The Sierra Club Plan: have we overshot our goals?This is a critique of the February 17, 2001 Sierra Club plan for the Eastshore State Park. The plan was distributed to the Berkeley City Council on March 20. (The text of the plan should appear in Times Roman. My comments are in a san-serif font, and indented.)
Sierra Club
Reply to 802 Balra Drive, El Cerrito, CA 94530
February 17, 2001
Eastshore State Park
Dear Planners:
This letter is the statement of the Sierra Club regarding the planning for the Eastshore State Park.
I. The Sierra Club San Francisco Bay ChapterII. The History of the Club's Involvement with Saving the East Bay ShorelineIn the 1960's a large portion of the filled lands and tidal areas from the Oakland Bay Bridge to the Richmond Marina were owned by the Santa Fe Railroad. In the late 1960's and early 1970's Santa Fe proposed a stilt city in the area now known as the Emeryville Crescent. This large scale development was rejected. In the same time period, Santa Fe proposed a major shopping center for the Berkeley waterfront on the lands known as the Meadow and Brickyard. The Berkeley group known as Urban Care, Save the Bay, and Sierra Club opposed that development. Urban Care produced photos of the Meadow, showing it to be a haven for flora and fauna with seasonal ponds, wild flowers, and rich bird life. Berkeley rejected Santa Fe's proposal. This shopping center was ultimately developed as the Richmond Hilltop Shopping Center. Santa Fe filed suit against the City of Berkeley. Santa Fe initiated this lawsuit around 1972. It deposed a number of Berkeley residents who had been active in stopping Santa Fe. One of those was Sierra Club leader Ed Bennett. This suit ended around 1982 after the California Supreme Court ruled that the existing tidal lands of the Berkeley waterfront were subject to the public trust while the filled lands were not. Around 1979 Sierra Club, Save the Bay, and other environmental groups urged the State to initiate the process for creating a State Park along the East Bay Shoreline. As a consequence, the State issued the East Bay Shoreline Park Feasibility Study in 1982. This study identified the key areas for inclusion in the proposed park and included the Emeryville Crescent, the Berkeley Beach area, the Brickyard, the Meadow, the North Basin Strip, and the area in Albany known as the Plateau. In 1983 with the defeat in the lawsuit just behind it, Santa Fe put forward a new proposal for the Berkeley waterfront. This plan called for 4.5 Million square feet of development. The Sierra Club along with Save the Bay and Golden Gate Audubon opposed this development. The Sierra Club put forward its own plan for the waterfront. This plan was called the Sierra Club Plan. The city adopted this plan and the voters ratified the Sierra Club plan as the governing plan for the waterfront in 1986 with a 65% vote. The Sierra Club Plan won more votes than a plan that called for even less development than Sierra Club. That plan got around 63% of the vote. The Sierra Club plan allowed for limited development on the area known as the North Basin Strip. It called for the preservation of Brickyard as unstructured open space and the preservation of the Meadow as a habitat area for wildlife because of its seasonal wetlands and rich wildlife values. The rival plan, which lost out to the Sierra Club plan, also called for preserving the Meadow and Brickyard for the same uses as the Sierra Club plan. Hence, Berkeley's voters clearly supported the preservation of these two areas as open space for wildlife habitat. After Santa Fe lost in Berkeley, it proposed a twin 18 story hotel for Emeryville. In 1987 the voters in Emeryville passed a citizen's initiative put forward by the Emeryville Shoreline Committee that called for zoning the Emeryville Crescent and the filled land next to it as open space with the preservation of the Emeryville Crescent as a protected wildlife habitat area. This initiative passed by 87%. The Sierra Club supported this initiative. At or around this same time, the Sierra Club with Save the Bay, Golden Gate Audubon and the Emeryville Shoreline Committee were successful in having the state exercise the public trust over the Emeryville Crescent as a wildlife habitat area and in keeping the Crescent off limits to any public access. The Bay Trail, for example, does NOT ran along or through the Crescent. Failing in Emeryville and Berkeley, Santa Fe turned its sights on Albany and proposed a 4 Million square foot development for the Golden Gate Fields race track and the plateau areas that it owned. As in Emeryville a group of Albany residents formed their own citizen's committee called the Albany Shoreline Committee. This group put an initiative on the ballot that required any change in the zoning for the Albany waterfront to be put to a vote of the people. The Sierra Club supported this initiative and opposed a rival measure that the City Council put on the ballot. The citizen's initiative won with around 85% of the vote. Santa Fe then withdrew its proposals for development and ultimately sold the Albany lands to Ladbroke racing. Albany later developed its own plan for the plateau and Albany bulb which Sierra Club understands will be presented to you by the City. In Richmond, the Sierra Club worked hard to create the trail that runs adjacent to the Hoffman marsh and has actively supported the acquisition of that marsh as wetlands for preservation within the Eastshore State Park. In the meantime, in 1985 the Sierra Club, again working with other groups and individuals helped form the Citizens for the Eastshore State Park. Norman La Force of the Sierra Club and Dwight Steele of Save the Bay were named the Co-Chairs of this organization and remain as co-chairs today. CESP has worked hard since its creation to create the Eastshore State Park. In 1988 the Bay Chapter allocated a full staff person and $30,000 to help gather 100,000 signatures to get the California Parks and Wildlife Bond Act on the ballot. This act provided $25,000,000 for acquisition of Santa Fe's lands for inclusion in the Eastshore State Park. The Chapter provided a similar effort a couple of years later when the East Bay Regional Park District put on the ballot is Measure AA, which provided $15,000,000 for acquisition of the East Bay shoreline lands. In the late 1980's Santa Fe held discussions with CESP. Dwight Steele, Norman La Force and Sylvia McLaughlin regularly met with Santa Fe representatives to discuss Santa Fe's sale of its lands to State Parks and/or the East Bay Regional Park District. Ultimately, it agreed to the sale and all of Santa Fe's filled and tidal lands in Emeryville, Berkeley, and Albany were sold to the State except for the lands that make up the Golden Gate Fields race track. Santa Fe sold those to Ladbroke as noted above. We are now at the stage for the planning for the Eastshore State Park
The Sierra Club has an admirable track record in helping to block inappropriate development along
the East Bay shoreline. These were massive projects in the millions of square feet, planned with little
concern for public access and open space preservation. I'm honored to have had the opportunity to
have had a small role in these efforts, the most lasting example of which is
an article I wrote for
the December '83 issue of the local sailing magazine "Latitude 38"
opposing the big Santa Fe project.
The Sierra Club also deserves an enormous amount of credit for helping to facilitate the public
acquisition of the lands for the Eastshore State Park. Sylvia Mclaughlin, Dwight Steele, Ed Bennet,
Norman La Force, the Lepowskys, among others, have indeed left an impressive legacy, and I'm sure
future generations will continue to see these names associated with various features of the park.
But is the Sierra Club fighting a war that they have already won? The park lands are now owned by
the State, large-scale developers no longer threaten, and the open space character of the shoreline is
secure. When the choices were open space or high-rise, it was easy to see which side was wearing the
white hats, and as a result there were ballot measures passing by margins as high as 87%.
The issues that face us now are not so clear.
The Sierra Club plan is an excellent outline for open space preservation and habitat protection. But
are these the only considerations that should drive the outcome of the plan? The range of debate has
shifted to issues like "active" versus "passive" recreation, to consideration of water-related uses and
facilities to support them, and to questions about the appropriate amount of parking to provide.
Differences of opinion have surfaced over programmatic design as well: Should there be facilities to
support use by non-profit organizations that might be in a position to provide valuable low-cost access
opportunities to specialized activities? Or should recreational opportunities all be geared to individual
users?
There are many right answers to these questions. The point here is that we are no longer fighting
a wholesale preemptive takeover of the waterfront. Instead we have multiple interest groups, all acting
in good faith, all believing that the public is best served by their own visions of the park.
The good news here is that relatively little compromise is required to accommodate this wide range
of uses. The compromises, if they can even be called that, will most likely be of the "95/95" variety.
That is, each party comes away from the table with 95% of what they want.
In this environment it's not necessary to use absolutes, and counter-productive to preclude anything
out of hand. We need to look carefully at the large-scale site plans, use good geographic,
environmental, and economic models, and think quantitatively. When we do this, I think we'll
see that just about everything can fit, and we can produce a plan that meets everyone's goals.
Actually I find fault with very little of the Sierra Club plan, as far as it goes. My suggested additions address
uses and interest groups that go beyond the core Sierra Club constituency - beyond the perceived
constituency, that is. I see considerable support among Sierra Club members, myself included, for a park that addresses
a very wide range of diverse recreational needs. III. SIERRA CLUB'S PLAN FOR THE EASTSHORE STATE PARKArea 1: The Emeryville CrescentThis is a rest area for birds on the Pacific flyway on their commute from the arctic to the antarctic. It is to be preserved as a wetland and protected wildlife habitat with extremely limited access. The Club debated long about the desirability for fencing off this area, but concluded that this would simply draw people to try to break through the fence. Hence, the area remains open, but with no developed access. The Club has opposed and will oppose any attempt to make this area more accessible. Signage needs to be put up to educate the public about the Crescent, its value as a protected area, and the reasons why access is limited. Area 2: The upland adjacent to the CrescentThis area should remain as undeveloped open space as an area adjacent to the Crescent. The existing sidewalk can and should be used for the Bay Trail.Area 3: Emeryville Shoreline north of the Peninsula to the Berkeley borderThis has been developed as a Bay Trail link. Nothing further needs to be done.Area 4: Berkeley's Frontage Road and Berkeley BeachThe Beach should be preserved for beach and fishing use. The Bay Trail needs to be developed in this area. The Frontage Road should be limited to one lane going North to allow the development of a usable Bay Trail and for automobile parking.Area 5: The BrickyardThe Club looks forward to the completion of the pedestrian overpass linking the Eastshore State Park with Berkeley's Aquatic Park. The Knapp use permit must be terminated, ending its earth parking activity. The tidal lands around the Brickyard are important areas for birds. Hence, the brickyard should be used for unstructured recreational use. The location of the current Sea Breeze market may be a good spot for a park building and interpretative center, with a food concession such as Sea Breeze also located there.One of the best shoreline walks in Berkeley is along the
dirt path that runs south along the west edge of the Brickyard Peninsula.
Try it at mid-morning in the summer, when a light westerly has come
up but it's not yet windy enough to be cold.
The light sea breeze, combined with the thickly vegetated rise down the spine of the peninsula, is
enough to almost completely suppress the freeway noise. When you round the point at the south end
and lose the noise barrier, the contrast is striking. This is a great example of how much the
North Basin Strip could be improved with a barrier berm between the freeway and the shoreline.
This is one area where a strict prohibition on dogs might be justified in view of the exceptionally varied
bird species.
The real problem with this shoreline is the edge treatment. Berkeley has about
seven miles of artificial rock armor shoreline,
and only about 1000-1200 feet of accessible high-tide beach. This includes
about 600 feet of beach at Shorebird Park.
The rocks are a great habitat for various species of rodents, but make it tough to do what many
people want to do most when they get to the shoreline: walk right up to the water's edge.
The Brickyard peninsula is an ideal candidate for "naturalization" of a few short stretches of
shoreline. It has a very isolated and natural feel, and there's probably enough wave action to form one
or more very small stable beaches, given some intelligent re-configuration of the rocks. This might
require a very small amount of net landfill, and BCDC would of course have to on board.
Seabreeze Market:
Although
Seabreeze Market
enjoys massive public support, it is not clear if they could successfully
compete for the right to run a concession in that location under State Park rules for competitive bids.
There might also be design standards for their structure that would seriously affect their operation.
Overwhelming consensus is to leave Seabreeze exactly as it is. This might be best facilitated by
turning ownership of the parcel they occupy back to the City of Berkeley. The fact that these tidelands remain an important area for birds is evidence of the
compatability between non-motorized watercraft and bird populations.
Perhaps one key element here is the seasonal fit: the most
critical species of ducks use the area in the winter, when watercraft use is minimal.
In any event, the South Sailing Basin's intense watercraft use, and the apparently negligible impact
on birds using the surrounding tidelands, suggest that some of the same uses in the North Sailing
Basin should not be opposed on the basis of bird habitat protection.
Stawberry Creek Reconfiguration:
Some interesting ideas have been put forward for the Brickyard tidelands over the years. One of
the more intriguing scenarious calls for redirecting Strawberry Creek so that it exits into the
tidal mudflat and cove to the
east of the Brickyard Peninsula. This cove would, over time, become a functional salt marsh, and
would serve as a filter to the creek's outflow.
This re-configuration would also allow a much more natural beach configuration to develop around
the area where the creek now exits the culvert.
Part of the re-directed creek could also be daylighted, making a smoother transition from creek to
wetland. The northwest corner of the meadow is an ideal location for facilities to support small
watercraft operation, especially those requiring
smooth and protected water.
It would be a perfect launch site for
dragon boats, for example. These 22-person canoes are
spectacularly efficient at getting large numbers of youth involved in an organized activity that's both
physically and culturally rewarding, and doing it at very low cost and with minimal environmental impact.
But the size of the boat storage and launch facility required for these and other types of non-
motorized watercraft is deceptively small. The entire South Sailing Basin complex - including the two
community sailing operations, clubhouses, boat storage yards, driveways, docks, and enough parking
to support it all, would take up less than 4% of the Meadow's land area. This could even be spread out
along the west half of Virginia Street, where the City has a de facto easement (the real easement is
inexplicably located underwater in the North Sailing Basin). But a more consolidated shape would
probably be a better design.
The remaining 96% of the Meadow should be treated as the Sierra Club proposes, with the possible
addition of strict dog controls in view of the importance of this area to birds. The major environmental detriment here is the close proximity to the freeway. One proposed
mitigating measure is to construct a
berm immediately to the west of frontage road. There's plenty of
room for this. For example, a relatively ambitious twelve foot high berm, which would be effectively even higher after
vegetation became established, would only take up 96 feet of width at a 4:1 slope. The width of the
North Basin Strip averages over 600 feet from the west edge of Frontage to the water.
This would dramatically improve the character of the east half of the North Basin Strip, and make
the area more suitable for playing fields and other assorted uses. The berm itself would form a kind of
natural bleacher for playing fields located immediately to the west.
Entry-level rowboats:
The North Basin Strip is a perfect launch site for low-performance entry-level rowboats. There
is a sublime attraction to floating on a docile body of water in a small boat, but it's something that many
people have difficulty gaining access to. Small boat sailing and windsurfing require a substantial
commitment of time and effort, and even kayaking is not accessible to the one-time visitor. Perhaps
the best-known model of this is the Central Park rental rowboat.
For operational reasons, it's best for a rowboat rental operation to be on the downwind side of the
body of water that it serves. The North Basin Strip is perfect.
Kayak access:
The North Basin Strip has also been identified as an appropriate place for kayak access. These
users require a break in the artificial rock shoreline in the form of a small beach or dock, and some
parking near the water. A bathroom and shower is ideal.
Edge treatment:
The same reasoning applies here as for the Brickyard. People want and need a place to
touch the water
with their toes. A small
off-leash dog beach
might be appropriate here as well. Of all the protected coves and inlets in the Eastshore State park, this is probably the one with the
least critical value as wildlife habitat, and the one with the most potential for human activity. This judgment is confirmed by the draft Resource Inventory distributed by the planning consultant in April 2001.
Furthermore, the diving ducks identified as being possibly threatened by watercraft activity are seasonal; they're
not there in the summer when watercraft use peaks. And If necessary, watercraft activity could be
curtailed during the most critical winter months. A similar strategy has been applied to Aquatic
Park, where water skiers can only operate during seasons that do not disrupt migratory birds.
It should also be noted that the draft Marina Plan and Waterfront Overview, a planning document
generated over the last two years by the City of Berkeley and now nearing completion, calls for small
boat launch facilities located on the northwest corner of the Meadow.
There is strong interest in improving the number of kayak launch sites along the East Bay
shoreline, and the North Sailing Basin is one of the suggested locations.
"North Basin Inlet," by the way, is a novel name for this body of water. It's officially called the
"North Sailing Basin," reflecting the original intent of the planners who mapped out the boundaries of
the City dump and landfill which became Cesar Chavez Park. "Ocean View Cove" or simply "North
Cove" have also been proposed as alternate names.
Although the park planning consultants were unable to participate, a private survey in April 2001 of
water depths in the North Sailing Basin shows very slow shoaling over the 30 year time interval for
which we have data. The conclusion is that the water depths will probably be suitable for small craft
operations for at least another 50 years, after which these operations will become increasingly
constrained by the need to schedule activities around the tide (as is common at many European small
craft venues). The Park that exists here should be integrated into the Eastshore State Park. The Club does not
oppose the continued use of this park as an unleashed dog exercise area, but stricter controls need to
be developed to protect the adjacent tidal lands and the Hoffman Marsh from the impacts of wandering
unleashed dogs.
The Club's only comment on this trail is that unleashed dog use has been observed where dogs get
into the Hoffman marsh. An education program with signage needs to be developed to make people
aware of the ecological values of the Hoffman marsh and the need to protect it from access.
The UC Field Station has one of the few, if not the only remaining untouched Bay upland habitats
left. This area should be acquired and put into the park so that it can be protected as a sensitive
wildlife area.
IV. OTHER PLANNING ISSUESA. ManagementThe Sierra Club has long advocated that the East Bay Regional Park District should manage the park after it is planned. The State and EBRPD must reach an agreement on this issue. Resolution of this issue depends on who will pay for management of the park. There are other examples of where the State and EBRPD have worked together, and they should be reviewed as a model for this park.This is not the usual model under which State Parks seems to operate. They can accommodate
commercial concessions, but
non-profits are fundamentally different
and require different kinds of
accommodation and support. It's an area in which park management needs work. Several economically feasible strategies are available to encourage alternatives. On-site storage
for small watercraft (windsurfers and kayaks) has proven to be extremely effective at the South Sailing
Basin. It allows the users to take mass transit to the site directly from work, for example, or to arrive by
bicycle. One 8' x 20' footprint, about the size of a single parking space, contains 15 sailboard lockers.
The Cal Sailing Club maintains
storage facilitiy for 45 private sailboards,
with a positive impact on
parking and traffic.
Small watercraft storage facilities
should be planned at all major access facilities.
Another interesting idea connects the entry-level rowboat rental on the North Basin Strip with the
serious parking shortage at Cesar Chavez Park. Visitors would leave their cars in a large parking lot
near the foot of Gilman Street, then row across the North Sailing Basin to a boat return dock at Cesar
Chavez. The Marina complex already has some of the characteristics of an island separated from
"mainland" Berkeley, and this method of access would strongly enhance this dynamic. D. Ferries
The Club is opposed to any development of a commuter ferry on the privately held lands that are
adjacent to the park such as at the foot of Gilman Street. Ferries are a poor use of scarce
transportation dollars, costing far more to subsidize than busses. A commuter ferry would have a
tremendous adverse environmental impact on the park, in terms of traffic congestion, air quality
impacts, and most importantly, impacts on waterbirds in the tidal lands adjacent to a ferry terminus.
The Club does not oppose a limited excursion ferry service to allow water access to the park.
There is no factual basis to support the statement that the Berkeley Marina is "underutilized,"
unless this refers to the failed Dock of the Bay restaurant or the underperforming Hs. Lordships
restaurant, which are irrelevant to the small craft issue. The berths are full, the South Sailing Basin launch area is crowded,
and there is no room to expand.
Furthermore, neither the marina nor the South Sailing Basin offer access to a large protected body
of water comparable to the North Sailing Basin. The North Sailing Basin is the only suitable location
within the park boundaries for entry-level rowing or dragon boat operation. While the South Sailing
Basin is superb for advanced sailing and windsurfing, the North Sailing Basin has much more potential
for paddling, rowing, and entry-level youth sailing. There is demand for better access to all of these
activities.
It is my personal experience, based on many years in a volunteer management position with the
Cal Sailing Club, that the market for this kind of access is essentially unlimited. Although only a fraction
of the population at large will ever show an interest in sailing, this fraction is orders of magnitude larger
than what a few sailing programs can accommodate. Even when Cal Adventures started up right next
door, offering very similar instructional and recreational sailing opportunities, Cal Sailing Club felt
virtually no ill effects from the supposed competition, and membership continued to grow rapidly during
that period. So the argument that "new facilities would only compete with the Berkeley Marina" is not
supported by the available data.
Seen in a regional context, there is a severe and deepening shortage of suitable sites for the
organized forms of paddling, e.g. dragon boats and
outrigger canoes. These two activities have
experienced explosive growth in the last few years, and all waterfronts will be under increasing
pressure to accommodate them. The non-profit club organizational structure that these activities
typically operate within usually includes a strong public service component. Taking advantage of what
these organizations have to offer is the best way to insure low-cost access to rewarding and
ecologically sound water-related activity.
The initial Eastshore State Park development budget probably will not include funds to build the
ideal launch and storage facilities for these groups. But if we are really serious about planning for the
future, and if we really care about low-cost public access, then these activities will be given a place on
the map.
Similarly, the planning process needs to analyze the commercial activities that could be promoted in
the Berkeley Marina property that would assist in providing restaurants and other business activities
that would be used by park visitors so that those facilities do not have to be duplicated in the park itself
Finally, the traffic patterns and impacts of the Berkeley Marina and Cesar Chavez Park must be
analyzed. Similarly, the park's traffic impacts need to be analyzed as they affect the Berkeley Marina.
There is also a need for a small beach within an off-leash area. This could be along the North Basin
Strip, probably best located near the northern boundary of park property where there will probably be
commercial development, and impact on bird populations will be minimized.
Leash laws can be difficult to enforce in a low-density park, and this will be especially true on the
Berkeley waterfront where there's a long history of laisez-faire. That's why the net result of
accommodating off-leash users is likely to be reduced disruption of birds and other wildlife. But doesn't the Sierra Club see anything positive in non-motorized watercraft? The Sierra Club plan
would result in a waterfront at which water-related activity ends with our eyes. We can look at the
water, but the Sierra Club plan results in a waterfront with no provision for actually touching the water,
and no support for activities that would allow more of us to float on it. V. CONCLUSIONSincerely yours, Norman La Force
None of the additional uses proposed here will have a serious impact on our common goals of open
space and habitat protection. I remain extremely optimistic that all the diverse interests can be
accommodated, and that this diversity will enhance the value of the Eastshore State Park for all of its users.
Paul Kamen
|