uplands as “Conservation Areas”—areas that are managed for habitat values but encourage compatible recreation such as hiking, bird-watching, nature photography, etc. While many of Eastshore State Park’s uplands are now predominantly covered with exotic invasive plants, restoring these areas will provide much-needed habitat to sustain birds and other wildlife species in the Central Bay.

Golden Gate Audubon is running a year-long program, starting in October 2005, to understand the birdlife in the park. The program consists of a census program involving 10 area surveys per month, supplemented by at least two field trips per month. At the end of the study, we will develop a bird checklist for the park. You can be a part of the fun!

To join the census program, call Golden Gate Audubon at 510-843-2222. Censuses take place on one Saturday and one Wednesday each month. To find out about field trips, check the Golden Gate Audubon publication, “The Gull,” or go online at www.goldengateaudubon.org.

Golden Gate Audubon is dedicated to protecting Bay Area birds, other wildlife and their natural habitats. We conserve and restore wildlife habitat, connect people of all ages and backgrounds with the natural world, and educate and engage Bay Area residents in the protection of our shared, local environment. 18

Appendix II – BBS Protocols, including Breeding Codes

19 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comments GGA-1 through GGA-9 Response GGA-1 The comment is noted.

Response GGA-2 See Responses GGA-3 through GGA-9.

Response GGA-3 The purpose of this SEIR is to document the number (baseline) of off and on-leash dogs, at the time when dogs are most prevalent. The SEIR properly counted off and on-leash dogs during the summer months (July-September 2014), the period when dog use of the area is heaviest, as discussed on pages 7-9 of the Draft SEIR. Usage at Albany Beach and other comparable District parks is substantially lower in the winter months than in the summer.17, 18, 19 The comment states that birds are nesting, breeding, and fledging during spring and early summer, migratory birds are present in greatest numbers in winter, and burrowing owls are most likely to occur in December through February. Dog use at the Project site would be the same or less during these times than during the period when the dog survey was conducted; thus, the dog survey documents the worst-case (highest) dog use during the course of a year. Usage during other periods of the year is lower, and this information would not be useful for a worst-case analysis. Therefore, it is not necessary to do a year-round survey for dog use.

The baseline for birds was determined based on observations in March, not during the summer months. (2014 Draft Supplemental EIR at 21). The original (2012) Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project Final EIR considered the Project’s impacts to birds during the nesting/breeding/fledging season, including impacts to least terns. The 2014 Draft Supplemental EIR evaluated the impacts to birds from the changes in dog use expected to result from the Project.

Regarding the baseline (existing conditions) of birds at the Project site, the study cited in the comment letter (“A Census of the Birdlife in the Eastshore State Park October 2005 – September 2006”) states, on page 5, that “The Albany Beach south of the “neck” is usually heavily used by dogs, and is nearly devoid of birds.”

Response GGA-4 As discussed in Response GGA-3, the survey of dog use during the months of heaviest use is sufficient to establish the maximum level that occurs at the Project site. Usage at Albany Beach and other comparable District parks is substantially lower in the winter months than in the summer.20, 21,

17 Kevin Takei, Shoreline Unit Manager, East Bay Regional Park District, personal communication, 13 April 2015. 18 Scott Possin, Park Supervisor, Miller Knox Regional Shoreline, East Bay Regional Park District, personal communication, 15 April 2015. 19 Scott Possin, Park Supervisor, Miller Knox Regional Shoreline, East Bay Regional Park District, email to Michael Kent, Michael Kent & Associates, 21 April 2015. 20 Kevin Takei, Shoreline Unit Manager, East Bay Regional Park District, personal communication, 13 April 2015.

70 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

22 Thus, there is substantial evidence that the survey conducted from July through September 2014 accurately represents the maximum level of use at the Project site.

Response GGA-5 As discussed in Response GGA-3, the survey of dog use during the months of heaviest use is sufficient to establish the maximum level that occurs at the Project site, and provides an appropriate baseline for dog use.

The baseline of existing visitors is derived from a site-specific survey, as discussed on pages 7-8 of the Draft SEIR. From this, the Project-induced increase in visitors was calculated using Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates, which is a standard and commonly accepted methodology. ITE trip generation rates are based on surveys of individual land uses, which take into account both qualitative and quantitative factors that affect trip generation.

Residents of the area, both with and without dogs, have the choice of multiple parks with varying characteristics. Both existing and future residents tend to choose parks based on their interests and the amenities at individual parks, rather than visiting parks in mathematically equal proportions. Therefore, to project additional attendance generated at the Proposed Project site by population growth, a facilities-based method like the ITE trip generation rates discussed above is more appropriate than calculating equal per-park shares of additional population.

As discussed on pages 9-10 of the Draft SEIR, the existing policy and enforcement regarding dogs and leashing would not change with the Project. As indicated by the numerous comment letters alluding to existing dog leash policies and enforcement in this Final SEIR document, and the long history of extensive off-leash dog use of the Project site, the public is familiar with current dog policy and enforcement. Under these conditions, there is no reason to expect that continuation of the same dog policy and level of enforcement would increase the number of users with dogs, beyond the increase due to additional area calculated from ITE trip generation rates. Furthermore, the Project improvements are expected to increase the number of site users who do not bring dogs, as noted in the comment and on page 41 of the SEIR. This increase is accounted for in the analysis in the Draft SEIR, which is based on ITE trip generation rates.

Response GGA-6 See Response SPRAWLDEF-2 for a discussion of the evidence that the density of dogs at the site would decrease with the Project.

The Park District has found that at Albany Beach and other parks that allow dogs, the dogs, including unleashed dogs, tend to stay with their owners and are disbursed throughout the site, rather than joining together in packs.23, 24, 25, 26

21 Scott Possin, Park Supervisor, Miller Knox Regional Shoreline, East Bay Regional Park District, personal communication, 15 April 2015. 22 Scott Possin, Park Supervisor, Miller Knox Regional Shoreline, East Bay Regional Park District, email to Michael Kent, Michael Kent & Associates, 21 April 2015. 23 Kevin Takei, Shoreline Unit Manager, East Bay Regional Park District, personal communication, 13 April 2015.

71 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response GGA-7 Existing wildlife including birds, and impacts on biological resources including effects of unleashed dogs on wildlife, are described in the 2012 Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project Final EIR and 2014 Draft Supplemental EIR at a level of detail that is sufficient to allow decision- makers to make informed decisions about the environmental impacts of the Project.

This analysis includes the differential impacts of off-leash dogs relative to on-leash dogs, for example, in the discussion of impacts on least terns (page 25 of the Draft SEIR), marine mammals (pages 25-26 of the Draft SEIR), dune and wetland vegetation (pages 26-27 of the Draft SEIR), wetlands (page 27 of the Draft SEIR), and habitat quality and usability (pages 29-30 of the Draft SEIR).

As discussed in the SEIR, all impacts on biological resources would be reduced to a less-than- significant level by mitigation measures identified in the SEIR.

While many bird species have been observed in the larger Eastshore State Park, as the comment recognizes, Albany Beach south of the Albany Neck is heavily used by dogs and is “nearly devoid of birds”. This is an existing condition, not an effect of the Proposed Project.

As discussed in Response GGA-3, the survey of dog use during the months of heaviest use is sufficient to establish the maximum level that occurs at the Project site. This is the appropriate (worst-case) baseline of dog levels for use in determining the impacts on birds and other biological resources throughout the year.

Response GGA-8 As discussed on pages 35-36 of the Draft SEIR, the projected incremental increase in dog use would not trigger violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Approximately one or two of the additional dogs induced by the Project are expected to enter the water. The Proposed Project would increase current compliance with waste pick up regulations by providing signage, bag dispensers, and containers for the pick-up and disposal of animal wastes. The availability of bag dispensers with bags for owners to pick up dog waste and containers for the disposal of waste has reduced dog waste at other parks.27 Under current conditions, most visitors with dogs pick up after their dogs and Albany Beach is generally well kept up with little dog waste left behind. Many of the comment letters reproduced in this Final SEIR document state that owners pick up their dogs’ waste (for example, see letters from Alex Alexander (AA), Amber Whitson (AW), and Andrea Lotker (AL)). With implementation of the Project, even with the six percent increase in the number of dogs, the Project’s signage improvements, bag dispensers, and disposal containers are

24 Scott Possin, Park Supervisor, Miller Knox Regional Shoreline, East Bay Regional Park District, personal communication, 15 April 2015. 25 Ralph Trujillo, Park Supervisor, Oyster Bay Regional Shoreline, East Bay Regional Park District, personal communication, 14 April 2015. 26 Shelley Miller, Park Supervisor, Del Valle Regional Park, East Bay Regional Park District, personal communication, 20 April 2015. 27 Gary Fine, McLaughlin Eastshore State Park Ranger, personal communication, 2 December 2014.

72 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

all expected to reduce the amount of dog waste from its current level. Therefore, the Project would not result in any violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements and the Project’s impact on water quality would be less than significant.

As also discussed on pages 35-36 of the Draft SEIR, even if the incremental increase in dogs at the Project site did increase the amount of dog waste at the site, the impact on water quality would be less than significant. This conclusion is supported by substantial evidence. For example, Heal the Bay, an environmental organization, produces The Beach Report Card, an annual consumer-friendly summary of the state’s beach water quality monitoring programs. Endorsed by the State Water Resources Control Board, this summary assigns a grade to approximately 350 beaches where the water quality is monitored year-round (and additional beaches where water is monitored during specific times of the year). With a few exceptions, beaches that allow dogs received excellent to very good grades (A or B) for dry weather during the past two grading cycles.28 Another study of an off- leash dog park found a significant increase in pet waste in the dog off-leash area compared to the reference areas, especially near the parking lots; however, water and soil microbial analysis concluded there was no significant fecal coliform contamination.29 As discussed on page 35 of the Draft SEIR, the effect on water quality associated with elevated fecal coliform counts from dogs would be far less than the contributing effects of local wildlife and bird populations, and also less than the effect from upstream urban runoff and from leaking underground sanitary sewers and urban stormwater runoff.

Although there would be an increase in dog visits to Albany Beach as a result of the Proposed Project, the overall public access facility would be increased in size, dispersing the animal waste over a larger area, thereby decreasing waste concentration effects, as discussed on page 36 of the Draft SEIR. Because the Project would create additional public space that is accessible to people with dogs, the anticipated maximum intensity of dogs with the Project would be 35 dogs per accessible acre, which is lower than the current intensity of approximately 47 dogs per accessible acre. The projected concentration of dogs per acre is expected to decrease by 26.6 percent at the Project site.

In addition, the Project contains a bioswale and bioretention system that would be effective in stormwater runoff cleanup of a large portion of the expanded facility. This further supports the conclusion that the impact on water quality of the increase in dogs at Albany Beach as a result of the construction of Proposed Project improvements would be less than significant.

The statement in the Draft SEIR that 10-15 percent of dogs enter the water is supported by the experience of two District personnel, as noted in the footnotes on page 10 of the Draft SEIR. As noted on page 35 of the Draft SEIR, this is equivalent to one or two additional Project-induced dogs entering the water. The constant action of waves at the shore has a much greater impact on turbidity than would one or two dogs. Eelgrass is located under water, away from the beach and the near-shore areas where most dogs swim (see Figure 3.3-1, page 13 of the Draft SEIR). For these reasons, the presence of one or two additional dogs in the water would not have a significant impact on eelgrass.

28 Lisa K. Foster, California Research Bureau, Dogs on the Beach: A Review of Regulations and Issues Affecting Dog Beaches in California, May 2006. 29 Colorado State Parks, Chatfield State Park Dog Off-Leash Area Management Plan, October 2010.

73 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response GGA-9 See Responses SPRAWLDEF-11, SPRAWLDEF-13, and SPRAWLDEF-17.

74 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

C. Private Firms and Individuals Sander Caldwell

75 From: Sander Caldwell To: Chris Barton Subject: Re: Notice of Availability: Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Draft SEIR) Date: Monday, December 22, 2014 9:40:26 PM Attachments: image002.jpg

Hello Chris, thank you for the complete EIR. I am excited by the project and look forward to seeing its fruition. My primary concern is that the fencing listed to keep dogs out of the enhanced dunes would be a potential barrier for kite launching and landing. There is an area directly east of the highest part of the dunes that kiters often use to land their kites. It is a good place because the high dune makes a wind block, hence SC1-1 making it easier to control your kite as you land it. And there is a bed of ice-plant that is a soft material to land the kite on. It would be great if a bit of that area could be still used as a kite landing zone. Please let me know if you'd like me to elaborate on the exact location. Sincerely Sander Caldwell 510 520 1816

On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Chris Barton wrote:

East Bay Regional Park District has released the Draft SEIR for the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project for public review. A copy of the Notice Availability and Draft SEIR are attached.

The document was prepared solely to address a court ruling that required the District to consider the number and impact of unleashed dogs at the Albany Beach Restoration Project site. All other portions of the EIR were certified by the EBRPD in November 2012 and remain unchanged. The Draft SEIR and previously approved Final EIR & supporting documents are available on the District’s website at: http://www.ebparks.org/about/planning#albany

The comment period runs today through February 11, 2015. Please direct your comments to me at the address below.

Best regards,

Chris Barton

Project Manager

Chris Barton Acting Environmental Programs Manager | Environmental Programs East Bay Regional Park District 2950 Peralta Oaks Court, Oakland, CA http://www.ebparks.org/Assets/Signature-2014.jpg

94605 Tel: 510-544-2627 | Fax: 510-569-1417 [email protected] | www.ebparks.org

STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY | This electronic message and any files or attachments transmitted with it may be confidential, privileged, or proprietary information of the East Bay Regional Park District. The information is solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it was intended to be addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that use, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately, destroy any copies, and delete it from your system.

P Please consider the environment before you print

E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment SC1-1 Effects on kite launching is a socioeconomic impact, rather than an environmental impact that is required to be evaluated by CEQA. The comment regarding effects on kite launching will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

78 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Mino de Angelis

79 From: Mino de Angelis To: Chris Barton Subject: Albany Beach Dog Park Date: Monday, February 09, 2015 1:49:36 PM

Hi Mr. Barton,

I recently read the EBRP Environmental Impact Statement for Albany Beach and Bulb. This is in reference to that.

When I was done reading I thought while the Report didn't appear to change anything in it's enforcement of off leash dog rules it also did not take the onus off our backs that off leash dogs are still in violation. I wasn't planning on commenting to EBRP because I thought we could continue to live with the status quo, but I now understand that this Report is still under a lot of pressure by people who disapprove of your finding and that you may also want to hear from some of us in favor.

Let me begin to say that I own a dog and frequent the Albany Beach on a average of 5 days a week. My dog in her first year developed bone chips from the hard playing she did on the more packed surfaces one may find at Cesar Chavez Park and others. I had the bone chips removed and the advice of her doctor was to let her play on softer surfaces and in the water. At that point, 3 1/2 years ago, I started to frequent Albany Beach and it's become one of our favorite places in the Bay Area. She has a love of the water and running on the sand increases her stamina and decreases any tendency for injury.

Mr. Barton I have been a bird watcher for over 30 years, a frequent hiker, a member of an environmental group seeking to remediate and restore native ecosystems, a donor to various 'green' organizations and someone who has voted affirmatively, for thirty nine years, for every ballot legislation that funds and increases our parks. I also, along with others, form an informal litter patrol that keep the beach clean and safe. I say safe here because among the various detritus I find there is glass bottles, hypodermic needles and used condoms. I think if you inspect closer the persons who do use the beach the most frequently you will find a very dedicated 'constituency' to it's health and safety. Exactly the kind of dedicated partner the Park system should want for the preservation of its public trust. MDA-1

I find it a bit demeaning that these people I'm referring to are merely considered a special interest group and not necessarily a true constituent of the park. I agree that they are 'special' in their love of the site but they also form an elemental piece of why this site is important.

As you can see from a reading of your own Impact Statement the proposed park already has multi-use recreation. People visit with children, I've seen photographers, wind surfers, kayakers, bike riders, joggers, sunset gazers and folks hiking out to the sculptures found at the end of the Albany Bulb. Are these people also a 'special interest group' in how they utilize the site?

Regarding the harassment of bird life at the site I would like to say that as a bird lover the situation there is certainly not in any way dire to the birds most frequently found there. Most are water fowl that remain off shore and of the shorebirds (oyster catchers, dunlin, willets, etc) they work the rocky areas at low tide and forage most successfully on the mud-flats on the north side of the Bulb. The raptors are much more likely to be driven away by ravens than dogs. The gulls are just as likely to be found in the GG parking lot as anywhere else. If one attempted to establish a breeding population of any specie they would have to fence off the entire area to access including and especially to humans.

Mr. Barton, I can probably continue on, but I think your EIS did a fair assessment and I only hope that 'special interest' politics will not prevent you from implementing it as is, with the caveat that dogs can continue to have free access.

Thank you so much for your time,

Mino de Angelis E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment MDA-1 As discussed in the SEIR, all impacts of the Proposed Project, including potential impacts of dogs on biological and geological resources (see pages 24-30 and 32-33), would be reduced to a less-than- significant level by mitigation measures identified in the SEIR.

The comments on the merits of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

81 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Brad Smith

82 From: Brad Smith To: Chris Barton Subject: Public Comment: Draft Supplemental EIR for the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project Date: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 9:11:00 AM

Dear Mr. Barton,

I served as a Berkeley Waterfront Commissioner from 1992 to 2008. During that time the Commission discussed dogs off leash in Cesar Chavez Park on multiple occasions. It's a complicated issue and I know it's not exactly the same situation at Albany Beach, but I have visited Albany Beach on many occasions (without a dog) and believe I have a feel for the dog- use issues there. Based on this experience, I support the findings of the Draft Supplemental EIR for the Albany Beach restoration project. BS-1

I also support designating the small beach between the abandoned pier and Fleming Point as dog-free for those who cannot comfortably co-exist with dogs.

Thank you for the consideration given to my note.

Brad Smith 1205 Francisco Street Berkeley, CA 94702 (510) 926-2047 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment BS-1 The original 2012 EIR and the Draft SEIR evaluate the Project as proposed, as required by CEQA. The comments on the design of the Proposed Project, and on the merits of the Project, will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

84 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Jeffrey Finn

85 From: JF To: Chris Barton Subject: Comment Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project Date: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 5:22:38 AM

This letter is a public comment on the Draft Supplemental EIR for the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project. JF1-1 I support the full enforcement of leash laws.

Jeﬀrey Finn E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment JF1-1 The comments on enforcement concern Park District policy and will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

87 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Roisman and Armstrong

88 From: Rebecca Roisman To: Chris Barton Cc: Ian Ericson Armstrong Subject: public letter on the EIR draft supplemental Date: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 7:48:32 AM

Chris and EBPD- thank you for all your hard work to improve my neighborhood and community, in such a thorough and environmentally respectful way!!

My partner and I are homeowners on Gilman, moved from Oakland with our two dogs 7 years ago, and we love our dog-friendly community here. We've watched the transformations and eras that the Bulb and waterfront have gone through and our dogs (and our little nieces and nephews) have always relished an afternoon down at the beach, or a RA-1 stroll around the owl habitat and the winding trails of the Bulb.

The new plans look fantastic. We are all of us very excited about it finally being implemented, and continuing to bring our dogs there on-voice-command only, as they should be. :)

Thanks again! -Rebecca Roisman and Ian Armstrong E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment RA-1 The comments on the design and merits of the Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

90 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Paul Kaman

91 From: Paul Kamen To: Chris Barton; Albany City Council Subject: Comments on the Albany Beach Draft Supplemental EIR Date: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 11:30:59 AM

This letter is a public comment on the Draft Supplemental EIR for the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project.

I support the findings and conclusions of the Draft SEIR, and support the main features of the project as currently proposed.

I thank the Park District for providing some hard data that verifies the low level of impact that off- leash dogs have on the beach environment, and especially for acknowledging that enforcement of leash requirements at Albany Beach is not practical.

The advocacy and planning for Eastshore State Park began in the 1980s, and some details of the park plan (adopted in 2002) are clearly obsolete in view of evolving uses. "Generationally obsolete" is a term that might apply here.

Albany Beach is unique among East Bay shorelines, and has immeasurable value for visitors with and without dogs as it is currently being used and enjoyed. It will serve the public even better after the project is complete. PK-1

That said, I am not opposed to designating a separate beach area as dog-free for those who cannot comfortably co-exist with dogs, off-leash or on. The small beach between the abandoned pier and Fleming Point would serve this function well, and I believe the relative size is a generous reflection of the relative use pressures by park visitors on both sides of the off-leash/on-leash divide.

Human behavior is very difficult to change. But architectural features that accommodate behaviors are sometimes easy to implement. If the dog-runners perceive that they have a reasonable and appropriately sized off-leash beach, then the dog-free status of the smaller beach to the south will be respected with minimal enforcement. As a practical matter, this is probably the only way - and certainly the most cost-effective way - to actually achieve a dog-free beach environment for those critics of the SEIR who suggest that this is important.

Again, thank you for the good work on the SEIR, and I look forward to the expeditious completion of the project.

Paul Kamen (not a dog owner) Coalition for Diverse Activities on Water, Grass and Sand [email protected] www.CDAWGS.org 510-540-7968 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment PK-1 As discussed in the SEIR, all impacts of the Proposed Project, including potential impacts of dogs on biological and geological resources (see pages 24-30 and 32-33), would be reduced to a less-than- significant level by mitigation measures identified in the SEIR.

The comments on the design of the Proposed Project, and on the merits of the Project, will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

93 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Evelyn Loughran

94 From: Evelyn Loughran To: Chris Barton Subject: Off-Leash Dogs at Albany Beach Date: Friday, February 06, 2015 10:25:07 AM

Dear Chris Barton, I take my dog to Albany Beach and The Bulb 2-3 times per week, as I did with our previous dog, so for about 15 years. I love the views, the art, being near the water, and the convenience (it's about a 7 minute drive from my home in Berkeley). My dog loves swimming, digging in the sand, hunting for balls, and being off-leash. EL-1 I would love to see it unchanged. That said, bathrooms and the continuation of the Bay Trail would be useful improvements, as well as a small beach for people only.

The Albany Bulb and Beach, now McLaughhlin Eastshore State Park, is one of the treasured spots of the East Bay. Don't change it too much! Sincerely, Evelyn Loughran E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment EL-1 The comments on the design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

96 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Andrea Lotker

97 From: Andrea Lotker To: Chris Barton ; [email protected] Subject: SEIR for the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project Date: Saturday, February 07, 2015 9:22:53 PM

Mr. Chris Barton Acting Environmental Programs Manager East Bay Regional Park District 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, CA 94605

Dear Mr. Barton:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project.

I am a resident of the East Bay for 8 years and a dog owner of about 4 years now. I am a teacher, environmental and political activist, and a longtime visitor to Albany Beach. I am a supporter of the environmental causes and the East bay Regional Park District.

Last summer, the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) collected 200 hours of data about park visitors. The data shows that 59 percent of visitors to the Albany waterfront do not bring dogs. This con rms what park users have been saying all along: that there is a healthy, dynamic mix of user groups that includes people with dogs.

A goal of your project is to bring more visitors to Albany Beach for active recreation. The district has established that more recreation on Albany Beach, including by more people with dogs, poses no threat to the environment or wildlife. I thank the district for preserving rich wildlife habitat nearby, including the Albany Mudats Ecological Preserve (160 acres of tidal mudats and salt marsh), the protected areas along the Bay Trail, the large Homan Marsh, the extensive mudats at the Brickyard, and the 72-acre Berkeley Meadow.

The SEIR resolves any environmental concerns about the impact of people with dogs at the waterfront. I urge the Board of Directors to accept it.

I am a longtime supporter of the park district and one of the things I love best about it and the East Bay is o- leash recreation at Albany Beach. I strongly believe that people with dogs should continue to be part of our vibrant, multi-use waterfront, as they have been for 50 years. I look forward to collaborating with the park district and the community on commonsense policies that support that.

Sincerely,

Andrea P. Lotker 629 Santa Clara Ave, Apt C Alameda, CA 94501

[email protected] E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment AL-1 As discussed in the SEIR, all impacts of the Proposed Project, including potential impacts of dogs on biological and geological resources (see pages 24-30 and 32-33), would be reduced to a less-than- significant level by mitigation measures identified in the SEIR.

The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

99 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Jack Van Voast

100 From: jack van voast To: Chris Barton Subject: Alabany bulb Date: Saturday, February 07, 2015 5:34:24 PM

Mr. Chris Barton,

Thank you for reading my Email. I have been visiting the Albany bulb for some 15 years...... (several times a week, sometimes more)...... Please leave it alone.Your park district has spent many tens of thousands of dollars on "landscaping" and it looks worse every time it's "Improved". This is one of the last "wilderness" areas in the East JVV-1 bay. Please leave it as it is.

Jack Van Voast Oakland, Ca. E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment JVV-1 The comments on the merits of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

102 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Karl Goldstein

103 From: Karl Goldstein To: Chris Barton; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Comment on SEIR for Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project Date: Saturday, February 07, 2015 9:13:21 PM

Mr. Chris Barton Acting Environmental Programs Manager East Bay Regional Park District 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, CA 94605

Dear Mr. Barton:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project.

My dog and I have walked on the Albany Landfill almost every weekend for the last 8 years. We have almost always felt part of a harmonious community of visitors.

This personal impression is reinforced by survey data. Last summer, the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) collected 200 hours of data about park visitors. The data shows that 59 percent of visitors to the Albany waterfront do not bring dogs. This confirms what park users have been saying all along: that there is a healthy, dynamic mix of user groups that includes people with dogs.

The study documented that people with dogs diligently clean up after them. The SEIR noted that the overall cleanliness of the beach may be partly due to the presence of the Albany Landfill Dogs Owners Group & Friends (ALDOG, aldog.org), which conducts regular beach cleanups. KG-1 A goal of your project is to bring more visitors to Albany Beach for active recreation. The district has established that more recreation on Albany Beach, including by more people with dogs, poses no threat to the environment or wildlife. I thank the district for preserving rich wildlife habitat nearby, including the Albany Mudflats Ecological Preserve (160 acres of tidal mudflats and salt marsh), the protected areas along the Bay Trail, the large Hoffman Marsh, the extensive mudflats at the Brickyard, and the 72-acre Berkeley Meadow.

The SEIR resolves any environmental concerns about the impact of people with dogs at the waterfront. I urge the Board of Directors to accept it.

I am a longtime supporter of the park district and one of the things I love best about it and the East Bay is off-leash recreation at Albany Beach. I strongly believe that people with dogs should continue to be part of our vibrant, multi-use waterfront, as they have been for 50 years. I look forward to collaborating with the park district and the community on commonsense policies that support that.

Sincerely,

Karl Goldstein 946 Talbot Ave Albany, CA 947606 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment KG-1 As discussed in the SEIR, all impacts of the Proposed Project, including potential impacts of dogs on biological and geological resources (see pages 24-30 and 32-33), would be reduced to a less-than- significant level by mitigation measures identified in the SEIR.

The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

105 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Wendy Oser

106 From: Wendy Oser To: Chris Barton Subject: approve SEIR for Albany Beach Date: Saturday, February 07, 2015 5:21:21 PM

Mr. Chris Barton Acting Environmental Programs Manager East Bay Regional Park District 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, CA 94605

Dear Mr. Barton:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project.

I am a resident of Berkeley since 1966, living just a few blocks from Albany. I am a dog owner, grandmother and care giver for my husband with Alzheimer’s Disease and a lover of the beach at the Bulb. I am longtime supporter of environmental causes and the East Bay Regional Park District.

Last summer, the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) collected 200 hours of data about park visitors. The data shows that 59 percent of visitors to the Albany waterfront do not bring dogs. This confirms what park users have been saying all along: that there is a healthy, dynamic mix of user groups that includes people with dogs.

A goal of your project is to bring more visitors to Albany Beach for active recreation. The district has established that more recreation on Albany Beach, including by more people with dogs, poses no threat to the environment or wildlife. I thank the district for preserving rich wildlife habitat nearby, including the Albany Mudflats Ecological Preserve (160 acres of tidal mudflats and salt marsh), the protected areas along the Bay Trail, the large Hoffman Marsh, the extensive mudflats at the Brickyard, and the 72-acre Berkeley Meadow.

The SEIR resolves any environmental concerns about the impact of people with dogs at the waterfront. I urge the Board of Directors to accept it.

Wendy Oser 1439 Santa Fe Ave Berkeley CA 94702 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment WO-1 As discussed in the SEIR, all impacts of the Proposed Project, including potential impacts of dogs on biological and geological resources (see pages 24-30 and 32-33), would be reduced to a less-than- significant level by mitigation measures identified in the SEIR.

The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

109 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Constance Barich

110 From: Barich, Constance To: Chris Barton Subject: SEIR for the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project Date: Sunday, February 08, 2015 11:21:31 AM

Mr. Chris Barton Acting Environmental Programs Manager East Bay Regional Park District 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, CA 94605

Dear Mr. Barton: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project. I am a dog owner, parent and longtime visitor to Albany Beach. Last summer, the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) collected 200 hours of data about park visitors. The data shows that 59 percent of visitors to the Albany waterfront do not bring dogs. This con rms what park users have been saying all along: that there is a healthy, dynamic mix of user groups that includes people with dogs. The study documented that people with dogs diligently clean up after them. The SEIR noted that the overall cleanliness of the beach may be partly due to the presence of the Albany Land ll Dogs Owners Group & Friends (ALDOG, aldog.org), which conducts regular beach cleanups.

A goal of your project is to bring more visitors to Albany Beach for active recreation. The district has CB-1 established that more recreation on Albany Beach, including by more people with dogs, poses no threat to the environment or wildlife. I thank the district for preserving rich wildlife habitat nearby, including the Albany Mudats Ecological Preserve (160 acres of tidal mudats and salt marsh), the protected areas along the Bay Trail, the large Homan Marsh, the extensive mudats at the Brickyard, and the 72-acre Berkeley Meadow. The SEIR resolves any environmental concerns about the impact of people with dogs at the waterfront. I urge the Board of Directors to accept it. I am a longtime supporter of the park district and one of the things I love best about it and the East Bay is o-leash recreation at Albany Beach. I strongly believe that people with dogs should continue to be part of our vibrant, multi-use waterfront, as they have been for 50 years. I look forward to collaborating with the park district and the community on commonsense policies that support that. Sincerely,

Constance Lynn Barich

1237 50th Avenue Oakland, CA 94601 [email protected] (h) 510/533-0172 (m)510/384-1552

This e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you received this message in error or are not the intended recipient, you should destroy the e-mail message and any attachments or copies, and you are prohibited from retaining, distributing, disclosing or using any information contained herein. Please inform us of the erroneous delivery by return e-mail. Thank you for your cooperation. E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment CB1-1 As discussed in the SEIR, all impacts of the Proposed Project, including potential impacts of dogs on biological and geological resources (see pages 24-30 and 32-33), would be reduced to a less-than- significant level by mitigation measures identified in the SEIR.

The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

113 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Emma Yee

114 From: Emma Yee To: Chris Barton Subject: Comments on Albany SEIR Date: Sunday, February 08, 2015 6:31:15 PM Attachments: Comments on Albany SEIR_02.08.15.docx

Hi Chris, Please ﬁnd attachment with comments on the Albany SEIR. I recently became a Parks and Recreation commissioner with Albany, but I am responding as a resident of Albany, not as a commissioner. The position made me become more aware of Albany, and so I did some investigating and would like to oﬀer a solution to the children/dog issue at the beach, as EY-1 noted in the attachment.

I was hoping to paste the attachment, but it did not work. Is this okay or do you recommend I provide a hardcopy? Emma

Emma Yee 1260 Brighton Avenue, #204 Albany, CA 94706-1364 [email protected]

Comments on SEIR

Information from SEIR: 1. Dogs are perceived as predators by most wildlife and therefore even dogs on leash can disturb wildlife. Hence, fencing to preserve environment. 2. Guideline OPER-5 prohibits dogs on beaches, including Albany Beach, and conflicts with current uses at Albany Beach where dogs on and off-leash frequent the beach. 3. From 2010- August 2014 the District did not issue any citations related to dog-related issues, including off-leash dogs at the Project site (pg 9). 4. District anticipates that enforcement of Ordinance 38 will continue to be a low-priority when allocating department resources. . . expects that it will continue to enforce the policy at its current level, and will not increase patrols as a result of the Project (pg 10). 5. Proposed Project includes as part of the Project improved permanent signage to educate the public about on and off-leash dog policies and the importance of keeping dogs on leash, and includes as part of the Project doggie waste bag stations and waste disposal receptacles. 6. The study area includes three sandy beaches (approximately 2.07 acres). The smallest two beaches are located in the southern portion, just north of Fleming Point.

What I have learned from people: 1. People want beach for children who are afraid of dogs. 2. People want beach for dogs. 3. A person at the beach wants his dog (black labrador) to enjoy the beach away from bullying dogs at the beach. They were at location “C” of map below. 4. A person with a smaller dog (poodle) who is afraid of larger dogs wants to be at the beach. They were also at location “C.”

What I recommend: 1. Accommodate both dogs and children with the three beaches of the study area. 2. Use location “A” for all dogs. Location “A” is the largest of the three beaches in the study area. It is also most occupied with dogs. EY-1 3. Expand location “B” for gentle dogs and children less fearful of dogs. Location “B” is the smallest of (cont.) the three beaches, and located between the largest and mid-size beaches. 4. Use location “C” for children, especially ones afraid of dogs. Location “C” is the mid-size beach.

E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment EY-1 The comments on the design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

117 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Susan Eason

118 From: Susan Eason To: Chris Barton Subject: Please preserve access for dog & their people at Albany Beach Date: Sunday, February 08, 2015 12:32:53 PM

Mr. Chris Barton Acting Environmental Programs Manager East Bay Regional Park District 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, CA 94605

Dear Mr. Barton:

I wanted to comment on the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report re: the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project.

I am a 50-year resident of the Bay Area and a long-term owner of rescued German Shepherds. I have so appreciated that there are places like the Albany Bulb where dogs can come with their owners and each experience some actual nature.

It used to be relatively easy--now everything is regulated and fearful; but shouldn't some of the beauty and freedom be preserved? SE-1 In my experience, people who love their dogs go out of their way to enhance beloved areas where they can enjoy off-leash activities with their dogs and encounter other outdoor-oriented people. The SEIR indicated that the overall cleanliness of the beach may be due in part to the Albany Landfill Dogs Owners Group & Friends which organizes & completes regular beach cleanups.

I'm hoping that your Board of Directors will agree that the SEIR resolves any environmental concerns about the impact of people with dogs on the waterfront and that we may all continue to enjoy and share in the activities at Albany Beach. It is a vital quality-of-life issue to so many of us.

Sincerely,

Susan Eason 4177 Randolph Avenue Oakland, Ca 94602 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment SE-1 The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

120 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Tom Nigman

121 From: Tom Nigman To: Chris Barton Subject: Comment on Impact Report (SEIR) for the Albany Beach & Bulb Date: Sunday, February 08, 2015 12:22:10 PM

Mr. Chris Barton Acting Environmental Programs Manager East Bay Regional Park District 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, CA 94605

Dear Mr. Barton:

As the co-founder of the world's first dog park. Ohlone in Berkeley I would like to add my 2 cents to the discussion. It is estimated that as much as 40% of our bay area population owns dogs. To ban off leash dogs from this area after decades of letting them run free would cause a uproar in the community that no one wants to see but a small minority that has submitted studies that support the idea that dogs are harmful to wild life. However there are also studies that show dogs have little or no impact on wild life. TN-1 Said studies will be submitted to this discussion by bay area dog advocacy groups who are in the process of forming an umbrella group of thousands of supporters in order to speak with one voice about off leash access. Personally I have been hiking the bulb and enjoying the beach for decades with my Labradors. I have never seen a dog harm wildlife or injure a person. The vast majority of this area's users are very responsible, pick up after their dogs and have them under reasonable voice control.

Tom Nigman 820 San Luis Rd Berkeley Ca 94707 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment TN-1 As discussed in the SEIR, all impacts of the Proposed Project, including potential impacts of dogs on biological and geological resources (see pages 24-30 and 32-33), would be reduced to a less-than- significant level by mitigation measures identified in the SEIR.

The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

123 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Barbara Ridley

124 From: Barbara Ridley To: Chris Barton Subject: Dogs at Albany Beach Date: Sunday, February 08, 2015 5:20:24 PM

Re: Public Comment on the proposed changes to dog rules at Albany Beach.

I would like to respond as someone who regularly walks her dog at this site. I go to the Albany Bulb before work almost every morning, rain or shine. It is a wonderful start to the day for me and my dog. The only other people I see there at that time of day are other dog walkers. Many of the dogs, mine included, love to spend some of the time at the beach. He runs along the sand and jumps into the waves with pure joy. And this gives me joy, a real uplift to my morning. I would never dream of taking him there at other times, when the beach is full of families with young kids - not that this happens very often but on those rare warm days when it might be warm enough for humans to go in the water, I would never take my BR-1 dog there because it would be no fun for me to have to worry about keeping him away from kids. So perhaps if you really have to limit dogs on the beach, please don't do that at those times when no one else is there. It's only the dogs and their beloved owners early in the morning -and what harm does it do? This is no pristine wilderness, it's right by two freeways for Heaven's sake, it's an urban park, and a rare place for our dogs to have a few moments of freedom off leash. Please don't take that away from us.

-- Barbara Ridley [email protected] E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment BR-1 The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

126 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Deborah Bayer

127 From: Deborah Bayer To: Chris Barton Date: Sunday, February 08, 2015 10:09:29 PM

Mr. Chris Barton Acting Environmental Programs Manager East Bay Regional Park District 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, CA 94605

Dear Mr. Barton:

I am writing in response to the (SEIR) on the Albany Beach, and the EBRPD's plans for the future use of this area (both the Beach and the Bulb).

I fell in love with the Bulb the first time I went there, over 20 years ago. I was delighted by the beach, the blackberries, the trails, the castle, the diversity of people using the Bulb, and the art. I loved the shopping cart arch, the fennel house, the piano on the hill. Each time I'd go there would be a new surprise, although I never caught anyone actually making these things. It added to the magic.

Over the years I have walked my dogs through most of the East Bay parks (and one year got a tee-shirt to prove it). We are so lucky to have nearby green places -- but the Bulb (or the Dump as we used to call it) was never a well maintained park. It was idiosyncratic and anarchic and yet it worked: a place where nature and human beings interacted surprisingly well with each other without much official supervision.

Years ago I went to public meetings held, I think, by the EBRPD with open comments on DB-1 what to do with the Bulb. There were birders who said dogs could not exist with birds, Hawaiian long-boaters who wanted a road built down the length of the neck, windsurfers, off- leash dog people, athletes who wanted a playing field, ephemeral artists and people who felt art did not belong in nature. Signs were put up saying all dogs needed to be on leash. Nobody obeyed the signs and they soon disappeared.

Finally the habitat of burrowing owls was disturbed by new athletic fields in Berkeley, and the top field was fenced, with signs announcing that the area was being set aside for new burrowing owl habitat. Unfortunately burrowing owls do not read, and they never came. Through it all the Bulb remained a unique place, used by bagpipers, children, dogs, birders, berry pickers and so many others. It's been a little gem -- a construction dump that somehow turned into a wonderland.

The SEIR did not show that off leash dogs were in any way harming the Bulb. I urge you to allow the multi-use diverse nature of the Bulb to continue.

Sincerely,

Deborah Bayer 5706 Sacramento Richmond, California 94804 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment DB-1 As discussed in the SEIR, all impacts of the Proposed Project, including potential impacts of dogs on biological and geological resources (see pages 24-30 and 32-33), would be reduced to a less-than- significant level by mitigation measures identified in the SEIR.

The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

129 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

David Renertson

130 From: Reinertson David To: Chris Barton Subject: Albany Bulb Date: Monday, February 09, 2015 12:21:50 PM

Mr. Chris Barton Acting Environmental Programs Manager East Bay Regional Park District 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, CA 94605

Dear Mr. Barton:

They say that home is where they have to let you in.

The Bulb had little to offer except peace. The Bulb welcomed everyone.

Then we evicted those for whom the Bulb was a temporary home. Fading remains of their unauthorized domesticity still beautify the concrete boneyard, echoing the upstart volunteerism of the invasive weeds. DR-1 Now you’re asked to ban dog walkers. Not to benefit your constituents. To limit them. Not to build an ideal park; to oppose the messy real park.

It would be futile to try to recreate unspoiled nature by posting signs, but with a light touch and a long view, the Bulb will continue to welcome all visitors.

Sincerely,

David Reinertson 6206 Highland Avenue Richmond, California 94805 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment DR-1 The comments on the merits of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

132 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Jen Beilik

133 From: Jen Bilik To: Chris Barton; [email protected] Subject: Pro-Dog Comment on the SEIR for the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project Date: Monday, February 09, 2015 11:07:00 AM

Mr. Chris Barton Acting Environmental Programs Manager East Bay Regional Park District 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, CA 94605

Dear Mr. Barton:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project.

I grew up in Berkeley and am now a part-time Berkeley resident. One of the things I most love about the East Bay is its open space for off-leash recreation.

Last summer, the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) collected 200 hours of data about park visitors. The data shows that 59 percent of visitors to the Albany waterfront do not bring dogs. This confirms what park users have been saying all along: that there is a healthy, dynamic mix of user groups that includes people with dogs.

The study documented that people with dogs diligently clean up after them. The SEIR noted that the overall cleanliness of the beach may be partly due to the presence of the Albany Landfill Dogs Owners Group & Friends (ALDOG, aldog.org), which conducts regular beach cleanups. JB-1 A goal of your project is to bring more visitors to Albany Beach for active recreation. The district has established that more recreation on Albany Beach, including by more people with dogs, poses no threat to the environment or wildlife. I thank the district for preserving rich wildlife habitat nearby, including the Albany Mudflats Ecological Preserve (160 acres of tidal mudflats and salt marsh), the protected areas along the Bay Trail, the large Hoffman Marsh, the extensive mudflats at the Brickyard, and the 72-acre Berkeley Meadow.

The SEIR resolves any environmental concerns about the impact of people with dogs at the waterfront. I urge the Board of Directors to accept it.

Sincerely,

Jen Bilik Venice, CA, and Berkeley, CA E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment JB-1 As discussed in the SEIR, all impacts of the Proposed Project, including potential impacts of dogs on biological and geological resources (see pages 24-30 and 32-33), would be reduced to a less-than- significant level by mitigation measures identified in the SEIR.

The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

135 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Jim Rasmussen

136 From: Jim Rasmussen To: Chris Barton; [email protected] Subject: Re: SEIR Date: Monday, February 09, 2015 7:09:04 PM

Dear Mr. Barton:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project.

I am a dog owner from El Cerrito (former resident of Albany for 18 years). I am a longtime visitor to Albany beach and supporter of environmental causes and off lease dog use in East Bay regional parks.

Last summer, the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) collected 200 hours of data about park visitors. The data shows that 59 percent of visitors to the Albany waterfront do not bring dogs. This confirms what park users have been saying all along: that there is a healthy, dynamic mix of user groups that includes people with dogs.

The study documented that people with dogs diligently clean up after them. The SEIR noted that the overall cleanliness of the beach may be partly due to the presence of the Albany Landfill Dogs Owners Group & Friends (ALDOG, aldog.org), which conducts regular beach cleanups. JR-1 A goal of your project is to bring more visitors to Albany Beach for active recreation. The district has established that more recreation on Albany Beach, including by more people with dogs, poses no threat to the environment or wildlife. I thank the district for preserving rich wildlife habitat nearby, including the Albany Mudflats Ecological Preserve (160 acres of tidal mudflats and salt marsh), the protected areas along the Bay Trail, the large Hoffman Marsh, the extensive mudflats at the Brickyard, and the 72-acre Berkeley Meadow.

The SEIR resolves any environmental concerns about the impact of people with dogs at the waterfront. I urge the Board of Directors to accept it.

Sincerely,

Andia Rasmussen El Cerrito E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment JR-1 As discussed in the SEIR, all impacts of the Proposed Project, including potential impacts of dogs on biological and geological resources (see pages 24-30 and 32-33), would be reduced to a less-than- significant level by mitigation measures identified in the SEIR.

The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

138 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Meryl Simon

139 From: [email protected] To: Chris Barton Subject: SEIR for the Albany Beach Date: Monday, February 09, 2015 10:51:55 PM

Dear Mr. Barton:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project.

I am a senior, a journalist and dog owner as well as a longtime supporter of environmental causes and an East Bay Regional Park user.

Last summer, the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) collected 200 hours of data about park visitors. The data shows that 59 percent of visitors to the Albany waterfront do not bring dogs. This confirms what park users have been saying all along: that there is a healthy, dynamic mix of user groups that includes people with dogs.

A goal of your project is to bring more visitors to Albany Beach for active recreation. The district has established that more recreation on Albany Beach, including by more people with MS2-1 dogs, poses no threat to the environment or wildlife. I thank the district for preserving rich wildlife habitat nearby, including the Albany Mudflats Ecological Preserve (160 acres of tidal mudflats and salt marsh), the protected areas along the Bay Trail, the large Hoffman Marsh, the extensive mudflats at the Brickyard, and the 72-acre Berkeley Meadow.

The SEIR resolves any environmental concerns about the impact of people with dogs at the waterfront. I urge the Board of Directors to accept it.

As seniors my husband and I find that being able to walk with our dog at parks such as the Albany beach helps keep us fit and engaged with our community.

Thank you,

Meryl Simon E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment MS2-1 As discussed in the SEIR, all impacts of the Proposed Project, including potential impacts of dogs on biological and geological resources (see pages 24-30 and 32-33), would be reduced to a less-than- significant level by mitigation measures identified in the SEIR.

The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

141 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Paula McGinnis

142 From: Paula McGinnis To: Chris Barton Cc: [email protected] Subject: Public comment on Draft EIR for Albany Beach Date: Monday, February 09, 2015 4:02:46 PM

Dear Mr. Barton and Albany City Council, I support allowing off-leash dogs on Albany Beach and on the walking paths. I am a long time resident of Albany and I have enjoyed the bulb since getting our first dog in the early 1990s. In fact, over the years, the bulb has become a favorite place for my whole family. We even appreciate the area in it’s slightly wild state, including the PMG-1 art and metal and driftwood sculptures. Sincerely, Paula McGinnis Albany resident E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment PMG-1 The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

144 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Gina Telcocci

145 From: Gina Telcocci To: [email protected]; Chris Barton Subject: off leash area at Albany Bulb Date: Monday, February 09, 2015 12:45:37 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

We live in Oakland, but take our dog to the Albany Bulb often. We so appreciate having a beach area close by where our dogs can romp offleash. The "bulb" is a rare gem - with a real beach on the bay but close in, and with plenty of trails attached. It seems like a perfect place to maintain as an offleash dog area - too sullied to be a pristine, prohibitive park area, but lovely, expansive, and with gorgeous views.

We know that there are many vociferous factions advocating for every greenish spot on the bay to be "protected", GT-1 sealed off, and sanctified, but please take our concerns seriously as well. We are very much interested in protecting wildlife & conserving natural areas. But this is an urban area! Let us have places that are not too precious to enjoy with our animals.

We love that you have cleaned the bulb up, but not made it too fancied up. Please keep the beach as an offleash area - there are so few where we can bring our dogs!

Gina Telcocci www.ginatelcocci.com E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment GT-1 The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

147 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Sharon Kerman

148 From: Eileen Harrington To: "[email protected]" Cc: Chris Barton Subject: FW: Albany Beach Restoration Date: Monday, February 09, 2015 9:30:47 AM

Thank you for your email regarding the supplemental environmental impact report (SEIR) for the Albany Beach Renovation Project. The SEIR was conducted following the outcome to litigation requiring that more data be included for the number of dogs that use the beach, the number of dogs on and off-leash, and how the usage may impact the environment. We appreciate your interest regarding your local parks.

Please note that the East Bay Regional Park District is the lead agency for the Albany Beach Renovation Project and the associated SEIR document. We will forward your email to the EBRPD to ensure it is received by the lead agency responsible for the project. Additionally, the SEIR and additional information regarding the Albany Beach Renovation Project can be found on the East Bay Regional Park District Website: http://www.ebparks.org/about/planning#albany

Eileen Eileen A. Harrington Secretary to the City Manager and a Deputy City Clerk CITY OF ALBANY 1000 San Pablo Avenue Albany, CA 94706 510.528.5710

Administration Department Hours: (see below for separate Passports Hours) Monday 8:30 - 12, 1 - 7 Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday 8:30 - 12, 1 - 5 Friday 8:30 - 12:30

Passport Acceptance Window Hours: Monday, Tuesday & Thursday 8:30 - 12, 1 - 4 Friday 8:30 - 12 Noon Closed All Day Wednesday and Closed Friday Afternoon

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2015 11:36 AM To: City General Mailbox account Subject: Albany Beach Restoration

Mr. Chris Barton Acting Environmental Programs Manager East Bay Regional Park District 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, CA 94605

Dear Mr. Barton:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project.

I am a resident of Albany,CA for 24 years years… dog owner,longtime visitor to Albany Beach… longtime supporter of environmental causes and the East Bay Regional Park District]

Last summer, the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) collected 200 hours of data about park visitors. The data shows that 59 percent of visitors to the Albany waterfront do not bring dogs. This confirms what park users have been saying all along: that there is a healthy, dynamic mix of user groups that includes people with dogs.

The study documented that people with dogs diligently clean up after them. The SEIR noted that the overall cleanliness of the beach may be partly due to the presence of the Albany Landfill Dogs Owners Group & Friends (ALDOG, aldog.org), which conducts regular beach cleanups. SK-1 A goal of your project is to bring more visitors to Albany Beach for active recreation. The district has established that more recreation on Albany Beach, including by more people with dogs, poses no threat to the environment or wildlife. I thank the district for preserving rich wildlife habitat nearby, including the Albany Mudflats Ecological Preserve (160 acres of tidal mudflats and salt marsh), the protected areas along the Bay Trail, the large Hoffman Marsh, the extensive mudflats at the Brickyard, and the 72-acre Berkeley Meadow.

The SEIR resolves any environmental concerns about the impact of people with dogs at the waterfront. I urge the Board of Directors to accept it.

Sincerely,

Sharon Kerman 634 Key Rt Blvd Albany, CA 94706 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment SK-1 As discussed in the SEIR, all impacts of the Proposed Project, including potential impacts of dogs on biological and geological resources (see pages 24-30 and 32-33), would be reduced to a less-than- significant level by mitigation measures identified in the SEIR.

The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

151 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Sharon and Peter Kerman

152 From: Eileen Harrington To: "[email protected]" Cc: Chris Barton Subject: FW: Albany Beach Date: Monday, February 09, 2015 9:43:42 AM

Regards,

Eileen Eileen A. Harrington Secretary to the City Manager and a Deputy City Clerk CITY OF ALBANY 1000 San Pablo Avenue Albany, CA 94706 510.528.5710

Administration Department Hours: (see below for separate Passports Hours) Monday 8:30 - 12, 1 - 7 Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday 8:30 - 12, 1 - 5 Friday 8:30 - 12:30

Passport Acceptance Window Hours: Monday, Tuesday & Thursday 8:30 - 12, 1 - 4 Friday 8:30 - 12 Noon Closed All Day Wednesday and Closed Friday Afternoon

Mr. Chris Barton Acting Environmental Programs Manager East Bay Regional Park District 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, CA 94605

Dear Mr. Barton: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project.

I am a [any personal info, for example: resident of CITY for XX years… dog owner/not a dog owner… birdwatcher/windsurfer/cyclist/jogger… parent… longtime visitor to Albany Beach… longtime supporter of environmental causes and the East Bay Regional Park District]

Last summer, the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) collected 200 hours of data about park visitors. The data shows that 59 percent of visitors to the Albany waterfront do not bring dogs. This confirms what park users have been saying all along: that there is a healthy, dynamic mix of user groups that includes people with dogs.

A goal of your project is to bring more visitors to Albany Beach for active recreation. The district has established that more recreation on Albany Beach, including by more people with dogs, poses no threat to the environment or wildlife. I thank the district for preserving rich wildlife habitat nearby, including the Albany Mudflats Ecological Preserve (160 acres of tidal mudflats and salt marsh), the protected areas along the Bay Trail, the large Hoffman Marsh, the extensive mudflats at the Brickyard, and the 72-acre Berkeley Meadow.

The SEIR resolves any environmental concerns about the impact of people with dogs at the waterfront. I urge the Board of Directors to accept it.

Sincerely,

Sharon and Peter Kerman 634 key rt blvd Albany,Ca 94706 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment SPK-1 As discussed in the SEIR, all impacts of the Proposed Project, including potential impacts of dogs on biological and geological resources (see pages 24-30 and 32-33), would be reduced to a less-than- significant level by mitigation measures identified in the SEIR.

The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

155 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Amber Whitson

156 From: Amber Whitson To: Chris Barton Cc: Albany Dogs ; [email protected] Subject: Dog access to Albany Beach Date: Sunday, February 08, 2015 1:38:23 AM

Dear Mr. Barton:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project.

I am an 8 year resident of Albany and my partner and I have a dog whom we have raised around Albany Beach. I am a devoted admirer of Albany Beach and my friends call my knowledge of Albany's Waterfront "encyclopedic". I am also a member of the Northern Alameda County Group of the Sierra Club and a strong advocate for environmental justice.

Last summer, the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) collected 200 hours of data about park visitors. The data shows that 59 percent of visitors to the Albany waterfront do not bring dogs. This confirms what park users have been saying all along: that there is a healthy, dynamic mix of user groups that includes people with dogs.

A goal of your project is to bring more visitors to Albany Beach for active recreation. The district has established that more recreation on Albany Beach, including by more people with dogs, poses no threat to the environment or wildlife. I thank the district for preserving rich wildlife habitat nearby, including the Albany Mudflats Ecological Preserve (160 acres of tidal mudflats and salt marsh), the protected areas along the Bay Trail, the large Hoffman Marsh, the extensive mudflats at the Brickyard, and the 72-acre Berkeley Meadow.

The SEIR resolves any environmental concerns about the impact of people with dogs at the waterfront. I urge the Board of Directors to accept it.

Sincerely, Amber Whitson 931 Madison Street Albany, CA 94706 Albany resident since 2006 CFO, Albany Housing Advocates E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment AW-1 As discussed in the SEIR, all impacts of the Proposed Project, including potential impacts of dogs on biological and geological resources (see pages 24-30 and 32-33), would be reduced to a less-than- significant level by mitigation measures identified in the SEIR.

The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

158 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Barbara Wagner

159 From: Eileen Harrington To: "[email protected]" Cc: Chris Barton Subject: FW: Albany Bulb Date: Monday, February 09, 2015 9:22:50 AM

Eileen Harrington City of Albany

Dear Albany City Councilmembers:

I will not be able to attend the meeting on February 19th as much as I would like to. I will try to voice my opinion on the subject of off-leash dog walking at the bulb.

I have been a dog-responsible resident of Albany since 1980 and have used Point Isabel, Albany Hill, and then, the Bulb to walk my dogs leash-free. My dogs have been and are on voice control and of friendly nature. Using caution and good sense, I have been able to avoid trouble. Carrying a leash is also advisable. I do believe that dogs need to be able to exercise and explore as freely as is possible, but with diligence and responsibility on the persons' part. BW-1

I have noticed that many elder people finding it convenient to not have to walk a great distance and have their dogs gain maximum exercise by being leash free.

It is my hope that an equitable solution can be reached where dogs can benefit as well as we in our wonderful Albany landfill and beach.

Sincerely, Barbara Wagner E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment BW-1 The comments on the design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

161 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Carolyn and Dwight Dillard

162 From: Eileen Harrington To: "[email protected]" Cc: Chris Barton Subject: FW: Albany Beach Date: Monday, February 09, 2015 9:40:34 AM

Eileen Eileen A. Harrington Secretary to the City Manager and a Deputy City Clerk CITY OF ALBANY 1000 San Pablo Avenue Albany, CA 94706 510.528.5710

Administration Department Hours: (see below for separate Passports Hours) Monday 8:30 - 12, 1 - 7 Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday 8:30 - 12, 1 - 5 Friday 8:30 - 12:30

Passport Acceptance Window Hours: Monday, Tuesday & Thursday 8:30 - 12, 1 - 4 Friday 8:30 - 12 Noon Closed All Day Wednesday and Closed Friday Afternoon

-----Original Message----- From: Carolyn Willard [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2015 8:01 AM To: City General Mailbox account Subject: Albany Beach

Dear Members of the Albany City Council,

My husband and I are 39-year Albany residents. We are also longtime advocates of environmental protection. We're responsible dog owners. CDD-1 We love Albany beach and want to continue to enjoy it with our well-behaved dog. Please support a compromise that will allow dogs to use part of the beach. It is the right thing to do. Carolyn and Dwight Willard E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment CDD-1 The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

165 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Caran Ruga

166 From: Eileen Harrington To: "caran96" Cc: Chris Barton Subject: RE: Albany Bulb Date: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 11:57:54 AM

Regards,

Eileen Eileen A. Harrington Secretary to the City Manager and a Deputy City Clerk CITY OF ALBANY 1000 San Pablo Avenue Albany, CA 94706 510.528.5710

Administration Department Hours: (see below for separate Passports Hours) Monday 8:30 - 12, 1 - 7 Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday 8:30 - 12, 1 - 5 Friday 8:30 - 12:30

Passport Acceptance Window Hours: Monday, Tuesday & Thursday 8:30 - 12, 1 - 4 Friday 8:30 - 12 Noon Closed All Day Wednesday and Closed Friday Afternoon

-----Original Message----- From: caran96 [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 11:53 AM To: City General Mailbox account Subject: Albany Bulb

Dear Albany City Councilmembers: As a home owner and dog owner in Berkeley, we spend a lot of beautiful days watching our 3 dogs frolic on the beach of Albany Bulb. We have never seen a bad interaction with humans over the course of 10 years. CR-1 Please let the dogs continue to delight in the water! Thank you for your consideration. Caran Ruga 94705 Sent from my iPhone E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment CR-1 The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

169 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Carol Bledsoe

170 From: Carol Bledsoe To: Chris Barton Subject: welcome people with dogs, please! Date: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 8:17:16 PM

Dear Mr. Barton:

As a resident of the East Bay and a birdwatcher, and environmentalist and dog owner I'm very interested in your welcoming people with dogs at the Albany Beach park.

I believe the park district should work toward official policies that welcome people with dogs at the Albany waterfront. We are an important park user group and walking dogs is a vital exercise option for East Bay residents.

I urge the park district to accept the SEIR.

Thank you, Carol Bledsoe E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment CB2-1 The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

172 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Cathy Condon

173 From: Cathy Condon To: Chris Barton; [email protected] Subject: Please keep Albany Beach open for dog owners Date: Monday, February 09, 2015 7:06:37 PM

Dear Mr. Barton:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project.

I am a single-family home owner and resident of Berkeley for 23 years, a dog owner, birdwatcher, cyclist, longtime visitor to Albany Beach, and a longtime supporter of environmental causes and the East Bay Regional Park District.

Last summer, the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) collected 200 hours of data about park visitors. The data shows that 59 percent of visitors to the Albany waterfront do not bring dogs. This confirms what park users have been saying all along: that there is a healthy, dynamic mix of user groups that includes people with dogs.

A goal of your project is to bring more visitors to Albany Beach for active recreation. The district has established that more recreation on Albany Beach, including by more people with dogs, poses no threat to the environment or wildlife. I thank the district for preserving rich wildlife habitat nearby, including the Albany Mudflats Ecological Preserve (160 acres of tidal mudflats and salt marsh), the protected areas along the Bay Trail, the large Hoffman Marsh, the extensive mudflats at the Brickyard, and the 72-acre Berkeley Meadow.

The SEIR resolves any environmental concerns about the impact of people with dogs at the waterfront. I urge the Board of Directors to accept it.

Sincerely, Cathy Condon 2707 Mabel St. West Berkeley (District 2) E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment CC-1 As discussed in the SEIR, all impacts of the Proposed Project, including potential impacts of dogs on biological and geological resources (see pages 24-30 and 32-33), would be reduced to a less-than- significant level by mitigation measures identified in the SEIR.

The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

175 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Carolyn Willard

176 From: Carolyn Willard To: Chris Barton Subject: Albany Beach Date: Sunday, February 08, 2015 7:59:46 AM

Dear Mr. Barton,

My husband and I are 39-year Albany residents. We are also longtime advocates of environmental protection. We're responsible dog owners. CW1-1 We love Albany beach and want to continue to enjoy it with our well-behaved dog. Please try to find a compromise that will allow dogs to use part of the beach. It is the right thing to do.

Carolyn and Dwight Willard E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment CW1-1 The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

178 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Claudia J. Kawczynska

179 From: Claudia Kawczynska To: Chris Barton Subject: SEIR Date: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 2:02:00 PM Attachments: Burton_SEIR.doc ATT00001.htm

Dear Mr. Burton,

I am a resident of Berkeley and have been a faithful and a longtime park user of the EBRPD parks and appreciate the amenities that the this system offers to my family and me. But the primary use I make of the parks, including Redwood, Tilden, Point Isabel and the Albany Bulb, is to hike with my dogs off leash. I am a senior citizen and if I didn’t have a dog (or in my case, three of them) I highly doubt I would use the parks at all. But my dogs inspire me to bring them to one of your parks, twice a day, 365 days/year. I have been doing this now for over 20 years. I am a big, and vocal, supporter for off leash recreation.

I was dismayed that the district was forced to undergo the expense of The Supplemental Environmental Impact Report but happy to see that your analysis proves that there is a healthy mix of user groups at the Albany waterfront, which has been my experience during my visits there as well. Most people are conscientious about cleaning up after their dogs, and most other non-dog users seem to get along quite well with those of us CJK-1 who have dogs. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been stopped by a family who wanted to “meet” my dogs, or how having a dog would bring smiles to the face of a stranger.

I have helped in whatever way I can by picking up “stray” poops and supplying plastic bags to the efforts. I have also volunteered during the Albany Landfill Dog Owners Group & Friends, on their regular beach cleanups efforts. That is a massive effort but perhaps because of where that beach in located, it is unfortunate to see that their valiant efforts are a mere drop in the proverbial bucket, with so much pollution quickly drifting unto that little pocket beach. Perhaps that is something the district has ideas to improve upon? It is one thing to spend valuable taxpayer money establishing dunes and manmade “wetlands” when the area all around is so heavily populated (through no fault whatsoever of any of the park users).

I do take exception to the language contained in the SEIR in describing dog use at the Bulb (and in other areas). It is true that dogs are predators, but then again so are many other fauna “residents” in that area, including skunks (who do feast on bird eggs), snakes, raccoons, crows (who do hunt gophers), hawks, feral cats, and, oh yes, humans CJK-2 themselves. So it is unfair to single out the impact that dogs might have on “wildlife” that, as is noted in the report, “consider dogs to be predators.” That is also a very anthropomorphic sentiment without any scientific evidence to back this claim. Birds have been observed to be as cautious of humans as they are of dogs, and many studies have found that they also become “habituated” to both species in urban parks as well. CJK-2 (cont.) I believe the park district should work toward official dog friendlier policies and collaborate with dog user groups, plus welcome people with dogs at the Albany CJK-3 waterfront. We are an important park user group and walking dogs is a vital exercise option for so many residents.

I also realize, because I received a call from a survey taker the other night, that the district is prepared to introduce another bond initiative, and I was sorry that few questions related at all to one of the largest park user groups—dog owners. At the end of that call the survey taker read out a list of organizations, such as the Sierra Club, CJK-4 Audubon, CESP etc., asking for my opinion of them. But not one dog user group, such as PIDO or ALDog. Hopefully that omission wasn’t evidence of a lack of support by the district for this user group, of which I am proud to be a member of.

I do urge the park district is going to accept the SEIR and go forward with maintaining a welcoming attitude to dogs, off-leash, at the Albany Waterfront. CJK-5

Sincerely,

Claudia J. Kawczynska

Former Berkeley Waterfront Commissioner, founder Friends of Cesar Chavez Park

Response to Comment CJK-1 Response CJK-1 The comment is noted.

Response CJK-2 The impacts of the Proposed Project on biological resources are discussed in the SEIR on pages 24- 30, based on a detailed report by a qualified biologist. These impacts would be reduced to a less- than-significant level by mitigation measures identified in the SEIR.

Response CJK-3 The comments on the design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

Response CJK-4 The comment is noted.

Response CJK-5 The comments on the merits of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

182 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Dona Boatright

183 From: dona boatright To: Chris Barton Cc: [email protected] Date: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 9:25:22 AM

Dear Mr. Barton:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project.

I have been a resident of Berkeley for 24 years. Prior to that I lived in Albany for 4 years. I have been a user of the East Bay Regional Park District. I also own a dog and have cherished the availability of wonderful off-leash areas such as the Albany Beach.

Last summer I believe the EBRPD collected 200 hours of data about park visitors. The study documented that people with dogs diligently clean up after them. The SEIR noted that the overall cleanliness of the beach may be partly due to the presence of the Albany Landfill Dogs Owners Group & Friends (ALDOG, aldog.org), which conducts regular beach cleanups.

A goal of your project is to bring more visitors to Albany Beach for active recreation. The district has established that more recreation on Albany Beach, including by more people with DB-1 dogs, poses no threat to the environment or wildlife. I appreciate the district's commitment to preserving rich wildlife habitat nearby, including the Albany Mudflats Ecological Preserve (160 acres of tidal mudflats and salt marsh), the protected areas along the Bay Trail, the large Hoffman Marsh, the extensive mudflats at the Brickyard, and the 72-acre Berkeley Meadow.

The SEIR resolves any environmental concerns about the impact of people with dogs at the waterfront. I urge the Board of Directors to accept it.

-- "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." Albert Einstein E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

The comments on the design of the Proposed Project, and on the merits of the Project, will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

185 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Demaris Hammond

186 From: Demaris Hammond To: Chris Barton Subject: Dogs on Albany beach Date: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 7:42:12 AM

Please continue to allow off leash dogs on Albany beach. In the many times I have gone there with my dog I have seen no conflicts with other beach goers. The dog owners all seem very DH-1 responsible about cleaning up after their dogs.

Thank you.

Demaris Hammond Berkeley E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment DH-1 The comments on the design of the Proposed Project, and on the merits of the Project, will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

188 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Doppelt Wallace

189 From: michelle To: Chris Barton; [email protected] Subject: Please continue to allow my furry family members to use Albany Beach Date: Saturday, February 07, 2015 6:38:46 PM

Dear Mr. Barton:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project.

I am a Recreation Supervisor for the city of Oakland Parks and Recreation. I am a resident of San Leandro, living with my partner and our 2 dogs Jax and Juno. As of April 2014, ordinance changes have allowed dogs into 21 dog play areas of Oakland Parks and Rec. I now manage those play spaces. Through this responsibility I have found that people who love their dogs also love to spend their time at a clean location, free of litter, graffiti, and dog poop. While an occasional person is irresponsibility about their cleaning, there has been twice as many people who will do a peer reminder to clean or clean up themselves.

There is also the financial backing and networking resources that for projects and happy pet owners bring to the plate. In Oakland we have 480,000 licensed dogs in families. We now have a new collective of families who will gladly help support scheduled clean ups, bring in grant funds from their corporate buisiness' and help where ever they are needed. DW-1 These dog families bring their families to the beach. Happy kids, outdoors and getting exercise rather than sitting and playing with an ipad all day. Dogs bring positive people to a place that once was overrun by people who did not cherish the earth but raped it and abused the privilege. There are so few places in the bay area, that allows dogs to enjoy the beach.

This year, the ban on bringing your dog to a California restaurant has been lifted. We can now legally bring our dogs to eateries that are properly set up for that sort of activity. The state has seen how that has not negatively impacted anyone's meal. This is the same for dogs at Albany beach.

The district has established that more recreation on Albany Beach, including by more people with dogs, poses no threat to the environment or wildlife. I thank the district for preserving rich wildlife habitat nearby, including the Albany Mudflats Ecological Preserve (160 acres of tidal mudflats and salt marsh), the protected areas along the Bay Trail, the large Hoffman Marsh, the extensive mudflats at the Brickyard, and the 72-acre Berkeley Meadow. While I do not speak for everyone, I would gladly pay a yearly fee to insure there are no harmful effects left at the beach by my dogs and the funds could go to pay a staffer to monitor issues at the site. DW-1 (cont.) The SEIR resolves any environmental concerns about the impact of people with dogs at the waterfront. I urge the Board of Directors to accept it. This is your opportunity to show the neglected sector of the population that they matter too.

Sincerely,

Michelle Doppelt & Trevor Wallace

Happy Dog Owners of San Leandro and the EASTBAY- the best place in the world.

Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, Glass of wine in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming WOO HOO what a ride!

A good friend will come and bail you out of jail...but, a true friend will be sitting next to you saying, Damn...that was fun. (thanks 3).

And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary.” -Steve Jobs.

“You can’t live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you.” –John Wooden. E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment DW-1 The comments on the merits of the Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

192 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Ellen Evans

193 From: Ellen Evans To: Chris Barton; [email protected] Subject: Albany Beach and Dogs Date: Monday, February 09, 2015 3:42:24 PM

Mr. Chris Barton Acting Environmental Programs Manager East Bay Regional Park District 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, CA 94605 Dear Mr. Barton: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project. I am a longtime supporter of environmental causes and the East Bay Regional Park District. Last summer, the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) collected 200 hours of data about park visitors. The data shows that 59 percent of visitors to the Albany waterfront do not bring dogs. This confirms what park users have been saying all along: that there is a healthy, dynamic mix of user groups that includes people with dogs. The study documented that people with dogs diligently clean up after them. The SEIR noted that the overall cleanliness of the beach may be partly due to the presence of the Albany Landfill Dogs Owners Group & Friends (ALDOG, aldog.org), which conducts regular beach cleanups. A goal of your project is to bring more visitors to Albany Beach for active recreation. The district has established that more recreation on Albany Beach, including by more people with dogs, EE-1 poses no threat to the environment or wildlife. I thank the district for preserving rich wildlife habitat nearby, including the Albany Mudflats Ecological Preserve (160 acres of tidal mudflats and salt marsh), the protected areas along the Bay Trail, the large Hoffman Marsh, the extensive mudflats at the Brickyard, and the 72-acre Berkeley Meadow. The SEIR resolves any environmental concerns about the impact of people with dogs at the waterfront. I urge the Board of Directors to accept it. I am a longtime supporter of the park district and one of the things I love best about it and the East Bay is off-leash recreation at Albany Beach. I strongly believe that people with dogs should continue to be part of our vibrant, multi-use waterfront, as they have been for 50 years. I look forward to collaborating with the park district and the community on commonsense policies that support that. Sincerely, Ellen Evans Oakland, CA E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment EE-1 As discussed in the SEIR, all impacts of the Proposed Project, including potential impacts of dogs on biological and geological resources (see pages 24-30 and 32-33), would be reduced to a less-than- significant level by mitigation measures identified in the SEIR.

The comments on the design of the Proposed Project, and on the merits of the Project, will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

195 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Ellen Gierson

196 From: Ellen Gierson To: Chris Barton Subject: Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project Date: Saturday, February 07, 2015 5:41:38 PM

Mr. Chris Barton Acting Environmental Programs Manager East Bay Regional Park District 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, CA 94605

Dear Mr. Barton:

I am very glad to have the opportunity to comment on the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project.

I am an Oakland resident (35 years), dog owner, birdwatcher, and educator. I am a longtime visitor to Albany Beach, and I support environmental causes and the EBRPD.

Last summer, the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) collected 200 hours of data about park visitors. The data shows that 59 percent of visitors to the Albany waterfront do not bring dogs. This confirms what park users have been saying all along: that there is a healthy, dynamic mix of user groups that includes people with dogs.

The study documented that people with dogs diligently clean up after them. The SEIR noted that the overall cleanliness of the beach may be partly due to the presence of the Albany Landfill Dogs Owners Group & Friends (ALDOG, aldog.org), which conducts regular beach cleanups. EG-1 A goal of your project is to bring more visitors to Albany Beach for active recreation. The district has established that more recreation on Albany Beach, including by more people with dogs, poses no threat to the environment or wildlife. I thank the district for preserving rich wildlife habitat nearby, including the Albany Mudflats Ecological Preserve (160 acres of tidal mudflats and salt marsh), the protected areas along the Bay Trail, the large Hoffman Marsh, the extensive mudflats at the Brickyard, and the 72-acre Berkeley Meadow.

The SEIR resolves any environmental concerns about the impact of people with dogs at the waterfront. I urge the Board of Directors to accept it.

Sincerely, Ellen Gierson 4175 Opal Street Oakland, CA 94609

E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment EG-1 As discussed in the SEIR, all impacts of the Proposed Project, including potential impacts of dogs on biological and geological resources (see pages 24-30 and 32-33), would be reduced to a less-than- significant level by mitigation measures identified in the SEIR.

The comments on the design of the Proposed Project, and on the merits of the Project, will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

199 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Edward Pais

200 From: Edward Pais To: Chris Barton Cc: [email protected] Subject: Albany Waterfront Date: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 9:47:07 PM

Dear Mr. Barton:

I am a resident of Richmond and began visiting the Albany waterfront in 2005 and have enjoyed going there for walks ever since. I have found that people going there with their dogs have brought the number of people visiting up to a level that increases the safety of the park and have been active in maintaining and improving the conditions of the waterfront.

The Supplemental Environmental Impact Report proves that there is a good mix of user groups at the Albany waterfront – almost 60 percent of the users are people not walking dogs. The 40 percent of people walking dogs have demonstrated to be very conscientious about cleaning up after their animals. It also notes that the overall EP-1 cleanliness of the beach may be due partly to the presence of the Albany Landfill Dog Owners Group & Friends, which conducts regular beach cleanups.

I believe the park district should work toward official policies that welcome people with dogs at the Albany waterfront. These individuals are an important park user group, support the park through their tax dollars and actions of cleaning up the park, and that walking dogs is a vital exercise option for East Bay residents.

I urge the park district to accept the SEIR.

Sincerely,

Edward Pais

E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment EP-1 The comments on the design of the Proposed Project, and on the merits of the Project, will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

202 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Elizabeth Weiss

203 From: Elizabeth Weiss To: Chris Barton; [email protected] Subject: Yes for off-leash dogs on Albany Beach Date: Saturday, February 07, 2015 8:14:05 PM

Mr. Chris Barton Acting Environmental Programs Manager East Bay Regional Park District 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, CA 94605

Dear Mr. Barton:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project.

I am a longtime parks user, and I have visiting to Albany Beach with my dogs for over 10 years now. Walking on the beach as they play and swim is often the highlight of my day.

The study documented that people with dogs diligently clean up after them. The SEIR noted that the overall cleanliness of the beach may be partly due to the presence of the Albany Land ll Dogs Owners Group & Friends (ALDOG, aldog.org), which conducts regular beach cleanups. EW-1 A goal of your project is to bring more visitors to Albany Beach for active recreation. The district has established that more recreation on Albany Beach, including by more people with dogs, poses no threat to the environment or wildlife. I thank the district for preserving rich wildlife habitat nearby, including the Albany Mudats Ecological Preserve (160 acres of tidal mudats and salt marsh), the protected areas along the Bay Trail, the large Homan Marsh, the extensive mudats at the Brickyard, and the 72-acre Berkeley Meadow.

The SEIR resolves any environmental concerns about the impact of people with dogs at the waterfront. I urge the Board of Directors to accept it.

I am a longtime supporter of the park district and one of the things I love best about it and the East Bay is o-leash recreation at Albany Beach. I strongly believe that people with dogs should continue to be part of our vibrant, multi-use waterfront, as they have been for 50 years. I look forward to collaborating with the park district and the community on commonsense policies that support that.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Weiss 1929 San Benito Street Richmond, CA 94894 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment EW-1 As discussed in the SEIR, all impacts of the Proposed Project, including potential impacts of dogs on biological and geological resources (see pages 24-30 and 32-33), would be reduced to a less-than- significant level by mitigation measures identified in the SEIR.

The comments on the design of the Proposed Project, and on the merits of the Project, will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

205 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Jackie Ato

206 From: Ato, Jackie To: [email protected]; Chris Barton Subject: Albany beachfront park Date: Monday, February 09, 2015 7:09:48 PM

Dear Mr. Barton: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project. I am an Oakland resident with 2 dogs and love to explore the east bay parks and trails. My husband and I found the Albany bulb 5 years ago and it is absolutely our favorite dog spot. The bulb has a perfect blend of space, beach and views that make each visit a special treat. Our dogs love swimming but unfortunately we have extremely limited options to take them out. Taking away off leash privileges would greatly impact dog owners' ability to keep their dogs happy and healthy - including the option to let me exercise with my dogs! A goal of your project is to bring more visitors to Albany Beach for active recreation. I believe JA-1 that increasing exposure of the bulb to dog owners will only serve to meet your goals as dog owners have families and friends and this really is a great spot for people to gather along with our pet friends. I am a longtime supporter of the park district and one of the things I love best about it and the East Bay is off-leash recreation at Albany Beach. I strongly believe that people with dogs should continue to be part of our vibrant, multi-use waterfront, as they have been for 50 years. I look forward to collaborating with the park district and the community on commonsense policies that support that. Sincerely, Jackie Ato Oakland resident E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment JA-1 The comments on the design of the Proposed Project, and on the merits of the Project, will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

208 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Jesse Freeman

209 From: jesse freeman To: Chris Barton; [email protected] Subject: Keep the beach open to our families and four legged relatives Date: Sunday, February 08, 2015 12:26:51 PM

Email to: [email protected],[email protected]

If you are an Albany resident, please add the City Council: [email protected]

Mr. Chris Barton Acting Environmental Programs Manager East Bay Regional Park District 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, CA 94605

Dear Mr. Barton:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project.

I am a long term resident of the local east bay area for some 40 plus years, dog owner for most of that time, and have a family that over the many years have enjoyed the splendors of the bulb and naturally includes the gratifying access to the Albany beach with my kids and our pets, subsequently have always been a longtime supporter of environmental causes and the East Bay Regional Park District]

Last summer, the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) collected 200 hours of data about park visitors. The data shows that 59 percent of visitors to the Albany waterfront do not bring dogs. This confirms what park users have been saying all along: that there is a healthy, dynamic mix of user groups that includes people with dogs.

A goal of your project is to bring more visitors to Albany Beach for active recreation. The district has established that more recreation on Albany Beach, including by more people with dogs, poses no threat to the environment or wildlife. I thank the district for preserving rich wildlife habitat nearby, including the Albany Mudflats Ecological Preserve (160 acres of tidal mudflats and salt marsh), the protected areas along the Bay Trail, the large Hoffman Marsh, the extensive mudflats at the Brickyard, and the 72- acre Berkeley Meadow.

The SEIR resolves any environmental concerns about the impact of people with dogs at the waterfront. I urge the Board of Directors to accept it.

I am a longtime supporter of the park district and one of the things I love best about it and the East Bay is off-leash recreation at Albany Beach. I strongly believe that people with dogs should continue to be part of our vibrant, multi-use waterfront, as they have been for 50 years. I look forward to collaborating with the park district and the JF3-1 community on commonsense policies that support that. (cont.)

Sincerely,

Jesse Freeman Richmond Annex resident E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment JF3-1 As discussed in the SEIR, all impacts of the Proposed Project, including potential impacts of dogs on biological and geological resources (see pages 24-30 and 32-33), would be reduced to a less-than- significant level by mitigation measures identified in the SEIR.

The comments on the design of the Proposed Project, and on the merits of the Project, will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

212 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Kathy Roth

213 From: Kathy Roth Cc: Chris Barton; [email protected] Subject: SEIR Albany Beach Date: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 9:31:16 PM

Mr. Chris Barton Acting Environmental Programs Manager East Bay Regional Park District 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, CA 94605

Dear Mr. Barton:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project.

I have been a resident of Oakland/Berkeley since 1988 and walk my dogs along the Bay and in other parklands several times a week. I care very much about birds and the environment, and also ride a bicycle on the Bay Trail. I think the SEIR was basically well done and objective, and I have a few comments. KR-1 People have spoken about the large numbers of birds that are seen in the area. I do not see any scientific data that support the ideas that dogs are harming birds significantly. The birds and the off-leash dogs have co-existed and continue to co-exist. (I am not addressing here ground-nesting birds such as snowy plovers which are not an issue on this beach.) When I first moved to this area, nearly the entire shoreline from Emeryville to Richmond was unpatrolled with the exception of the marinas and you could walk nearly anywhere. I used to run on the railroad right- of- way with my dog from Albany to what is now Marina Bay in Richmond. These lands at that time were at risk of inappropriate development and I was a supporter, financially and otherwise, of protecting them. I was very glad to see the Bay Trail and the State Park established. Unfortunately for me, that has meant fewer areas where I can go with the dogs off-leash. This may be an KR-2 important trade-off in some places but needs to be examined with a scientific viewpoint with respect both for nature and for the recreational uses of the people who live here. Here is a quote from the SEIR.

"While reported incidents between dogs and between dogs and people has been low, there is still an implicit understanding by park staff that people who are afraid of dogs do not visit Albany Neck or Beach, especially if they have safety concerns for children or are frail and elderly."

This is not supported by any objective data. If one were to try to obtain data on this, one could do a survey with open-ended objective questions "Were you aware that there is a beach on the Bay in Albany? Do you visit the Albany beach?" "Is there anything that prevents you or makes you less likely to visit the Albany beach?" KR-2 (cont.) I would imagine that many people have never visited the beach, and that of people who might have visited the beach but were reluctant, there were more people who were afraid of visiting a somewhat remote,deserted location or who were afraid of the homeless than were afraid of off-leash dogs. I think a consistent presence of dog-walkers make public spaces like this seem more appealing and safe than deserted beaches in urban areas. Again, one would have to do an objective survey. An objective survey does not begin with "Have you ever had a bad experience with a dog in ____park?"

To sum up and quote: I am a longtime supporter of the park district and one of the things I love best about it and the East Bay is off-leash recreation at Albany Beach. I strongly believe that people with dogs should continue to be KR-3 part of our vibrant, multi-use waterfront, as they have been for 50 years. I look forward to collaborating with the park district and the community on commonsense policies that support that.

I also had been long time member of the Sierra Club and Audubon and used to donate substantial sums of money yearly. The Sierra Club was unresponsive and not at all transparent in their communications with me. I wonder how clear they are with their membership that they are using membership money to oppose wholesome recreational uses in a crowded urban area. KR-4

I think we all owe a huge debt to people like Sylvia McLaughlin and Jean Siri who championed the protection of the San Francisco Bay and fought for public lands.

Thank you. Kathleen Roth 6279 Virgo Rd Oakland CA 94611 [email protected] E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment KR-1 Response KR-1 As discussed in the SEIR, all impacts of the Proposed Project, including potential impacts of dogs on biological and geological resources (see pages 24-30 and 32-33), would be reduced to a less-than- significant level by mitigation measures identified in the SEIR.

Response KR-2 The potential effect of dogs on individual’s decisions to visit the project site does not pertain to the environmental impacts of the Proposed Project, and does not require a response under CEQA. The comments on the design of the Proposed Project, and on the merits of the Project, will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

Response KR-3 The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

Response KR-4 The comment is noted.

216 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Kerstin Feist

217 From: Kerstin Feist To: Chris Barton; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Off-leash Dogs on Albany Beach Date: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 4:33:22 PM

Mr. Chris Barton Acting Environmental Programs Manager East Bay Regional Park District 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, CA 94605

Dear Mr. Barton:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project.

I am a resident of CITY for 22 years, I am a dog owner and we walk the Albany Beach almost everyday. I am also a longtime supporter of environmental causes and the East Bay Regional Park District.

Last summer, the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) collected 200 hours of data about park visitors. The data shows that 59 percent of visitors to the Albany waterfront do not bring dogs. This confirms what park users have been saying all along: that there is a healthy, dynamic mix of user groups that includes people with dogs. KF-1

A goal of your project is to bring more visitors to Albany Beach for active recreation. The district has established that more recreation on Albany Beach, including by more people with dogs, poses no threat to the environment or wildlife. I thank the district for preserving rich wildlife habitat nearby, including the Albany Mudflats Ecological Preserve (160 acres of tidal mudflats and salt marsh), the protected areas along the Bay Trail, the large Hoffman Marsh, the extensive mudflats at the Brickyard, and the 72-acre Berkeley Meadow.

The SEIR resolves any environmental concerns about the impact of people with dogs at the waterfront. I urge the Board of Directors to accept it. KF-1 I am a longtime supporter of the park district and one of the things I love (cont.) best about it and the East Bay is off-leash recreation at Albany Beach. I strongly believe that people with dogs should continue to be part of our vibrant, multi-use waterfront, as they have been for 50 years. I look forward to collaborating with the park district and the community on commonsense policies that support that.

Sincerely,

Kerstin Feist 931 Madison Street, Albany, CA E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment KF-1 As discussed in the SEIR, all impacts of the Proposed Project, including potential impacts of dogs on biological and geological resources (see pages 24-30 and 32-33), would be reduced to a less-than- significant level by mitigation measures identified in the SEIR.

The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

220 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Laura Allen

221 From: Laura Allen To: Chris Barton Subject: Dogs at the Albany beach Date: Sunday, February 08, 2015 6:14:40 PM

I am a 24 year resident of Albany. Many, many times over the years I have enjoyed walking the small beach in our town, with and without a dog (ours is 11 years old). Never once has there been a problem with the dogs there, even when my children were small and played on the beach beside dogs playing in the surf. Never have I enountered dog waste on the beach LA-1 either, nor have I once ever seen a dog chasing a bird or small animal there. I believe that as local residents who have been avid users of the beach for two decades, our voices should be given serious consideration. Please listen and respect the opinions of those who know and love the Albany beach best.

Sincerely, Laura Allen 1041 Curtis St. Albany, Ca E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment LA-1 As discussed in the SEIR, all impacts of the Proposed Project, including potential impacts of dogs on biological and geological resources (see pages 24-30 and 32-33), would be reduced to a less-than- significant level by mitigation measures identified in the SEIR.

The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

223 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Linda Yoshikawa

224 From: Linda Yoshikawa To: Chris Barton Subject: Albany Beach Restoration Project SEIR response Date: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 7:29:12 AM

Hi Chris, I remember my first community workshop about the Project. It's been almost four years! Thank you for your work. Please add my comments below.

Mr. Chris Barton Acting Environmental Programs Manager East Bay Regional Park District 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, CA 94605

Feb. 10, 2015

This letter comments on the Draft Supplemental EIR for the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project.

Albany Beach offers visitors spectacular views of windswept landscapes and the San Francisco Bay. With a real bathroom, more parking, a connected San Francisco Bay Trail and a boat launch, more people will enjoy this special area.

Thank you for identifying the existing vegetation, wildlife and habitat. Your baseline data confirms that dogs have low levels of impact on the beach environment and will continue to have low levels with Project mitigation measures.

The data also shows more than half the visitors to the area are without dogs. Yet, there are "minimal number of complaints regarding dog issues." This is truly a shared beach where everyone gets along. I thank the Park District for acknowledging that leash-law enforcement at Albany Beach is a low priority. LY-1 We all want to protect sensitive areas. Features such as fences and steep shoreline rip-rap are critical and effective barriers against dogs and humans. Additional garbage cans and poop bags will help keep wetlands pristine. Your thoughtful planning will accommodate the interests of many user groups.

While I support many of the items in the McLaughlin Eastshore State Park General Plan, I am troubled that this central planning document --which started in the 1980s-- reflects generationally outdated thinking. Therefore, I am gratified by the Park District's discretionary use of its more progressive policies reflected in Ordinance 38.

The beach and its surroundings add immeasurably to our quality of life. Everyone recognizes the importance of citizen stewardship in caring for this area with its unusual character of landfill debris and nature. I and many others look forward to a multi-use park for all to enjoy. Sincerely, Linda Yoshikawa 571 Neilson St. Berkeley, CA 94707 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment LW-1 As discussed in the SEIR, all impacts of the Proposed Project, including potential impacts of dogs on biological and geological resources (see pages 24-30 and 32-33), would be reduced to a less-than- significant level by mitigation measures identified in the SEIR.

The SEIR discusses the Park District’s policy regarding off-leash dogs (Ordinance 38) in Section 2.2, pp. 9-10. The SEIR described how the Park District currently enforces Ordinance 38 and how it expects to enforce the ordinance once the Project is completed. This complies with the Alameda County Superior Court’s May 14, 2014 Final Statement of Decision requiring any SEIR to discuss the Park District’s current and planned enforcement policy regarding off-leash dogs.

The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

227 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Mary Barnsdale

228 From: Mary Barnsdale To: Chris Barton Subject: The confusion between "the Bulb" and "the beach" Date: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 9:42:11 AM

Hi, Chris!

Sorry you're getting so many responses that seem to talk about the Bulb instead of the beach. Not all of them are off-base, though. Many people have always referred to the entire area as "the Albany Bulb." They'll say, "Hey, it's a nice day, let's go to the Albany Bulb and sit on the MB1-1 sand."

Lucky them, in a way, not having to be so keenly focused on which bit of land or sand is which.

Hope you're well!

Best,

Mary E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment MB1-1 The comment is noted.

230 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Mia Birdsong

231 From: Mia Birdsong To: Chris Barton Cc: [email protected] Subject: The Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Date: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 4:05:01 PM

Dear Mr. Barton: I am a resident of Oakland (a former resident of Albany) and have spent a lot of time over the past 14 years walking with my dogs at the Albany waterfront. It's one of the best places in the East Bay to exercise myself and my animals. The Supplemental Environmental Impact Report proves that there is a good mix of user groups at the Albany waterfront – almost 60 percent are other user groups, not people walking dogs – and that people walking dogs are very conscientious about cleaning up after their animals. It also notes that the overall cleanliness of the beach MB2-1 may be due partly to the presence of the Albany Landfill Dog Owners Group & Friends, which conducts regular beach cleanups. I believe the park district should work toward official policies that welcome people with dogs at the Albany waterfront. We are an important park user group and walking dogs is a vital exercise option for East Bay residents. I urge the park district to accept the SEIR. Sincerely,

Mia Birdsong E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment MB2-1 The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

233 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Marc, Roxanne, Natalie Kay

234 From: Roxann To: Chris Barton Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: The Bulb Date: Saturday, February 07, 2015 11:54:08 PM

Mr. Chris Barton Acting Environmental Programs Manager East Bay Regional Park District 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, CA 94605

I would like to comment on the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project.

We are residents of the area for 30 years. My husband has been a dentist on Solano for 40 plus years. During this time we have had many occasions to enjoy the Bulb as a family, both with and without dogs.

Last summer, the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) collected 200 hours of data about park visitors. The data shows that 59 percent of visitors to the Albany waterfront do not bring dogs. This confirms what park users have been saying all along: that there is a healthy, dynamic mix of user groups that includes people with dogs.

A goal of your project is to bring more visitors to Albany Beach for active recreation. The district has established that more recreation on Albany Beach, including by more people with MRNK-1 dogs, poses no threat to the environment or wildlife. I thank the district for preserving rich wildlife habitat nearby, including the Albany Mudflats Ecological Preserve (160 acres of tidal mudflats and salt marsh), the protected areas along the Bay Trail, the large Hoffman Marsh, the extensive mudflats at the Brickyard, and the 72-acre Berkeley Meadow.

The SEIR resolves any environmental concerns about the impact of people with dogs at the waterfront. I urge the Board of Directors to accept it.

Also, we would like to see the site remain as open space for all to use. So many of the area parks are used by organized sports that this is one one of the last areas where one can enjoy nature as-is, where the only sports being played are by individuals spread out with their frisbees and such. People not into organized sports deserve some space to recreate, too! Just a little landscaping and toilets are all that is needed! Thanks for thinking of us, too,

Mark, Roxann and Natalie Kay Albany and El Cerrito.

E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment MRNK-1 As discussed in the SEIR, all impacts of the Proposed Project, including potential impacts of dogs on biological and geological resources (see pages 24-30 and 32-33), would be reduced to a less-than- significant level by mitigation measures identified in the SEIR.

The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

237 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Nina Mazur

238 From: Nina M To: Chris Barton; [email protected] Subject: Albany Beach Date: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 4:59:42 PM

Dear Mr. Barton: I am a resident of Albany and a longtime park user, dog owner and parent. The Supplemental Environmental Impact Report proves that there is a good mix of user groups at the Albany waterfront – almost 60 percent are other user groups, not people walking dogs – and that people walking dogs are very conscientious about cleaning up after their animals. It also notes that the overall cleanliness of the beach may be due partly to the presence of the Albany Landfill Dog Owners Group & Friends, which conducts regular beach cleanups. NM-1 I believe the park district should work toward official policies that welcome people with dogs at the Albany waterfront. We are an important park user group and walking dogs is a vital exercise option for East Bay residents. I urge the park district to accept the SEIR. Sincerely, Nina Mazur E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment NM-1 The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

240 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Pamela Fanning

241 From: Pamela Fanning To: Chris Barton Cc: [email protected] Subject: Pleas Preserve Off-Leash Recreation at Albany Beach Date: Sunday, February 08, 2015 12:13:11 PM

Dear Mr. Barton:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project.

I am a dog owner and frequent user of the Albany Beach.

Last summer, the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) collected 200 hours of data about park visitors. The data shows that 59 percent of visitors to the Albany waterfront do not bring dogs. This confirms what park users have been saying all along: that there is a healthy, dynamic mix of user groups that includes people with dogs.

The study documented that people with dogs diligently clean up after their dogs. The SEIR noted that the overall cleanliness of the beach may be partly due to the presence of the Albany Landfill Dogs Owners Group & Friends (ALDOG, aldog.org), which conducts regular beach cleanups.

A goal of your project is to bring more visitors to Albany Beach for active recreation. PF-1 The district has established that more recreation on Albany Beach, including use by more people with dogs, poses no threat to the environment or wildlife. I thank the district for preserving rich wildlife habitat nearby, including the Albany Mudflats Ecological Preserve (160 acres of tidal mudflats and salt marsh), the protected areas along the Bay Trail, the large Hoffman Marsh, the extensive mudflats at the Brickyard, and the 72-acre Berkeley Meadow.

The SEIR resolves any environmental concerns about the impact of people with dogs at the waterfront. I urge the Board of Directors to accept it.

Sincerely,

Pamela Fanning 1414 Santa Fe Ave. Berkeley, CA 94702 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment PF-1 As discussed in the SEIR, all impacts of the Proposed Project, including potential impacts of dogs on biological and geological resources (see pages 24-30 and 32-33), would be reduced to a less-than- significant level by mitigation measures identified in the SEIR.

The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

243 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Rachel Hall

244 From: Rachel Hall To: Chris Barton Cc: [email protected] Subject: About Albany Beach Date: Sunday, February 08, 2015 4:54:32 PM

Mr. Chris Barton Acting Environmental Programs Manager East Bay Regional Park District 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, CA 94605

Dear Mr. Barton:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project. I’m a longtime resident of Berkeley (35+ years) and I have spent countless hours hiking, biking and running in the East Bay Regional Park. I feel so fortunate to have nature and trails in such close proximity.

I have read that last summer, the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) collected 200 hours of data about park visitors. The data shows that 59 percent of visitors to the Albany waterfront do not bring dogs. This confirms what park users have been saying all along: that there is a healthy, dynamic mix of user groups that includes people with dogs. The study RH-1 documented that people with dogs diligently clean up after them. The SEIR noted that the overall cleanliness of the beach may be partly due to the presence of the Albany Landfill Dogs Owners Group & Friends (ALDOG, aldog.org), which conducts regular beach cleanups. The SEIR resolves any environmental concerns about the impact of people with dogs at the waterfront. I urge the Board of Directors to accept it. I cannot express how much I appreciate the off-leash recreation allowed at Albany Beach. It is such a pleasure to see so many people and their pets having a carefree and relaxing time together. Having the the waterfront/marina available for mixed-use is what helps make the East Bay such a fabulous place to live.

Thank you for listening. Rachel Hall 2325 Jeﬀerson Ave. Berkeley, CA 94703 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment RH-1 The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

246 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Sally Pugh

247 From: Sally Pugh To: Chris Barton Cc: [email protected] Subject: Albany waterfront Date: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 3:03:05 PM

Dear Mr. Barton:

I am a Berkeley resident and a longtime Albany waterfront and bulb user, dog owner, environmentalist, and bird and wildlife lover.

I strongly urge the park district to accept the SEIR.

Sincerely, Sally Pugh E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment SP-1 The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

249 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Sue von Baeyer

250 From: Sue von Baeyer To: Chris Barton Subject: The Albany Bulb Date: Saturday, February 07, 2015 5:12:45 PM

Mr. Chris Barton Acting Environmental Programs Manager East Bay Regional Park District 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, CA 94605

Dear Mr. Barton:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project.

I am a dog owner—greyhound rescue, specifically, and a resident of Berkeley. My dog loves to run on the beach at the bulb—it takes her back to her days on the track in Arizona where she ran in the sand. And I always pick up after her. The bulb is one of the few places I can let her off leash.

Last summer, the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) collected 200 hours of data about park visitors. The data shows that 59 percent of visitors to the Albany waterfront do not bring dogs. This confirms what park users have been saying all along: that there is a healthy, dynamic mix of user groups that includes people with dogs.

A goal of your project is to bring more visitors to Albany Beach for active recreation. The district has established that more recreation on Albany Beach, including by more people with dogs, poses no threat to the environment or wildlife. I thank the district for preserving rich wildlife habitat nearby, including the Albany Mudflats Ecological Preserve (160 acres of tidal mudflats and salt marsh), the protected areas along the Bay Trail, the large Hoffman Marsh, the extensive mudflats at the Brickyard, and the 72-acre Berkeley Meadow.

The SEIR resolves any environmental concerns about the impact of people with dogs at the waterfront. I urge the Board of Directors to accept it.

Sincerely,

Sue von Baeyer,PhD 1169 Park Hills Road Berkeley,CA 94708

E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment SVB-1 As discussed in the SEIR, all impacts of the Proposed Project, including potential impacts of dogs on biological and geological resources (see pages 24-30 and 32-33), would be reduced to a less-than- significant level by mitigation measures identified in the SEIR.

The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

253 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Wendy Schwartz

254 From: Wendy Schwartz To: Chris Barton Subject: Albany Bulb park Date: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 7:41:06 AM

Dear Mr. Barton:

I am a Sierra Club hike leader and dog owner. I lead dog walks around the Bulb culminating at the beach where we do a cleanup and play on the beach with our dogs, for those that bring dogs. It's a very nice outing. WS-1 I hope we can continue to this type of outing with our dogs.

Sincerely,

Wendy Schwartz Richmond E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment WS-1 The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

256 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Mark Songey

257 From: Mark Songey To: Chris Barton Subject: Off-leash recreation at Albany Beach Date: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 11:16:02 AM

Mr. Chris Barton Acting Environmental Programs Manager East Bay Regional Park District 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, CA 94605

Dear Mr. Barton:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project. I am a third generation Berkeley resident. We have been using Albany beach for many years with our dogs off leash.Its one of the only beaches in the east bay where dogs can run on the sand. Its really only used by people with dogs during the summer the beach is very chilly, the bay winds comes right on shore. I am a longtime supporter of the park MS3-1 district and one of the things I love best about it and the East Bay is off-leash recreation at Albany Beach. I strongly believe that people with dogs should continue to be part of our vibrant, multi-use waterfront, as they have been for 50 years. I look forward to collaborating with the park district and the community on commonsense policies that support that.

Sincerely, Mark Songey E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment MS-1 The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

259 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Alex Alexander

260 From: Alex Alexander To: Chris Barton Cc: "[email protected]" Subject: Future of Albany Bulb-- allow dogs o leash, it"s nice. =) Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 11:26:58 AM

Hi Mr. Barton,

Thank you for your time and attention to my request to keep the Albany Bulb a place where families and their dogs, can continue to roam freely and joyously.

Along the coast of California, there is so much protected beachfront and environmental safe zones. It is lovely. We are lucky.

One of the prices paid for that is that currently most of the coastline is dog unfriendly and at a time when the population is adopting pets and dogs like crazy.

Have you noticed that families have less children? It even appears that dogs have filled a void in society and continues too. So society needs to adapt to this. Keeping the Bulb preserved as a dog friendly, off-leash area is the right action to take with this growing need in society.

Dog owners are typically super consciencious people and put in great care and effort for their dogs and are respectful of society’s needs to have training for good behavior, poop picked up, and leashed. Dog owners tend to really care for their pets as if they are human with regular exercise routines, good food, and regular visits to the doctor. It is because of this ultra-caring and AA-1 responsible behavior, that I gladly seek tenants for rentals that are dog owners. They are responsible and often full of integrity.

Albany Bulb is located in a high density population area, and is a small wonder and joy for those of us that consider our dogs part of our families. It is one of the only recreational areas left where dogs can be off leash. This needs to be protected for the better good of society.

It is really fun and healthy for dogs and humans alike to roam freely, to run with joy, walk, play, and commune. I see so many families at the Bulb with or without children playing, walking, running and having fun. It is good for society to have these healthy outlets. That is why so many dog owners head there. The Bulb is an old dumpsite. Dog owners were forced off of the nicer beaches to roam amongst trash. They need a place to run free on the coast. The worst was available and they took it. They also popularized it and cleaned up a lot. When walking the small shore, I am often picking up trash that the water deposits. I am one of many.

Albany Bulb has been used for years now by dog owners as a place of recreation. It should be preserved as such and these rights need your protection.

Mr. Barton, I ask you to protect this dump site that has turned wonderful for all people and to especially keep it a place for dogs to roam freely off leash, just as children do. AA-1 (cont.) Alex Alexander 510-301-6878

P.S. If you have projects for the Bulb and you need volunteers, ask the dog owners, I bet they are willing to pitch in and help. Just let us know how. E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment AA-1 The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

263 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

caran96

264 From: caran96 To: Chris Barton Subject: Albany Bulb Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 11:37:33 AM

I urge the park to consider the SEIR about the Albany Bulb. I am a healthcare worker who lives in Berkeley (94705) and who uses the beach both for pleasure and the pleasure of watching my dogs frolic in the surf. The beach is C96-1 clean. We all pick up after the dogs. When we see picnickers leave garbage behind, we pick that up as well. The Albany Bulb is a welcome haven and needs to be kept open to dogs! Thank you for your attention. Sent from my iPhone E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment C96-1 The comment is noted.

266 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Chris Fisher

267 From: Chris Fisher To: Chris Barton Subject: Dogs at Albany Bulb Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 3:12:33 PM

Mr. Chris Barton Acting Environmental Programs Manager East Bay Regional Park District 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, CA 94605

Dear Mr. Barton:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project.

I am a 20-year Berkeley/East Bay Resident and dog owner who has enjoyed using all of our Regional Parks in the area for many years now.

Last summer, the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) collected 200 hours of data about park visitors. The data shows that 59 percent of visitors to the Albany waterfront do not bring dogs. This confirms what park users have been saying all along: that there is a healthy, dynamic mix of user groups that includes people with dogs.

A goal of your project is to bring more visitors to Albany Beach for active recreation. The district has established that more recreation on Albany Beach, including by more people with dogs, poses no threat to the environment or wildlife. I thank the district for preserving rich wildlife habitat nearby, including the Albany Mudflats Ecological Preserve (160 acres of tidal mudflats and salt marsh), the protected areas along the Bay Trail, the large Hoffman Marsh, the extensive mudflats at the Brickyard, and the 72-acre Berkeley Meadow.

The SEIR resolves any environmental concerns about the impact of people with dogs at the waterfront. I urge the Board of Directors to accept it.

I am a longtime supporter of the park district and one of the things I love best about it and the East Bay is off-leash recreation at Albany Beach. I strongly believe that people with dogs should continue to be part of our CF-1 vibrant, multi-use waterfront, as they have been for 50 years. I look (cont.) forward to collaborating with the park district and the community on commonsense policies that support that.

Sincerely,

Chris Fisher 1215 Russell Street Berkeley, CA 94702 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment CF-1 As discussed in the SEIR, all impacts of the Proposed Project, including potential impacts of dogs on biological and geological resources (see pages 24-30 and 32-33), would be reduced to a less-than- significant level by mitigation measures identified in the SEIR.

The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

270 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Carol Ginsberg

271 From: Carol and Joe To: Chris Barton Subject: Dogs on the Albany Beach Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 1:04:48 PM

Dear Chris,

I am writing to comment on the EIR Report as regards to dogs on the Albany Beach and also on the Albany Bulb itself. I have lived in Albany for 42 years and I visit the Albany Waterfront at least once a week. I have never seen so many dogs as lately. Ideally I’d ban them and have the owners go to the designated dog park at Point Isabel. Dog walkers are coming into the area and they have as many as eight dogs in tow. Some of these dog walkers and some dog owners do not attend to the dogs. I have been jumped upon several times and nobody even comes to retrieve the dog. CG-1 More than once I have seen dogs slip under the fence near the wildlife observation area and go into the water scaring the ducks away. I think dogs roaming around unattended is a liability for the people and for the wildlife. I am a bird watcher and when the dogs are around they chase the birds and scare them away. Since Point Isabel is available to the dogs, that is where they should be. Opening up another sensitive area for dogs to roam so close to Pt. Isabel makes no sense. At the very least, dogs should be on a leash at all times at the Albany Beach. Please consider this when you make your report. Thank you. Carol Ginsburg 833 San Carlos, Albany E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment CG-1 As discussed in the SEIR, all impacts of the Proposed Project, including potential impacts of dogs on biological and geological resources (see pages 24-30 and 32-33), would be reduced to a less-than- significant level by mitigation measures identified in the SEIR.

The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

273 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Cameron Woo

274 From: Cameron Woo To: Chris Barton Cc: Albany Dogs Subject: Parks should serve all — including dogs and dog owners who recreate Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 1:20:35 PM

Dear Mr. Burton,

I am a longtime Berkeley resident, and an avid use of EBRPD parks. My number one use of the parks that include Point Isabel, the Albany Bulb, Redwood and Tilden … is hiking with my dogs off-leash. I recreate with my dogs 365 days a year — rain or shine, and I am thankful for the privilege these wonderful outdoor spaces provide us. It is the main form of exercise for both me and my dogs, and vital to our health and well-being. I have to stress the importance of off-leash exercise vs. leashed walks — allowing our dogs off-leash to walk freely on park trails or to run and play in the parks' open space is the best form of exercise. While I walk my dogs on-leash where required, that form of exercise pales in comparison. Think of walking and holding the hand of an energetic child vs. letting a child run free and play. You can imagine the many benefits to untethered, safe play and exercise. Too often off-leash facilities are measured only for the good it does for the dogs — that is certainly key — but let's not CW2-1 forget their owners who share the fresh air, enjoy the natural surroundings and health benefits of regular physical activity. It is an activity that serves citizens of all ages, gender, races and demographics. It is the most inclusive recreational park activity bar none.

I implore you to not restrict access to dog owners and their dogs in the current off-leash facilities provided by EBRPD — if anything, the OLAs (off-leash areas) should expand to offer even more space. Studies show that the overwhelming majority of dogs owned by East Bay residents are adopted shelter or rescue dogs, like my own. Please support our commitment to humane care and adoption by providing us space to recreate and socialize these wonderful animals.

Sincerely, Cameron Woo

2810-8th St., Berkeley, CA 94710 510.704.0827 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment CW2-1 The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

276 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Delia Carroll

277 From: Delia Carroll To: Chris Barton; [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: COMMENT ON THE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR RE: ALBANY BEACH! Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 3:51:48 PM

Mr. Chris Barton Acting Environmental Programs Manager East Bay Regional Park District 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, CA 94605 Dear Mr. Barton: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project. I am a 20 plus year resident of Albany, an avid hiker, nature lover and person who visits the Albany beach and bulb, both with and without my dogs, several times a week. Last summer, the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) collected 200 hours of data about park visitors. The data shows that 59 percent of visitors to the Albany waterfront do not bring dogs. This confirms what park users have been saying all along: that there is a healthy, dynamic mix of user groups that includes people with dogs. The study documented that people with dogs diligently clean up after them. The SEIR noted that the overall cleanliness of the beach may be partly due to the presence of the Albany Landfill Dogs Owners Group & Friends (ALDOG, aldog.org), which conducts regular beach cleanups. A goal of your project is to bring more visitors to Albany Beach for active recreation. The district DC-1 has established that more recreation on Albany Beach, including by more people with dogs, poses no threat to the environment or wildlife. I thank the district for preserving rich wildlife habitat nearby, including the Albany Mudflats Ecological Preserve (160 acres of tidal mudflats and salt marsh), the protected areas along the Bay Trail, the large Hoffman Marsh, the extensive mudflats at the Brickyard, and the 72-acre Berkeley Meadow. The SEIR resolves any environmental concerns about the impact of people with dogs at the waterfront. I urge the Board of Directors to accept it. I am a longtime supporter of the park district and one of the things I love best about it and the East Bay is off-leash recreation at Albany Beach. I strongly believe that people with dogs should continue to be part of our vibrant, multi-use waterfront, as they have been for 50 years. I look forward to collaborating with the park district and the community on commonsense policies that support that. Sincerely, Delia Carroll Albany, CA E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment DC-1 As discussed in the SEIR, all impacts of the Proposed Project, including potential impacts of dogs on biological and geological resources (see pages 24-30 and 32-33), would be reduced to a less-than- significant level by mitigation measures identified in the SEIR.

The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

279 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Dona Gomez

280 From: Dona Gomez To: Chris Barton Cc: [email protected]; Jason Arnold Subject: Albany Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 8:43:52 AM

Dear Mr. Barton: I am a resident of Oakland and a newly discovered park user of Albany Beach, I am also a dog owner, environmentalist, cyclist and community participant. The discovery of the Albany beach has made me, my partner and our dog very happy. There are few places for off-lease dogs and this is a real gem.

The Supplemental Environmental Impact Report proves that there is a good mix of user groups at the Albany waterfront – almost 60 percent are other user groups, not people walking dogs – and that people walking dogs are very conscientious about cleaning up after their animals. It also DG-1 notes that the overall cleanliness of the beach may be due partly to the presence of the Albany Landfill Dog Owners Group & Friends, which conducts regular beach cleanups. I believe the park district should work toward official policies that welcome people with dogs at the Albany waterfront. We are an important park user group and walking dogs is a vital exercise option for East Bay residents. I urge the park district to accept the SEIR.

Sincerely,

Dona Gomez Oakland, CA E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment DG-1 The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

282 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Deanna Niebuhr

283 From: Deanna Niebuhr To: Chris Barton Subject: Albany Bulb Project Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 4:47:32 PM

Dear Chris Barton / East Bay Parks District,

As resident in the East Bay since 1984, long time and avid user of the parks, and a somewhat recent dog owner, I'm emailing to express my support for the Draft Supplemental EIR for the Albany Beach Restoration Project.

I've enjoyed using many of the parks, including the Albany Bulb, by myself, with my dog, with my neighbor's kids and with my disabled friends. One of the things that makes Albany Bulb so special is DN-1 how diverse the users are that share it ... and do so happily, while contributing to park preservation and clean-up.

I think the Draft SEIR for the Albany Beach Restoration Project supports the argument for preserving the diversity in the park use to the fullest extent possible.

Thank you for your consideration,

Deanna Niebuhr

1707 Lincoln Street Berkeley, CA 94703 [email protected] 510-684-3864 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment DN-1 The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

285 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

E.B. Freed

286 From: [email protected] To: Chris Barton Cc: [email protected] Subject: Albany Beach SEIR: Comment Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 2:41:55 PM

Dear Mr. Barton:

I am a resident of Berkeley. I am a lifelong environmentalist and wildlife advocate, as well as a longtime birder, park user AND a dog owner. I'm a former member of both Audubon and Sierra Club. I am also a parent, a person with mobility issues, healthcare worker and soon-to-be senior. I am, however, extremely concerned with the single-minded efforts of SPRAWLDEF, the Sierra Club and the Audubon Society to eliminate park users with dogs from our East Bay shoreline. Their agenda is clear and their arguments are shallow. They aim to prohibit a large segment of the population from using our public areas -- no matter how unreasonable or unfair.

Fortunately for park users and reasonable people, the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report proves that there is a good mix of user groups at the Albany waterfront – almost 60 percent are other user groups, not people walking dogs – and that people walking dogs are very conscientious about cleaning up after their animals. It also notes that the overall cleanliness of the beach may be due partly to the presence of the Albany Landfill Dog Owners Group & Friends, which conducts regular beach cleanups. I don't see SPRAWLDEF or the other organizations named earlier conducting regular beach cleanups -- do you? EBF-1 I believe the park district should work toward official policies that welcome people with dogs at the Albany waterfront. We are an important park user group and walking dogs is a vital exercise option for East Bay residents. Walking and playing on the beach is extremely important recreational activity both both me and my dog. Park users with dogs are key to the success of Albany Beach. Overwhelmingly, we are responsible, considerate of others, clean up after ourselves and our animals and are invested in keeping the environment clean and healthy FOR ALL.

I don't know how many other park users want their children playing in the Bay Water at Albany Beach, what with it being next to a toxic dump and a magnet for garbage that washes in on the Bay Currents. This is not a pristine bird sanctuary, this is a garbage dump covered up to look like a park. I am all for active nesting areas being protected by appropriate fencing, when needed. Park users with dogs are out rain or shine, in daylight and darkness, and keep the area safe by virtue of their presence.

I urge the park district to accept the SEIR and deny the hateful, misguided efforts of those in opposition.

Sincerely,

E.B. Freed E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment EBF-1 The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

288 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Eileen Cohen

289 From: Eileen Cohen To: Chris Barton Subject: Comment on Supplemental EIR for the Albany Beach project Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 4:22:57 PM

Dear Mr. Barton:

I live in Berkeley and have for 22 years. I am an environmentalist, a cyclist, a hiker, a birdwatcher, nature lover, and dog enthusiast. I do not currently have a dog but in the past have walked my dogs in parks throughout the district. I am a big supporter of the East Bay Regional Park District.

I'm glad to have the opportunity to comment on the SEIR but sorry that the park district had to go through the delay and expense of creating a SEIR in the first place. EC-1 It is very clear that dogs pose no environmental threat at the Albany waterfront, nor do they deter park users (as claimed by the plaintiffs in SPRAWLDEF vs. EBRPD). The data collected for the SEIR proves that.

The park district Board of Directors should accept the SEIR. Going forward, we should work toward polices that are inclusive of all user groups, including people with dogs. I second the suggestion that South Beach, which is clean, natural, and one of the few original beaches along the shoreline, might be an ideal no-dogs beach.

Thank you for considering my comments.

Regards,

Eileen Cohen 2162 N. Valley St. Berkeley 94702 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment EC-1 As discussed in the SEIR, all impacts of the Proposed Project, including potential impacts of dogs on biological and geological resources (see pages 24-30 and 32-33), would be reduced to a less-than- significant level by mitigation measures identified in the SEIR. The potential effect of dogs on individual’s decisions to visit the project site does not pertain to the environmental impacts of the Proposed Project, and does not require a response under CEQA.

The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

291 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Elaine Joe

292 From: Elaine Joe To: Chris Barton Cc: [email protected] Subject: SEIR for the Albany waterfront Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 2:53:28 PM

Dear Mr. Barton:

Six days a week I take my two dogs for their exercise and mine—and for our enjoyment of the East Bay’s beautiful open space. We’ve only recently discovered the Albany waterfront and we are amazed at the variety of park users here.

I’ve been a resident of Oakland for 26 years and a park user with my children and our dogs for that same amount of time. Widowed for a little over 2-1/2 years now, I’m grateful to my dogs for bringing me and my family to places like the Albany waterfront and a variety of other East Bay parks to enjoy the beauty of the open space that brings much peace and health.

What I’ve noted in my daily walks with my dogs at various EBRP sites is the respect that the other folks who walk their dogs have for our precious open space. Just about every dog walker is conscientious of the privilege to have EJ-1 his/her dog enjoy off-leash exercise. Honestly, this is more than I can say for people who leave behind their beer containers and trash or who compromise the fragile redwoods by piling branches at their base. I’ve never witnessed any dog walkers spoiling the natural environment.

I am also extremely appreciative of the East Bay Regional Park District for its outstanding stewardship of our sprawling park system. Its policy of allowing off leash dog areas has been respectful of all park users, quite outstanding and a model for other park districts.

Please pay heed to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report’s finding of the healthy mix of park users at the Albany waterfront.

Thank you so much for your attention to my remarks.

Elaine Joe 539 Spruce Street Oakland, CA 94606 (510) 452-1562 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment EJ-1 As discussed in the SEIR, all impacts of the Proposed Project, including potential impacts of dogs on biological and geological resources (see pages 24-30 and 32-33), would be reduced to a less-than- significant level by mitigation measures identified in the SEIR.

The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

294 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Elisa Kleven

295 From: Eileen Harrington To: "Elisa Kleven" Cc: Chris Barton Subject: RE: Albany Bulb Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 7:57:03 AM

Regards, Eileen Eileen A. Harrington Secretary to the City Manager and a Deputy City Clerk CITY OF ALBANY 1000 San Pablo Avenue Albany, CA 94706 510.528.5710

Administration Department Hours: (see below for separate Passports Hours) Monday 8:30 - 12, 1 - 7 Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday 8:30 - 12, 1 - 5 Friday 8:30 - 12:30

Passport Acceptance Window Hours: Monday, Tuesday & Thursday 8:30 - 12, 1 - 4 Friday 8:30 - 12 Noon Closed All Day Wednesday and Closed Friday Afternoon

From: Elisa Kleven [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 7:28 PM To: City General Mailbox account Subject: Albany Bulb

Dear Albany City Councilmembers:

As a frequent, grateful user of the Albany Bulb and Beach I am respectfully urging you NOT EK-1 to ban off leash dogs from the area. I have never seen a dog misbehave or scare a person, grown or small, on the beach. The joy of seeing our four legged friends prance and frolic, often with young children, is uplifting to the human spirit and heart. EK-1 (cont.) I am imploring you to keep this area accessible to off leash dogs and their loving, responsible owners.

Sincerely,

Elisa Kleven, Albany resident since 1989 www.elisakleven.com E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment EK-1 The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

298 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Ellen Hershey

299 From: Ejhershey To: Chris Barton Subject: Re: Comments on Albany Beach SEIR Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 4:21:53 PM

Dear Chris, Below are my comments on the Albany Beach SEIR. Please acknowledge that you have received them. Thank you very much. Ellen Hershey [email protected] 510-525-5708

To: Chris Barton East Bay Regional Park District via e-mail: [email protected] From: Ellen Hershey 515 Spokane Avenue, Albany, CA 94706 [email protected] 510-525-5708 Date: February 11, 2015 Re: Comments on Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project (SCH #2012032072)

I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the above-referenced SEIR.

I have not commented before on earlier documents in the EIR process for the above-referenced project because I understood from information provided by the EBRPD representative who conducted the public workshops held at Albany Senior Center during 2010-11 that dogs would not be permitted off-leash in the Proposed Project area, including Albany Beach. In fact, I remember particularly that the subject of off-leash dogs at the Beach came up several times during these workshops because participants, including me, wanted to comment about it. And the EBRPD representative stated that it would not be necessary to discuss that topic because, as a matter of settled EBRPD and State Parks and Recreation Department policy, off-leash dogs would not be permitted at Albany Beach or elsewhere on the project site. Since that was the topic that concerned me most, I did not pay attention to the EIR documents that followed until now. I assumed that once the project was carried out, the regulations prohibiting off- leash dogs at the project site would be effectively enforced. EH-1

I was therefore shocked and dismayed to read in the above-referenced SEIR that EBRPD intends to continue the same ineffective passive enforcement policy that has allowed the project site, and particularly Albany Beach, to function as a de facto off-leash dog park, in direct conflict with EBRPD and State Park regulations. I am disappointed that the communication to me and other members of the public during the workshop provided information that to me was misleading. The SEIR continues to maintain (e.g., pp. 42-43, Table 3.4-2) that "Dogs would be permitted on leash only," while also acknowledging that "Unleashed dogs currently use the Beach and Neck in violation of EBRPD's leash regulations" (p. 39 and passim) and offering no change in enforcement policy that would plausibly change this condition significantly.

Following are my specific comments on the SEIR:

SUMMARY

The Existing Conditions section is inadequate because it fails to describe the behavior of off-leash dogs and their owners at the project site and fails to investigate and describe adequately how that behavior affects other members of the general public attempting to use the site. EH-2

The Environmental Evaluation section is inadequate because it fails to adequately disclose and study the impact of the behavior of off-leash dogs and their owners on members of the general public attempting to use the project site, how those impacts evidently deter some members of the general public from using the site, and how the project goal of increasing public access to the site may be undermined by the presence of off-leash dogs. This section is EH-2 inadequate because it fails to study two project alternatives: 1) actively and effectively enforcing EBRPD Ordinance 38, which prohibits off-leash dogs at the site; 2) actively and effectively enforcing regulation OPER-5 in (cont.) the Eastshore State Park General Plan, which prohibits the presence of dogs at Albany Beach, regardless of whether they are leashed or off-leash.

Behavior of Off-Leash Dogs and Their Owners at Albany Beach

The SEIR (pp. 7-9) documents that off-leash dog recreation is the dominant use of Albany Beach (project Area 2). According to Table 2.1-2, of 232 daily human visitors to Albany Beach, 147 of them, or 63%, arrived with dogs. Of the total of 172 dogs using the Beach daily, 147 of them, or 85%, were off-leash. Since dog owners are a minority of the total population, it is clear that Albany Beach is used predominantly by a minority of the general public. Since a project goal is to improve public access to the project site, the SEIR is inadequate without further investigation and discussion of why only a minority of the general public are currently using the Beach, and how the Beach could be made accessible to the general public for activities people generally expect to engage in at a beach.

The SEIR should investigate further how dogs and their human owners behave at Albany Beach, in order to understand how this behavior impacts members of the general public who wish to use the Beach for purposes other than off-leash dog recreation. Abundant evidence available on the web and in public statements by advocates of off-leash dog use at Albany Beach demonstrates that dog owners regard Albany Beach as an off-leash dog park. (e.g. http://www.bringfido.com/attraction/beaches/city/albany-ca-us/) At a meeting of the City of Albany Parks and Recreation Commission on January 29, 2015, Mr. Paul Kamen, a prominent advocate of off-leash dog use at Albany Beach, stated categorically, "Albany Beach is a dog beach." In my observation, from visiting Albany Beach several times over the past five years, including three times in January 2015, many dog owners there behave as though anyone who goes to Albany Beach should be prepared to deal with multiple interactions with off-leash dogs who may not be under the control of their owners. Typically, about half of the dog owners are interacting directly with their dogs. The other half turn their dogs off-leash immediately when they arrive at the Beach and then allow the dogs to run the length of the Beach (approximately 800 feet) without attempting to run along with them. Often these dog owners are socializing with other people while their dogs run loose. They do not expect to have to monitor their dog's behavior closely or intercede if their dog encounters another person 600-800 feet away near the other end of the beach. Rather, they expect other people on the beach to be prepared to handle interactions EH-3 with their dogs by themselves.

As a result, when I have gone to Albany Beach, I have experienced multiple interactions with off-leash dogs who are not under control of their owner "at all times" as required by EBRPD Ordinance 38, section 801.3, which sets expectations for behavior by dogs and their owners in "Leash Optional Areas (Undeveloped Areas)". I have personally experienced dogs who "display threatening behavior" and "touch or jump on other park users who have not invited or engaged in interaction with the dog"--two of the behaviors defined as "not under control" by this section of Ordinance 38. Of course, at Albany Beach, the owners of these dogs are violating park regulations by allowing them to run off-leash in the first place. My point is, that the behavior of these off-leash dogs and their owners often does not meet EBRPD standards for behavior even if Albany Beach were an area where off-leash dogs are allowed.

My own experience provides one example of how the culture of an off-leash dog park that EBRPD has allowed to develop at Albany Beach is incompatible with other activities that members of the general public ordinarily expect to enjoy at a beach. Several years ago, I tried to go there to sit in the sand, eat a picnic lunch, and read a book while enjoying the beautiful scenery. Within a few minutes after I sat down on the sand and pulled out my sandwich, I was surrounded by three large off-leash dogs. They ignored my command to go away. I decided to ignore them, thinking they would lose interest in me and leave. Then one of them lunged for my sandwich. I am not ordinarily afraid of dogs, but at that point, I felt intimidated. I stood up and left the area. No dog owner came forward to intercede or restrain any of these dogs. I could not even identify who the owners were. I concluded that Albany Beach is not a place where I can enjoy a picnic lunch unmolested by dogs. On subsequent visits, I have invariably experienced numerous encounters with dogs with no intervention by an owner. The SEIR (p. 38) states, "there is still an implicit understanding by park staff that people who are afraid of dogs do not visit Albany Neck or Beach, especially if they have safety concerns for children or are frail and elderly." While this is undoubtedly true, my experience shows that even a person who is not generally afraid of dogs may not find Albany Beach a comfortable place to enjoy normal beach activities because of the high concentration of off-leash dogs there, many of them uncontrolled. My son and daughter-in-law tell me they would like to present me with a grandchild some day. Since I was unable to defend my own sandwich from an out-of-control dog at Albany Beach, EH-3 under current conditions I would not feel comfortable taking a preschooler there for a picnic either, even though (cont.) beaches are universally recognized as wonderful places for young children to play. It is highly likely that other members of the public view Albany Beach the same way. At the January 29, 2015 meeting of the Albany Parks and Recreation Commission I cited above, another woman who spoke said that she had tried to take her children to Albany Beach to play a number of times but had finally given up because of too many bad experiences with uncontrolled dogs.

The SEIR's assessment of the impacts of off-leash dogs on the public's use of the project site is inadequate. P. 40 properly observes that "Off-leash dogs potentially have a more severe impact on the safety of children and elderly park visitors versus on-leash dogs. Off-leash dogs are more likely to knock over children or elderly and/or create a hostile environment for parents with children or elderly visitors versus on-leash dogs. The more dogs in a given area, the more likely conflicts with dogs will occur." But this discussion underreports the full impact of off-leash dog behavior on use by the general public at Albany Beach in two ways; 1) It reports the ratio of dogs to people as 2:3 for the Neck and Beach (Areas 1 and 2) together, rather than singling out the higher ratio of 3:4 dogs to people at Albany Beach alone (calculated from data in Table 2.1-2). 2) Even though the language above acknowledges the problem that off-leash dogs may create a "hostile environment" for some members of the general public trying to use Albany Beach, it fails to follow through with an adequate standard for measuring a hostile environment, which could be based on standards for behavior by dogs and dog owners set forward in Ordinance 38. Instead, the SEIR resorts to the very low standard of the number of complaints received by EBRPD involving conflicts between people and off-leash dogs at Albany Beach. These reports center on dog bites. Since few reports of dog bites have been received, the SEIR dismisses the problem of hostile environment. But, of course, a hostile environment can certainly be created by out-of-control dog behavior that stops well short of dog bites, as Ordinance 38 describes. A hostile environment certainly should include the intimidation, fear, harassment, and ordinary annoyance of dealing with out-of-control dogs that keep me and other members of the general public from being able to enjoy recreation opportunities at Albany Beach. I did not report the dog who tried to steal my sandwich to the EBRPD because I knew it would be considered too trivial for action. But the cumulative impacts of out-of-control dog behavior on me and other members of the general public who should have full access to enjoying normal beach activities at Albany Beach are substantial. Moreover, the highest concentration of off-leash dogs occurs on Albany Beach, which is the project area most likely to be appealing to children and elders, who the SEIR acknowledges are the populations most vulnerable to a hostile environment EH-4 created by off-leash dogs. The SEIR's suggestion (p. 41) that Area 3 (the Bay Trail) provides "a relatively dog free option for people who do not want to recreate around dogs" offends any fundamental sense of fairness and should be deleted from the SEIR. Why should people who want to use the Beach lawfully be forced to relinquish it to those who are occupying it unlawfully? The Bay Trail, heavily used by bicyclists, is not a suitable option for young children and frail elders.

The SEIR claims that the impact of off-leash dogs will be lessened post-project because the park acreage will increase, and therefore the density of dogs per acre will be reduced (p. 41 and Table 3.4-1). This analysis is inadequate because it fails to disaggregate the data for Albany Beach (Area 2), where off-leash dogs are most highly concentrated. Moreover, in my observation, off-leash dogs congregate most heavily in the 1 acre sandy area of Albany Beach that is not expected to increase in area post-project. The SEIR also claims (p. 40) that dog density at Albany Beach will decrease because the amenities the project will add (picnic tables, bathrooms, boat-launching facilities), will attract more users to the area for non-dog-related purposes. This argument is speculative and unpersuasive. People launching boats will soon be off-shore, where they will not impact dog density on the Beach. Picnic tables and bathrooms may just as likely make Albany Beach even more attractive to off-leash dog owners than it already is, inducing more of them to come to the Beach and stay longer. People wanting to use the Beach for purposes other than dog exercise will continue to find that a site overrun with off-leash dogs is inhospitable for picnicking, napping, relaxing, playing in the sand, small children, elders, and anyone unwilling to tolerate multiple contacts with out-of-control dogs.

The SEIR's contention (pp. 40-41, Table 3.4-1) that reducing the estimated concentration of dogs in all three project areas taken together from a current maximum of 39 off-leash dogs per acre to a projected maximum of 28 off-leash dogs per acre would reduce the potential for conflicts between dogs and people is weak. 28 off-leash dogs per acre is still a lot of off-leash dogs. I have visited Albany Beach on cool winter afternoons when I counted approximately 20 off-leash dogs on the one-acre sandy area of the Beach. 20 off-leash dogs still produce plenty of uninvited dog encounters. EH-4 The SEIR is inadequate because it acknowledges the problem that the heavy concentration of off-leash dogs at (cont.) Albany Beach creates a hostile environment for children, elders, and other members of the public who wish to use the beach for non-dog-related recreation, but it fails to propose an effective solution for this problem. Therefore the SEIR fails to show how the project will meet a key objective: "It is a project objective to make the Albany Beach area appeal to a broad park user base." (p. 41)

Need to Study Project Alternatives of Actively Enforcing EBRPD and State Regulations

The SEIR (pp. 9-10) describes the current passive approach to enforcing the EBRPD Ordinance 38 requiring that dogs be on-leash at Albany Beach and Neck. This approach consists of posting regulatory signs that have repeatedly been vandalized and torn down, and giving only verbal warnings and education to violators rather than issuing citations. Obviously, the high concentration of off-leash dogs at the project site reported in this SEIR demonstrates that these passive enforcement approaches are not effective. The project proposes to install "improved permanent signage to educate the public about on and off-leash dog policies. . . . The new signage will be more durable than existing signage and will contain information about the importance of keeping dogs on leash. It has been found in a Park District compliance study and staff observation that improved and visible signage correlates with increased compliance of park rules regarding dog use. Thus, the number of unleashed dogs will EH-5 likely decrease." (p. 26). The SEIR provides no information about how much the number of unleashed dogs could be expected to decrease, or whether the decrease would significantly ameliorate conditions on Albany Beach for members of the public who do not wish to experience multiple contacts with uncontrolled dogs. It is highly unlikely that people who would vandalize regulatory signs will pay more attention to obeying regulations displayed on more durable signs. Moreover, the SEIR mentions elsewhere the Albany Landfill Dog Owners group, a well organized group who undoubtedly already know that off-leash dogs are prohibited at the project site but take their dogs there to exercise off-leash anyway. While more durable signs may help some, there is strong evidence to suggest that heavy use of the site by off-leash dogs will continue, especially at Albany Beach. The SEIR itself (p. 43) acknowledges that the proposed project will not resolve the conflict between the Eastshore State Park General Plan OPER-5 regulation prohibiting dogs on beaches at all, whether leashed or not.

The SEIR is inadequate because it fails to examine alternatives to achieve effective enforcement of EBRPD Ordinance 38 prohibiting off-leash dogs at the project site or the Eastshore State Park General Plan OPER-5 EH-6 regulation prohibiting dogs on Albany Beach at all.

The SEIR cites budget reductions (p. 9) as the reason why EBRPD police officers cannot be expected to enforce regulations pertaining to off-leash dogs more effectively. Yet, the EBRPD proposed budget for 2015 does not support the claim that the District is experiencing budget cuts that will prevent it from enforcing the leash regulations at Albany Beach. Instead, the 2015 Budget says that EBRPD weathered the past financial crisis without staff layoffs or furloughs, and proposes a 5% operating budget increase and a modest staffing increase of 21 full-time positions:

"The 2015 General Fund budgeted revenue of $122 million is $10.9 million greater than the prior year budgeted EH-7 revenue. The increase is attributed mainly to the 10.5% increase in budgeted property tax revenue. General Fund appropriations total $114.4 million (excluding transfers out of $6.4 million), as compared to $108.8 million in the prior year, a 5.1% increase.". (EBRPD 2015 Proposed Operating Budget, p. 25)

"The 2015 budget includes an increase of twenty-one positions or full time equivalents bringing the total of FTEs to 762. Eleven of these increases fulfill “pipeline” requests, which are increases in staffing directly associated with the opening of new District facilities and property." (p. 16)

Moreover, the SEIR (p. 9) reports that EBRPD police officers are currently patrolling the project area 3-4 times daily: "Currently, officers provide 3-4 daily patrol checks of the Project site 7 days a week. These patrol checks EH-8 include vehicular and/or foot patrols of the beach, plateau and neck areas. . . . When officers identify violations of the law during these patrol checks, they routinely contact the violators and determine the most appropriate level of enforcement, warning/education, citation or arrest. From 2010-August 2014 the District did not issue any citations related to dog-related issues, including off-leash dogs at the Project site." Clearly, officers could be choosing to issue citations for dog-related offenses rather than merely warnings. Issuing citations during four patrols of the project site daily would very likely be a much more effective enforcement strategy than posting durable signs. More active enforcement by directing EBRPD police officers to issue citations rather than verbal warnings to EH-8 violators of regulations pertaining to dogs at the project site is a feasible project alternative that should be studied (cont.) by the SEIR, not dismissed as unfeasible. The SEIR should study two variations of this alternative: one in which the EBRPD Ordinance 38 prohibition against off-leash dogs at the project site is actively enforced, and a second variation in which the Eastshore State Park General Plan prohibition against any dogs at Albany Beach is actively enforced. The failure to study these alternatives for reducing the impact of dogs on the environment at the project site and on the use of the project site by members of the general public renders the SEIR inadequate.

Comments submitted on February 11, 2015, by: Ellen Hershey

Sent from my iPad

> On Feb 10, 2015, at 2:01 PM, Chris Barton wrote: > > Dear Ms. Hershey, > > Either e-mail or written comments are fine. > > Best, > > Chris Barton > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ejhershey [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 12:43 PM > To: Chris Barton > Subject: Comments on Albany Beach SEIR accepted electronically? > > Dear Chris, > Must comments on the Albany Beach SEIR be delivered on paper, or will they be accepted via e-mail? > Thanks, Ellen Hershey > [email protected] > > Sent from my iPad E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comments EH-1 through EH-8 Response EH-1 See response SPRAWLDEF-11.

Response EH-2 The comment states the EIR should analyze the impacts of unleashed dogs and their owners, and how that behavior affects other users of the Project site. The environmental impacts of dogs, including unleashed dogs, are evaluated in 3 Environmental Evaluation of the Draft SEIR. The actions of dog owners do not have environmental impacts distinct from the impacts of their dogs. The SEIR analyzes the potential conflicts between dogs and other park users in Section 3.4.

Dogs at the site may deter some users from using the site; however, this is an existing condition, not an impact of the Proposed Project, which would not change current policy and enforcement regarding dogs, as discussed in Response SPRAWLDEF-11.

The 2012 EIR analyzed a reasonable range of alternatives to the Proposed Project. Analysis of additional alternatives involving enforcement is not required to comply with CEQA. In any case, CEQA requires that alternatives to a project reduce at least one of the significant environmental impacts of the Project. The alternatives proposed by the comment are not necessary to do so. As discussed in Response SPRAWLDEF-11, enforcement of Ordinance 38 is not needed to reduce significant environmental impacts associated with dogs. As discussed in Response SPRAWLDEF- 12, the SEIR acknowledged the Project conflicts with OPER-5 of the Eastshore State Park General Plan but concluded the conflict does not result in a significant environmental impact because the conflict already exists and implementation of the Project will not increase that conflict by substantially increasing the environmental impact that the policy, was meant to avoid or mitigate. See Response SPRAWLDEF-12 for a discussion of OPER-5 of the Eastshore State Park General Plan.

The comments regarding enforcement of Ordinance 38 and OPER-5 of the Eastshore State Park General Plan concern Park District policy and will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

Response EH-3 The original 2012 EIR and the Draft SEIR evaluate the Project as proposed, as required by CEQA.

As noted in the comment, the Draft SEIR discusses dog use at the site, including incidents between dogs, incidents between dogs and people, and people who are afraid of dogs, on page 38.

The Proposed Project would not change existing policy or enforcement regarding dogs. See Response SPRAWLDEF-11 for a discussion of enforcement of Ordinance 38.

The comments suggesting additional public access to the site and enforcement of dog policies concern Park District policy and will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

305 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response EH-4 As noted in the comment, the ratio of dogs to people (approximately 3:4) at the Beach (Area 2) alone can be calculated from information presented in Table 2.1-2 on page 7 of the Draft SEIR. This information is not necessary to evaluate of disclose the environmental impacts of dogs at the Beach and the remainder of the Project site. The analysis of the environmental impacts of the Project, including both on and off-leash dogs, in Section 3 Environmental Evaluation of the Draft SEIR is at a level of detail that is sufficient to allow decision-makers to make informed decisions about the environmental impacts of the Project, and is sufficient for this EIR to comply with CEQA. Additional analysis is not required.

To the extent that dogs at the Project site create a hostile environment, this is an existing condition, not an impact of the Proposed Project. As discussed in Section 2.2 Enforcement Policy, pages 9-10 of the Draft SEIR, the Project would not change current policy and enforcement. Because the Project would not change policy or enforcement, it would not have a substantial effect on the existing psychological environment. Furthermore, the psychological atmosphere is not an environmental impact that falls under CEQA. The physical environmental impacts of the Project, including those related to dogs, are evaluated in the Draft SEIR. The issue of psychological atmosphere concerns Park District policy and will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

As discussed in the Draft SEIR, the additional available space and amenities that would be provided by the Project are expected to increase the total number of visitors to the site, some of whom would bring dogs. As discussed on pages 40-41 of the Draft SEIR, the net effect of additional dogs and additional space, including additional acreage in Area 2 (the beach area), would be a decrease in number of dogs per acre. The comment asserts that additional dogs would concentrate at the existing beach area and thus increase the density of dogs at the beach, but provides no evidence that all or most of the additional visitors with dogs would choose to congregate solely at the beach. The Park District has found that at Albany Beach and other parks that allow dogs, the dogs, including unleashed dogs, tend to stay with their owners and disburse throughout the site, rather than joining together in packs.30, 31, 32, 33

The comment disagrees with the conclusion of the SEIR that the Project’s reduction of number of dogs per acre would reduce the potential for conflicts between dogs and people, because the post- Project density of dogs is “is still a lot of off-leash dogs”. Although the commenter may consider that the post-Project density is “a lot”, it would, nevertheless, be lower than the pre-Project density, and thus would reduce the potential for conflicts.

Response EH-5 The signage at the site is an element of the Project, not a mitigation measure. In reaching its conclusions regarding the significance of environmental impacts associated with off-leash dogs, the

30 Kevin Takei, Shoreline Unit Manager, East Bay Regional Park District, personal communication, 13 April 2015. 31 Scott Possin, Park Supervisor, Miller Knox Regional Shoreline, East Bay Regional Park District, personal communication, 15 April 2015. 32 Ralph Trujillo, Park Supervisor, Oyster Bay Regional Shoreline, East Bay Regional Park District, personal communication, 14 April 2015. 33 Shelley Miller, Park Supervisor, Del Valle Regional Park, East Bay Regional Park District, personal communication, 20 April 2015.

306 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

SEIR does not rely on the effectiveness of signage to reduce significant impacts to an insignificant level. However, the signage is expected to reduce number of off-leash dogs, thereby further reducing this less-than-significant impact. In any event, the signage proposed by the Project will be durable, permanent, limited to dog regulations, and mounted at a height of eight feet to be out of reach of vandals. This type of sign has been proven to be resistant to defacement.

See Response SPRAWLDEF-12 for a discussion of OPER-5 of the Eastshore State Park General Plan.

Response EH-6 See Response EH-2.

Response EH-7 Like all public agencies, the Park District must determine how it will allocate its limited resources for enforcement of its rules and regulations, including those regarding dogs. The number of District officers has decreased by nearly 19 percent from 2008 staffing levels due to budget reductions, vacancies and officer injuries.34 Patrol reductions have limited the District Police Department's ability to respond to lower-priority issues, such as dog violations. Priority is given to crimes and incidents that threaten the health, safety and welfare of the public. District crime statistics from 2010 to present reflect 530 calls for service in the Albany/East Shore State Park area. The top five reported crimes were: warrant arrests, automobile burglaries, contacts for probation violations, illegal camping, and suspicious circumstances (which could lead to a number of different criminal acts). Other high frequency and high priority crimes that occurred were: bicycle accidents, burglary alarms, arson, hazardous materials, drug possession, verbal and physical altercations, indecent exposures, missing persons, weapons violations, stolen vehicles, thefts, and vandalism. In the past two years (2013-2014), the Police Department has started to recover from the lowered staffing levels that occurred after 2008. However, the Police Department is currently operating with five officer vacancies, two community service officer vacancies, five student aide vacancies and two communication dispatcher vacancies. Due to retirements, officer injuries, vacations, and vacancies, the Department is consistently operating at a minimum of five vacant positions. In addition, the Park District has increased the amount of land purchased and operated since 2008, as well as developed new land for public use, generating more demand for police protection.

The commenter disagrees with the Park District’s decisions regarding enforcement priorities, but CEQA merely requires that it disclose how it enforces its ordinance and take that into account when considering the Project’s impacts. CEQA also requires, for significant impacts, that all feasible mitigation measures be identified. In this case, enforcement is not required to reduce impacts associated with dogs to less-than-significant levels, so the feasibility of enforcement as a mitigation measure is not applicable.

Response EH-8 See Response EH-2.

34 Gretchen Rose, Administrative Lieutenant, Police Department, East Bay Regional Park District, email to Chris Barton, Acting Environmental Programs Manager, Environmental Programs, East Bay Regional Park District, 19 May 2015.

307 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Emily Rosenberg

308 From: Emily Rosenberg To: Chris Barton Subject: SEIR- Please ACCEPTthe SEIR and the evidence that dog owner use has no measurable negative impact Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:13:24 PM

Dear Mr. Barton:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Albany Beach .

It clearly resolves the concerns about environmental impact and shows that the parklands are successfully used by people with and without dogs who manage to get along just fine at the park. Considering the wide number of alternative park choices open to people without dogs who choose to use the Albany Beach, it seems very clear that they are comfortable with the presence of dogs and the habits of the dog owners at the Beach. In a more metaphoric sense, the same could be said for the wonderful array of wildlife the inhabit the park....they are ER-1 thriving.

The SEIR documented that while dogs "could impact" this or that element, the presence of off- leash dogs has not produced any evidence of special problems at the park.

It is important to keep our waterfront open to all and to continue access for the large numbers of people who choose to have their active recreation with their pets and the rest of their family at the Beach. Please keep this unique resource open to all who want to use it.

Emily Rosenberg longtime enthusiastic visitor to Albany Beach

E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment ER-1 As discussed in the SEIR, all impacts of the Proposed Project, including potential impacts of dogs on biological and geological resources (see pages 24-30 and 32-33), would be reduced to a less-than- significant level by mitigation measures identified in the SEIR.

The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

310 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Felicity Blau

311 From: felicity blau To: Chris Barton Subject: Supplemental Environment Impact Report for the Albany Restoration and Public Access Project Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 4:19:58 PM

Dr. Mr. Barton:

I am a resident of Berkeley and have spent many, many years enjoying the beautiful East Bay Regional Parks. I am a registered nurse and a dog owner. As you can imagine nursing is a very stressful profession and the best way that I have found to relax and unwind is to walk up and down the trails at the Albany Bulb while first letting my dog swim in the cold water which not only tires her out but also helps her arthritis. I am always pleasantly surprised at how clean the beach is and have participated in the regular beach cleanups. There is generally a nice mix of people with and without dogs enjoying the beach and surrounding trails FB-1 and the beach is one of the few areas close to me where I can spend time with my dog off leash. Albany Beach has little habitat value at this time and I can imagine it will have less value after the beach area is restored and made more "people friendly". The SEIR resolves any environmental concerns about the impact of people with dogs at the waterfront. I ask that the Board of Directors please accept it so I can continue to visit the Albany Beach waterfront area with my dog.

Sincerely,

Felicity Blau 1812 Francisco St. Apt A Berkeley, Calif. 94703resident E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment FB-1 As discussed in the SEIR, all impacts of the Proposed Project, including potential impacts of dogs on biological and geological resources (see pages 24-30 and 32-33), would be reduced to a less-than- significant level by mitigation measures identified in the SEIR.

The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

313 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Joseph Como

314 From: Carol and Joe To: Chris Barton Subject: Albany Waterfront Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 3:17:26 PM

Dear Chris,

I was on the Albany Parks and Rec commission for several years and would like to give my input on the dogs on the waterfront. Where Albany has jurisdiction and even where it doesn’t there continues to be a problem with folks having little or no control of their dog(s). This needs to be recti ed by an ordinance with teeth that limits the damage and danger to the area and to JC-1 pedestrians from these dog owners or walkers who have no regard for fellow citizens. The police need to buy into any new laws since we were told on the commission a few years ago that the police had little interest in enforcing the laws.

Joseph Como 833 San Carlos Avenue, Albany, Ca 510-524-3293 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment JC-1 The comments suggesting enforcement of dog policies concern Park District policy and will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

316 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Jackie Foster

317 From: Jackie To: Chris Barton; [email protected] Subject: SEIR - Albany Beach Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 11:28:15 AM

Dear Mr. Barton: I have been an Albany and El Cerrito resident for over 20 years. I currently reside in El Cerrito and have been a regular user of the Albany Beach for all of those 20 years - on a daily basis - for walking my dogs, watching my daughter play on the beach, and enjoying the area for myself. As a parent and dog owner I have never been concerned or had a problem with the number of dogs using the beach area. The Supplemental Environmental Impact Report proves that there is a good mix of user groups at the Albany waterfront – almost 60 percent are other user groups, not people walking dogs – and that people walking dogs are very conscientious about cleaning up after their animals. It also JF2-1 notes that the overall cleanliness of the beach may be due partly to the presence of the Albany Landfill Dog Owners Group & Friends, which conducts regular beach cleanups. I believe the park district should work toward official policies that welcome people with dogs at the Albany waterfront. We are an important park user group and walking dogs is a vital exercise option for East Bay residents. I support the Draft Supplemental EIR for the Albany Beach Restoration Project and urge the park district to accept the SEIR.

Sincerely, Jackie Foster/El Cerrito E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment JF2-1 The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

319 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

John Williams

320 From: John Williams To: Chris Barton Subject: Albany Beach Restoration Project. Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 10:25:06 AM

Mr. Barton, I support the Draft Supplemental EIR for the Albany Beach Restoration Project. I agree with the conclusion and think the present policies should stay in force. People run as much risk of being bitten by a dog anywhere in Albany as they do at Albany Beach. It should remain as an off leash space for local residents as the research indicates that a substantial percentage of daily visitors are individuals with dog. . I use to go there often myself with my dog and we enjoyed it very much. JW-1 I appreciate the opportunity to comment on this issue and thank the East Bay Regional Parks for their diligence on this issue. I could also support that the smaller southern beach could be declared as a dog free zone if that would help ease some of the resistance for people and groups that just plain do not like dogs off leash. Thank you again. John C. Williams, 9560 White Meadow RD., Pollock Pines, CA 95726 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment JW-1 The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

322 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Karin Macdonald

323 From: karin mac donald To: Chris Barton Cc: [email protected] Subject: Support for SEIR Date: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 8:32:23 PM

Dear Mr. Barton:

I am a resident of Oakland, a longtime park user and volunteer, dog owner, environmentalist and bird lover.

I am writing to support the findings in the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. The report shows that there is a good mix of user groups at the Albany waterfront – almost 60 percent are not people walking dogs, but rather other user groups, – and that people walking dogs are very conscientious about cleaning up after their animals. It also notes that the overall cleanliness of the beach may be due to the presence of the Albany Landfill Dog Owners Group & Friends, which conducts regular beach cleanups. KM-1

I urge the park district to work toward official policies that welcome people with dogs at the Albany waterfront. People with dogs are an important park user group and walking dogs is a vital exercise option for East Bay residents. People with dogs make parks safer, and as a single woman I do not feel safe using most trails without the presence of my dogs. Banning my dogs would effectively ban me from using the Albany waterfront.

I urge the park district to accept the SEIR. Thank you for your consideration.

Best regards

Karin Mac Donald Oakland, CA E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment KM-1 The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

325 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Kay Shen

326 From: Kay Shen To: Chris Barton Subject: Albany Beach Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 3:03:39 PM

Hi mr. Barton I had been bring my dog to Albany beach for more than 10 years. In the beginning, there were rarely any people without dogs there. The beach were littered with more garbages and rarely any dogs waste. I would regularly pick up a few gags of plastic every time I go there. There were usually a lot of people without dogs just hang out , drinking alcohol. I think the dog people made the beach more safe. Then people started bring children there. I would always think how unsafe it was for the children to be playing around all these plastic garbage. So I would KS1-1 pick up more garbage for their sake while my dog plays with other dogs. And 99%of dog owners pick up after themselves. There were rarely any conflicts.

In conclusion, we dog people contribute to the safety and cleanliness of the beach. Please let us continue. Kay Shen 8532 Betty Lane El Cerritos CA 94530

Sent from my iPad E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment KS1-1 The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

328 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Kiem Sie

329 From: k i e m To: Chris Barton Cc: [email protected] Subject: Albany Beach Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 11:58:37 AM

Mr. Chris Barton Acting Environmental Programs Manager East Bay Regional Park District 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, CA 94605 Dear Mr. Barton:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project.

I would imagine that many people have never visited the beach, and that of people who might have visited the beach but were reluctant, were more people who were afraid of visiting a somewhat remote, deserted location or who were afraid of the homeless rather than were afraid of off-leash dogs. I think a consistent presence of dog-walkers make public spaces like this seem more appealing and safe than deserted beaches in urban areas.

Sincerely Yours,

Kiem Sie 729 Solano Ave. Albany CA 94706

Kiem Sie E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment KS2-1 As discussed in the SEIR, all impacts of the Proposed Project, including potential impacts of dogs on biological and geological resources (see pages 24-30 and 32-33), would be reduced to a less-than- significant level by mitigation measures identified in the SEIR.

The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

331 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Lynn Fraley

332 From: Lynn Fraley To: Chris Barton Subject: Draft Supplemental EIR and Albany Beach Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 12:06:12 AM

Chris Barton:

I support the Draft Supplemental EIR for the Albany Beach Restoration Project, with my primary interest being the preservation of off-leash use of Albany Beach. I’ve been to Muir Beach and witnessed dogs, children, and people of all ages playing freely and fearlessly on the beach without incident. LF-1 Please remember that off-leash users helped create a safer Bulb experience by our presence. And please let me know if I can do more to support off-leash use.

Thanks for your hard work on this issue.

Lynn Fraley E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment LF-1 The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

334 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Laura Myerson

335 From: Laura Myerson To: Chris Barton Subject: Albany waterfront Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 8:02:14 PM

Dear Mr. Barton:

I am a resident of Berkeley, California, a senior citizen and a dog owner. I greatly enjoy the natural beauty of the Albany Bulb, the ease of walking on its paths, and the freedom my dog has to join me off leash.

I urge the park district to accept the SEIR.

Sincerely, Laura Myerson 1529 Walnut Street Berkeley, CA 94706 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment LM-1 The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

337 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Lee Pullen

338 From: Lee Pullen To: Chris Barton Subject: Support for the Draft Supplemental EIR for Albany Beach Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 8:03:35 AM

Count me as supporting the draft supplemental EIR for the Albany Beach Restoration Project. LP-1

Thank you,

Lee Pullen Albany, CA E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment LP-1 The comments on the merits of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

340 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Michael Farrell

341 From: Michael Farrell To: Chris Barton Subject: Albany Beach Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 12:49:29 PM

I believe that the Draft Supplemental EIR is correct in it’s assessment of no significant impact of the use of Albany MF-1 Beach as an off-leash area

is appropriate for the Park. E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment MF-1 As discussed in the SEIR, all impacts of the Proposed Project, including potential impacts of dogs on biological and geological resources (see pages 24-30 and 32-33), would be reduced to a less-than- significant level by mitigation measures identified in the SEIR.

The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

343 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Maureen Marsh

344 From: Maureen Valdes Marsh To: Chris Barton Cc: [email protected] Subject: Albany Beach Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 11:08:30 AM

Mr. Chris Barton Acting Environmental Programs Manager East Bay Regional Park District 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, CA 94605 Dear Mr. Barton:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project.

Sincerely Yours,

Maureen Marsh 729 Solano Ave. Albany CA 94706 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment MM-1 The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

346 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Martha M. Chase

347 From: MMC To: Chris Barton Cc: [email protected]; Chandra Hauptman Subject: Albany Beach SEIR Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:47:21 AM

Chris Barton Environmental Programs Manager East Bay Regional Park District 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, CA 94605 re: Albany Beach SEIR

Dear Mr. Barton:

I am submitting this comment on the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project.

I have been to Albany Beach many times over the past 5-10 years and quite often since the Albany Bulb was cleaned up. I love the area and frequently try to clean up trash at the same time that I pick up after my dog. By way of identification, I recently sent an email to the EBRPD about my incidental clean up of the park that resulted in finding two used hypodermic needles on the beach. I have also been a member of several environmental groups, local, national and international and believe we all need to be guardians of our natural resources.

I understand that a recent EBRPD study shows that people with dogs clean up after them. The trash I have found is not associated with dogs, other than the occasional tennis ball. Mostly it is plastic related to food and drinks - and the occasional hypodermic needle. I understand that the study noted that the overall cleanliness of the beach may be partly due to the presence of the Albany Landfill Dogs Owners Group & Friends group that conducts regular beach cleanups. MMC-1 A goal of your project is to bring more visitors to Albany Beach for active recreation. The district has established that more recreation on Albany Beach, including by more people with dogs, poses no threat to the environment or wildlife. I thank the district for preserving rich wildlife habitat nearby, including the Albany Mudflats Ecological Preserve (160 acres of tidal mudflats and salt marsh), the protected areas along the Bay Trail, the large Hoffman Marsh, the extensive mudflats at the Brickyard, and the 72-acre Berkeley Meadow.

I urge the Board of Directors to accept the SEIR as it appears to resolve any environmental concerns about the impact of people with dogs at the waterfront.

I am a longtime supporter of the park district and user of the east bay regional parks and appreciate that I am able to bring my dog to Albany Beach. I urge the EBRPD to continue to permit dogs to be off-leash at Albany Beach. I hope that the EBRPD will be able to arrive at some dog-friendly (people-with-dogs- friendly) policies so that we can continue to enjoy the beach as we have for many years.

Sincerely,

Martha M. Chase 2970 Magnolia Street Berkeley, CA 94705 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment MMC-1 As discussed in the SEIR, all impacts of the Proposed Project, including potential impacts of dogs on biological and geological resources (see pages 24-30 and 32-33), would be reduced to a less-than- significant level by mitigation measures identified in the SEIR.

The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

349 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

MaiPhuong Nguyen

350 From: MaiPhuong Nguyen To: Chris Barton Subject: Keep Albany Beach Off-Leash Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 6:39:07 AM

Mr. Chris Barton Acting Environmental Programs Manager East Bay Regional Park District 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, CA 94605

Dear Mr. Barton:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project.

I am a dog owner, horse owner, windsurfer, birdwatcher, parent, longtime Albany Beach attendee, supporter of environmental causes, and of the East Bay Regional Park District.

Last summer, the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) collected 200 hours of data about park visitors. The data shows that 59 percent of visitors to the Albany waterfront do not bring dogs. This confirms what park users have been saying all along: that there is a healthy, dynamic mix of user groups that includes people with dogs.

A goal of your project is to bring more visitors to Albany Beach for active recreation. The district has established that more recreation on Albany Beach, including by more people with dogs, poses no threat to the environment or wildlife. I thank the district for preserving rich wildlife habitat nearby, including the Albany Mudflats Ecological Preserve (160 acres of tidal mudflats and salt marsh), the protected areas along the Bay Trail, the large Hoffman Marsh, the extensive mudflats at the Brickyard, and the 72-acre Berkeley Meadow.

The SEIR resolves any environmental concerns about the impact of people with dogs at the waterfront. I urge the Board of Directors to accept it.

As a longtime supporter of the EBRP district, one of the things I love best about it and the East Bay is the off-leash recreation at Albany Beach. I strongly believe that people with dogs should continue to be part of our vibrant, multi-use waterfront, as they have been for 50 years. I look forward to collaborating with the park district and the community on commonsense policies that support that. Sincerely,

MaiPhuong Nguyen El Cerrito E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment MPN-1 As discussed in the SEIR, all impacts of the Proposed Project, including potential impacts of dogs on biological and geological resources (see pages 24-30 and 32-33), would be reduced to a less-than- significant level by mitigation measures identified in the SEIR.

The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

353 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Meno Vos

354 From: Vos, Meno A To: Chris Barton; [email protected] Subject: Albany Beach off leash dog recreation Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 2:02:06 PM Importance: High

Mr. Chris Barton Acting Environmental Programs Manager East Bay Regional Park District 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, CA 94605

Dear Mr. Barton:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project.

I am a long term resident of Berkeley and a dog owner and frequent visitor to Albany Beach.

Last summer, the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) collected 200 hours of data about park visitors. The data shows that 59 percent of visitors to the Albany waterfront do not bring dogs. This conﬁrms what park users have been saying all along: that there is a healthy, dynamic mix of user groups that includes people with dogs.

A goal of your project is to bring more visitors to Albany Beach for active recreation. The district has MV-1 established that more recreation on Albany Beach, including by more people with dogs, poses no threat to the environment or wildlife. I thank the district for preserving rich wildlife habitat nearby, including the Albany Mudflats Ecological Preserve (160 acres of tidal mudflats and salt marsh), the protected areas along the Bay Trail, the large Hoffman Marsh, the extensive mudflats at the Brickyard, and the 72-acre Berkeley Meadow.

The SEIR resolves any environmental concerns about the impact of people with dogs at the waterfront. I urge the Board of Directors to accept it.

I am a longtime supporter of the park district and one of the things I love best about it and the East Bay is oﬀ-leash recreation at Albany Beach. I strongly believe that people with dogs should continue to be part of our vibrant, multi-use waterfront, as they have been for 50 years. I look forward to collaborating with the park district and the community on commonsense policies that support that.

Sincerely,

Meno Vos Berkeley, CA

"On ne voit bien qu'avec le coeur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux" Antoine de Saint-Exupery; Le Petit Prince

This e-mail, including attachments, may include confidential and/or proprietary information, and may be used only by the person or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or his or her authorized agent, the reader is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by replying to this message and delete this e-mail immediately. E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment MV-1 As discussed in the SEIR, all impacts of the Proposed Project, including potential impacts of dogs on biological and geological resources (see pages 24-30 and 32-33), would be reduced to a less-than- significant level by mitigation measures identified in the SEIR.

The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

357 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Monika Schrag

358 From: Monika Schrag To: Chris Barton; [email protected] Subject: Please accept the SEIR Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 5:03:01 PM

Dear Mr. Barton:

I am a resident of El Cerrito, former resident of Albany, a member of the Sierra Club, an environmentalist, a senior citizen, and a dog lover, and I greatly enjoy walking with my dogs at the Albany waterfront. I'm also a volunteer who helps with the regular cleanups of the Albany MS1-1 beach. I fervently hope that the park district accepts the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and continues to allow us to bring our dogs to the park.

Sincerely, Monika Schrag El Cerrito E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment MS1-1 The comments on the merits and design of the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

360 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Steve Haflich

361 From: Steve Haflich To: Chris Barton Subject: Comments on the revised EIR for the Albany Beach, Bulb, etc. Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 5:01:50 PM

Chris --

You will remember me from our encounters on the beach during spring tides, and afterwards when the dunes were violated with a ditch and mechanical earthmoving equipment after SH-1 extreme rains a couple years ago.

I have previously commented before the district board that the way to keep facilities _safe_ for users is to keep them sufficiently _used_ so that well-behaved user communities prevent takeover by criminal or abusive elements. The Beach is a unique resource, and I hope its users and EBRPD can keep it so. It is obvious that the majority of users of the beach and the bulb are off-leash dog walkers. If they are banned, these ares will revert to inner-city-wild -- SH-2 drugs and alcohol and crime, rather than wildlife wild. This is no different from what the policy should be for Lake Anza. This area is not pristine wilderness -- it is and remains a former dump! Wilderness needs protection! So do former dumps! (But for different reasons.)

To return it to pristine wilderness the entire dump would need to be removed so bat rays, tiger sharks, eel grass, and various molluscs could repopulate That isn't going to happen. SH-3

Digging into former dumps is prohibited, or at least should be. Most of the rodents that inhabit "wild" areas are burrow diggers. They are fundamentally incompatible with dumps. There are other bayside areas where they can be permitted, even encouraged. If the Bay SH-4 Water Quality Board were consulted, I suspect they shoudl be more concerned with rodents on dumps than dog poop on dumps. And most beach users do pick up their dog poop.

Finally, I have heard (e.g in Albany City Council) the claim that various bird species use the outer lagoon barrier for nesting. This is preposterous, Except for a few scattered rocks, the SH-5 outer lagoon is usually completely underwater a couple days in a typical lunar cycle.

Thankd for your consideration.

Steve Haflich & Oso, who believes he _owns_ the Beach and Bulb! E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment SH-1 Response SH-1 The comment is noted.

Response SH-2 The comments on the design of the Proposed Project, and on the merits of the Project, will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

Response SH-3 The comment on alternative uses of the project site does not pertain to the environmental impacts of the Proposed Project, and does not require a response under CEQA.

Response SH-4 See Response GGA-8 for a discussion of impacts of the Proposed Project on water quality.

Response SH-5 As discussed in the SEIR, all impacts of the Proposed Project, including potential impacts of dogs on biological resources (see pages 24-30), would be reduced to a less-than-significant level by mitigation measures identified in the SEIR.

363 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Winnie Kelly

364 From: Winnie Kelly To: Chris Barton Subject: Albany waterfront SEIR Date: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 5:43:40 PM

Dear Mr. Barton: I live in Richmond, and am a longtime park user, with my dogs, as well as a wildlife specialist. As proved by the SEIR, the 40-odd percent of dogwalkers at the beach add to usefulness and general cleanliness of the site, rather than detracting from it. From my own experience, I can say that -- because I am allowed to run my dog there -- I have been on hand to rescue two seabirds, as well as coordinating the rescue of a sick seal, at the Albany beachfront over the past three years. WK-1

The park district should definitely work toward policies that welcome people with dogs at the Albany waterfront. We are an important park user group, and walking dogs is a vital exercise option for East Bay residents. I urge the park district to accept the SEIR. Sincerely,

Winnie Kelly E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comment WK-1 As discussed in the SEIR, all impacts of the Proposed Project, including potential impacts of dogs on biological and geological resources (see pages 24-30 and 32-33), would be reduced to a less-than- significant level by mitigation measures identified in the SEIR.

The comments on the design of the Proposed Project, and on the merits of the Project, will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

366 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR M ITIGATION M ONITORING AND R EPORTING P ROGRAM

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

This document is the Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Supplemental EIR (SEIR) for the proposed Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project. The MMRP reflects the SEIR’s analysis of impacts and mitigation measures.

The purpose of the MMRP is to ensure the implementation of mitigation measures identified as part of the SEIR for the Project. A separate MMRP was prepared and adopted by the District Board in November 2012 for the Final EIR for the Project. This MMRP supplements the previously adopted the MMRP and includes the following information with regard to the SEIR: ♦ A list of impacts and their corresponding mitigation measures. ♦ The party responsible for implementing the mitigation measures. ♦ The timing and procedure for implementation of the mitigation measure. ♦ The agency responsible for monitoring the implementation. ♦ The timing or frequency of monitoring activities.

1 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR M ITIGATION M ONITORING AND R EPORTING P ROGRAM

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Action/Product Implemented By Implementation Monitored Monitoring Mitigation Measures Timing By Frequency BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Mitigation Measure BIO-1a: Fencing shall be established around the Installation of fencing Construction Prior to EBRPD Once, at end of enhanced dune and wetland area and shall be designed to prevent access around enhanced dune contractor completion of Construction construction of and disturbance by park users and pets without obstructing views of the and wetland area dune and Manager dune and San Francisco Bay or substantially interfering with wildlife movement or wind patterns that shape and form the dunes. This would prevent wetland area wetland area digging and trampling of the restored dune mat vegetation and enhanced wetlands due to use by park visitors and dogs.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2a: Fencing shall be established around the Installation of fencing Construction Prior to EBRPD Once, at end of enhanced dune and wetland area and shall be designed to prevent access around enhanced dune contractor completion of Construction construction of and disturbance by park users and pets without obstructing views of the and wetland area dune and Manager dune and San Francisco Bay or substantially interfering with wildlife movement or wind patterns that shape and form the dunes. This would prevent wetland area wetland area digging and trampling of the expanded and enhanced wetlands due to use by park visitors and dogs.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3a: Fencing shall be established around the Installation of fencing Construction Prior to EBRPD Once, at end of enhanced dune and wetland area and shall be designed to prevent access around enhanced dune contractor completion of Construction construction of and disturbance by park users and pets without obstructing views of the and wetland area dune and Manager dune and San Francisco Bay or substantially interfering with wildlife movement or wind patterns that shape and form the dunes. This would increase wetland area wetland area protected and fenced dune and wetland habitat for birds and other animals from 0 acres to 1.1 acres.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS Mitigation Measure GEO-1a: Fencing shall be established around the Installation of fencing Construction Prior to EBRPD Once, at end of enhanced dune area and shall be designed to prevent access and resultant around enhanced dune contractor completion of Construction construction of erosion by park users and pets without obstructing views of the San area dune area Manager dune area Francisco Bay or substantially interfering with wildlife movement or wind patterns that shape and form the dunes. This would prevent erosion of the restored sandy dune complex due to use by park visitors and dogs.

2 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR M ITIGATION M ONITORING AND R EPORTING P ROGRAM

Action/Product Implemented By Implementation Monitored Monitoring Mitigation Measures Timing By Frequency HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY The project would not result in significant project or cumulative impacts related to hydrology and water quality and dog use; therefore, no mitigation measures are required. LAND USE AND PLANNING The project would not result in significant project or cumulative impacts related to land use and planning and dog use; therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

Supplemental Environmental Impact Report

Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project

for the East Bay Regional Park District

SCH # 2012032072

December 22, 2014

E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Project Overview ...... 1 1.2 Planning and Environmental Review Chronology ...... 3 1.3 Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...... 4 2 EXISITING CONDITIONS ...... 6 2.1 Current and Projected Use ...... 6 2.2 Enforcement Policy ...... 9 3 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ...... 11 3.1 Biological Resources ...... 11 3.2 Geology and Soils ...... 30 3.3 Hydrology and Water Quality ...... 33 3.4 Land Use and Planning ...... 36

i E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

1 INTRODUCTION

This Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared to assess the potential environmental consequences of on and off-leash dog use as result of the proposed Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project (also referred to as “the Proposed Project” or “Project”) at the Albany Peninsula and the bay shoreline between Buchanan and Gilman Streets, in the cities of Albany and Berkeley, California.

The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR or Final EIR) for the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project was released and certified in November 2012. Following the Final EIR’s certification, Sustainability, Parks, Recycling and Wildlife Defense Fund (SPRAWLDEF) filed litigation challenging the FEIR and the approvals made for the Project. This Supplemental EIR has been prepared to comply with the Alameda County Superior Court’s May 14, 2014 Final Statement of Decision in the SPRAWDEF litigation. As required by the Court’s decision, the EIR further addresses the existing dog use and enforcement of leash requirements at the Project site and the potential environmental impacts dogs might have on the Project site post Project implementation. This Supplemental EIR replaces the Final EIR’s discussion of the existing use of the Project site by dogs and analysis of environmental impacts caused by the additional dogs that will frequent the site as a result of the Project.1

The Supplemental EIR describes the existing use of the Project site by dogs, establishing a dog use baseline for on and off-leash dogs at the Project site. The baseline includes average use and most intense use numbers for visitors with and without dogs, and for dogs on and off leash at all three areas of the Proposed Project site and for the Project site overall. The baseline also discusses the East Bay Regional Park District’s policies pertaining to on and off-leash dogs and enforcement of those polices. This Supplemental EIR analyzes potential environmental impacts of dog use and identifies mitigation measures that would avoid or reduce potential significant impacts.

The Supplemental EIR has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The main objectives of CEQA are to disclose to decision makers and the public the significant environmental effect of proposed activities and to require agencies to avoid or reduce the environmental effects by implementing feasible alternatives or mitigation measures. The East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD or Park District) is the lead agency for the Project.

1.1 Project Overview

The Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project consists of three components (see Figure 1.1-1):

• Phase 1: Shoreline repair and reconstruction, including habitat enhancement and accessibility improvements to 2,000 feet of existing trail (San Francisco Bay Trail Spur) along the Albany Neck shoreline (Area 1); and northern beach access; • Phase 2: Beach and dune enhancement, recreation improvements, restroom, parking and construction of approximately 800 feet of new San Francisco Bay Trail at Albany Beach (Area 2); and • Phase 3: Construction of 4,200 feet of new San Francisco Bay Trail between Albany Beach and Gilman Street (Area 3).

1 Specifically, the Supplemental EIR replaces the discussion of dogs in the following sections of the FEIR: Chapter 3 (Current and Projected Site Use), Chapter 4.3 (Biological Resources), Chapter 4.5 (Geology and Soils), Chapter 4.8 (Hydrology and Water Quality), and Chapter 4.9 (Land Use and Planning ).

1 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

2 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

In addition to the three main project areas listed above, the project would also involve beneficial reuse of Albany Neck shoreline material to repair voids on the Albany Plateau, after which this area would be backfilled with suitable soil, covered, and seeded. The areas proposed for debris placement are already impacted from unauthorized metal scavenging activities (landfill debris such as concrete and sharp metal is exposed) and these areas would be repaired as part of the project. The majority of the concrete debris would be hauled off-site to an approved landfill for recycling.

Implementation of Phases 2 and 3 would result in additional improved parkland and trails. This increase is expected to result in an increase in visitors and therefore increase the number of dogs, both leashed and unleashed, in the park.

1.2 Planning and Environmental Review Chronology

The Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project has been in different planning and review stages since the completion of the Eastshore State Park General Plan was completed in 2002. The following is a chronology of the Proposed Project so far:

• Eastshore State Park General Plan Completed in 2002 • 2010 – 2011, Planning/Feasibility Study • 2 Regulatory Agency Meetings • 3 Board Executive Committee Meetings • 2 Public Workshops • April 2011, Board Executive Committee Review and Acceptance of Project Description • 2011-2012 CEQA Document Preparation • March 2012 – Notice of Preparation Released • April 2012 – EIR Scoping Meeting Held • July 11, 2012 – Notice of Availability of Draft EIR • November 8, 2012 – Notice of Availability of Final EIR • November 15, 2012 - Final EIR Certification • December 2012 – SPRAWLDEF Files CEQA Challenge Opposing Project • May 2014 – Superior Court Ruling in SPRAWLDEF v. EBRPD • July 2014-September 2014 – Additional Park Visitor and Dog-Use survey work completed at Project site. • 2014-2015 – Supplemental CEQA Document Preparation • October 16, 2014 – Notice of Preparation Released • November 5, 2014 – NOP Scoping Meeting Held • December 2014 – Notice of Availability of Supplemental EIR • Spring 2014 – Supplemental EIR Certification

3 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

1.3 Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures are summarized in Table 1.3-1. TABLE 1.3-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Significance Significance Significant Impact Before Mitigation Measures With Mitigation Mitigation BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Impact BIO-1: Increased park PS Mitigation Measure BIO-1a: Fencing shall be LTS visitors, accompanied by dogs established around the enhanced dune and could lead to trampling and other wetland area and shall be designed to prevent degradation of the enhanced dune access and disturbance by park users and pets mat vegetation and wetlands unless without obstructing views of the San Francisco adequately protected. Bay or substantially interfering with wildlife movement or wind patterns that shape and form the dunes. This would prevent digging and trampling of the restored dune mat vegetation and enhanced wetlands due to use by park visitors and dogs.

Impact BIO-2: Increased park PS Mitigation Measure BIO-2a: Fencing shall be LTS visitors, accompanied by dogs established around the enhanced dune and could lead to trampling and other wetland area and shall be designed to prevent degradation of the enhanced and access and disturbance by park users and pets expanded wetlands unless without obstructing views of the San Francisco adequately protected. Bay or substantially interfering with wildlife movement or wind patterns that shape and form the dunes. This would prevent digging and trampling of the expanded and enhanced wetlands due to use by park visitors and dogs.

Impact BIO-3: Increased park PS Mitigation Measure BIO-3a: Fencing shall be LTS visitors, accompanied by dogs established around the enhanced dune and could lead to flushing or harming wetland area and shall be designed to prevent of wildlife species that may use the access and disturbance by park users and pets enhanced habitat. without obstructing views of the San Francisco Bay or substantially interfering with wildlife movement or wind patterns that shape and form the dunes. This would increase protected and fenced dune and wetland habitat for birds and other animals from 0 acres to 1.1 acres.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS Impact GEO-1: Increased park PS Mitigation Measure GEO-1a: Fencing shall be LTS visitors, accompanied by dogs established around the enhanced dune area and could lead to erosion of the shall be designed to prevent access and resultant enhanced sandy dune complex erosion by park users and pets without unless adequately protected. obstructing views of the San Francisco Bay or substantially interfering with wildlife movement or wind patterns that shape and form the dunes. This would prevent erosion of the restored sandy dune complex due to use by park visitors and dogs.

E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Significance Significance Significant Impact Before Mitigation Measures With Mitigation Mitigation HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY The project would not result in significant project or cumulative impacts related to hydrology and water quality and dog use; therefore, no mitigation measures are required. LAND USE AND PLANNING The project would not result in significant project or cumulative impacts related to land use and planning and dog use; therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

2 EXISTING CONDITIONS

This chapter of the Supplemental EIR describes the current use of the Project site by leashed and unleashed dogs. It establishes a dog-use baseline, outlines the Park District’s Ordinance 38 and how dog related policies are enforced at the Project site, and projects future use of the Project site by dogs.

2.1 Current and Projected Use

Current Use – Dog Use Baseline The Albany Beach project site (encompassing Areas 1, 2, and 3) is open to the public, either formally or informally. The Albany Neck and Albany Beach (Areas 1 and 2) have been open for recreational use since landfill activities ceased in the 1970’s. Recreational activities in the areas include hiking, walking, nature observation, photography, non-motorized watercraft launching (primarily kite-boarding, kayaking, wind surfing). Dogs on leash are allowed subject to East Bay Regional Park District regulations. Unleashed dogs currently use the Beach and Neck in violation of these regulations.

While there is no designated trail along the proposed Bay Trail area (Area 3), the western edge of the parking area is informally used by Bay Trail users to connect from Gilman Street to Buchanan Street. This area is accessible to the public and patrons of Golden Gate Fields. Informal Bay Trail users include bicyclists and pedestrians with and without dogs, who can access the area from both the north, at Albany Beach, and the south, at Gilman Street. This route, however, contains slopes as steep as 9 or 10% and therefore does not meet the standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

While only on-leash dogs are permitted at the Albany Beach project site per Park District regulations, there is a number of unleashed dogs that currently use the Areas 1 and 2 primarily. The impact that dogs, both on and off-leash, have on natural resources are varied and in some instances more severe depending on whether the dog is on or off-leash. Off-leash dog impacts include: chasing, harming and/or killing wildlife, impacting dune and wetland habitat through dog waste, digging and trampling vegetation2, and contributing to erosion through digging and traversing unstable sands or soils3. In Area 2, the Beach, off-leash dogs have been observed entering the bay along the shoreline and running through the existing dune and wetland area. In Area 1, the Neck, unleashed dogs may occasionally enter the water along the lower neck trail4. This activity may contribute to sedimentation and erosion affecting water quality or aquatic species.

On-leash dogs are still capable of frightening birds and animals, scaring birds off nests or flushing birds.5 Dogs can appear to be predators to wildlife, so even leashed dogs are capable of disturbing wildlife. Dogs, on and off-leash, can affect water quality through waste elimination, especially if their owners do not pick up after them. Over the course of the 2014 Dog Survey period, the interns only observed occasional instances of an off-leash dog whose owner did not pick up the dog’s waste. This appeared to happen if the owner was distracted by other dogs or the off-leash dog ran off out of sight of the owner.6

The Albany Beach project site is known as a high dog use site. Roughly 57 percent of the visitors to the Neck and Beach (Areas 1 and 2) visit the area accompanied with one or more dogs. While reported incidents of

2 LSA, Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Feasibility Study, 2011 3 LSA, Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Feasibility Study, 2011 4 Scott Possin, Park Supervisor, McLaughlin Eastshore State Park, personal communication, 10 December 2014 5 Foster, L - Dogs on the Beach, California Research Bureau, 2006 6 Linda Saunders, 2014 Summer Intern, McLaughlin Eastshore State Park, 30 October 2014 6

E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

conflicts between dogs and between dogs and people has been low, there is still an implicit understanding by park staff that people who are afraid of dogs do not visit Albany Neck or Beach.7

Following the court decision in the SPRAWLDEF litigation, the Park District conducted additional park-user survey work at the Project site. The main focus of the additional survey work was to determine how many dogs were on leash and how many were off leash. The survey work was conducted over an eleven-week period, including weekdays and weekends, from July 2014 to September 2014. Two interns collected data in two or three hour intervals ranging from 7:00 am to 8:00 pm. A total of 200 survey hours were completed over the course of eleven weeks. In order to calculate the daily average number of users, data from the different time intervals was compiled to create seven 13 hour days. The highest data counts for each recorded time slot were compiled to determine the worst case, highest intensity average dog use baseline the park experiences under existing conditions. The results of this study are summarized below for all three areas of the Project site in Table 2.1-1 below.

TABLE 2.1-1 ESTIMATED 2014 DAILY USERS AT PROJECT SITE

Average Type of User Percentage Daily Users Visitor without dog 362 59% Visitor with dog(s) 247 41% Dogs off leash 251 82% Dogs on leash 54 18%

Visitors without dogs included hikers and walkers, bicyclists, wind surfers and any other park user without a dog. The average daily users include data for all three areas. The highest dog use area, for both on and off leash dogs, was the Beach (see Table 2.1-2 below).

TABLE 2.1-2 AVERAGE 2014 DAILY USERS AT SPECIFIC AREAS OF PROJECT SITE

% of With Off On No Total Total Total Dogs Leash Leash Dogs Visitors Dogs Dogs All Areas 247 251 54 362 609 305 100% Neck (Area 1) 94 99 24 95 190 123 40% Beach (Area 2) 147 147 26 86 232 172 57% Bay Trail (Area 3) 6 5 4 181 187 9 3%

According to the 2014 survey results for all areas: for those visitors with dogs, the daily average of dogs per visitor is 1.2 dogs per dog owner. On average, 41 percent of visitors had dogs, and 82 percent of the dogs were off leash. The majority of visitors with dogs used Areas 1 and 2 (see Table 2.1-3 below). On average 305 dogs visit the entire Project site on a daily basis, but this average is spread out over the course of a day. The highest use period of the day is late afternoon, with 77 dog owners or 87 dogs on average visiting the

7 Scott Possin, Park Supervisor, McLaughlin Eastshore State Park, personal communication, 10 December 2014 7

E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

beach between 3:00-6:00 pm. Of the 87 dogs present throughout the project site in the late afternoon, 57% of them (57 dogs) were observed visiting the Beach, Area 2, in the late afternoon.

TABLE 2.1-3 2014 DOG SURVEY RESULTS

Percent of dogs off leash 82% Dogs per dog owner 1.2 Percent of Visitors with dogs - All Areas 41% Percent of Visitors with dogs - Areas 1 & 2 (arrive by vehicle) 57%

Projected Use – Post Project Dog Use The proposed project would enhance existing recreational resources at the site and close a major gap in the San Francisco Bay Trail to allow transit on foot and bicycle from Richmond on the north to Berkeley and Emeryville to the south. Thus, the project would attract both recreational users with and without dogs.

The projected increase in visitation to the park was determined by using Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates8 to gauge the difference between pre- and post-Project conditions. This difference was based on the increase of improved park area available to visitors when the Project is complete. We analyzed pre- and post-Project park areas and applied the ITE trip generation rates to calculate the number of vehicle trips expected from the available park area both pre- and post-Project. Based on the difference between the number of vehicle trips pre- and post-Project, we then determined the rate of increase for trips generated by the increased park area available to visitors. Based on this analysis, a 6 percent increase in visitation to the park is expected from baseline conditions. The majority of dogs, 97 percent, visit Areas 1 and 2 (Neck and Beach) and based on intern observation the majority of visitors with dogs arrive by vehicle and in general there is one visitor per vehicle with a dog or multiple dogs.9 Some families or couples would arrive in one car but on the whole it was one person per car. A few visitors, 1-2 per day on average, arrived on foot from the local neighborhoods to visit Areas 1 or 2 and only 3 percent of Bay Trail users had dogs, the majority of which were with visitors on bicycles without dogs.10 Because almost all dogs arrive in a vehicle to the Project site, the 6 percent increase in visitation expected post-Project implementation was applied to the number of dogs in order to calculate the expected increase in dog use at the Project site.

Currently, on a daily basis, 305 dogs use the site on average. A 6 percent increase in visitation would lead to an additional 18 dogs at the Project Site on an average day. Based on current 2014 survey data, 82 percent would be off leash or 14 additional dogs off-leash. According to the 2014 survey results, on the highest intensity dog use day, we counted 424 dogs visiting the project site. A 6 percent increase in visitation would lead to an additional 25 dogs on site, 82 percent of which would be off-leash or an additional 21 dogs may be off leash on a high use day (see Table 2.1-4 below).

8 Calculated using Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), 2008. Trip Generation Handbook, 8th Edition. 9 Linda Saunders, EBRPD 2014 Summer Intern, personal communication, 18 December 2014 10 2014 Dog Use Survey Observations – Linda Saunders 8

E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

TABLE 2.1-4 2014 CURRENT AND PROJECTED DOG USE

Current Projected Current Projected Average Use Average Use - Highest Use Highest Use (2014 Survey 6% Increase Day (2014 Day- 6% Results) (ITE) Survey Results) Increase (ITE) Visitors With Dogs 247 262 347 368 Dogs on Site 305 323 424 449 82% of Dogs off leash 251 265 348 369 18% of Dogs on leash 54 58 76 81

Use is expected to be highest on weekends, and seasonally, with twice as many users expected during spring and summer than in late fall and winter. The study was conducted during the summer, July to mid-September, accounting for the highest possible use and visitor rates at the Project Site.

2.2 Enforcement Policy

Ordinance 38 Enforcement The District’s Ordinance 38 contains the District’s official rules regarding dogs at the Project site. Ordinance 38 permits dogs in the Project site, but dogs must be on leash because all areas of the Project site are developed areas. Dogs are not allowed off-leash on any portion of the Project site. Service animals are not exempt from this restriction.

The District’s Current Enforcement Policy Enforcement at the Project site is difficult. There is constant vandalism and theft of regulatory signs. The District’s police officers who patrol this area work from their headquarters in Castro Valley and from a substation at San Pablo Reservoir, north of Orinda. These officers are responsible for patrolling all of the District’s lands throughout Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, in addition to East Bay Municipal Utilities District and San Francisco Water Company lands: a total of approximately 17,500 acres. Currently, the District has 60 police officers who patrol these lands.

The number of the District’s officers has been reduced by nearly 19% from 2008 staffing levels due to budget reductions, vacancies and officer injuries. Patrol reductions have limited the Police Department’s ability to respond to lower-priority issues, such as dog violations. Priority is given to crimes and incidents that have a greater threat to the health, safety and welfare of the public.

Currently, officers provide 3-4 daily patrol checks of the Project site 7 days a week. These patrol checks include vehicular and/or foot patrols of the beach, plateau and neck areas. Additionally, the District’s helicopter makes 1-2 daily aerial checks of the area 7 days a week. When officers identify violations of the law during these patrol checks, they routinely contact the violators and determine the most appropriate level of enforcement; warning/education, citation or arrest. From 2010- August 2014 the District did not issue any citations related to dog-related issues, including off-leash dogs at the Project site.

Since 2011, the District’s Police Communications Center has received 9 complaints involving off-leash dogs at the Project site. One of these complaints reported a dog bite from an unleashed dog in March 2014. One of these complaints involved an unleashed dog biting another unleashed dog in March 2012. The incident was documented after both dog owners were interviewed by a District police officer. No charges were filed. 9

E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Enforcement Levels after the Project Given the District’s limited resources, other higher-priority issues, and the minimal number of complaints regarding dog issues at the Project site, the District anticipates that enforcement of Ordinance 38 will continue to be a low-priority when allocating department resources. The District expects that it will continue to enforce the policy at its current level, and will not increase patrols as a result of the Project. Thus, for purposes of analyzing impacts associated with off-leash and on-leash dogs, the EIR assumes current enforcement of leash requirements by District police officers will remain the same and does not rely on enforcement to reduce the number of off-leash dogs.

E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

3 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION

This chapter consists of an evaluation of the environmental impacts of the proposed Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project pertaining to dog related impacts. In compliance with the court decision in the SPRAWLDEF litigation, the Environmental Evaluation in the Supplemental EIR addresses the potential environmental impacts Project-related increases to on and off-leash dog use will have on specific resources. Accordingly, the following issues are specifically addressed in Chapter 3 of this Supplemental EIR:

♦ Biological Resources ♦ Geology and Soils ♦ Hydrology and Water Quality ♦ Land Use and Planning

This analysis of dog-related impacts does not affect the remainder of the Final EIR.

Format of the Environmental Evaluation

Each section in Chapter 3 follows a similar format and consists of the following subsections:

♦ The Regulatory Framework (where applicable) subsection contains an overview of federal, state, and local laws and regulations applicable to each environmental review topic as it pertains to dogs. Not all subsections required the Regulatory Framework subsection. ♦ The Existing Conditions subsection describes current physical conditions with regard to the environmental factor reviewed as they pertain to dogs. ♦ The Standards of Significance subsection tells how an impact is judged to be significant in this EIR. ♦ The Impact Discussion gives an overview of potential impacts of the Project and explains why impacts are found to be significant, less than significant, or no impact. ♦ The Impacts and Mitigation (where applicable) subsection lists identified impacts and suggested measures that would mitigate each impact, where such measures are available.

3.1 Biological Resources

This section contains information about biological resources of the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access project site and examines how those biological resources will be affected by on and off-leash dogs after project implementation.

Existing Conditions This section is based primarily on the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Existing and Future Conditions Report:/Feasibility Study (2011 LSA Associates, Inc.), the Eastshore Park Project General Plan EIR (2002 LSA Associates, Inc.), dog-use studies conducted in 2011 and 2014 and personal communications with Park District staff. Terrestrial Plant Community/Habitat mapping information was also taken from the San Francisco Estuary Institute’s Bay Area Aquatic Resource Inventory BAARI (http://www.sfei.org/BAARI), and from field investigations by Questa and Merkel & Associates in April and May 2012.

E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Existing Dog Use While all areas of the Project Site are used by park visitors with and without dogs, Areas 1 and 2 experience the heaviest amount of dog use. On average, 305 dogs visit the Project site per day, 97% of the dogs (296 dogs) are concentrated in Areas 1 and 2. These dogs are not all on site at the same time; visitations are spread out throughout the day. In 2014, the Park District conducted a study to understand dog use distribution and patterns at the project site.11 For further analysis and discussion, please see Section 2.1 Current and Projected Use.

While off-leash dogs are more likely to chase, harm and/or kill wildlife, on-leash dogs are still capable of frightening birds and animals, scaring birds off nests or flushing birds.12 Dogs can appear to be predators to wildlife, so even leashed dogs are capable of disturbing wildlife. Off-leash dogs are more liable to impact dune and wetland habitat through dog waste, digging and trampling vegetation13, in addition to flushing wildlife14. Dogs occasionally, 10-15 percent, enter the water to chase after balls or sticks thrown from the Beach15 and also infrequently enter the water from the Neck.16 Dogs entering the water can cause disturbance to aquatic species because of increased turbidity.

Existing Biological Communities

The following setting information is from Section 4.3, Biological Resources Existing Conditions, of the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project Final EIR.

Biological communities on the project site are illustrated in Figures 3.1-1 and 3.1-1A. Note that some of the biological communities are too small to map at the map scale provided, and are shown as a circle (dot) on the figure. Dominant features of each biological community are described below.

Ruderal Vegetation. Ruderal vegetation is not a natural community but refers to a general category of vegetation that occurs in developed areas and disturbed landscapes and is typically dominated by weedy, non- native plant species. Ruderal vegetation may consist of shrubs, broadleaved species and grasses. This vegetation type is widely distributed throughout all segments of the project area. In Area 1 at the northern portion of the project area, the Albany Neck and the Albany Plateau are almost entirely vegetated by ruderal scrub, including a wide variety of ornamental species. Coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) is the only native shrub species that is co-dominant with nonnative trees and shrubs in this area. There are a few individuals of other native tree and shrub species present on the slopes above the trails including coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), blue elderberry (Sambucus nigra), and poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum). Non-native trees and shrubs that are dominant in this part of the project area include blackwood acacia (Acacia melanoxylon), silver wattle (Acacia dealbata), kangaroo thorn (Acacia paradoxa), French broom (Genista monspessulana), firethorn (Pyracantha sp.), cotoneaster (Cotoneaster sp.), and pampas grass (Cortaderia sp.). Where trees and shrubs are not present, vegetation is dominated by non-native grasses and forbs, such as soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), black mustard (Brassica nigra), Italian thistle (Carduus pyncocephalus), bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), and Bermuda buttercup (Oxalis pes-caprae).

11 2014 Dog Use Survey Results 12 Foster, L - Dogs on the Beach, California Research Bureau, 2006 13 LSA, Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Feasibility Study, 2011 14 Abraham, K. – Interactions Between Dogs and Wildlife in Parks on the Berkeley Marina, (2001) 15 Linda Saunders, EBRPD 2014 Summer Intern, personal communication, 18 December 2014 16 Scott Possin, Park Supervisor, McLaughlin Eastshore State Park, personal communication, 10 December 2014 12

E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

In Area 2, ruderal vegetation is also the dominant vegetation/habitat type at the entrance point to the Albany Beach area from the parking lot at the western terminus of the Buchanan Street extension. Most of this area is open grassland characterized by annual species such as hare barley (Hordeum murinum), blue grass (Poa annua), cheeseweed (Malva parviflora), and fennel. A few ornamental trees were planted near the parking lot, including several Torrey pines (Pinus torreyana), red flowering gum (Eucalyptus ficifolia) and Catalina ironwood (Lyonothamnus floribundus). A long, narrow strip of ruderal vegetation separates the beach and the southern shoreline from the gravel parking area behind Golden Gate Fields. This highly disturbed habitat is characterized by typical weedy upland species intermixed with native and non-native coastal species. Hare barley, Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), Kikuyu grass (Pennisetum clandenstinum), wild radish (Raphanus sativus) and African daisy (Osteospermum ecklonis) can be found growing next to small patches of New Zealand spinach (Tetragonia tetragonioides), sea rocket (Cakile maritima) and iceplant (Carpobrotus edulis). Small stands of native coastal species also occur in this area and include beach bur-sage (Ambrosia chamissonis), gumplant (Grindelia stricta) and pickleweed (Sarcocornia pacifica).

Ruderal vegetation is also the dominant cover type in Area 3. Weedy herbaceous species grow in occasional patches adjacent to riprap with occasional mirror plant (Coprosma repens). Australian tea tree (Leptospermum laevigatum), planted as an ornamental at Golden Gate Fields in the past, has become naturalized at Fleming Point, where it is a dominant species along with French broom, poison oak, and coyote brush. Typical herbaceous species in this area include wild oats (Avena sp.), sheep sorrel (Rumex acetosella), English plantain (Plantago lanceolata) and vetch (Vicia sp.). The area where the Bay Trail is to be placed is primarily pavement of the Golden Gate Fields parking lot and devoid of vegetative cover. Approximately 750 feet south of Fleming Point the Trail would be located along the cliffside adjacent to the parking lot.

Dune Mat (Abronia latifolia-Ambrosia chamissonis Herbaceous Alliance). This vegetation type is characterized by one or two dominant native species: yellow sand verbena (Abronia latifolia) and/or beach bur- sage (Ambrosia chamissonis). It occurs on sand dunes of coastal bars, river mouths, and spits along the immediate coastline of California. In Area 2 of the project area, this vegetation type (approximately 0.05 acre) occurs in small patches throughout the small dunes at Albany Beach. These areas are rarely impacted by saltwater overwash during storms. The dominant species are non-woody and well adapted to the nutrient- poor, rapidly draining conditions of dune sand. Beach bur-sage is the dominant native species; however, the species composition varies from sand-mound to sand-mound and often includes non-native species such as Kikuyu grass, Bermuda grass, sea rocket, New Zealand spinach, ice plant, or annual grasses. Yellow sand verbena is not present in the project area.

Ice Plant Mats (Carpobrotus edulis Semi-natural Herbaceous Stands). Ice plant is a prostrate non- native succulent that invades dunes and other coastal habitats in California. This species occurs in small patches throughout the project area but is concentrated in Area 2 (approximately 0.29 acre) on the dunes at Albany Beach, where it forms large impenetrable mats that have been holding the dunes in place for many years.

Saltgrass Flats (Distichlis spicata Herbaceous Alliance). This vegetation type occurs in coastal salt marshes, swales, and terraces along washes that are typically intermittently flooded. Salt grass, a native rhizomatous grass, is the dominant species and is often associated with other species that are tolerant of alkaline soils. This vegetation type occurs in Area 2 at Albany Beach in one of two seasonal wetlands that have developed within a network of interdune swales west of the gravel parking area behind Golden Gate Fields. The vegetation in the smaller wetland (240 square feet) consists predominantly of salt grass; therefore, this wetland was labeled as Salt Grass Flats unlike the larger wetland which is mapped as Seasonal Wetland, described below.

Gum Plant Patches (Grindelia stricta Provisional Herbaceous Alliance). Gumplant is a native perennial glandular composite with showy, yellow flowers and a woody stem when mature. It grows on slightly elevated 15

E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

or drier ground that is adjacent to coastal dunes, salt marshes, or alkaline marshes. It is one of the more abundant native species with individuals and patches occurring throughout in the project area.

Poison Oak Scrub (Toxicodendron diversilobum Shrubland Alliance). Poison oak constitutes a scrub community where it grows in dense stands, as it often does on the coast both in moist areas that receive salt- laden fog and on disturbed dry slopes. One small patch in the project area is located within the ruderal vegetation on the Albany Neck in Area 1. A substantially larger and older stand (approximately 0.04 acre) is located on the steep west-facing bluffs at Fleming Point in Area 3. Here, the poison oak is dense and gnarled, having been shaped by wind blowing landward off the bay. Also present in this scrub community at Fleming Point are coyote brush, a common native scrub species in the East Bay, and seaside woolly sunflower (Eriophyllum staechadifolium), a native scrub species that occurs at only a few locations in the East Bay, including within the shoreline habitat at Point Molate in Richmond. Seaside wooly sunflower, although unusual in the East Bay, is not on the CNPS list of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants. The community is considered a remnant of the natural California coastal scrub vegetative type, which has few occurrences in the East Bay Area, but more common within the Bay Area coastal counties.

Eucalyptus Grove (Eucalyptus globulus Semi-natural Woodland Stands). A large blue gum eucalyptus grove (approximately 0.41 acre) is located in Area 2 where the landward edge of the Albany Beach dune area meets the parking lot and trail junction. The trees at the center of the grove are mature and at least 30 feet high. What little vegetation there is growing underneath the canopy consists predominantly of non-native species, including cheeseweed, annual blue grass, roadside brome (Bromus stamineus), and pineapple weed (Chamomilla suaveolens).

Myoporum Grove (Myoporum laetum Semi-Natural Woodland Stands). Myoporum is an escaped ornamental tree that forms dense, single-species stands in coastal areas of California. Its purple fruits are attractive to birds, which disperse them. While individuals of this species occur sporadically among the ruderal vegetation on the Albany Neck, a large dense grove is located in Area 2 immediately east of the blue gum eucalyptus grove near the Buchanan Street parking area.

Seasonal Wetlands. A preliminary delineation of the extent of potential waters of the United States within the project area was conducted on March 26, 2010 by LSA. The complete delineation report is provided in Appendix H of the “Existing and Future Conditions Report for the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Feasibility Study (LSA 2011). Potential waters of the U.S. consist of two seasonal wetlands and an unvegetated drainage, all located within a network of interdune swales west of the asphalt and gravel parking area behind Golden Gate Fields in Area 2. Precipitation and runoff from the parking area collect in these swales for several hours to days during and after heavy storms. The runoff carries silt and sediment into the swales, creating a shallow lens of water-retaining soil on top of rapidly draining sand. These small wetland features serve a function in the improvement of water quality in the project area by filtering runoff before it joins the groundwater or drains into the Bay.

The larger vegetated wetland (1,090 square feet) supports predominantly non-native grasses and herbaceous weeds including Bermuda grass, Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum), cutleaf plantain (Plantago coronopus), and curly dock (Rumex crispus). The smaller vegetated wetland (240 square feet) supports predominantly native salt grass. The unvegetated drainage is part of a footpath to the beach from the Golden Gate Fields parking lot and may have been created entirely by foot traffic compacting the sand. The drainage is lower in elevation than the adjacent parking lot; therefore, water drains into this feature when the parking lot is flooded. The drainage is 65 feet long and one foot wide on average; the entire footpath is more than twice this length. Only the segment of footpath that exhibits an Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM in the form of water mark and sediment/debris deposits) is mapped as a potential water of the U.S.

E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Sandy Beaches/Dunes. The project area includes three sandy beaches (approximately 2.07 acres), Albany Beach in Area 2 and two smaller beaches are located in the southern portion, just north of Fleming Point near Area 3. These smaller pocket beaches abut riprapped shoreline and support little or no dune/beach vegetation. Albany Beach is the largest of the three beaches. This beach is characterized by a substantial deposit of large woody debris (mostly treated wood) at the high tide line, beyond which is located a small complex of vegetated and unvegetated dunes (vegetated dunes are described above). These sandy beaches are dynamic areas subject to wave action, sediment transport, and longshore drift. These physical factors may drastically change the profile of the beach and influence the associated beach organisms as well as the adjacent subtidal habitat. The sandy beaches within the project area are important habitats because of their limited distribution along the East Bay shoreline.

Riprap or Rocky Shoreline. Much of the project area shoreline is comprised of concrete or rock riprap placed to prevent shoreline erosion. The riprap along the North Shore in Area 1 consists of a conglomeration of concrete blocks, slabs, and other hard debris. The rocky shoreline in Area 3 consists of native and imported rock and concrete riprap that was likely placed during construction of Golden Gate Fields, although scattered concrete slabs are also present. The lower elevation portions of the rocky shoreline are intertidal and support sparse to dense communities of marine flora. The predominant vegetation within the rocky intertidal habitat include seaweeds or macro-algae (non-vascular plants), particularly green algae (Division Chlorophyta) and red algae (Division Rhodophyta). Two species of commonly occurring green algae, Ulva lactuca and U. intestinalis, were observed in most of the intertidal zone during a March 26, 2010 reconnaissance survey conducted by LSA. Scattered clumps of red algae are attached to many of the pieces of riprap and debris; Endocladia muricata, Mastocarpus spp., and Bangia fusco-purpurea are three species that were formally documented in the project area by LSA in 2001 (LSA 2002b). Rockweed (Fucus distichus) and sargassum (Sargassum muticum), both species brown algae (Division Phaeophyta), are common in Area 1 on the riprap along the Albany Neck shoreline. The riprap, pebbles, cobbles, and miscellaneous debris within the project area also provide substrate for attachment and refuge for a number of invertebrates species. Common invertebrates include encrusting sponges and bryozoans, bay mussel (Mytilus edulis galloprovincialis), barnacles (Chthamalus dalli and Balanus glandula), isopods (Idotea sp.), and yellow shore crab (Hemigrapsus oregonensis). The native Olympia oyster (Ostrea lurida) is fairly common among the concrete riprap rubble. The shoreline provides forage habitat for a number of shorebird species including black oystercatchers, ruddy turnstones, and black turnstones. Above the high tide line, the riprapped and rocky shoreline supports some ruderal vegetation and gum plant patches, as described above.

Natural Rocky Shoreline. One noteworthy area of rocky shoreline within Area 3 is at Fleming Point, where naturally occurring bedrock is present. This stretch of shoreline is one of the few remaining natural features along the East Bay shoreline. Not only is Fleming Point unique because of its natural rock formation, but it also supports a diversity of rocky intertidal organisms that is among the highest in the region. Numerous red algae, including Rhodoglossum affine, Ceramium sp., Ralfsia sp., and Gracilaria spp., were formally documented at Fleming Point in 2001 by LSA but not observed at any other location within Eastshore State Park. Similarly, marine invertebrates such as littorine snails (Littorina spp.), bryozoans, polychaete worms, encrusting sponges, and splash zone isopods (Ligia occidentalis) were only observed at Fleming Point in 2010 LSA surveys. The habitat at Fleming Point includes several tidepools as well as rock outcrops that form small offshore reefs that provide a forage base and shelter for fish and that support numerous algal and invertebrate species, including the native Olympia oyster. Above the high tide line, terrestrial vegetation at Fleming Point includes ruderal vegetation and poison oak scrub, as described above.

Pier Pilings. Two derelict piers occur near Area 3 of the project area, just north of Fleming Point. Fleming Point Pier is the largest and most visible; the second pier or dock is located 100 feet north of the larger pier. Their remains consist of partially submerged concrete blocks and wood pilings, which provide substrate for a suite of sessile and mobile organisms. The species of algae and invertebrates typically associated with such structures are similar to those previously described for the Rocky Shoreline habitat. Fishes, especially perches, 17

E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

are also usually present and are considered representative members of the “piling community.” In addition to providing substrate for algae, invertebrates, and fish, the piers, pilings and breakwaters provide perch and roost sites for a variety of birds. The remnant structures of Fleming Point Pier serve as important roost sites for shorebirds, gulls, and other waterbirds.

Shallow Subtidal Unvegetated Habitat The subtidal zone is seaward of the intertidal zone and thus, is continually submerged. Within the project area, the shallow subtidal unvegetated habitat consists of soft- bottom substrate with limited algal cover. A diverse assemblage of animals is known to occur within this habitat throughout the San Francisco Bay region (SFEP 1992a and 1992b). For example, USACOE/Port of Richmond (1996) reported that a variety of crustaceans, tube-dwelling polychaetes, clams, and gastropods have been collected during benthic sampling in the nearby Richmond Inner Harbor. It is probable that many of these taxa are present in the nearshore zone of the project area.

In addition to the benthic invertebrates, an assortment of fish species are also typically present in such nearshore areas. NOAA/CDFG-OSPR (1998) reported that American shad, bat ray, brown rockfish, chinook salmon, leopard shark, striped bass, and white croaker potentially occur within the Richmond Harbor and Inner Harbor Channel areas. Smelt, northern anchovy, shiner perch, starry flounder, and speckled sanddab have also been reported in the nearshore environment in the central Bay and at Brooks Island (EBRPD 1985, SFEI 1992b). These species are likely present within the project area, although unlike the invertebrates, they may not be year-round residents.

The subtidal habitats in the project area also provide foraging and/or resting (rafting) areas for many species of birds, including loons, grebes, cormorants, terns, gulls, California brown pelican, scoters, redbreasted merganser, and diving ducks. Large flocks of diving ducks, often numbering in the thousands, winter in nearshore subtidal areas such as the north side of the Albany Neck and Bulb. Marine mammals, primarily include harbor seal and California sea lion, but also rarely southern sea otter.

Eelgrass Beds. A valued aquatic resource, eelgrass (Zostera marina), occurs as a collection of small to large persistent beds within the project area off the shoreline of Albany Beach. Eelgrass vegetated habitats are an important component of California’s coastal marine environment. Eelgrass beds function as habitat for a variety of invertebrate, fish, and avian species. For many species, eelgrass beds are an essential biological habitat component for at least a portion of their life cycle, providing resting and feeding sites along the Pacific Flyway for avian species, and nursery sites for numerous species of fish. Eelgrass also enhances water quality through nutrient cycling and stabilization of marine sediment.

Eelgrass occurs in approximately 3,700 acres of the San Francisco Estuary, with nearly half of the area between Point Pinole and Point San Pablo (Wyllie-Echeverria and Rutten 1989; Merkel and Associates 2004, 2009 and 2012). Within the project area, approximately 0.7 acre was present in 2003 according to a survey using sidescan sonar (Merkel and Associates 2004). The acreage of eelgrass within the project area increased to 3.75 acres between 2003 and 2009, according to a survey using the same methods in fall 2009 (Merkel and Associates 2009). The results of the most recent 2012 eelgrass survey of the project area revealed 2.02 acres of eelgrass (Merkel and Associates 2012). A composite of survey results from the three most recent eelgrass surveys are depicted in Figure 4.3-1. This figure illustrates the maximum extent of eelgrass within the project area along with a ten-foot buffer that represents the minimum setback for construction activities that should be implemented along with protective measures in order to avoid impacts to eelgrass resources. The figure indicates that a persistent eelgrass bed, which has expanded since 2003, occurs within the overall project area. The expansion evident from these survey results perhaps reflects the mild winters and resulting low turbidity in the Bay over the past several years.

E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Special Status Plant Species Prior to conducting fieldwork, LSA searched the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) (CDFG 2010), the Consortium of California Herbaria (Consortium 2010), and the CNPS Electronic Inventory (CNPS 2010) to locate records of special-status plants in the general region of the Albany Beach project site. Using information from these databases and staff knowledge of the San Francisco Bay shoreline vegetation, LSA developed and evaluated a list of potentially occurring special-status species. During a March 26, 2010 field survey, LSA’s botanist made an assessment of the current habitat conditions and evaluated the site’s potential to support special-status plant species and sensitive plant communities. The scientific and vernacular nomenclature for the plant species used are from the following standard sources: Hickman (1993); California Native Plant Society (CNPS 2010) on-line inventory of rare and endangered plants; and Beidleman and Kozloff (2003). Five (5) special-status plant species have the potential to occur in plant communities similar to those in the Albany Beach project area. These “target” species include those that might occur in the natural vegetation communities present on the site (i.e., coastal scrub, sandy beaches and dunes, and rocky coastline). Four of these species are limited to salt marsh, tidal sloughs and coastal wetlands: soft bird's-beak (Chlorpyron molle ssp. molle, formerly Cordylanthus mollis ssp. mollis), Mason’s lilaeopsis (Lilaeopsis masonii), California seablite (Suaeda californica), and Suisun marsh aster (Symphyotrichum lentum). Another potentially occurring target species associated with coastal dune and scrub communities is robust spineflower (Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta). These five species are described below with their potential to occur in the project area.

Robust spineflower is a federally endangered annual herb and is on California Native Plant Society's Inventory of Rare Plants List 1B.1. This plant occurs in coastal dunes, coastal scrub, chaparral, and cismontane woodland. Coastal scrub and dune habitat is present in the Albany Beach project area; however, the mixed fill soils and steep slopes of the coastal scrub and the dense infestations by non-native plants in the dunes do not provide suitable microhabitat for this species. Furthermore, this species is thought to be extirpated from the San Francisco Bay region and has not been reported in Alameda County since collections made in the 1890s near Alameda (CNDDB 2010). Currently there are only 11 populations, all located in Santa Cruz County over a range of approximately 21 miles (USFWS 2010a). This species is not likely to occur within the project area.

Soft bird's-beak is on CNPS List 1B.2 and is a federally listed endangered and state-listed rare annual herb that is known from fewer than 15 occurrences (CNPS 2010). The nearest CNDDB occurrences are from the Point Pinole and Mare Island areas. This species is not expected to occur in the project area due to lack of tidal marsh habitat.

Mason’s lilaeopsis is on CNPS List 1B.1, and is a state-listed rare, perennial herb that is found on silty soils on eroding brackish slough banks, and occasionally on old wharf pilings. The closest CNDDB occurrences are from around Mare Island in Solano County. This species requires brackish waters with salt concentrations that are lower than those at the Albany Beach site. There is no slough habitat on site, and the existing pilings are not degraded enough to support this species. It is highly unlikely that Mason’s lilaeopsis would naturally occur within the project area.

California sea-blite is on CNPS List 1B.1 and is a federally endangered, salt-tolerant perennial shrub native to only two localities: Morro Bay and San Francisco Bay. The primary natural habitat of this species is a very narrow high tide zone along sandy salt marsh edges or estuarine beaches (Baye 2006). The nearest natural occurrence identified in the CNDDB is a 1912 record from the Fleming Point area. Because this species’ habitat has been severely disturbed throughout its range, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has sponsored recent efforts to re-establish California sea-blite at restored tidal sites within the San Francisco Bay (Presidio 2004; CNDDB 2010; LSA 2009). The nearest re-introduced population is located at the Emeryville Crescent Marsh, approximately 4 miles south of Albany Beach. This population was transplanted in 2007 and 8 reproducing colonies were observed by monitors in 2008 (USFWS 2010b). This re-introduced population is too far to be a likely source of propagules for natural recruitment at Albany Beach. This distance and the 19

E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

highly disturbed, narrow shoreline conditions in the project area make it unlikely for California sea-blite to occur in the project area now or in the future (Baye, personal communication).

Suisun marsh aster is a CNPS List 1B perennial rhizomatous herb in the sunflower family that occurs in freshwater and brackish marsh habitat. This species is endemic to Suisun Bay and the Sacramento San Joaquin river delta (CNPS 2001) and was historically known from the East Bay portion of the San Francisco Bay area (CSCC 2003). The nearest extant population identified by the CNDDB is in a seasonally wet area at Point Molate in West Richmond. Although seasonal wetland habitat is present on the site, it is unlikely that the highly disturbed project area provides the microhabitat suitable for this species.

Eelgrass is considered a special aquatic site under the 404(b) (1) guidelines of the Clean Water Act (40 C.F.R. § 230.43). Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), eelgrass is designated as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for various federally-managed fish species within the Pacific Coast Groundfish and Pacific Coast Salmon Fisheries Management Plans (FMP) (PFMC 2008). Eelgrass is also considered a habitat area of particular concern (HAPC) for various species within the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP. An HAPC is a subset of EFH; these areas are rare, particularly susceptible to human- induced degradation, especially ecologically important, and/or located in an environmentally stressed area.

Other Sensitive Plants Twelve (12) other plant species were considered in the LSA assessment but are unlikely to occur, as they are either considered extirpated from Alameda County or they require a habitat different than those present in the project area. Species considered that are unlikely to occur include alkali milk vetch (Astragalus tener var. tener), San Francisco spineflower (Chorizanthe cuspidata var. cuspidata), Bolander’s water-hemlock (Cicuta maculata var. bolanderi), Point Reyes bird's-beak (Chlorpyron maritimum ssp. palustre), delta button celery (Eryngium racemosum), fragrant fritillary (Fritillaria liliaecea), Santa Cruz tarplant (Holocarpha macradenia), Kellogg’s horkelia (Horkelia cuneata ssp. sericea), Contra Costa goldfields (Lasthenia conjugens), Antioch Dunes evening primrose (Oenothera deltoides ssp. howellii), Gairdner’s yampah (Perideridia gairdneri ssp. gairdneri), and adobe sanicle (Sanicula maritima).

Existing Wildlife The following section is excerpted from the LSA Existing and Future Conditions Report (2011, LSA Assoc. Inc.) The LSA assessment was supplemented by information obtained from biological reconnaissance surveys completed by Questa and Merkel and Associates in April and May 2012.

Fish. Inshore waters and mudflats adjacent to and in the project area are used by a number of game fish species such as California halibut (Paralichthys califonicus), starry flounder (Platichthys stellatus), and striped bass (Morone saxatilis). Smaller schooling fish, such as topsmelt (Atherinops affinis), northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax) and Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii), would be expected in deeper water in the project area and are important as food for game fish and fish-eating birds. The longjaw mudsucker (Gillichthys mirabilis), a typical species of shallow bays and mud flats, is also likely present in the project area. Elasmobranchs typical of near shore waters in San Francisco Bay include leopard shark (Triakis semifasciata), brown smoothound (Mustelus henlei), and bat ray (Myliobatis californicus) (Ebert 2003), all of which are likely to occur in the project area. The sevengill shark (Notorynchus cepedianus), a large powerful predator, also occurs in San Francisco Bay and will forage in shallow water (Ebert 2003) may also occasionally occur in the project area. Numerous other fish species are potentially present in the near shore waters of the project area, particularly where eelgrass beds are present. Many invertebrate species are harbored among eelgrass beds. These invertebrates provide food resources for resident fishes such as the bay pipefish (Syngnathus leptorhynchus) and shiner surfperch (Cymatogaster aggregata) (L. Carr and K. Boyer, unpublished data). Eelgrass is known to serve as spawning and nursery habitat for Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi) (Spratt 1981), the primary commercial fishery species in the Bay. Local eelgrass beds probably provide food and shelter for out-migrating juveniles of several diadromous fish species as in the Pacific Northwest (Simenstad 1994); acoustic monitoring devices show visitation of 20

E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

tagged Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) to eelgrass and oyster reef structures at the Marin Rod and Gun Club, just north of the Richmond - San Rafael Bridge (B. Abbott, Environ Corp., unpublished data). Such devices are planned for installation not far from the project site, just off the north end of Cesar Chavez Park in Berkeley, at an upcoming oyster shell and eelgrass pilot restoration project (B. Abbott, K. Boyer, and others), and these could be helpful in determining the degree of visitation in the vicinity of Albany Beach.

Amphibians and Reptiles. The concrete debris and riprap in Area 1 of the project area provide shelter and basking habitat for western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), a reptile that is common throughout the Bay Area. No other amphibians or reptiles were observed during the reconnaissance surveys, although common urban-adapted species such as California slender salamander (Batrachoseps attenuatus), Sierran treefrog (Pseudacris sierra), and southern alligator lizard (Elgaria multicarinata) are expected to occur wherever suitable cover is present. The seasonal wetlands in Area 2 are not inundated for a long enough period to provide breeding habitat for treefrogs or other amphibians.

Birds. LSA biologists observed 40 species of birds during a March 2011 reconnaissance survey. However, more than 160 bird species have been recorded in Eastshore State Park (Brad Olson, pers. com. 2012)), and with the exception of species that primarily occur in tidal marsh, most of these can be expected to occur on or adjacent to the project area on at least an occasional basis. The timing of LSA’s survey coincided with the beginning of the breeding season for many terrestrial land birds, so most species detected in the ruderal scrub in Area 1 likely nest there or in adjacent areas (i.e., Albany Bulb). The dense shrubs and small trees in this area, although primarily non-native, provide nesting and foraging habitat for native bird species typical of less disturbed coyote brush scrub throughout the central California coast bioregion, including Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), Bewick’s wren (Thryomanes bewickii), California towhee (Pipilo crissalis), and Nuttall’s white-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys nuttallii). During the winter, these year-round residents are joined by species that breed further north, such as ruby-crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula), hermit thrush (Catharus guttatus), yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica coronata), and golden- crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia atricapilla), as well other subspecies of white-crowned sparrow.

Although not present within the project area, tidal mudflats such as those north of the Albany Plateau provide valuable foraging habitat for large concentrations of shorebirds that migrate through or winter in the San Francisco Bay Estuary from July through early May. Western and least sandpiper (Calidris mauri, C. minutilla), dunlin (Calidris alpina), dowitchers (Limnodromus spp.), marbled godwit (Limosa fedoa), and willet (Tringa semipalmata) are some of the more abundant shorebird species known to occur in the San Francisco Bay Estuary during these periods (Stenzel et al. 2006), and all of these species are common to abundant at Eastshore State Park (GGA 2006; LSA obs.). During high tides when mudflats are unavailable for foraging, shorebirds roost on old piers, remnant dock structures, breakwaters, and other barren areas above the high tide line that are free of disturbance (LSA 2002b).

Within the project area, old pier pilings and adjacent rocks provide such high-tide shorebird roosting habitat, as evidenced by the observation of hundreds of western sandpipers, dowitchers, dunlin, willets, and other shorebirds using these structures during the March 26, 2010 reconnaissance survey. These structures also provide roosting habitat for gulls, terns, and cormorants. The rocky shoreline that characterizes much of the area between Albany Beach and Fleming Point provides habitat for shorebird species that favor rocky intertidal habitats, such as black oystercatcher (Haematopus bachmani), black and ruddy turnstones (Arenaria melanocephala, A. interpres), and surfbird (Aphriza virgata), although the latter two are considered rare in Eastshore State Park (GGA 2006). The presence of such rocky shore specialists is somewhat noteworthy for this location given that none of these species are abundant in San Francisco Bay, numbering at most in the low hundreds (Takekawa et al. 1999). Many birds forage for invertebrates, fish, and fish roe in the Bay’s eelgrass beds, particularly during winter and spring migration, including Forster’s (Sterna forsteri), least (Sternula antillarum browni), and elegant terns (Sterna elegans), double-crested cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus), and 21

E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

several shorebird and diving duck species (S. Wainwright-de la Cruz, USGS, personal communication). While Brant geese (Branta bernicla) are important eelgrass grazers along the Pacific Coast, they are not currently found in San Francisco Bay in numbers; only one pair has been cited in recent years (near the Richmond Marina). Canada geese (Branta canadensis) have been observed consuming eelgrass at a number of locations around the Bay (Boyer, pers. obs.; S. Kiriakopolos, San Francisco State University master’s thesis, in progress).

The open waters of San Francisco Bay within the project area provide foraging and resting (rafting) habitat for various species of gulls, terns, grebes, loons, and double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus). Diving ducks such as greater and lesser scaup (Aythya marila, A. affinis), surf scoter (Melanitta perspicillata), bufflehead (Bucephala albeola), and ruddy duck (Oxyura jamaicensis), winter in large numbers on San Francisco Bay and occasionally venture into project area waters. These species may also forage among the riprap and abandoned pilings in the project area as these features often provide surfaces that attract prey such as mussels, barnacles, small fish, and various crustaceans (Evens 2005). Dabbling ducks such as mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), American wigeon (Anas americana), and gadwall (Anas strepera) are also likely to occur in the project area as they rest or feed on the vegetation and small invertebrates associated with shallow subtidal waters or tidal mudflats. Wading birds such as great blue heron (Ardea herodias), great egret (Ardea alba), and snowy egret (Egretta thula) forage along the project area shoreline for small fish, invertebrates, and small mammals.

The blue gum eucalyptus grove within Area 2 provides marginal nesting habitat for raptors such as red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) and red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), although no such nests have been recorded to date, perhaps due to the high intensity of human recreation in the area. Urban-adapted songbirds such as northern mockingbird (Mimulus polyglottos), American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis), and house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus) also may nest in the grove and other nearby ornamental trees.

Mammals. California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi) and Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) were the only mammal species detected during LSA’s reconnaissance survey; these common species primarily occur in Area 1, where the abundant construction debris and riprap provides numerous crevices, recesses, and nooks that provide cover from predators. Common urban-adapted mammals such as northern raccoon (Procyon lotor) and opossum (Didelphis marsupialis) likely forage in the project area at night. The construction debris and riprap also provide habitat for Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus), an introduced pest species that can have major impacts on native small mammals and ground-nesting birds. Feral cats also are known to occur at the Albany Bulb and Neck (LSA 2002a) and can adversely affect native bird populations. Harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) may occasionally venture into the shallow subtidal waters within the project area to forage on small fish. California sea lion (Zalophus californianus) and southern sea otter (Enhydra lutris nereis) have been observed in the offshore waters of Eastshore State Park, but their occurrence within the project area is sporadic because both are more typically associated with deeper marine waters in central San Francisco Bay and the outer coast. No haul-out sites for these species are present in the project area or within the larger Eastshore State Park (Goals Project 1999).

Marine Invertebrates. The project area includes several habitat types that support, or have the potential to support, invertebrate animals that live in or close to the Bay. Many of these invertebrates are prey species for wading birds, as well as other invertebrates. While a formal survey and identification of marine invertebrate species was not conducted for this project, the general status and distribution of marine invertebrates in San Francisco Bay are well documented.

The invertebrate organisms that inhabit sandy beaches and dunes are able to burrow rapidly and/or deeply into the sand to avoid displacement by passing waves, permanent burial by moving sediment, desiccation, or predation. Generally, the most numerically abundant taxa on sandy beaches along the coast and San Francisco Bay are crustaceans, especially sand crabs, amphipods (beach hoppers), and isopods (beach “lice”). Some of

E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

these motile animals as well as some sessile invertebrates may wash onto the beach with the kelp, eelgrass or debris to which they are attached.

In intertidal and subtidal habitats, such as the riprapped and rocky shorelines and the muddy substrate at the bottom of the Bay, taxa that live in or burrow through the sand and/or mud substrate are likely to be present. These “infauna” include predatory polychaete and nemertian worms, predatory gastropod mollusks (e.g., snails), suspension-feeding bivalve mollusks (e.g., clams), and suspension-feeding worms (e.g., lugworms) (Kozloff 1993). Numerous invertebrate species are harbored among the blades and inflorescences of eelgrass, including amphipods, isopods, and copepods (Kitting and Wyllie-Echeverria 1992; Hanson 1998; Carr 2008), and numbers of individual invertebrates are high within San Francisco Bay eelgrass compared to other regions (Carr et al. in review). The remains of pier pilings and other hard substrates (i.e., riprap and rocky shoreline) in the intertidal and subtidal zones of the project area provide habitat for sessile (i.e., attached) and motile marine invertebrates. Barnacles, oysters, mussels and anemones will commonly colonize such hard substrates in the Bay (Kozloff 1993).

The only oyster species endemic to the west coast of North America, including San Francisco Bay, is known as the California or Olympia oyster (Ostreola conchaphila). This species grows on loose boulders and other hard substrates in the intertidal zone (Kozloff 1993) and is fairly common along the rocky shorelines in the project area (Katharyn Boyer, personal observation, March 2010).

San Francisco Bay is now host to hundreds of non-native marine invertebrate species, many of which are invasive and have been observed to negatively impact native invertebrate communities (Carlton 1979; Cohen 2005). Invasive non-native invertebrate species that may occur in the project area (based on the presence of suitable habitat) include the following (Cohen 2005): Eastern mud whelk (Ilyanassa obsoleta), channeled whelk (Busycotypus canliculatus), rough periwinkle (Littorina saxatilis), Atlantic oyster drill (Urosalpinx cinerea), ribbed mussel (Geukensia demissa), green bagmussel (Musculista senhousia), Eastern soft-shell clam (Mya arenaria), overbite clam (Corbula amurensis), Japanese littleneck clam (Venerupis philippinarum), European green crab (Carcinus maenus), colonial bryozoa (Bugula neritina, Cryptosula pallasiana, Watersipora subtorquata), and sea squirts (Botrylloides violaceus, Botryllus schlosseri, Styela clava).

Special Status Animal Species LSA biologists conducted surveys for special status species in March 2010 as a part of the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Existing and Future Conditions Report:/Feasibility Study (2011 LSA Associates, Inc.) and identified 20 special status animal species with potential to occur within 5 miles of the project area., These are included in Table 8-1 of the LSA Report, Appendix G of the Final EIR.

Fish. Several special-status fish species occur in San Francisco Bay, including many distinctive populations of salmon and steelhead that have unique genetically based adaptations to local and regional environments (Moyle 2002). Some of these distinctive populations, often referred to as runs or stocks, are recognized by the resources agencies as evolutionarily significant units (ESU). Several ESUs of salmon and steelhead could occur in the waters adjacent to the project area on occasion. While juveniles of these species may find suitable habitat in eelgrass beds, generally these species would be expected in the deeper water channels of the bay. The green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) is another special-status fish species that could occasionally occur in the project area, but as with salmon and steelhead this anadromous species generally is found in deeper water channels. The tidewater goby is considered extirpated from San Francisco Bay and no suitable habitat for this species occurs within the project area.

Birds. The majority of special status avian species presented in Final EIR Table 8.1 (Appendix G) are known to only occasionally forage or disperse within the project area. No raptor species are known to nest within the project area due to lack of suitable habitat. The ruderal scrub that dominates the upland habitat is considered to be of low forage quality. In addition, the ongoing disturbance associated with recreational users and dogs 23

E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

within the project area provides a further deterrent for nesting raptors. Burrowing owls are known to occur near the project area. In human modified areas burrowing owls often use burrows under the edges of concrete, asphalt, rubble piles, and riprap. Although there are no confirmed records of burrowing owls nesting in the project area, this species has been observed wintering in Cesar Chavez Park in recent years as well as at the Albany Bulb (around piles of concrete), the North Basin Strip, the south shoreline of North Basin (in riprap) and south of University Avenue (west of the Strawberry Creek outfall). The concrete debris along the Albany Neck in Area 1 provides suitable crevices and cover that could potentially be used by migrating or wintering burrowing owls, and the presence of ground squirrel burrows among the concrete debris and rocks increases habitat suitability for burrowing owls. An 8-acre burrowing owl enclosure area was constructed on the Albany Plateau, and was fenced to restrict access.

The waters adjacent to the project area are utilized by foraging California least terns. The nearest active nesting colony for California least tern is located at Alameda Naval Air Station, approximately seven miles south of the project site. The Alameda site consistently supports the largest numbers of nesting least terns within San Francisco Bay (Burton and Terrill 2010). The Caltrans Albany Mitigation Islands, located adjacent to the Albany Mudflats (0.6 mile from the project area) supported 12 pairs of nesting California least terns in 2000; however, this site has not been utilized in subsequent years.

Mammals. Harbor seal, California sea lion, and southern sea otter have all been observed in the offshore waters of Eastshore State Park, but are considered to be only occasional visitors. No haul-out sites or breeding habitat for marine mammals is present within the project area.

Standards of Significance Biological resource impacts associated with the project would be considered significant if aspects of the Project pertaining to dogs would: a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, seasonal wetland, coastal wetlands, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. e. Conflict with applicable local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or State habitat conservation plan.

Impact Discussion Assessment Methodology Using the Standards of Significance listed above, the impact analysis evaluates how increased dog use resulting from the Proposed Project would affect biological resources. This evaluation is based on the information presented in Existing Conditions section of this document, literature information about the 24

E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

responses of biota to dog use disturbances, preparer expertise and judgment in evaluating existing information regarding species and habitats present, and how dog use at the Project site would interact with the environment.

Project Analysis a: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species? Projected incremental increase in dog use would not adversely affect candidate, sensitive, or special-status species. The adverse effect of dogs, on and off-leash, on any plant or animal wildlife, including candidate, sensitive or special status species includes dog waste, trampling and digging17, and disturbance to birds and animals through flushing, harassment or killing. While dogs off-leash typically have a greater impact on biological resources, dogs are perceived as predators by most wildlife and therefore even dogs on leash can disturb wildlife.18

Under current conditions at the Project Site, there is a low presence of candidate, sensitive, or special status species on land.

The low presence of special status species, including Burrowing owls, on land can be partially explained by the current presence of on and off-leash dog use on site. There are currently, over an average 13 hour period during daytime, approximately 305 dogs at the Project site (see Section 2.1 Current and Project Use) with 82% off-leash or 251 off-leash dogs throughout the course of the day. It is projected that there will be a 6% increase in use post-project, which means on an average day an additional 18 dogs on site, 14 of which could be off-leash. However, given the lack of special status species currently on site due to the current use of the site by dogs, the impacts from an incremental increase in dog use to special status species are less than significant.

The nearest active California least tern nesting colony is located at Alameda, seven miles to the south of Albany Beach. Studies indicate that least terns typically forage within 3.5 miles of nesting site (Ehrler et al. 2006). However, California least terns are occasionally observed foraging within the project area (LSA Associates 2011). Under existing conditions up to 251 off-leash dogs may harass foraging least terns at the Project site. A 6 percent project increase in dog-use, or on average an additional 14 off-leash dogs on an average day, would not result in a substantial adverse effect from current conditions19. The small incremental increase in dogs will be spread throughout the day and Project site. Thus, the impacts to California least tern, in terms of dog use are less than significant.

Marine mammals are uncommonly observed within the project area. While marine mammals occasionally visit the offshore waters of the Eastshore State Park, these species prefer the deeper waters of the San Francisco Bay and do not use the Project site as a haul-out area or for breeding, in part because dogs and people currently use the site. In relation to dog use, under existing conditions there is no evidence of dogs harassing marine mammals at the Project Site in recent years. While the existing use of the Project site by dogs occasionally results in contact by dogs when there is a sick or injured animal on the shoreline, the park staff has procedures in place to deal with sick or injured marine mammals, which they have not had to implement in the last few years.20 Furthermore, because of the low projected increase in dog use, 18 additional dogs on average, 14 of which could be off-leash, there will be no substantial adverse effect to

17 LSA, Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Feasibility Study, 2011 18 Foster, L - Dogs on the Beach, California Research Bureau, 2006 19 Doug Bell, Wildlife Program Manager, East Bay Regional Park District, personal communication, 2 December 2014 20 Scott Possin, Park Supervisor, McLaughlin Eastshore State Park, personal communication, 10 December 2014 25

E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

marine mammals in relation to dog use beyond current conditions21. For this reason, the effect to marine mammals is less than significant.

Other factors also support the EIR’s conclusions that dogs will not have a substantial adverse effect on any candidate, sensitive, or special status species. The Proposed Project includes as part of the Project improved permanent signage to educate the public about on and off-leash dog policies and includes as part of the Project doggie waste bag stations and waste disposal receptacles. The new signage will be more durable than existing signage and will contain information regarding the importance of keeping dogs on leash. It has been found in a Park District compliance study22 and staff observation23 that improved and visible signage correlates with increased compliance of park rules regarding dog use. Thus, the number of unleashed dogs will likely decrease. Also, as discussed more thoroughly in Section 3.4, Land Use and Planning, the Proposed Project will increase the area of improved parkland, thus creating more space for dogs on the Property. The reduction in the number of dogs in any given area will reduce the impact dogs have on any candidate, sensitive, or special status species on the Project site. To provide a conservative analysis, the SEIR assumes that the new users that visit the Project site will have dogs in the same ratio as current users. It is probable, however, that given the Project improvements; the Project will attract a greater diversity of users, especially users who do not have dogs. For instance, at Big Break Regional Shoreline, a similar shoreline parkland area, after the development of the parkland and the installation of adequate signage regarding dog polices, the proportion of dogs decreased even with an overall increase of park visitation.24

b: Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community? The site does not contain riparian habitat, therefore implementation of the Proposed Project, in relation to dog use, would have no impact on riparian habitat.

There are several sensitive natural communities present within the project area. Three sensitive biological communities have been identified on the project site, including seasonal wetlands, dune mat vegetation, and eelgrass beds. The dunes and small wetlands are currently of low habitat quality. A large portion of the project site, including the dunes and wetlands, is comprised of disturbed lands containing ruderal vegetation, which is not typically considered to be a sensitive natural community. Toxic creosote timbers and other inorganic garbage and debris are scattered throughout the project area, which further degrades the habitat quality. Nevertheless, in relation to dune habitat and seasonal wetlands there is a potentially significant impact from dog use, especially post project habitat enhancement. Dogs, in particular off-leash dogs, can disturb dune and wetland vegetation through trampling, digging, and if owners do not pick up after their dog’s waste.

Dune mat vegetation in Area 2 is relatively uncommon adjacent to San Francisco Bay and is considered to be a sensitive natural community. Habitat enhancement including earthwork and removal of treated wood, inorganic debris and invasive plants at the beach area, as well as sand placement to help support a broad low- profile beach are part of the Proposed Project. Dune sand would be graded and planted with native species to foster dune establishment, and restore disturbed areas. Furthermore, existing degraded wetlands in the upland dune area would be improved and enhanced. Proposed vegetation management would include removal of nonnative invasive species adjacent to the parking area and public access facilities, and planting native grasses and shrubs. This element of the plan would also result in improved habitat values for wildlife.

These elements of the plan would result in improved habitat values for wildlife but the enhanced habitat would be vulnerable to intrusion by park visitors and their dogs. Currently, dogs and their owners rarely

21 Doug Bell, Wildlife Program Manager, East Bay Regional Park District, personal communication, 2 December 2014 22 Podvin, J., - An Updated Assessment of Trail User Compliance and Trailside Erosion in Wildcat Creek, Tilden Regional Park, Berkeley California, East Bay Regional Park District, 2014 23 Scott Possin, Park Supervisor, McLaughlin Eastshore State Park, personal communication, 10 December 2014 24 Tammy Mueller, Park Supervisor, Big Break Regional Shoreline, personal communication, 28 May 2014 26

E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

utilize the dune or wetland areas, unless they are traversing the dunes to access the beach or if dogs are chasing a ball.25 Nonetheless, off-leash dogs could run through the enhanced dunes and disturb the improved dune matt vegetation and enhanced wetlands. Therefore an increase in dog use poses a potentially significant impact to the enhanced dune matt vegetation and wetlands.

Off shore of Areas 1 and 2, there are Eelgrass beds. Eelgrass is not a protected aquatic plant species per se but is a special aquatic habitat under 404 (b) 1 of the Clean Water Act and is designated as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). Increased turbidity could potentially impact Eelgrass beds; however, the project has been carefully designed to include a setback or buffer from areas of eelgrass. Currently, dogs typically stay on the Beach, though according to park staff observations 10-15 percent of dogs would enter the water to chase a ball or stick and typically they would stick close to shore, rarely venturing further than 50ft from the Beach.26 Therefore, at the Beach dogs do not enter far or frequently enough into the water to cause turbidity that may disturb the Eelgrass beds. According to park staff observation, dogs infrequently enter the water from the lower Neck trail in Areas 1.27 Therefore, turbidity increases from dogs entering the water from the Neck trail is currently minimal. The projected decrease in the concentration of dog use in the Project Area and in conjunction with the shoreline stabilization project components for Area 1 will result in dog-related impacts to Eelgrass beds that will be less than significant.

Impact BIO-1: Increased park visitors, accompanied by dogs could lead to trampling and other degradation of the enhanced dune mat vegetation and wetlands unless adequately protected.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1a: Fencing shall be established around the enhanced dune and wetland area and shall be designed to prevent access and disturbance by park users and pets without obstructing views of the San Francisco Bay or substantially interfering with wildlife movement or wind patterns that shape and form the dunes. This would prevent digging and trampling of the restored dune mat vegetation and enhanced wetlands due to use by park visitors and dogs.

Significance after Mitigation: With the implementation of this mitigation measure the impact on dune mat vegetation and wetlands due to increased dog use would be reduced to less than significant.

c: Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act? Preliminary wetlands delineation was completed for the project site by LSA in 2011. The project site contains 45 acres of San Francisco Bay, a navigable tidal water of the United States. There are 0.031 acre of seasonal wetlands and other waters that are likely subject to Corps jurisdiction under Section 404 and Section 10 of the Clean Water Act and under the Porter Cologne Act and Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. These jurisdictional features include 0.030 acre of seasonal wetlands and 0.001 acre of seasonal drainage. Since the project area borders the San Francisco Bay, all tidal wetlands within the Project area are within the jurisdiction of the BCDC.

Inorganic debris and invasive non-native plant species would be removed from the existing seasonal wetland. The wetland would be expanded by grading wetland features within the expanded dunes. Wetland expansion would be sized and finished grade elevation set to provide sufficient capacity for integrated onsite storm water treatment. The wetlands would be planted with appropriate low-maintenance native wetland species.

25 Linda Saunders, EBRPD 2014 Summer Intern, personal communication, 2 December 2014 26 Linda Saunders, EBRPD 2014 Summer Intern, personal communication, 18 December 2014 27 Scott Possin, Park Supervisor, McLaughlin Eastshore State Park, personal communication, 10 December 2014 27

E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

The Proposed Project is a restoration project and would benefit federally protected wetlands by expanding 0.031 acre of poor/low quality wetlands and seasonal drainage and creating a total of 0.30 acres of new seasonal wetlands.

On and off-leash dogs, can disturb wetlands through trampling and digging, and if owners do not pick up after their dogs’ waste. In Area 2, off-leash dogs rarely enter the wetlands unless they are heading to the beach or occasionally chasing an errant ball28. Nevertheless, the enhanced and expanded wetland habitat would be vulnerable to intrusion by park visitors and their dogs. Unleashed dogs could run through the enhanced dunes and disturb the wetlands. An increase in dog use poses a potentially significant impact on the expanded wetlands.

Impact BIO-2: Increased park visitors, accompanied by dogs, could lead to trampling and other degradation of the enhanced and expanded wetlands unless adequately protected.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2a: Fencing shall be established around the enhanced dune and wetland area and designed to prevent access and disturbance by park users and pets without obstructing views of the San Francisco Bay or substantially interfering with wildlife movement or wind patterns that shape and form the dunes. This would prevent digging and trampling of the expanded and enhanced wetlands due to use by park visitors and dogs.

Significance after Mitigation: With the implementation of this mitigation measure the impact on wetlands due to increased dog use would be reduced to less than significant.

d: Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Implementation of the Proposed Project is not expected to impede the use of a native wildlife nursery site or migratory wildlife corridor. The Project is expected to result in an incremental increase in on and off-leash dog use. The Project is projecting a 6% increase in dog use, from an average of 305 dogs per day to 323 dogs per day; there is an anticipated additional 14 off-leash dogs to the current 251 dogs that are on average off- leash.

The term “corridor” as applied to wildlife habitat and movement has been defined in various ways by ecologists and wildlife biologists. For the purposes of this EIR, a corridor is defined as land that links larger areas of habitat within a landscape, allowing the movement of any established native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. Although limited and occasional movement may occur between the project site and urban open space areas along creeks to the east, and nearby open water areas, the project site does not serve as a significant linkage or movement corridor between larger habitat areas for terrestrial wildlife. The Proposed Project is not anticipated to interfere with movement or migration of any marine fish or mammal species.

In order to be considered a wildlife nursery, a relatively large share of juveniles from such areas should become incorporated into the local adult population. More young of the species would reach adulthood from that area, as compared to other habitats used by juveniles. Additionally, native wildlife nursery sites are generally located in areas with good habitat conditions, providing abundant food, good cover, and protection from disturbance, thereby fostering successful rearing of young for a sustainable wildlife population. The project site does not have these habitat conditions.

28 Linda Saunders, EBRPD 2014 Summer Intern, personal communication, 2 December 2014 28

E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

The additional dogs that will visit the Project site as a result of the Project will not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. As discussed more thoroughly in Section 3.4, Land Use and Planning, the Proposed Project will increase the area of improved parkland which is expected to attract more visitors to Albany Beach, including more visitors that would bring on and off- leash dogs. Even though the Project will increase visitor diversity, including attracting more people that do not bring their dogs, it will also increase the number of visitors with leashed and unleashed dogs, which could impact wildlife, specifically birds.

While both leashed and un-leashed dogs could impact birds, unleashed dogs typically have a greater impact on birds because they can more easily and are more likely to chase wildlife. As discussed in Section 2.1 Current and Projected Use, as a worst case estimate for CEQA analysis purposes, the SEIR determined that up to 25 additional dogs per day (with an average of 18 dogs per day, 14 of which could be off leash) may visit the project area, including the Neck, Beach area and Bay Trail. Given the current presence of people and leashed and unleashed dogs at the Project site, the Project site has little or no existing bird usage, and as discussed above, the Project site does not provide significant habitat for protected or sensitive species of birds. Thus, the additional dogs at the Project site after implementation of the Project will not interfere substantially with the movement of birds at or flying over the site.

In addition, as discussed in Section 3.4, because the Project would create additional public space that is accessible to people with dogs, the anticipated maximum intensity of dogs with the Project would be 35 dogs per accessible acre, which is lower than the current intensity of approximately 47 dogs per accessible acre, which is 26.6 percent decrease in the concentration of dogs per acre. The lower concentration of dogs and thus fewer numbers of dogs in any given area will decrease the impact of dogs on wildlife. Other factors also support the EIR’s conclusions that dogs will not have a substantial adverse effect on wildlife movement. For example, the Proposed Project includes as part of the Project improved permanent signage to educate the public about on and off-leash dog policies and the importance of keeping dogs on leash, and includes as part of the Project doggie waste bag stations and waste disposal receptacles. The new signage will be more durable than existing signage and will contain information regarding the importance of keeping dogs on leash. It has been found in a Park District compliance study29 and staff observation30 that improved and visible signage correlates with increased compliance of park rules regarding dog use.

The Proposed Project does plan for enhanced and expanded dune and wetlands in Area 2. Birds could use the new habitats created by the Proposed Project. Although EBRPD has regulations requiring pet owners to keep dogs on leash and prohibiting people and dogs from some areas, such as restoration areas and sensitive wildlife habitat, not all park visitors adhere to these regulations. While off-leash dogs are more likely to chase, harm and/or kill wildlife, on-leash dogs are still capable of frightening birds and animals, scaring birds off nests or flushing birds.31 Dogs can appear to be predators to wildlife, so even leashed dogs are capable of disturbing wildlife. Thus the increase in leashed and unleashed dogs at the Project site could interfere with the movement of wildlife in the expanded and enhanced habitat area.

The potential impact on and off-leash dogs pose to the enhanced habitat quality and its usability by wildlife species is potentially significant.

Impact BIO-3: Increased park visitors, accompanied by dogs could lead to flushing or harming of wildlife species that may use the site and the enhance habitat.

29 Podvin, J., - An Updated Assessment of Trail User Compliance and Trailside Erosion in Wildcat Creek, Tilden Regional Park, Berkeley California, East Bay Regional Park District, 2014 30 Scott Possin, Park Supervisor, McLaughlin Eastshore State Park, personal communication, 10 December 2014 31 Foster, L - Dogs on the Beach, California Research Bureau, 2006 29

E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Mitigation Measure BIO-3a: Fencing shall be established around the enhanced dune and wetland area and designed to prevent access and disturbance by park users and pets without obstructing views of the San Francisco Bay or substantially interfering with wildlife movement or wind patterns that shape and form the dunes. This would increase protected and fenced dune and wetland habitat for birds and other animals from 0 acres to 1.1 acres.

Significance after Mitigation: With the implementation of this mitigation measure the impact on wildlife species due to increased dog use would be reduced to less than significant.

e: Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? An increase in dogs will not conflict with any local polices or ordinance protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. There will be no impact. f: Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? An increase in dogs will not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitation Conservation or other approved habitat conservation plan. There will be no impact.

3.2 Geology and Soils

This section provides the environmental and regulatory background necessary to analyze the impacts of the proposed Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project and dog use to Geology and Soils. A detailed discussion of the regulatory framework pertaining to the CEQA review process for geology and soils is contained in Section 4.5 of the FEIR.

Existing Conditions

Existing Dog Use While all areas of the Project Site are used by park visitors with and without dogs, Areas 1 and 2 experience the heaviest amount of dog use. On average, 305 dogs visit the Project site per day; 97% of the dogs (296 dogs) are concentrated in Areas 1 and 2. These dogs are not all on site at the same time, but spread out throughout the day. In 2014, the Park District conducted a study to understand dog use distribution and patterns at the project site.32 For further analysis and discussion, please see Section 2.1 Current and Projected Use.

In Area 2, the Beach, off-leash dogs have been observed traversing through the existing dune and wetland area, in addition to their presence along the beach shoreline33. Off-leash dogs can contribute to erosion through digging and traversing unstable sands or soils34. In Areas 1 and 2, dogs occasionally (10-15 percent) enter the water to chase after balls or sticks thrown from the Beach35 and also infrequently enter the water from the Neck.36 Dogs entering the water along the Neck shoreline can contribute to erosion and turbidity in the water.

The following setting information is summarized from Section III.E, Geology and Soils, of the Eastshore Park General Plan EIR.

32 2014 Dog Use Survey Results 33 Linda Saunders, EBRPD 2014 Summer Intern, personal communication, 2 December 2014 34 LSA, Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Feasibility Study, 2011 35 Linda Saunders, EBRPD 2014 Summer Intern, personal communication, 18 December 2014 36 Scott Possin, Park Supervisor, McLaughlin Eastshore State Park, personal communication, 10 December 2014 30

E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Soils According to the USDA Web Soil Survey of Alameda County, the entirety of the project site is classified as “Urban Land”. Native bay mud (elastic silt and silty clay) soils have been covered by artificial fill and pavement in Areas 1 and 2. Sandstone bedrock and debris are found at the surface in Area 3.

Beaches and Dunes

The study area includes three sandy beaches (approximately 2.07 acres). The smallest two beaches are located in the southern portion, just north of Fleming Point. These smaller pocket beaches abut riprapped shoreline and support little or no dune/beach vegetation. Albany Beach is the largest of the three beaches. This beach is characterized by a substantial deposit of large woody debris at the high tide line, beyond which is located a small complex of vegetation and unvegetated dunes. These sandy beaches are dynamic areas subject to wave action, sediment transport, and longshore drift.

Albany Beach is a stable, swash-aligned shoreline feature. The beach’s orientation and general stability suggests that sediment transport rates to and from the shoreline are low. During extreme coastal storm events waves can overtop the beach berm and inundate the seasonal wetland area in the backbeach dunes. The dunes are home to small patches of Dune Mat vegetation, but these areas are rarely impacted by saltwater overwash during storms. The Dune Mat vegetation, native and non-native, comprise large vegetated mats that have been holding the dunes in place for many years.37

Park visitors with dogs, on and off-leash, primarily use the flat sandy beach area to recreate with their dogs. Dogs, on and off leash, were observed traversing the dunes in the upland dune area to access the beach; on limited occasions, unleashed dogs chased an errant ball.38

Standards of Significance Geology and soils impacts associated with the Proposed Project would be considered significant if aspects of the Project pertaining to dogs would:

a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault. Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking. iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. iv. Landslides. b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil from project. c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property.

37 LSA, Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Feasibility Study, 2011 38 Linda Saunders, EBRPD 2014 Summer Intern, personal communication, 2 December 2014 31

E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water.

Impact Discussion Project Analysis a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including: the risk of loss, injury, or death involving the rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most rest Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map or Strong seismic ground shaking. Dog use at the project site will not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death. There will be no impact.

b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil from project related incremental increase in dog use. In Area 2, Albany Beach, the project plans to restore and enhance the sandy beach and dune complex. This would include placement of approximately 3,000 cubic yards of clean sand on the beach, and an additional 3,000 cubic yards of sand would be placed to enhance the dunes. The dunes would be stabilized using native grasses. These enhanced dunes could be subject to erosion due to wind and water. Albany Beach is a popular destination for dog owners. Dogs, especially unleashed dogs, could run through the enhanced dunes and cause further erosion through vegetation trampling and digging. According to interviews with park staff, on and off-leash dogs and their owners traverse the dunes to access the beach, but rarely do off-leashed dogs enter the dune area on their own.39

The incremental increase in dog use will not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil in the non- dune and beach areas of the Project. The areas that the dogs frequent are not the upland slopes along the Neck40 and are therefore not vulnerable to erosion. According to park staff observation, dogs infrequently enter the water from the lower Neck trail in Area 1 and do not normally access the water or shoreline via hardened slopes or over rip rap.41 Therefore, erosion from dogs entering the water from the Neck trail is currently minimal. Although currently, the shoreline along the Neck is hardened with construction debris, there are some gaps where dogs can potentially run down the slopes to the water and contribute to erosion. After Project implementation, those gaps will no longer exist and the ability of dogs to contribute to erosion along the Neck will be reduced.

In addition, the Proposed Project includes an expanded area available to visitors with and without dogs. After project implementation, the Park District is expecting a 26.6 percent decrease in the concentration of dogs per acre. This decrease in dog concentration (see section 3.4 for more discussion) will decrease the overall impact to the Project site, decreasing vegetation trampling and opportunities for digging in the dunes and other areas. Furthermore, the Project will include improved permanent, durable signage to inform park visitors to keep dogs on-leash and state that the any fenced area is strictly off limits to people and dogs.

Because the Project could result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil through vegetation tramping and digging on the enhanced sandy dunes due to an increased number of dogs above the baseline, the Project would have a potentially significant geology and soils impact.

Impact GEO-1: Increased park visitors, accompanied by dogs could lead to erosion of the enhanced sandy dune complex unless adequately protected.

39 Gary Fine, McLaughlin Eastshore State Park Ranger, personal communication, 2 December 2014 40 Linda Saunders, EBRPD 2014 Summer Intern, personal communication, 2 December 2014 41 Scott Possin, Park Supervisor, McLaughlin Eastshore State Park, personal communication, 10 December 2014 32

E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Mitigation Measure GEO-1a: Fencing shall be established around the enhanced dune area and designed to prevent access and resultant erosion by park users and pets without obstructing views of the San Francisco Bay or substantially interfering with wildlife movement or wind patterns that shape and form the dunes. This would prevent erosion of the restored sandy dune complex due to use by park visitors and dogs.

Significance after Mitigation: With the implementation of this mitigation measure the impact on soil erosion due to increased dog use would be reduced to less than significant.

c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. Incremental increase in dog use resulting from the project will not affect geologic hazard risks such as on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. Presence of dogs is not a contributing factor to these geologic failures and therefore will have no impact.

d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property. Dog use at the site would have no impact on the project’s location or not on expansive soil.

e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water. The Project does not propose septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems. Dog use at the site would have no impact on septic or waste water disposal systems.

3.3 Hydrology and Water Quality

This section provides the environmental and regulatory background necessary to analyze expected project related incremental increases in dogs as it relates to hydrology and water quality.

Existing Conditions This section describes the Project site with reference to water quality and hydrology issues and dog use.

Existing Dog Use While all areas of the Project Site are used by park visitors with and without dogs, Areas 1 and 2 experience the heaviest amount of dog use. On average, 305 dogs visit the Project site per day; 97% of the dogs (296 dogs) are concentrated in Areas 1 and 2. These dogs are not all on site at the same time, but spread out throughout the day. In 2014, the Park District conducted a study to understand dog use distribution and patterns at the project site.42 The majority of dogs on site, 82%, are off-leash on average, or 251 off-leash dogs throughout the day. For further analysis and discussion, please see Section 2.1 Current and Projected Use.

In Area 2, the Beach, off-leash dogs have been observed entering the bay along the shoreline and running through the existing dune and wetland area. In Area 1, the Neck, unleashed dogs may occasionally enter the water along the lower neck trail, in places where there is not a lot of rip rap.43 This activity may contribute to sedimentation and erosion affecting water quality. Dogs, on and off-leash, can affect water quality through waste elimination, especially if their owners do not pick up after them. Dog waste that is not properly disposed can affect water quality if it ends up in the San Francisco Bay or drains from the Project site to some

42 2014 Dog Use Survey Results 43 Scott Possin, Park Supervisor, McLaughlin Eastshore State Park, personal communication, 10 December 2014 33

E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

other water source. Over the course of the 2014 Dog Survey period, the interns only observed occasional instances of an off-leash dog whose owner did not pick up dog waste. This appeared to happen if the owner was distracted by other dogs or the off-leash dog ran off out of sight of the owner.44

In Areas 1 and 2, dogs occasionally (10-15 percent) enter the water to chase after balls or sticks thrown from the Beach45 and also infrequently enter the water from the Neck.46 Dogs entering the water can increase turbidity in the water.

Standards of Significance Hydrology and water quality impacts associated with the Proposed Project would be considered significant if aspects of the Project pertaining to dogs would: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted). c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site. d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site. e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality. g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows. i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. j. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death due to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.

Impact Discussion Project Analysis With respect to the significance criteria identified above in Standards of Significant, the additional dogs at the site will have no impact on criteria b, c, e, g, h, i, and j. Existing and project dog use will not deplete or alter groundwater supplies or recharge, alter the drainage pattern of the area, create or contribute runoff water,

44 Linda Saunders, EBRPD 2014 Summer Intern, personal communication, 30 October 2014 45 Linda Saunders, EBRPD 2014 Summer Intern, personal communication, 18 December 2014 46 Scott Possin, Park Supervisor, McLaughlin Eastshore State Park, personal communication, 10 December 2014 34

E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

place housing within a 100 year flood hazard area, place structures within a 100-year flood hazard area, expose people or structures to significant risk involving flooding or expose people or structures to significant risk due to inundation. Only those criteria that dog use can affect will be analyzed in the following impact discussion.

a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements The projected incremental increase in dog use will not trigger violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. As discussed more thoroughly in Section 3.4, Land Use and Planning, the Proposed Project contains public access and recreation improvements that would attract more visitors to Albany Beach, including more visitors that would not bring dogs. Even though the Project will increase visitor diversity, it will increase the number of dogs at the Project site by up to 25 additional maximum dogs per day (with an average of 18 additional dogs per day). Approximately a little over half of these visitors with dogs are expected to use Albany Beach (57 percent) and only 10-15 percent (1 or 2) of those additional dogs expected to enter the water.

Although EBRPD has regulations requiring pet owners to pick up animal wastes, not all park visitors adhere to these regulations. The Proposed Project will increase current compliance with waste pick up regulations by providing signage containing specific public education and informational items about the impacts of dogs on wildlife and water quality, and providing bag dispensers (Mutt Mitts) and containers for the pick-up and disposal of animal wastes. It has been found in a Park District compliance study47 and staff observation48 that improved and visible signage correlates with increased compliance of park rules regarding dog use. In addition, the availability of bag dispensers with bags for owners to pick up dog waste and containers for the disposal of waste has reduced dog waste elsewhere. For instance, according to staff observations, installation of bag dispensers has decreased dog waste in a noticeable way along the Hoffman Marsh Trail, and Mutt Mitt dispensers and trash cans are integral in controlling dog waste.49

In addition, under current conditions, it has been observed that most visitors with dogs pick up after their dogs and that the Beach is generally well kept up with little dog waste left behind. The presence of Albany Landfill Dog Owners Group & Friends (ALDOG) may be a contributing factor in the cleanliness of the Beach area.50 ALDOG has confirmed the effectiveness of Mutt Mitt dispensers for reducing dog waste at the waterfront and holds regular beach clean-ups to remove trash and debris from the Beach. Thus, with implementation of the Project, even with the 6 percent increase in the number of dogs, the Project’s signage improvements, bag dispensers, and disposal containers are all expected to reduce the amount of dog waste from its current level. Therefore, the Project will not result in any violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements and the Project’s impact on water quality is less than significant.

Even if the incremental increase in dogs at the Project site did increase the amount of dog waste at the site, the impact on water quality would be less than significant. The effect on water quality associated with elevated fecal coliform counts from dogs would be far less than the contributing effects of local wildlife and bird populations, and also less than the effect from upstream urban runoff and from leaking underground sanitary sewers and urban stormwater runoff. In addition, while water quality is a very important consideration for parks where the beach and water facilities are designated as “swimming beaches,” with allowed water contact recreation, Albany Beach is not a swimming beach.

47 Podvin, J., - An Updated Assessment of Trail User Compliance and Trailside Erosion in Wildcat Creek, Tilden Regional Park, Berkeley California, East Bay Regional Park District, 2014 48 Scott Possin, Park Supervisor, McLaughlin Eastshore State Park, personal communication, 10 December 2014 49 Gary Fine, McLaughlin Eastshore State Park Ranger, personal communication, 2 December 2014 50 Scott Possin, Park Supervisor, McLaughlin Eastshore State Park, personal communication, 10 December 2014 35

E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Also, even though there may be an increase in dog visits to Albany Beach as a result of the Proposed Project, the overall public access facility would be increased in size, dispersing the animal waste over a larger area, thereby decreasing waste concentration effects. Because the Project would create additional public space that is accessible to people with dogs, the anticipated maximum intensity of dogs with the Project would be 35 dogs per accessible acre, which is lower than the current intensity of approximately 47 dogs per accessible acre. The projected concentration of dogs per acre is expected to decrease by 26.6 percent at the project site.

In addition, the Project contains a bioswale and bioretention system that would be effective in stormwater runoff clean-up of a large portion of the expanded facility. This further supports the conclusion that the impact on water quality of the increase in dogs at Albany Beach as a result of the construction of Proposed Project improvements would be less than significant.

d. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. As discussed further above, while dog and visitor use is projected to increase by 6 percent, the additional people and dogs will not provide a substantial additional source of polluted runoff above existing conditions. The Project includes educational signage regarding dog waste, water quality and the importance of picking up after dogs and their waste as well as bag dispensers and disposal containers to increase the number of dog owners who pick up and properly dispose dog waste. Additionally, the Proposed Project includes a bioretention facility that will slow run-off and improve water quality through the use of a new constructed wetlands drainage system. The impact associated with dog use and additional sources of polluted runoff is considered a less than significant impact.

f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality. In general, construction of the Proposed Project would improve water quality over existing conditions and the projected 6 percent increase in visitors and dog use will not otherwise substantially degrade existing water quality above what was noted in Subsection a, above. While in Area 1, the Neck, unleashed dogs currently occasionally enter the water along the lower neck trail thus contributing to sedimentation and erosion that affects water quality, with the Project, rip rap will be installed along the Neck, thus reducing erosion and dogs’ impact on water quality. Under current conditions, dogs do not normally access the water or shoreline via hardened slopes or over rip rap.51 Currently, the shoreline along the Neck is hardened with construction debris but there are some gaps where dogs can potentially run down the slopes to the water. After Project implementation, those gaps will no longer exist. The impact on water quality of the increase in dogs at Albany Beach as a result of the construction of Proposed Project improvements would be less than significant.

3.4 Land Use and Planning

This section contains information about Land Use and Planning for the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project’s site in relation to dog use specifically. A detailed discussion and analysis of non-dog related land use and planning impacts is contained in Section 4.9 of the Final EIR.

Regulatory Framework Section III.H of the Eastshore Park Project General Plan EIR addresses the plans and policies applicable to the Park. The following discussion summarizes information presented in the “Setting” subsection of Section III.H of the Eastshore Park Project General Plan EIR, updated with current data, and information specific to the Albany Beach project and dog use, as necessary.

51 Scott Possin, Park Supervisor, McLaughlin Eastshore State Park, personal communication, 10 December 2014 36

E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Local Regulations and Policies Eastshore Park Project General Plan The Eastshore State Park General Plan contains project-wide policies applicable to the entire State Park, governing Resource Management and Protection, Project-wide Interpretation, Project-wide visitor Services, and Visitor Capacity; as well as guidelines governing specific areas of the Park including the Albany Area. As discussed in the Eastshore Park Project General Plan EIR, the General Plan limits off-leash dog use in areas that were previously used for this activity, including Albany Beach and Bulb (see guidelines WILDLIF-11 and OPER-5, reproduced below).

WILDLIF -11: Disturbance to wildlife will be minimized by restricting access by people and dogs to sensitive wetland and upland habitat areas. Marsh birds, shorebirds, waterfowl, and other water birds are vulnerable to disturbance when people and dogs are allowed too close to important nesting, feeding, or roosting areas. Park visitors and dogs can also disrupt nesting activities of raptors and other birds in upland areas. Trails and other facilities should be sited to maintain appropriate distances from sensitive areas. Signs should be posted restricting access to sensitive habitat areas. Fencing and vegetative buffers can be used between trails and sensitive habitat areas, as necessary to minimize disturbance of wildlife. Dogs can be prohibited from sensitive habitat areas or restricted to access while on leash.

OPER-5: Dog use and activity in the park project will be managed according to State Parks’ guidelines in order to protect habitat values and enhance public safety. As such, dogs will not under any circumstances be permitted in management sub- zones designated as preservation areas or on any beach. The Point Isabel/North Point Isabel area is the only area of the park project in which off-leash dog use will be permitted (see area-specific guidelines for more detailed guidelines affecting the Point Isabel/North Point Isabel area).

East Bay Regional Park District EBRPD published an updated Master Plan 2013. The Master Plan outlines the Park District’s mission to acquire, develop, manage, and maintain a high quality, diverse system of interconnect parklands that balances public usage and education programs with protection and preservation of our natural and cultural resources. Relevant policies from that document and the Project’s consistency with those policies as they pertain to dog use are included in Table 3.4-2 in the Impact Discussion Project Analysis criteria c.

In 2013, the Park District entered into a thirty (30) year Operating Agreement with the California Department of Parks and Recreation to develop, operate, control, and maintain McLaughlin Eastshore State Park. Under Use of Premises, “The Parties acknowledge the financial resources of the District may be limited and, accordingly, the District shall have the right to determine maintenance, operational and enforcement priorities in its operation, control and maintenance of the premises.”52

Ordinance 38 establishes rules and regulations that apply to all EBRPD parklands.53 Violation of the Ordinance is punishable as a misdemeanor or an infraction. Recent amendments to the Ordinance include addition of a requirement that “No person shall bring into, or permit any dog, cat, or animal, to enter any Developed Area or be within 200 feet of any parking lot, trial head or staging area, as posted, unless such animal is securely leashed and under control of that person.” The Ordinance was adopted by the Board of Directors pursuant to sections 5541, 5558, 5559, and 5560 of the California Public Resources Code.

San Francisco Bay Trail (Bay Trail) Senate Bill 100, authored by then-state Senator Bill Lockyer and passed into law in 1987, directed the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) to develop a plan for a “ring around the Bay” of bicycling and hiking trails. It will connect the shoreline of all nine Bay Area counties, link 47 cities, and cross the major

52 McLaughlin Eastshore State Park Operating and Management Agreement, 2013 53 EBRPD Ordinance 38 is available on the internet at: http://www.ebparks.org/activities/ord38. 37

E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

toll bridges in the region. To date, over 300 miles of the alignment have been completed. This represents over 60 percent of the Bay Trail’s ultimate length. The Bay Trail Plan, adopted by ABAG in July 1989, includes a proposed alignment; a set of policies to guide the future selection, design and implementation of routes; and strategies for implementation and financing. The Proposed Project shows a Bay Trail spur along the Albany Neck (Area 1 of the proposed project), a segment of Bay Trail spine east of Albany Beach (Area 2 of the proposed project), and a segment of Bay Trail spine along the shore between Albany Beach and Gilman Streets (Areas 2 and 3 of the proposed project). Policies relevant to dog use and the Project’s consistency with the Bay Trail are shown in Table 3.4-3 in the Impact Discussion Project Analysis criteria c.

Existing Conditions On and Off-Leash Dog Use On and off-leash dog use at the Albany Beach project site is a common occurrence. The Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project’s Supplemental EIR is focused on understanding and analyzing the rates of on and off-leash dog use and the impacts dogs may or may not have before and after project implementation.

As discussed in section 3.1, Current and Projected Land Use, in 2014 an eleven week study was conducted with 200 survey hours. Data was collected in two to three hour intervals one to two times a day, and on average interns were present on site six hours a day. The two to three hour intervals were determined by dividing a survey day into five different time slots: Early Morning, Late Morning, Early Afternoon, Late Afternoon and Early Evening. In order to calculate daily averages, different time slots from different days were compiled together to create a “day”. Seven days were compiled to calculate the daily averages of visitor use with and without dogs.

Visitor use of the Project site averages 609 visitors per day; based on the 2014 survey (see Chapter 2, Existing Conditions, Current and Projected Use). Higher use would be expected on spring and summer weekends; thus, the survey represents the highest expected use of the Project site. Of the 609 average daily users, approximately 41 percent, or 247, had dogs. This is slightly higher but still consistent with reports from the American Veterinary Medical Association that approximately 32 percent of California households have dogs, and a Gallup poll that indicated over half of California households have dogs.54,55 Almost all of the current users with dogs visit the Neck (Area 1) and Beach (Area 2), with 40% of dogs-use at the Neck and 57% of dog-use at the Beach. Few users, with dogs, use Area 3 of the Project site, which currently contains no official Bay Trail segment. Only 3% of the dogs visiting the Project site were found in Area 3.

Visitors with dogs (some of which are professional dog walkers with up to six dogs per person) have an estimated average of approximately 1.2 dogs per person56. Currently, 247 visitors with dogs (or 305 dogs) use the 9.0 acres available to visitors with dogs, which is an intensity of approximately 27.4 visitors with dogs, or 33 dogs, per accessible acre.

Visitors, with and without dogs, to the Project Site typically stay 1½ to two hours.57 The existing impact dog use has on the site has resulted, in addition to natural resource impacts, to the Albany Beach project site being known as a high dog use site. Roughly 57 percent of the visitors to the Neck and Beach (Areas 1 and 2) visit the area accompanied with one or more dogs. While reported incidents between dogs and between dogs and people has been low, there is still an implicit understanding by park staff58 that people who are afraid of dogs do not visit Albany Neck or Beach, especially if they have safety concerns for children or are frail and elderly.

54 The National Council on Pet Population Study & Policy (NCPPSP) http://www.petpopulation.org 55 The American Veterinary Medical Association http://www.avma.org (see U.S. Pet Ownership and Demographics) 56 2014 Dog Survey Results 57 Scott Possin, Park Supervisor, McLaughlin Eastshore State Park, personal communication, 14 June 2012 58 Scott Possin, Park Supervisor, McLaughlin Eastshore State Park, personal communication, 10 December 2014 38

E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Standards of Significance Land use and planning impacts associated with the Proposed Project would be considered significant if aspects of the Project pertaining to dogs would: a. Physically divide an established community. b. Create or exacerbate a conflict between land uses on the project site and in the surrounding area. c. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. In the event a conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy or regulation already exists, the land use and planning impacts associated with the Project would be considered significant if the Project would increase that conflict by substantially increasing the environmental impact that the policy, plan or regulation was meant to avoid or mitigate.

Impact Discussion Project Analysis a. Physically divide an established community. An increase in dogs will not physically divide an established community. There would therefore be no impact.

b. Create or exacerbate a conflict between land uses on the project site and in the surrounding area. The proposed Albany Beach project would not change the provisions of the Eastshore Park Project General Plan with regard to dog use, or change the existing dog use policies of the EBRPD, which currently manages and operates Areas 1 and 2 of the project site (Albany Neck and Albany Beach, respectively). EBRPD would continue to be responsible for operation and management after project construction. EBRPD rules for developed park areas, which allow dogs on leash, and which currently apply to Areas 1 and 2 including Albany Beach, would apply to the Project site with the exception of the fenced wetland/dune restoration area in Area 2 where dogs will be prohibited. Unleashed dogs currently use the Beach and Neck in violation of EBRPD’s leash regulations.

The impacts of on-leash and off-leash dogs at Albany Beach are primarily associated with habitat, water quality, and safety. The impacts of on and off-leash dogs on habitat and water quality are discussed in Sections 3.1-3.3. In terms of safety, the most common concerns are dog on dog conflicts and dog and people conflicts. These concerns are heightened in areas where there are a high percentage of off-leash dogs.

E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

On-Leash versus Off-Leash Dog Land-use Impacts In general, on-leash dog impacts are not as great as off-leash dog impacts on land-use, but there are similarities between the two types of dog users.59 In general, people who are intimidated or frightened of dogs are less likely to visit places where there is a large number of dogs on or off-leash. At the project site, there is approximately a ratio of 1:2 dogs to people overall, but specifically in Areas 1 and 2, the ratio increases to roughly 2:3 dogs to people. With the higher concentration of dogs to people at Areas 1 (Neck) and 2 (Beach), the number of visitors who prefer dog free areas likely decreases. The majority of dogs at the site, 97 percent, use the Neck and Beach, which leaves Area 3 as a relatively dog free option for people who do not want to recreate around dogs.

Off-leash dogs potentially have a more severe impact on the safety of children and elderly park visitors versus on-leash dogs. Off-leash dogs are more likely to knock over children or elderly and or create a hostile environment for parents with children or elderly visitors versus on-leash dogs. The more dogs in a given area, the more likely conflicts with dogs will occur.

Another matter, related to on-leash versus off-leash dogs is the potential public safety concerns of conflicts arising between dogs and dogs and people and dogs, especially when dogs are off leash and not under the control of their owners. At Albany Beach, since 2011 the District’s has received 9 complaints involving off- leash dogs at the Project site. One of these complaints involved an unleashed dog biting another unleashed dog and one complaint involved a person being bit by an unleashed dog (see Section 3.1 Ordinance 28 Enforcement). According to interviews with park staff, conflicts between dogs happen 1-2 times a week at Pt. Isabel, a District dog park with off-leash areas, but conflicts between on or off-leash dogs and people are rare.60 Furthermore, in a report conducted by the Public Health Agency of Canada, it was found that out of 1,237 recorded dog bites in one year nationally, only 3.1% of dog bites occurred in a public park, versus 64.5% of dog bites that occurred in the victim’s own home or someone else’s home.61 As discussed below, the fact the Project will increase the area available to all park users will decrease the concentration of park visitors and dogs on the project site and further decrease the likelihood of dog on dog or dog and people conflicts.

Project Based Land-Use Impact and Dog-Use At the Project site, there are currently 9.0 acres of public space within Areas 1 and 2, all of which is available for use by visitors with dogs.62 The project would include acquisition of 2.8 acres in Area 2, which would consist of 1.1 acres of dune and wetlands expansion enclosed with a fence to protect habitat, and 1.7 acres publicly accessible open space in the form of planted areas, trail, bioswales, and staging area. In Area 3, the Project includes acquisition of approximately 2.9 acres for a new Bay Trail segment. The expanded Project area would total 14.7 acres of public space, of which 1.1 acres would be fenced and inaccessible to people and dogs, as well as 0.6 acre of new road and parking area. The remaining 13 acres of the Project area would be available for use by visitors with dogs. Compared to current conditions, this would be a net increase of 4 acres of public area available for use by visitors with dogs.

As discussed in Section 2.1 Current and Project Site Use, based on ITE rates and calculations, the Park District is anticipating a 6 percent increase in total use with the additional acreage that will be available to all users post Project. The Proposed Project would generate a daily average of 15 additional visitors with dogs, or 18 dogs (14 off leash), and on a maximum use day an additional 21 visitors with dogs, or 25 dogs (21 off leash), at the Project site, and create 4 additional acres of public space available to visitors with dogs. After

59 Scott Possin, Park Supervisor, McLaughlin Eastshore State Park, personal communication, 10 December 2014 60 Scott Possin, Park Supervisor, McLaughlin Eastshore State Park, personal communication, 10 December 2014 61 CHIRPP, Injuries associated with Dog Bites and Dog Attacks, summary data for 1996, all ages. 62 This excludes areas of the Project site that currently are not available for public use, such as construction haul roads, staging areas, and privately-owned Area 3 that are not part of the 9.0 acres of public space currently within Areas 1 and 2. 40

E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Project implementation, on an average day, the Project would result in an intensity of approximately 20 users with dogs, or 24 dogs, per accessible acre. On a maximum day, the Project would result in an intensity of 28 users with dogs, or 35 dogs, per accessible acre (see Table 3.4-1 below). Overall, after project implementation, the anticipated concentration of visitors and dogs per acre at the Project site is expected to decrease by 26.6%.

TABLE 3.4-1 ESTIMATED CONCENTRATION OF DOGS/ACRE PRE AND POST PROJECT

Visitors with Total Dogs off- Dogs on- 2014 Dogs Dogs Leash Leash / acre / acre / acre / acre Before Project Current (9 acres) Daily Average 27 34 28 6 Current Maximum 39 47 39 8 With Project Projected (13 acres) Daily Average 20 24 20 4 Projected Maximum 28 35 28 6 Percent Decrease 26.6% NOTE: Individual components do not sum to total due to rounding

Thus overall, the increased area available to all visitors, including on and off-leash dogs, will increase. Even with accounting for an increase in visitors, the concentration of dogs/acre at the Project Site will decrease the impact on the site overall. With decreased dog concentration, the potential for conflicts between dogs and dogs and dogs and people will also decrease. As a result, land use conflicts at the Project site, including Albany Beach, generated by Project-related visitors with dogs, including conflicts between dogs, and conflicts between dogs and people, would not be significant. In addition to the reduced number of dogs in any given area, the land use conflicts associated with dogs will decrease with the Project for the additional following reasons:

• It is a project objective to make the Albany Beach area appeal to a broad park user base. Improvement of existing park amenities (restrooms, bike racks, parking lot) and new amenities (picnic area) would increase the appeal of the park to non-dog walkers, ADA, bicyclists and non- motorized water craft users. While these users currently use the area, the Proposed Project would likely increase the number of users that do not bring dogs. The Project-generated increase in these users would not result in new types of conflicts between dogs and people, because these types of users currently use the Project site. In addition, the increased usage of the site by non-dog users may discourage dog-users from frequenting the site, further reducing land-use impacts associated with dogs.

• Some visitors to the Project site (with and without dogs) may not use the beach, but instead be attracted to other destinations in the area such as the new Bay Trail and picnic facility, and enhanced Albany Neck. Thus, users would be dispersed throughout the Project site, diverting users from the

E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

beach to the new improved portions of the site in Area 1 and Area 3. This would decrease the conflicts between dogs and dogs and dogs and people.

• On days that live (not simulcast) races are conducted at Golden Gate Fields, racetrack fans occupy the park’s parking lot on Buchanan Street because the racetrack levies a fee to use their parking lot. GGF visitors typically do not have dogs, which would limit the number of potential dog visits during these times.

In conclusion, because the with-Project intensity of dogs would be lower than existing conditions, and because of the factors discussed above, the Project, compared to existing conditions, would not result in increased dog intensity at Albany Beach or the Project site or exacerbate pre-existing land-use conflict at the project site. Therefore, there would not be an increase in land use conflicts involving dogs, including conflicts between dogs and people, and conflicts among dogs. The impact of the proposed project on potential land use conflicts related to dog use would be less than significant.

c. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project.

Eastshore State Park General Plan The Eastshore State Park General Plan contains policies that pertain to the entire Park District. The policies that are particularly relevant to the Proposed Project are outlined below and analyzed to determine the Proposed Project’s consistency with the relevant policies in terms of dog use.

TABLE 3.4-2 EBRPD MASTER PLAN POLICIES AND CONSISTENCY WITH PROPOSED PROJECT

Policy Consistency

Natural Resource Management (NRM) NRM5: The District will maintain and manage vegetation to The Project would remove invasive species and conserve, enhance and restore natural plant communities; to replant native species. The dune/wetland preserve and protect populations of rare, threatened, endangered and complex at Albany Beach (Area 2) would be sensitive plan species and their habitats, and where possible to fenced to prevent access by people and dogs. protect biodiversity and to achieve a high representation of native Dogs would be permitted on leash only, plants and animals. consistent with EBRPD policies. NRM9: EBRPD will conserve, enhance, and protect native animal species and enhance their habitats to maintain viable wildlife populations within balanced ecosystems. Non-native and feral The dune/wetland complex at Albany Beach animals will be managed to minimize conflicts with native wildlife (Area 2) would be fenced to prevent access by species. The District will cooperate on a regular basis with other people and dogs. Dogs would be permitted on public and private land managers and recognized wildlife leash only, consistent with EBRPD policies. management experts to address wildlife management issues on a regional scale. NRM13: The District will identify existing and potential erosion The Neck’s (area 1) shoreline will be stabilized problems and take corrective measures to repair damage and mitigate and the trail improved. The dune/wetland its causes. The District will manage the parks to assure than an complex at Albany Beach (area 2) would be adequate cover of vegetation remains on the ground to provide soil fenced to prevent access by people and dogs, protection. Where vegetative cover has been reduced or eliminated, which would minimize disturbance to soils. the District will take steps to restore it, using native or naturalized Dogs would be permitted on leash only, plants adapted to the site. The District will minimize soil disturbance consistent with EBRPD policies. NRM13 is associated with construction and maintenance operations and will consistent with General Plan policy - HYDRO- avoid disruptive activities in areas with unstable soils, wherever 4. 42

E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

possible. The District will arrest the progress of active gully erosion where practical, and take action to restore these areas to stable conditions. The District will notify adjacent property owners of potential landslide situations and risks on District lands, and will conform to applicable law. The District will protect important geological and paleontological features from vandalism and nuisance. Source: EBRPD Master Plan, 2013

TABLE 3.4-3 BAY TRAIL POLICIES AND CONSISTENCY WITH PROPOSED PROJECT

Policy Consistency

Trail Design Policies The trail would be a multi-use trail for 12. Provide access wherever feasible to the greatest range of trail pedestrians, bicyclists, dogs on leash, and users on each segment. would be wheelchair accessible. Implementation Policies In accordance with EBRPD policy, dogs would 35. Domestic pets should be prohibited on new trails if the be allowed on leash on the Bay Trail spur (Area managing agency determines that their presence would conflict 1) and spine (Area 3) of the Proposed Project. with habitat values or other recreational users. This prohibition The dune/wetland complex at Albany Beach is not intended to apply to service animals such as guide dogs. (Area 2) would be fenced to prevent dog intrusion. Source: San Francisco Bay Trail Plan, adopted 1989. http://www.baytrail.org/baytrailplan.html.

Eastshore State Park General Plan The Eastshore State Park General Plan contains project-wide policies applicable to the entire Park. Guideline OPER-5 prohibits dogs on beaches, including Albany Beach, and conflicts with current uses at Albany Beach where dogs on and off-leash frequent the beach. This conflict would continue with the Proposed Project. The guideline was adopted to protect habitat values and protect public safety. As described above in this section 3.4, the incremental increase in dogs would not increase the public safety impacts associated with conflicts between dogs and dogs, and dogs and people. Likewise, as discussed above in sections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3., the incremental increase in dogs would not substantially increase the impacts on habitat values at the Project Site.

The Proposed Project would be consistent with the other project-wide guidelines and guidelines for the Albany Area in the General Plan. As discussed above, the Project, and the additional dogs that would result would not increase biological or public safety impacts at the project site. Therefore, because the Project would not increase the existing conflict with guideline OPER-5 so as to substantially increase the public safety and environmental impacts that policy was meant to mitigate, and would be consistent with other Eastshore State Park General Plan guidelines, there would be no impact from inconsistency with these land use policies.

648673.1

SUPPLEMENT TO Comments and Responses for Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report

Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project

for the East Bay Regional Park District

SCH # 2012032072

May 27, 2015 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ...... 1 A. Purpose of this Supplement ...... 1 B. Background ...... 1 C. Document Organization ...... 1 2 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ...... 3

i E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

A. Purpose of this Supplement This document is a Supplement to the Comments and Responses for Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project, SCH #2012032072, dated May 21, 2015. Due to an administrative error, the Comments and Responses document omitted one comment letter that was received during the public review period on the Draft Supplemental EIR. The omitted comment letter was received from Mary Barnsdale, Co-founder, Albany Landfill Dog Owners Group & Friends. This Supplement provides responses to that comment letter.

B. Background The Comments and Responses for Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project responds to comments received during the public review period on the Draft Supplemental EIR dated December 22, 2014 (with the exception of the omitted letter discussed above). The Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) was prepared to assess the potential environmental consequences of on- and off-leash dog use as result of the proposed Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project (also referred to as “the Proposed Project” or “Project”) at the Albany Peninsula and the bay shoreline between Buchanan and Gilman Streets, in the cities of Albany and Berkeley, California.

As discussed in more detail in the Comments and Responses for Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, the Supplemental EIR was prepared to comply with the Alameda County Superior Court’s May 14, 2014 Final Statement of Decision on litigation challenging the original EIR for the project, the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project that was certified in November 2012. As required by the Court’s decision, the Supplemental EIR further addresses the existing dog use and enforcement of leash requirements at the Project site and the potential environmental impacts dogs might have on the Project site post Project implementation.

This Supplement to Comments and Responses for Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project, along with the Comments and Responses for Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, and the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR), together comprise the Final Supplemental EIR for the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project. This document, together with the Comments and Responses for Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and the Draft SEIR, will be presented to the East Bay Regional Park District Board of Directors at a public meeting to certify as a complete and adequate analysis of the environmental effects of the Project related to dogs, under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

C. Document Organization This document is organized into the following chapters:

1 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

♦ Chapter 1: Introduction and Background. This chapter discusses the purpose and background of this Supplement to Comments and Responses for Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. ♦ Chapter 2: Comments and Responses. This chapter contains a reproduction of the letter received from Mary Barnsdale, Albany Landfill Dog Owners Group & Friends, on the Draft Supplemental EIR, and responses to the comments.

2 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

2 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

The comment letter from Mary Barnsdale, Albany Landfill Dog Owners Group & Friends (ALDOG) is reproduced on the following pages, with individual comments identified by number. Responses follow the comment letter, with each response identified by number.

3 ALDOG-1

ALDOG-2 ALDOG-2 (cont.)

ALDOG-3

ALDOG-4 ALDOG-4 (cont.)

ALDOG-5 ALDOG-6 ALDOG-7 ALDOG-8

ALDOG-9 ALDOG-9 (cont.)

ALDOG-10

ALDOG-11 ALDOG-11 (cont.)

ALDOG-12 ALDOG-12 (cont.) E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response to Comments ALDOG-1 through ALDOG-12 Response ALDOG-1 As discussed in the SEIR and noted by the comment, all impacts of the Proposed Project, including potential impacts of dogs on biological and geological resources (see pages 24-30 and 32-33), would be reduced to a less-than-significant level by mitigation measures identified in the SEIR.

Response ALDOG-2 The comment is noted.

Response ALDOG-3 Existing wildlife, including birds, and impacts on biological resources, including effects of unleashed dogs on wildlife, are described in the 2012 Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project Final EIR and 2014 Draft Supplemental EIR. The comment is consistent with the findings in the SEIR.

Response ALDOG-4 The original 2012 EIR and the Draft SEIR evaluate the Project as proposed, as required by CEQA. Thus, in evaluating the environmental impacts of the Project, it assumes off-leash dogs will continue to visit the Project. The comments on the design of the Proposed Project and District policy regarding dogs will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

Response ALDOG-5 As noted by the comment, the Draft SEIR describes current use at the Project site. Dogs at the site may deter some users from using the site; however, this is an existing condition, not an impact of the Proposed Project, which would not change current policy and enforcement regarding dogs, as discussed in Response SPRAWLDEF-11.

The comments on park usage, and recreational needs and policy, will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

Response ALDOG-6 Dogs at the site may deter some users from using the site; however, this is an existing condition, not an impact of the Proposed Project, which would not change current policy and enforcement regarding dogs, as discussed in Response SPRAWLDEF-11.

Response ALDOG-7 The comment, which does not pertain to the environmental review but rather concerns the McLaughlin Eastshore State Park and policies related to off-leash dogs, will be forwarded to

13 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

the District Board. Section 3.4, Land Use and Planning, p. 42-43, discussed the Project’s consistency with the McLaughlin Eastshore State Park General Plan, including OPER-5 and its restrictions on dog use at the Project site. Page 39 of Section 3.4, Land Use and Planning established the following standard of significance for land use and planning impacts related to conflicts with applicable planning documents: Land use and planning impacts associated with dogs would be considered significant if the aspects of the Project pertaining to dogs would “conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation . . . adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. In the event a conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy or regulations already exists, the land use and planning impacts associated with the Project would be considered significant if the Project would increase that conflict by substantially increasing the environmental impact that the policy, plan or regulation was meant to avoid or mitigate.”

Response ALDOG-8 The comment, which does not pertain to the environmental review but rather to policies related to off-leash dogs, will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

Response ALDOG-9 As discussed in the SEIR, consistent with this comment and the studies cited, all impacts of the Proposed Project, including potential impacts of both people and dogs on biological and geological resources (see pages 24-30 and 32-33), would be reduced to a less-than-significant level by mitigation measures identified in the SEIR.

The comments on policies related to off-leash dogs at the Project site will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

Response ALDOG-10 The additional information about birds at and near the Project site is noted. Existing wildlife including birds, and impacts on biological resources including effects of unleashed dogs on wildlife, are described in the 2012 Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project Final EIR and 2014 Draft Supplemental EIR. As discussed in the SEIR, all impacts on biological resources would be reduced to a less-than-significant level by mitigation measures identified in the SEIR.

14 E AST B AY R EGIONAL P ARK D ISTRICT A LBANY B EACH R ESTORATION & P UBLIC A CCESS P ROJECT F INAL S UPPLEMENTAL EIR

Response ALDOG-11 The comments regarding Pt. Isabel Regional Shoreline do not pertain to the environmental impacts of the Proposed Project, and do not require a response under CEQA. These comments will be forwarded to the Park District Board.

Response ALDOG-12 The comments on dog use at the Proposed Project will be forwarded to the Park District Board.