September
1, 2002
Robin
E. Ettinger, ASLA
California
Department of Parks and Recreation
Northern
Service Center
1
Capitol Mall, Suite 500
Sacramento,
CA 95814
RE: Comments on
the Eastshore Park Draft Environmental Impact Report
Dear
Mr. Ettinger:
Thank
you for the opportunity to comment on the Eastshore Park (“the Park”) Draft
Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”). City of Berkeley staff and citizens have
actively participated in the year and a half-long planning process and,
overall, we believe the Preliminary General Plan offers a reasonable balance of
preservation, conservation and recreational opportunities.
Our
comments on the DEIR are listed below: first general comments and then comments
on specific EIR issues.
General
Comments:
The City of Berkeley believes that the Eastshore Park Draft
Environmental Report (DEIR) provides excellent baseline information, but that
it is inadequate in two broad areas:
A. Insufficient
Evidence of No Substantial Impact on the Environment
There is insufficient evidence in the record to
support, in many instances, the findings that the proposed project will not
have substantial impacts on the environment. The document's deferral of
analysis to future projects is insufficient and inappropriate. While this is a
programmatic environmental impact report, it is still required to identify,
evaluate, and mitigate potential environmental impacts at a level of detail
commensurate with the information at hand. Generally, this has not been done.
Instead, the document frequently relies on the existence of General Plan
policies that, in turn, only call for further study.
B. Insufficient Analysis of Impacts on City
of Berkeley Resources and Facilities
The DEIR does not analyze impacts beyond the State Park
boundaries. In particular, the DEIR does
not provide adequate analysis of the potential impacts this project may have on
the City of Berkeley’s facilities and resources, such as the Marina, Cesar
Chavez Park, and Aquatic Park. The EIR needs to consider regional impacts beyond
the Park boundaries, including the affected resources and facilities east of
I-80. While we understand that many impacts cannot be determined until
site-specific projects are further developed, a programmatic EIR does have some
responsibility to identify, evaluate, and mitigate potential impacts, as they
are now known.
For example, Eastshore Park is expected to draw users from
throughout the state and the nation, not just from the Bay Area. It is
reasonable to assume that these Park users often will not differentiate between
state and local facilities. It is also reasonable to assume that use of City of
Berkeley facilities, particularly roadways, parking areas and recreational
facilities, will increase as a result. The EIR should address the impacts of
the General Plan on the existing City resources and services, including the
increased demand for police and other emergency services. [By the same token, the EIR should note that
accommodating certain active uses (e.g. non-motorized boating, field sports,
etc.) to locations convenient to a large population center might have a
positive impact on regional air quality and traffic congestion. This is
especially true for activities like kayaking and windsurfing, which normally
require a vehicle to transport the equipment to the launch site. - pk]
Additional comments, below, are arranged by EIR
issue areas and, in many instances, clarify or elaborate on the issues raised
in the general comments above.
I. AESTHETICS
Views of the Brickyard
and SF Bay from Bike/Pedestrian Bridge
The City of Berkeley
believes it is important and appropriate for the EIR to acknowledge potential
visual impacts of locating the proposed uses, such as an operations and visitor
center, in the Brickyard area. Berkeley’s new bridge provides an important
pedestrian and bicycle access to the central portion of Eastshore Park and
crossing the bridge also offers spectacular views of the San Francisco Bay and
the city’s skyline, with the Brickyard area in the foreground. The view of the
Brickyard will set the stage for the visitor’s experience of the Eastshore
Park, the Berkeley Marina and the San Francisco Bay. It is, therefore,
imperative that the uses proposed, as well as the eventual specific designs,
are suitable to such a high-profile location. Any development in the Brickyard
should not block or negatively impact the extraordinary views to the west. [This
is a strange comment, considering the fact that the view to the west is already
completely blocked at the level of any structures or facilities by Hs.
Lordships peninsula. The comment appears to reflect a bias opposing facility
development - pk]
II. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
City staff has noted killdeer and plovers
currently nest within the Meadow and by University Avenue near the Seabreeze
Market. The EIR should acknowledge the killdeer and plovers in these locations.
III. GEOLOGY & SOILS
Seismic vulnerability maps are now available and should be
analyzed in the EIR. The City is particularly concerned about the impacts of
the project in the event of an earthquake? What would be the effect of the
liquefaction that is likely to occur in this area? What happens to the cap in
the Meadow as a result of a large seismic event? The EIR should also
acknowledge that unless the slopes are adequately stabilized, removing riprap
may increase the impact of a seismic event, particularly in the Meadow area.
Reconfigured shoreline areas, as well as constructed wetlands, may require
mitigation to re-stabilize the landfill material.
[And, the EIR should also note that standing water on landfill
(e.g. seasonal ponds in the Meadow) is generally not a safe design feature -
pk]
IV. HAZARDS
There is inadequate analysis of potential hazards that may
result from implementation of the project. For example, Hazards 2.b. (4) states
that exposure to existing chemical toxics could pose a potential health hazard.
The section goes on to conclude that this potential could be eliminated or
minimized through the implementation of the General Plan's guidelines that call
for future plans and analysis. The following are additional comments regarding
specific areas:
Berkeley Beach Area
The shoreline area just west of West Frontage Road is
identified in the General Plan as Berkeley Beach. The word "beach"
connotes a place where one can spread a blanket on clean sand and go
swimming in clean ocean water. But, the area is basically a mud flat with
potential safety obstacles such as mud, opaque bay water, concrete chunks,
variable water quality and other hazards. The City is concerned that even with
the clean up proposed, it may not be wise to encourage people to use this area
as a beach. The EIR should provide better evaluation of the existing conditions
of the proposed beach areas and should recommend mitigation measures needed to
make this area suitable for increased public access. [Depends on the
tide. Parts of this area are already used for activities associated with
beaches (e.g. surf fishing, dog running) - pk]
Toxic Areas in Berkeley Meadow
The EIR should address the condition and integrity of the
existing cap in the Meadow. For example, is the cap patchworked? Does it need
to be improved? What is the plan for maintaining the cap? What is the impact of
a major seismic event on the cap in the Meadow and on the Meadow itself? [And,
as noted above, can a technically competent plan call for standing water above
fill without such analysis? - pk]
City officials have observed garbage protruding through the
cap. Ground squirrels penetrate the cap and bring garbage up to surface. The
high wave activity on the south side of the North Basin, along with proposed
“softening” of the shoreline, could increase erosion and expose more garbage in
the northern portion of the Meadow. There is the potential for water
contamination as water filters through the cracks in the cap. These are also questions that are not
addressed in the DEIR. [Presumably the softening or
"naturalization" of the shoreline in this area would be additive, and
not compromise the cap. This might involve a small amount of fill - pk]
The EIR should also identify
the need to ensure that any site improvements, including vegetation removal, do
not compromise the integrity of the cap. The EIR should clearly state that all
future site improvements, such as pathways, trails and roads, should, in fact,
improve and extend the cap as much as possible.
V. HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY
There is inadequate analysis of
potential hydrologic and water quality impacts that may result from
implementation of the Eastshore Park project. For example, Hydrology and Water
Quality 2.b. (8) properly addresses potential water quality impacts from
construction and creating new parking areas. But the section goes on to find
that these impacts can be mitigated to less-than-significant levels through the
General Plan guidelines that appear to be unrelated to the impacts. These are
potential impacts that can be analyzed, at this time, in general terms, and
mitigations can be developed at a matching level of detail.
Water Quality
The DEIR recognizes that the water quality in the project area
is impacted by storm water runoff that may contain pollutants and that, in the
past, there have been occasional spills of raw sewage or runoff from
industrial, residential or commercial zones upstream that end up in the project
area at the creek outfall locations. However, the DEIR does not adequately
analyze the ramifications of bringing more people in close contact with these
water sources when the water quality does not meet regulatory standards. For
example, the State advises that heavy metals and persistent chemicals are found
in Bay fish species, in all Bay waters. According to the City of Berkeley’s
Environmental Health Division, the quantity of these toxins is sufficient, at
times, to warrant concern for individuals who eat Bay fish only once or twice
per month. The City has been diligent about posting advisory signs in the
Marina, North and South Sailing Basins, the Berkeley Pier, and along Frontage
Road. Since the Eastshore Park General Plan proposes to improve the Berkeley
Beach area as a fishing zone, the EIR should identify the mitigation measures
necessary to protect the health of Park users who may be exposed to potentially
toxic fish and water. One example might be for the State to coordinate posting
warning signs with local jurisdictions. [Oh come on. Eating fish
from the Bay is entirely unrelated to "bringing more people in close
contact with the water" for anything except fishing. Invoking fish
toxicity as an argument against active water-related recreational uses is
dishonest and transparent - pk]
Specifically, the EIR should
recognize that drainage from industrial areas is different than that from
residential and commercial areas, and should address the following:
1.
the impact of providing public access to constructed
wetlands/creek outfalls that that may be contaminated by heavy metals, organic
chemical and sewage spills coming down creeks, including unreported spills;
2.
the need to coordinate water testing with local jurisdictions;
3.
the need to trap and remove floating trash without affecting
fish migration;
4.
the need to coordinate posting advisory signs regarding
fish and water quality;
5.
the
need for the State to conduct a study and monitor the water quality to
determine if it is appropriate to encourage swimming from the shore in areas where
that activity is being encouraged.
Constructed
Wetlands/Water Treatment
The Preliminary General Plan indicates that wetlands will be
constructed at the outfall areas of both Strawberry and Schoolhouse Creeks in
Berkeley. Presumably, these wetland areas will serve to clean the debris and
water coming out of the creeks, provide increased habitat, and also provide an
educational opportunity for the public. Constructed wetlands/water treatment
should also be considered at the Potter Street and Gilman Street outfall areas.
It is important to note that at certain outfalls, particularly at Gilman
Street, there may be chemical contamination due to the proximity to an
industrial area. Constructed wetlands at creek outfalls should be of adequate
size to effectively treat the water.
Creek Outfalls
As mentioned above, the creeks periodically experience
discharges from sewer lines. Occasionally, there have been unreported sewage
discharges that can only be detected by pro-active sampling for coliform
bacteria. The creeks have to be posted when Regional Water Quality Control
Board guidelines are exceeded. Typically, the City has notified the SFBRWQCB
(water board) and the posted the area of the affected creek. All the creeks
have been posted in the past, but Strawberry Creek seems to be more problematic
and closest to the proposed "beach". The EIR should evaluate these
impacts.
In addition, trash frequently collects at creek outfall areas
and the EIR should address means to minimize and correct these occurrences at all
creek outfalls within the Eastshore Park, including at the Potter Street and
Gilman Street outfalls.
VI. LAND USE & PUBLIC POLICY
The DEIR references the City of Berkeley’s 1986 Waterfront
Plan, but the Eastshore Park Preliminary General Plan is not consistent with it
and other City of Berkeley planning documents in some instances. For example,
the plan identifies the Gilman area as an attractive passive use area; this
conflicts with plans to locate a future ferry terminal at the bottom of Gilman
Street and is inconsistent with City’s 2002 General Plan (which incorporates
the 1986 Waterfront Plan.) Restricting use of the North Sailing Basin during
the winter months is also inconsistent with the City’s General Plan and could
have significant consequences for the use of the privately held developable
lands along the shoreline, including a future ferry terminal. The General Plan
needs to better define the limited areas of the North Basin to still allow for
access to the privately owned shoreline parcels. These impacts are not
adequately identified nor analyzed in the DEIR. [Note that the 1986
Waterfront Plan also calls for land and water uses that "encourage
sheltered water sports such as small boat launching and mooring (sailing,
rowing, paddle, and sail-boating)" in the North Sailing Basin. - pk]
VII. NOISE
The Noise 2.b. (2) section identifies
portions of the project, the park and bay trails, which would be exposed to
noise levels in excess of standards. On its face, this appears to be an
unmitigatable adverse impact, but the document justifies the excessive noise
levels by citing the absence of available land. This situation should, instead,
be identified as a significant impact and either mitigated or addressed at some
future time by making findings of overriding considerations, not by simply
finding that the impact would be less-than-significant. In the following
section (3) no analysis of construction noise is attempted, but is rather
deferred to the evaluation of specific future construction projects. An appropriate
level of analysis could be completed now, given knowledge of the noise levels
typically generated by construction activities and the general location of
proposed projects. [Why no mention of noise-blocking berms
between the freeway and the waterfront, especially on the relatively narrow
North Basin Strip? Similar berms already exist within the Berkeley Marina, and
seem to be both effective and attractive.- pk]
VIII.
PUBLIC SERVICES
As stated above, the DEIR fails to adequately evaluate the
impact of the Park development on neighboring jurisdictions, particularly as
they relate to police and fire safety services. Development of Eastshore Park
will clearly result in an increased demand for these services. Who will be
responsible for providing these extra patrol services that will be necessary?
How will Park police services, for example, be coordinated with the local
agencies’ services?
Additionally, the Eastshore
Park General Plan and EIR should acknowledge the potential safety concerns with
regard to parking areas, and the importance of maintaining visibility, access
and appropriate lighting in all areas of the Park. The Plan and EIR should also
address the need for a vegetation management program that is compatible with
fire safety concerns.
The City also questions the need for both a visitor center and
an interpretive center in close proximity of one another. The need for these services has not been
adequately determined. No alternatives have been explored for utilizing already
existing facilities and resources, such as the City’s maintenance facilities
and the Shorebird Nature Center.
IX. TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION
Perhaps the weakest area of the DEIR is its analysis regarding
the State Park’s impact on traffic, circulation and parking. The City of
Berkeley does not agree with the conclusion that this project will result in no
significant impact in these areas. Quite the contrary, the City is very
concerned about potential impacts to the traffic and parking facilities in the
Berkeley areas near the Park.
A number of sensitive transportation issues are not addressed
in the DEIR, including those listed below:
Potential Ferry Service at
Gilman Street
For example, the DEIR notes
the Bay Area Water Transit Study (1999) that identifies several potential
passenger services routes in the Berkeley area as well as other locations near
Eastshore Park. It does not, however, analyze the impact that the Park would
have on a future ferry terminal at Gilman Street. The ferry should be further
discussed in light of the Water Transit Authority’s recent report, and with
regard to the City of Berkeley’s 2002 General Plan (Policy T-9) as well as City
Council action (Res. No. 61,726-N.S., 7/23/02) in support of environmentally
responsible ferry service. The City of Berkeley believes this is a significant
oversight and that impact analysis is sorely needed. [Possible
ferry service from Fleming Point, the Berkeley Municipal Pier, and the existing
ferry pier inside the Berkeley Marina should also be considered in the
transportation analysis- pk]
Impact on Traffic
The City does not agree with
the assessment that there will be no impact to traffic and circulation in
several areas, most notably at the Frontage Rd. intersections with both
University Avenue and Gilman Street. The City believes that the DEIR uses
inadequate criteria for determining a significant impact: if the LOS is already
at F, the percentage beyond level F is irrelevant. This means that the
intersection does not adequately function now and will certainly not function well
when the new park is established.
The City also questions the use of traffic
generation examples. It might be appropriate to use examples from other urban
parks, whether federal, state or locally owned.
[See
earlier note about possible positive impact on regional traffic congestion.
Also, the role of onsite storage for water-related recreational equipment
(kayaks, windsurfers, open water row boats and small sailboats) in reducing
traffic congestion (by reducing reliance on vehicular access) should be
considered. By the same reasoning, the positive transportation impact of
cooperative non-profits using group-owned rather than privately-owned equipment
should also be considered. - pk]
Parking
The City of Berkeley
believes that the DEIR analysis of parking is inadequate—one paragraph only. If
Eastshore Park does not provide parking near the Meadow, the existing City of
Berkeley parking areas—now operating at capacity during most weekends in the
summer and during special events—will be greatly impacted by the increased use
the entire area will experience as a result of the Eastshore Park.
For example, the park user
will not distinguish between State Park, City, or Marina facilities. Once the
user passes the parking areas accessible from Frontage Road, he would then
enter University Avenue and the only option would be to park in the City of
Berkeley parking areas, which would greatly impact the City’s facilities. This
impact will be even greater if fees are charged to enter and/or park at
Eastshore Park facilities. There is no discussion of park fees in the EIR. The
EIR should propose mitigation for these impacts, such as adding parking along
University Avenue or Marina Boulevard, and/or providing shuttle service from
well-signed off-site parking lots.
The EIR needs to evaluate
parking capacity during weekends, the summer, and special events, such as the
Fourth of July and the Annual Kite Festival. Particularly significant is the
demand for additional egress from special events in the Marina area, which will
be exacerbated by increased use as a result of Eastshore Park. The EIR needs to
address these impacts and propose appropriate mitigation measures. One such
mitigation might be to allow special event egress, in addition to emergency
vehicle access, at the Virginia Street extension pathway.
In conclusion, the City
believes that further work on the EIR is needed to adequately identify all
impacts that are now known. Further, since so much of the EIR analysis is
deferred to the project development stage, the City of Berkeley believes it is
crucial that the public and local communities be offered adequate opportunity
to comment on the detailed designs, as they are developed. This should include
public meetings in locations near the affected communities, much the way the
planning workshops have been held in local areas.
We thank you for the
opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report and look
forward to continuing our partnership with the State and East Bay Regional
Parks District.
Sincerely,
Lisa Caronna
Director of Parks Recreation
& Waterfront
Cc: Weldon Rucker, City Manager
Peter Hillier, Assistant City Manager for Transportation
Carol Barrett, Director of Planning & Development
Roy Meisner, Acting Police
Chief
Reg Garcia, Fire Chief
Zach Cowan, Assistant City Attorney
Cliff Marchetti, Waterfront
Manager, Waterfront Commission Secretary
Jay Kelekian, Parks & Recreation Commission Secretary
Steve Solomon, CEQA Officer
Alex Schneider,
Environmental Health
Nabil Al-Hadithy, Toxics
Paul Church, Disability
Compliance Program
Lorin Jensen, Public Works
Engineering