OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS

Transcription

1 OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS ALBANY BEACH RESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY EASTSHORE STATE PARK, CALIFORNIA January 14, 2011

2 OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS ALBANY BEACH RESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY Eastshore State Park, California Submitted to the: East Bay Regional Park District 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, California Prepared by: Philip Williams & Associates, Ltd. Environmental Hydrology 550 Kearny Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, California LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 157 Park Place Point Richmond, California LSA Project No. EBR1001 Kathy Boyer, Ph.D. Romberg Tiburon Center for Environmental Studies San Francisco State University 3152 Paradise Drive Tiburon, California Vallier Design Associates, Inc. 210 Washington Avenue, Suite G Point Richmond, California January 14, 2011

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION...1 BACKGROUND...1 ALBANY BEACH...1 RESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY...2 PURPOSE OF...3 OBJECTIVE 1 - RESTORATION AND EXPANSION...5 SUBTASK 1.1: DUNE, SANDY BEACH AND WETLAND HABITAT ENHANCEMENT...5 SUBTASK 1.2: DUNE, SANDY BEACH AND WETLAND EXPANSION...10 SUBTASK 1.3: SENSITIVE HABITAT PROTECTION...15 SUBTASK 1.4: ENHANCEMENT OF EELGRASS AND NATIVE OYSTER HABITAT...20 OBJECTIVE 2 - SHORELINE STABILIZATION AND ACCESS...26 SUBTASK 2.1: DEBRIS REMOVAL AND SHORELINE STABILIZATION...26 SUBTASK 2.2: WATER ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS...29 OBJECTIVE 3 - RECREATION IMPROVEMENTS...33 SUBTASK 3.1: SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS...33 SUBTASK 3.2: PARKING AND RESTROOM FACILITY DEVELOPMENT...35 SUBTASK 3.3: PICNIC FACILITY DEVELOPMENT AND INTERPRETIVE EXHIBITS...39 SUBTASK 3.4: AESTHETIC IMPROVEMENTS...42 CONSISTENCY WITH LOCAL PLANS AND POLICIES...46 REFERENCES...49 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: FIGURES Figure 1: Opportunities Figure 2: Constraints Figure 3: Opportunities and Constraints Detail of Albany Beach P:\EBR1001\Task 3 Opportunities and Constraints\Final Draft\Opp_and_Const_Final_Report.doc (01/14/11) i

4 INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND In 2002 the State of California classified 2,262 acres of uplands and tidelands with frontage on San Francisco Bay as a State Seashore and named the unit Eastshore State Park (Park). The Park consists of approximately 2,002 acres of tidelands and 260 acres of upland areas along a nine-mile stretch of the East Bay shoreline, between the City of Oakland on the south and the City of Richmond on the north. Eastshore State Park is jointly owned by the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation (CDPR) and East Bay Regional Park District (District). The District manages and operates the Park through an agreement with CDPR. As lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), CDPR certified a Final Environmental Impact Report and approved the Eastshore State Park General Plan in 2002 (General Plan). The General Plan establishes land uses and identifies potential improvements for the Park. The approved General Plan was the result of a 22-month planning process that included four stakeholder meetings followed by four regional workshops to incorporate public input. Stakeholders included agencies, landowners, businesses, user groups and environmental groups. ALBANY BEACH The General Plan designates zones to spatially define a management scheme for the Park. Albany Shoreline is one of five broad management zones with Albany Beach, located on the shoreline between the Albany Neck and Golden Gate Fields, as a sub-zone. Albany Beach is designated with a conservation area land use classification and the open waters have a recreation designation. Conservation Areas are areas whose natural habitat values will be protected and enhanced while accommodating lower intensity recreation that is compatible and dependant on those values. The management intent for this zone is to protect and enhance the habitat value of this area while enhancing public access. Guidelines specific to Albany Beach include the following: A-1: Protect the dune habitat at the Albany Beach by introducing boardwalks and/or fencing. Boardwalks should be designed to provide for wheelchair access. A-2: Restore the dune vegetation by removing noxious weeds (e.g., iceplant and Kikuyu grass) and planting locally native species that are adapted to this habitat, and explore the feasibility of re-introducing rare or endangered species that are native to the Bay Area, such as California seablite, San Francisco spineflower, and robust spineflower, to the dune area. A-3: A-4: A-5: Explore the feasibility of expanding the dune areas behind the beach. Protect and enhance eelgrass beds that exist off Albany Beach. Explore the possibility of these eelgrass beds being a possible mitigation site (i.e., a receiver site for mitigation from projects outside of the park project). Enhance beach/bay access for non-motorized watercraft by creating a vehicle drop-off and parking at the south end of the beach. Locate restroom facilities near the beach water access. P:\EBR1001\Task 3 Opportunities and Constraints\Final Draft\Opp_and_Const_Final_Report.doc (01/14/11) 1

5 In considering the entire area of Eastshore State Park, the General Plan highlights key issues, many of which are directly applicable to Albany Beach. Even ten years later, these issues continue to be discussed when considering appropriate improvements and facilities; they include: Habitat protection and enhancement Landscape character Local versus statewide interests Dogs in the park Art in the park Circulation and access Shoreline and Bay access Future land acquisitions The General Plan includes project-wide management goals and guidelines (e.g., Resource Management and Protection) to address the issues identified above. Those project-wide management goals and guidelines that are applicable to Albany Beach are referenced throughout this report. Management of specific areas is to adhere to appropriate project-wide goals and guidelines along with the specific area guidelines. Recognizing the passing of 10 years since the adoption of the General Plan, some new issues are now part of the general discussion of land use, resource protection, public access and the San Francisco Bay: Sea level rise and its potential impacts to circulation and recreation Increased attention and appreciation for enhancing native oyster and eelgrass habitat Sustainability as it extends to site design and the interrelatedness of shoreline processes and shoreline protection (a concept known as Living Shorelines ) Successful implementation of the San Francisco Bay Trail RESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY In 2010 the District contracted a team of consultants, led by LSA Associates, to prepare a Feasibility Study of restoration and public access improvements at Albany Beach. The goal of the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Feasibility Study (Feasibility Study) is to examine the feasibility of implementing improvements identified in the General Plan and to identify other required improvements. The overall objective of the Feasibility Study is to identify and conceptualize habitat restoration and public access improvements at Albany Beach, consistent with the vision of the adopted General Plan to include: Restoring and protecting Albany Beach and dune habitats Expanding dune areas behind the beach P:\EBR1001\Task 3 Opportunities and Constraints\Final Draft\Opp_and_Const_Final_Report.doc (01/14/11) 2

6 Installing compatible public access improvements and other park facilities Enhancing water access to San Francisco Bay Closing a key gap in the San Francisco Bay Trail The process for the Feasibility Study includes the following tasks: 1. Document existing and future conditions; prepare background and technical studies 2. Perform a constraints and opportunities analysis 3. Develop concept alternatives 4. Develop an implementation approach The Feasibility Study will help guide project development with the decision-making process and will provide preliminary drawings to use in developing future detailed construction plans. The Feasibility Study will also provide information needed to define a project description, consistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and support completion of future documents to comply with other laws or regulations necessary to approve, permit and construct the project. PURPOSE OF The Opportunities and Constraints Analysis is the second step in the Feasibility Study. The purpose of the Opportunities and Constraints Analysis is to translate the technical information gathered in the Existing and Future Conditions Report (the first step of the Feasibility Study) into an analysis of site opportunities and constraints to guide development of conceptual alternatives. The analysis identifies project goals and objectives, including potential uses and facilities, addresses potential restoration opportunities, and estimates the relative costs required to implement identified opportunities. Opportunities are identified to enhance natural features, processes and habitat, or to provide improved public access. Constraints indicate existing conditions that may prevent or complicate the fulfillment of identified goals to provide improved public access or to protect or restore natural features or processes. Report Organization Park improvement and restoration options are grouped and analyzed according to three common objectives: (1) Restoration and Expansion; (2) Shoreline Stabilization and Access; and (3) Recreation Improvements. Subtasks within these objectives identify the specific habitat, action or improvement to be analyzed (e.g., Dune Enhancement or Debris Removal). Each subtask includes a summary of relevant guidelines from the Eastshore State Park General Plan and other plans, where applicable (e.g., San Francisco Bay Trail Plan). These guidelines are followed by a discussion that addresses other parameters that must be considered to assess the feasibility of a restoration action or access improvement, such as permit requirements, physical materials requirements, or ecological requirements. The discussion is followed by a summary list of potential opportunities and constraints. In many instances the implementation action for a specific objective may duplicate an P:\EBR1001\Task 3 Opportunities and Constraints\Final Draft\Opp_and_Const_Final_Report.doc (01/14/11) 3

7 action recommended for another objective. Recognizing this overlap, gray shading indicates Opportunities and Constraints identified previously under one or more preceding subtasks. The analysis of each subtask concludes with an assessment of the potential costs associated with implementing the identified opportunities. These assessments are based on the consultant team s opinion of preliminary magnitude of costs, rather than quantified design-based estimates. Cost opinions approximate the cost of each opportunity at the pre-concept level of design. These preliminary costs do not account for costs associated with design development and final design, permitting or maintenance. Preliminary costs are subject to change as project alternatives are developed and more accurate information becomes available. A given opportunity is described as cost effective if the implementation costs are expected to be lower than the long-term management or maintenance costs that are likely to be incurred if the measure were not implemented. The Opportunities and Constraints Analysis, in both text and graphics, articulates potential improvements and potential obstacles to making these improvements to guide development of the conceptual project alternatives. Many issues are considered in the analysis, including physical processes, biological sensitivity, ecological function, accessibility, circulation, safety and aesthetics. Opportunities for improving habitat and public access at Albany Beach are identified in Figure 1, and constraints are identified in Figure 2. The study area boundary is identified in Figures 1 and 2. A detail of opportunities and constraints, focusing on the beach specifically and the area immediately surrounding the beach, is provided in Figure 3. All figures are located in Appendix A. P:\EBR1001\Task 3 Opportunities and Constraints\Final Draft\Opp_and_Const_Final_Report.doc (01/14/11) 4

8 OBJECTIVE 1 - RESTORATION AND EXPANSION SUBTASK 1.1: DUNE, SANDY BEACH AND WETLAND HABITAT ENHANCEMENT Albany beach supports a sandy beach, dune and back dune wetland system. These habitats are interconnected through the physical processes (shoreline, coastal, wind and hydrologic) that define and sustain them. The scale and character of the beach, dune and wetland habitats are driven by sand supply and transport, waves and storm water runoff within and adjacent to the site. Enhancement of the existing beach, dune and wetland habitats is feasible given the physical processes, existing property boundaries and resources on site. Relevant General Plan Guidelines Project-wide Guidelines The General Plan includes guidelines for the entire Park that are relevant to Albany Beach: PLANTS-8: As part of the planning and design process for area-specific projects, explore the possibility of enhancing existing wetlands through revegetation and control of exotic species and/or expansion of wetland areas. PLANTS-15: Minimize disturbance to sandy foredune areas and relatively undisturbed beaches. 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. Discussion Enhancement of the existing beach, dune and wetland habitats is feasible given the existing property boundaries and resources on site. Actions to maintain and enhance conditions of the beach, dunes and wetlands should be guided by a thorough understanding of the physical processes that define and sustain these features. In addition, the value and sustainability of beach, dune and wetland habitats at the site is enhanced by connectivity (physical and ecological) between the systems. Beach and dune enhancement and shoreline stabilization actions at Albany Beach provide opportunities to improve and expand existing habitat conditions while addressing anticipated changes associated with sea level rise and dynamic shoreline processes. Considering and designing for future conditions at the site will allow for the establishment and preservation of connected, sustainable and resilient ecosystem function while providing safe, engaging and low maintenance public access elements. Multi-functional measures for sustainable shoreline protection and habitat enhancement were introduced in the Existing and Future Conditions Report as Living Shorelines, a concept that has P:\EBR1001\Task 3 Opportunities and Constraints\Final Draft\Opp_and_Const_Final_Report.doc (01/14/11) 5

9 gained attention over the last decade in the field of coastal restoration. In addition, maintenance of the beach will serve to support goals addressing long-term erosion and flood management at the site. Detailed analyses will be required to establish a basis of design for habitat enhancement, shoreline stabilization measures and public access improvements in future phases of design. The basis of design for each project element should include functional, structural, biological, water quality and maintenance criteria that are consistent with the District s goals for the site. At a minimum, planning and design efforts should utilize accepted 2050 estimates for sea level rise and associated changes in shoreline processes. Adaptive measures in habitat restoration could help to determine responsive and integrative solutions for expanding and stabilizing beach and shoreline areas in the future. Opportunities for shoreline and public access enhancement are limited by a range of issues including available funding, regulatory jurisdictions and requirements and site conditions, characteristics and long-term maintenance. Opportunities Maintain a wide, broad sand zone: as documented in the Existing and Future Conditions Report (LSA et al. 2010), local physical processes control and maintain the character of the beach. The beach will transgress landward as sea level rises. The elevation of the beach berm will increase and move landward if a sufficient sand source is available. Under current sea level rise estimates and associated changes in shoreline processes the beach width at the site is expected to narrow significantly and the profile will steepen coincidentally unless a program for nourishment is developed. To maintain a broad sandy beach similar to the existing conditions at the site sand placement will be necessary. Sand placement activities could range from a one-time placement of a large volume of sand (3000 cubic yards, approximately) to episodic, as-needed placement of smaller volumes of sand (1000 cubic yards placed in 2- to 10-year intervals) over time. The timing and volume of sand placed at the beach at any given time needs to be based on a number of factors including estimated rates of shoreline transgression, desired beach dimensions and actual conditions of the dune and beach areas. Enhance beach by removing inorganic debris, pressure treated wood and creosote timber: develop a program for clean-up and removal of deleterious materials including creosote timbers scattered on the beach. A one time clean-up of the site to remove accumulated debris should be integrated with any existing on-going seasonal maintenance of the site. Limited, short-term impacts to the beach and dunes from removing the timber are considered insignificant, but may require minimal regrading of dune sand material and revegetation. No adverse long-term impacts to the dunes are anticipated by removal of the creosote timbers. Enhance existing dunes: remove non-native invasive plant species that out-compete and limit establishment of desired native plant species. Control and limit public access in appropriate areas of the dunes to allow for establishment of native vegetation and reduce erosion risk. Install sand fences and/or other structures to capture and retain sand at desired locations within the existing dune system. Revegetate to improve aesthetics and habitat: revegetate dune areas with appropriate native plant species to stabilize dunes and provide improved refuge and forage zones for native wildlife. Create native coastal/upland transition habitat: revegetate areas with appropriate native plant species to establish transitional habitats between shoreline and upland zones. Transitional habitat zones are an opportunity to complement and augment existing resources including animals, birds and insects that utilize the site. P:\EBR1001\Task 3 Opportunities and Constraints\Final Draft\Opp_and_Const_Final_Report.doc (01/14/11) 6

10 Connect to existing irrigation line: an above-ground publicly owned irrigation line located along Buchanan Street may be available for irrigation of native plantings at the dunes and wetlands. If a connection is feasible, a temporary irrigation system may be installed and operated for approximately two years to support establishment of planted or seeded vegetation. Enhance existing wetlands: remove non-native invasive plant species and accumulated debris; integrate wetland with overall site drainage system; provide buffer between parking area and wetland elements. Improve site drainage and water quality: direct surface runoff generated on the site through a system of bioswales or vegetated channels integrated with the existing back dune wetlands. Expansion of the wetland within the existing property boundary is an opportunity to increase storm water storage and passive treatment capacity. Define edge between dune/beach system and adjacent parking area: development of a vegetated or structural edge between the dunes and parking area is an opportunity to control public access, protect sensitive habitats and the transport of sand from the site. A defined edge will limit long-term maintenance requirements and help to secure substrates that are important for maintenance of habitat conditions. Incorporate multi-functional elements (i.e., Living Shorelines concepts) for habitat enhancement, bank stabilization, and sea level rise adaptation: develop structures that address critical project goals and provide multiple functions under existing and future conditions. Actions to stabilize and protect the shoreline should account for anticipated sea level rise and incorporate features that support desired habitat conditions such as native oysters and eelgrass. Monitor solutions for habitat and sea level rise adaptation and awareness: develop specific monitoring programs for habitat enhancement and shoreline protection measures to track efficacy under evolving conditions associated with sea level rise at the site. Project monitoring provides an opportunity to evaluate structures and adapt actions to maintain and enhance important habitat improvements, erosion control and shoreline protection measures. Monitoring efforts could be developed in partnership with other stakeholders to incorporate components to support public education on the effects of sea level rise and climate change. Constraints Permit requirements: placement of sand on the beach will require specific permits from regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over shoreline zones. Permits for placement of sand at Albany Beach will define limits and conditions for activities associated with sand placement including project area, access, site protection and mitigation. The agencies include but may not be limited to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Eelgrass preservation: the location and extent of sand placement is constrained somewhat by the goal of preserving existing eelgrass beds. Periodic sand movement and redistribution over eelgrass beds is observed elsewhere in San Francisco Bay with no apparent long term impact to the plants (Katharyn Boyer, personal observation). However, because the threshold of eelgrass to recover from sand deposition is not fully understood, the largest contiguous eelgrass beds should be avoided. Short-term P:\EBR1001\Task 3 Opportunities and Constraints\Final Draft\Opp_and_Const_Final_Report.doc (01/14/11) 7

11 impacts to the periphery and edges of some eelgrass beds are expected to be mitigated by habitat enhancement/expansion that results from sand placement. Construction impacts: placement of sand will require the mobilization and use of heavy equipment. Vehicle traffic and construction activities are anticipated to create temporary impacts to existing resources and habitats at the site; however, many of these impacts could be mitigated through a range of measures including best management practices, natural resource surveys, site protection and revegetation plans. Asphalt parking lot constrains dune expansion and wetland development: the existing Golden Gate Fields parking lot imposes an artificial boundary that limits natural evolution of the dunes and possible reconfiguration of the back dune wetland. The impervious asphalt surface concentrates storm water flows (time and volume) as well as sediment and potential pollution to the wetland. Eucalyptus grove: the existing eucalyptus grove limits native vegetation establishment and dune/wetland values. Chemical compounds in the leaf litter (allelopathy) and shade from the eucalyptus trees limit other plant species from establishing and thriving at the site. It is likely that the trees disproportionately limit groundwater availability for other plant and tree species in the area. In addition, the trees constrain potential grading limits to reconfigure and enhance the wetland zone. Exposed creosote timbers pose a potential public safety and ecological hazard: creosote in timber and wood materials distributed around the beach is a known toxin and presents potential risks from exposure. Human exposure to these pollutants can occur through inhalation, ingestion and skin contact. Creosote also compromises habitat values at the site by leaching into ground- and surface water, adversely affecting a range of fish and bird species that utilize the site for feeding and refuge. Beach/dune system limited by sand supply: sand supply limits the size and extent of the beach and dunes at the site. Limited sand supply will influence the long-term evolution of the beach and dunes as transport mechanisms (wave and wind) are affected by sea level rise and climate change. As discussed in the Existing and Future Conditions Report (LSA et al. 2010) the size and extent of the dunes is dependent on the availability of sand transported from the dry and sandy beach. Based on sea level rise estimates, the area of dry, sandy beach will decrease, and cause the dunes to decrease in size over time without sand placement/nourishment actions. Degradation of the dunes will also increase the potential volume of sand deposited in the adjacent parking and paved areas, increasing maintenance costs. Non-native vegetation constrains habitat diversity and values: non-native plant species are not utilized by native animals and insects for refugia and foraging to the same extent as native plants. Non-native species typically out compete native species due to more aggressive rates of establishment and propagation. Dogs: off-leash dogs may impact the success of dune and wetland habitat enhancement. Dog waste, trampling and digging could impact vegetation establishment and aesthetic values in enhanced areas. Availability of irrigation water: connecting to the existing irrigation line at Buchanan Street is not a practical approach to irrigating native coastal scrub plantings at Fleming Point because the site is more than 2,000 linear feet from the existing irrigation line. The distance from the existing irrigation line may make irrigation of other revegetated areas infeasible as well. If necessary, temporary irrigation systems using portable tanks could be installed. Operations capacity limits options: funding for staffing, operations, maintenance, and law enforcement limits the range of restoration options. P:\EBR1001\Task 3 Opportunities and Constraints\Final Draft\Opp_and_Const_Final_Report.doc (01/14/11) 8

12 Vandalism and theft constrain design solutions: plantings, fencing, signage and water supply are vulnerable to vandalism. Public opposition to limits on access: in practice, if not in law, the public currently has unrestricted use of the entire study area and may oppose options that limit access to dunes or wetlands. Costs Dune, Sandy Beach and Wetland Habitat Enhancement Costs for beach, dune and wetland enhancement will range widely based primarily on the scope, scale of and design approach for the work for each of the elements. Preliminary costs are subject to change as project alternatives are developed and more accurate information becomes available. For example, beach maintenance and sand placement activities at Albany Beach may range from a minimum of $20,000 for limited grading and recontouring of the beach to a maximum of $300,000 for comprehensive sand placement efforts. Factors that will influence costs include, but are not limited to, the size and/or extent of the project, off haul and disposal fees (debris, timbers, etc.), mobilization, construction access and methods and maintenance requirements. Based on goals for habitat enhancement, erosion and shoreline protection, costs for the suggested beach and dune enhancement actions are anticipated to be relatively high. Construction costs in shoreline and subtidal areas are also influenced by environmental conditions and requirements for resource protection. In addition, longterm maintenance and debris collection as well as management of non-native plant species will be necessary to sustain and protect native plant populations and is a cost-intensive commitment of labor. Costs for beach, dune and wetland enhancement efforts are associated with a variety of activities including implementation, maintenance and, potentially, monitoring. Many of these measures are considered to be cost effective based on long-term function and benefits. Habitat enhancement and shoreline protection actions will provide ecosystem services and benefits for flood protection, water quality and overall site enhancement in the near term; however, projects that do not account for sea level rise and site evolution are anticipated to require significant additional commitments and resources for maintenance and repair activities over time. Long-term costs for maintenance and repairs resulting from events associated with sea level rise (erosion and flooding) should be considered when evaluating opportunities and constraints for beach, dune and wetland enhancement. Revegetation costs will vary depending on the conditions of a given planting area, including topography, ease of access, availability of irrigation water, and whether the soil is nutrient poor or resistant to digging. In the absence of a planting plan, revegetation costs are typically estimated on the basis of square footage. The first treatment of non-native vegetation removal in preparation for planting may cost $10 per square foot, excluding costs of hauling plant material off site. Installation of native plants may cost $5 per square foot, including soil preparation, hydroseed application and/or installation of plant material grown in small sized containers (1 gallon or smaller), and mulch application around plantings. Installation of a temporary irrigation system may cost $1 per square foot; this includes installation and two years of operating a drip or spray system connected to a portable tank or to the existing irrigation line under Buchanan Street. Post-construction weed management may cost $1 per square foot per year in easily accessible areas with sandy soil (i.e., where easier to remove weeds) and $3 per square foot per year in less accessible areas with tougher soil. P:\EBR1001\Task 3 Opportunities and Constraints\Final Draft\Opp_and_Const_Final_Report.doc (01/14/11) 9

13 SUBTASK 1.2: DUNE, SANDY BEACH AND WETLAND EXPANSION Expansion of the existing beach, dune and wetland habitats is feasible given the physical processes that influence the site; however, an adjacent privately owned 2.8-acre parcel must be acquired to accommodate expansion. Future anticipated evolution of the site related to sea level rise and dynamic coastal processes provides a basis for developing and evaluating future actions. Actions to expand the beach, dunes, and wetlands should be guided by a thorough understanding of the physical processes that currently define and will sustain these features in the future. At a minimum, planning and design efforts should utilize accepted 2050 estimates for sea level rise and associated changes in shoreline processes. In its current configuration the sandy beach and dune system is expected to transgress landward with sea level rise. Evolution of the site will lead to a distinctly different beach that is expected to be steeper and narrower than the existing beach. The beach, dune and wetland features are integral and related elements of a functional ecosystem and should be considered and developed as a unit. A series of discrete actions and long-term management programs will be required to successfully expand and sustain the beach, dune and wetlands as shoreline processes and conditions shift in combination with sea level rise. Relevant General Plan Guidelines Project-wide Guidelines The General Plan includes guidelines for the entire Park that are relevant to Albany Beach: PLANTS-8: As part of the planning and design process for area-specific projects, explore the possibility of enhancing existing wetlands through revegetation and control of exotic species and/or expansion of wetland areas. Albany Beach Guidelines Guideline A-3: Explore the feasibility of expanding the dune areas behind the beach. Albany Neck/Bulb Guidelines Guideline A-15: Explore options for enhancing the safety, aesthetic, structural and habitat conditions along the south shoreline of the Albany Neck, including the following: - Consider and balance necessary structural function and potential habitat enhancements - Consider creation of small pocket beaches (shallower profile shoreline) within this straight section to increase sand and gravel beach habitat as well as recreational access Discussion Actions to expand beach, dunes and wetlands should be guided by a thorough understanding of the physical processes that define and sustain these features. In addition, the value and sustainability of beach, dune and wetland habitats at the site is enhanced by physical and ecological connections between the systems. P:\EBR1001\Task 3 Opportunities and Constraints\Final Draft\Opp_and_Const_Final_Report.doc (01/14/11) 10

14 Beach and dune expansion and associated shoreline stabilization actions at Albany Beach provide opportunities to improve and expand existing habitat conditions while addressing anticipated changes associated with sea level rise and dynamic shoreline processes. Many actions recommended for beach and dune enhancement above are also suggested for beach and dune expansion. Considering and designing for future conditions at the site will allow for the establishment of connected, sustainable and resilient ecosystem function while providing safe, engaging and low maintenance public access elements. In addition, maintenance of the beach will serve to support goals addressing long-term erosion and flood management at the site. Detailed analyses will be required to establish a basis of design for habitat enhancement and expansion, shoreline stabilization measures and public access improvements in future phases of design. In most cases, approaches to expand beach, dune and wetland areas can be integrated with habitat enhancement and public access features to provide multiple benefits. Evaluation of future conditions for appropriate shoreline protection and public access elements will require consideration of current land use patterns, existing habitats, goals for habitat expansion, near term and future tidal environments associated with sea level rise and site protection including flooding. The basis of design for each project element should include functional, structural, biological, water quality and maintenance criteria that are consistent with the District s goals for the site. At a minimum, planning and design efforts should utilize accepted 2050 estimates for sea level rise and associated changes in shoreline processes. Adaptive measures in habitat restoration could help to determine responsive and integrative solutions for expanding and stabilizing beach and shoreline areas in the future. Opportunities for beach, dune, and wetland expansion are limited by a range of issues including: available funding, regulatory jurisdictions and requirements, site conditions/characteristics, and long-term maintenance. Opportunities Expand beach by removing inorganic debris, pressure treated wood and creosote timber: develop a program for clean-up and removal of deleterious materials including creosote timbers scattered on the beach. A one time clean-up of the site to remove accumulated debris should be integrated with any existing on-going seasonal maintenance of the site. Limited, short-term impacts to the beach and dunes of removing the timber are considered insignificant, and may require minimal regrading of dune sand material and revegetation. No adverse long-term impacts to the dunes are anticipated by removal of the creosote timbers. Enhance and expand existing dunes: remove non-native invasive plant species that out-complete and limit establishment of desired native plant species. Control and limit public access in appropriate areas of the dunes to allow for establishment of native vegetation and to reduce erosion risk. Install sand fences and/or other structures to capture and retain sand at desired locations within the existing dune system. Expand dunes onto a portion of the adjacent 2.8-acre parcel: expand dunes through an integrated plan to establish a wide and high beach which dries out and generates sufficient volumes of wind blown sand to seed and support formation of new dunes. As documented in the Existing and Future Conditions Report (LSA et al. 2010) the size and location of dunes is dependent on the availability of dry beach sand. Therefore, expansion of the dunes further landward onto a portion of the adjacent 2.8-acre parcel would require removal of pavement and additional beach nourishment to provide a source of fine sand. Measures such as installing sand fences and planting vegetation are recommended to help capture and stabilize mobilized sand, consistent with the overall project P:\EBR1001\Task 3 Opportunities and Constraints\Final Draft\Opp_and_Const_Final_Report.doc (01/14/11) 11

15 program and design. The dune field could be expanded immediately by importing and placing fill to extend topographic features and conditions within the anticipated future dune field. Construction would accelerate establishment and definition of the dune field but the dunes would rely on the sand supply and transport from the beach to sustain desired habitats. The presence of a developed dune field decreases the amount of wind-blown sand onto adjacent properties and paved parking areas, and therefore reduces potential maintenance costs. Expand and enhance existing wetlands: grade larger wetland zone. Remove non-native invasive plant species and accumulated debris; integrate wetland with overall site drainage system; provide buffer between parking area and wetland elements. Improve site drainage and water quality: direct surface runoff generated on the site through a system of bioswales or vegetated channels integrated with the existing back dune wetlands. Expansion of the wetland beyond the existing property boundary is an opportunity to increase storm water storage and passive treatment capacity. Define edge between dune/beach system and adjacent parking area: development of a vegetated or structural edge between the dunes and parking area is an opportunity to control public access, protect sensitive habitats and the transport of sand off of the site. A defined edge will limit long-term maintenance requirements and help to secure substrates that are important for maintenance of habitat conditions. Incorporate multi-functional elements (i.e., Living Shorelines concepts) for habitat enhancement, bank stabilization, and sea level rise adaptation: develop structures that address critical project goals and provide multiple functions under existing and future conditions. Actions to stabilize and protect the shoreline should account for anticipated sea level rise and incorporate features that support desired habitat conditions such as native oysters and eelgrass. Connect to existing irrigation line: an above-ground publicly owned irrigation line located along Buchanan Street may be available for irrigation of native plantings at habitat enhancement areas in the dunes and wetlands. If a connection is feasible, a temporary irrigation system could be installed and operated for approximately two years to support establishment of planted or seeded vegetation. Place sand offshore to nourish beach and dunes: placement of sand shoals in offshore areas can provide long-term sand supply for both beach nourishment and coincident dune expansion processes. In addition a long-term sand supply will support passive evolution and transgression of the broad, sandy beach which is an important element for passive shoreline erosion and flood protection. The elevation of the beach berm will increase and move landward if a sufficient sand source is available. Under current sea level rise estimates and associated changes in shoreline processes the beach width at the site is expected to narrow significantly and the profile will steepen coincidentally unless a program for nourishment is developed. To maintain a broad sandy beach similar to the existing conditions at the site sand placement will be necessary. Offshore sand placement activities could range from creation of a large sand shoal (5000 cubic yards, approximately) to a series of smaller shoal features (1000 cubic yards each placed in specific locations). The timing, volume and configuration of offshore sand placement at any given time needs to be based on a number of factors including estimated rates of shoreline transgression, subtidal habitat conditions and values, desired beach dimensions and actual conditions of the dune and beach areas. Monitor solutions for habitat and sea level rise adaptation and awareness: develop specific monitoring programs for habitat enhancement and shoreline protection measures to track efficacy under evolving conditions associated with sea level rise at the site. Project monitoring provides an opportunity to P:\EBR1001\Task 3 Opportunities and Constraints\Final Draft\Opp_and_Const_Final_Report.doc (01/14/11) 12

16 evaluate structures and adapt actions to maintain and enhance important habitat improvements, erosion control and shoreline protection measures. Monitoring efforts could be developed in partnership with other stakeholders to incorporate components to support public education on the effects of sea level rise and climate change. Integrate multi-jurisdictional boundaries and site management programs: the function and sustainability of Albany Beach is influenced and potentially enhanced by land use and physical conditions adjacent to the site. Coordination between the multiple jurisdictions that control and define the site presents an opportunity for integrated planning and management programs that support more comprehensive resource enhancement actions and sustainable, regional scale solutions for shoreline protection, habitat enhancement and public access. Identification of shared goals between the District, City of Albany, State Parks and Recreation and private owners as well as appropriate regulatory/resource agencies should inform long-term planning. Provide accessible route to beach: a major barrier to beach use for persons with mobility impairments is the difficulty of traversing sandy soil. California State Park accessibility guidelines call for at least one permanent beach access route for every half-mile of linear shoreline (99AG ). Beach and shore access includes accessible routes to and across the surface of a beach or shore, but not necessarily to the edge of the water. Occasionally, beach mats, boardwalks or paved multi-use trails along the beach provide some access. Weather conditions, such as blown sand or heavy rain, may sometimes impact accessibility. Because supporting facilities such as parking and restrooms are to be accessible, an accessible path from the parking areas to and along the beach access routes should be considered. A path that is level, firm, and stable would provide access to the shoreline for persons with disabilities. Constraints Permit requirements: placement of sand offshore will require specific permits from regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over nearshore and shoreline zones. Permits for placement of sand at Albany Beach will define limits and conditions for activities associated with sand placement including project area, access, site protection and mitigation. The agencies include but may not be limited to NOAA, BCDC, RWQCB, and USACE. Construction impacts: placement of sand will require the mobilization and use of heavy equipment. Vehicle traffic and construction activities are anticipated to create temporary impacts to existing resources and habitats at the site; however, many of these impacts could be mitigated through a range of measures including natural resource surveys and site protection plans. Asphalt parking lot constrains dune expansion and wetland development: the existing Golden Gate Fields parking lot imposes an artificial boundary that limits natural evolution of the dunes and possible configuration of the back dune wetland. The impervious asphalt surface concentrates storm water flows (time and volume) as well as sediment and potential pollution to the wetland. Eucalyptus grove: the existing eucalyptus grove limits native vegetation establishment and dune/wetland expansion. Chemical compounds in the leaf litter (allelopathy) and shade from the eucalyptus trees limit other plant species from establishing and thriving at the site. It is likely that the trees disproportionately limit groundwater availability for other plant and tree species in the area. In addition the trees constrain potential grading limits to reconfigure and enhance the wetland zone. P:\EBR1001\Task 3 Opportunities and Constraints\Final Draft\Opp_and_Const_Final_Report.doc (01/14/11) 13

17 Exposed creosote timbers pose a potential public safety and ecological hazard: creosote in timber and wood materials distributed around the beach is a known toxin and presents potential risks from exposure. Human exposure to these pollutants can occur through inhalation, ingestion and skin contact. Creosote also compromises habitat values at the site by leaching into ground- and surface water, adversely affecting a range of fish and bird species that utilize the site for feeding and refuge. Beach/dune system limited by sand supply: sand supply limits the size and extent of the beach and dunes at the site. Limited sand supply will influence the long-term evolution of the beach and dunes as transport mechanisms (wave and wind) are affected by sea level rise and climate change. Non-native vegetation constrains habitat diversity and values: non-native plant species are not utilized by native animals and insects for refugia and foraging to the same degree as native plants. Non-native species typically out compete native species due to more aggressive rates of establishment and propagation. Dogs: off-leash dogs may impact the success of dune and wetland habitat enhancement. Dog waste, trampling and digging could impact vegetation establishment and aesthetic values in enhanced areas. Limited available bathymetric data constrains habitat characterization and assessments: thorough understanding of existing subtidal conditions and development of appropriate, feasible and successful approaches for habitat enhancement and shoreline protection is constrained by limited data on the depth of the water. Multi-jurisdictional boundaries and site management priorities: the site is defined by multiple agency, municipality and private property ownership. Alternatives for habitat enhancement and expansion, shoreline protection and public access improvements are constrained by property lines that are not necessarily consistent with the physical processes that occur on and influence the site. Property ownership and separate planning processes and timelines: multiple property owners that control or define the site limit broader planning assessments and development of comprehensive alternatives. Costs Dune, Sandy Beach, and Wetland Expansion Costs for beach, dune and wetland expansion will range widely based primarily on the scope, scale of and design approach for the work for each of the elements. Preliminary costs are subject to change as project alternatives are developed and more accurate information becomes available. For example, costs for beach and dune expansion that are accomplished through direct implementation of desired conditions and features (placement of sand on beach, asphalt removal, construction of dunes to augment existing dunes) could range significantly from $500,000 to $1 million while costs for a more passive program based on sand nourishment (offshore and beach placement, asphalt removal) and establishment of the anticipated future beach and dune field over time could range from $750,000 to $1.5 million. Many of these measures are considered to be cost effective based on long-term function and benefits. Factors that will influence costs include, but are not limited to, the size and/or extent of the project, off haul and disposal fees (asphalt, timbers, etc.), materials, construction access and methods and maintenance requirements. Wetland expansion will involve integration with overall site grading and drainage to support the desired back dune wetland environment. Based on goals for habitat enhancement, erosion and shoreline protection, costs for the suggested beach and dune expansion actions are anticipated to be relatively high. Construction costs in shoreline and subtidal areas are also influenced by environmental conditions and requirements for resource protection. P:\EBR1001\Task 3 Opportunities and Constraints\Final Draft\Opp_and_Const_Final_Report.doc (01/14/11) 14

18 Construction costs can be reduced through balancing earthwork (cut and fill) volumes by integrating project program and design elements. In addition, long-term maintenance and debris collection as well as management of non-native plant species will be necessary to sustain and protect native plant populations and is a cost-intensive commitment. Revegetation and weed management costs are discussed under Subtask 1.1. Expanded beach, dune and wetlands provide ecosystem services and benefits for flood protection, water quality, and overall site enhancement at relatively low maintenance costs. The long-term benefits of adaptive planning to integrate habitat values with site protection and public access improvements increase the potential value of these actions for beach, dune, and wetland expansion. SUBTASK 1.3: SENSITIVE HABITAT PROTECTION Sensitive habitats in the study area include sandy beaches, dunes, seasonal wetlands, native coastal scrub, rocky intertidal shoreline, water bird roosting sites, and the shallow waters of San Francisco Bay. All of these habitats on site, with the possible exception of the shallow waters, are degraded in quality and would benefit from active enhancement measures as well as protection from further disturbance. Active enhancement measures include but are not limited to debris clean-up, sand nourishment, exotic vegetation removal and native species revegetation, shoreline stabilization, and public access design. Relevant General Plan Guidelines Project-wide Guidelines The General Plan includes guidelines for the entire Park that are relevant to Albany Beach: PLANTS-15: Minimize disturbance to sandy foredune areas and relatively undisturbed beaches. WILDLIF-1: Provide long-term protection for the existing upland and non-tidal wetland habitat within designated preserves and conservation areas, and minimize impacts on these areas due to development of trails and other park facilities. WILDLIF-3: To the extent feasible, locate visitor-serving facilities in areas already subject to considerable disturbance or of low resource value in order to minimize disturbance to existing habitat areas. WILDLIF-11: Disturbance to wildlife will be minimized by restricting access by people and dogs to sensitive wetland and upland habitat areas. 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. P:\EBR1001\Task 3 Opportunities and Constraints\Final Draft\Opp_and_Const_Final_Report.doc (01/14/11) 15

19 Albany Beach Guidelines The General Plan includes guidelines specific to Albany Beach that are relevant to sensitive habitat protection: Guideline A-1: Protect the dune habitat at the Albany Beach by introducing boardwalks and/or fencing. Guideline A-2: Restore the dune vegetation by removing noxious weeds (e.g., ice plant and Kikuyu grass) and planting locally native species that are adapted to this habitat, and explore the feasibility of re-introducing rare or endangered species that are native to the Bay Area, such as California seablite, San Francisco spineflower, and robust spineflower, to the dune area. Albany Neck/Bulb Guidelines Guideline A-12: Protect and enhance upland wildlife habitat at the Albany Bulb, Albany Neck, and northern and eastern perimeter of Albany Plateau (the conservation areas). Enhance the upland scrub habitat by removing noxious weeds and planting locally native species. East Bay Regional Park District Master Plan The East Bay Regional Park District Master Plan requires that plant and animal pests, including nonnative vegetation, be controlled by using integrated pest management (IPM) procedures and practices adopted by the Board of Directors. Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals The San Francisco Bay Area Wetlands Ecosystem Goals Project prepared a report of habitat recommendations intended to be a guide for restoring and improving the baylands and adjacent habitats of the San Francisco Estuary. Protection of sensitive habitats within the Albany Beach study area is compatible with the Habitat Goals (Goals Project 1999). As designated by the Goals Project, Albany Beach is located in the Central Bay Subregion, with the following relevant recommendations: Shallow subtidal habitats (including eelgrass beds) should be protected and enhanced. Even the smallest restoration efforts should try to incorporate transitions from intertidal habitats to adjacent uplands, as well as upland buffers. Shoreline [bird] roosting sites should be protected and enhanced. Draft Subtidal Habitat Goals The San Francisco Bay Subtidal Habitat Goals Project is developing a report of habitat recommendations intended to guide restoration, science and management in and around the San Francisco Bay with the goal of achieving a net improvement over the next 50 years of the Bay s subtidal ecosystem. Six habitat types are being considered by this project: P:\EBR1001\Task 3 Opportunities and Constraints\Final Draft\Opp_and_Const_Final_Report.doc (01/14/11) 16

20 Soft substrates Rock Artificial substrates Shellfish beds Submerged aquatic vegetation beds (including eelgrass) Macroalgal beds A Draft Report of the Subtidal Goals Project was released on June 16, 2010 for public comment. A final report had not been adopted at the time of this writing; however, consistency with the upcoming adopted report is a goal of the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Feasibility Study because the study area includes at least the first five of the six habitat types being considered by the Subtidal Goals Project. Discussion The primary threats to sensitive habitats in the study area are disturbance from public access (e.g., people and dogs) and sea level rise. Under existing conditions, the shoreline, beach and dunes have little or no room to adapt (move landward) in response to sea level rise. Protection of sensitive habitats within the Albany Beach study area will require protection measures that can be implemented immediately (e.g., fencing, signage) in combination with long-term approaches for managing these habitats over time with respect to sea level rise conditions (e.g., expansion, stabilization). Opportunities for preservation and protection of many of the sensitive habitats at Albany Beach are directly linked to suggested actions for shoreline protection (see Subtask 2.1) and beach, dune and wetland expansion (see Subtask 1.2). Constraints to habitat protection also are tied to anticipated sea level rise which may inundate and shift habitat zones. In addition, measures to adapt the site for sea level rise conditions and stabilize the shoreline may disturb or impact existing habitats, even if temporarily. The effects of short-term impacts must be analyzed against the potential effects of longterm impacts. Opportunities Create focused access points to the beach and the water: fencing that excludes dogs and people from sensitive habitat but does not obscure habitat from view or trap or exclude wildlife can protect dune and wetland enhancement and expansion. Boardwalk trails that prevent compaction and restrict access to a designated route can protect these habitats from disturbance. Designated water access should help limit impacts to subtidal habitats (i.e., eelgrass beds) by non-motorized watercraft. Install signage at designated access points: display rules and regulations to protect sensitive shoreline habitats and organisms and interpret natural resources to encourage the public to participate in the protection of these resources. Expand rocky intertidal zone landward: if additional property south of Albany Beach were acquired, the rocky intertidal zone along the south shoreline could be expanded landward to protect this habitat from being submerged as sea level rises. If this zone is expanded to a longer, more gradual slope the intertidal organisms could adapt to rising water by moving higher up the rocky substrate. P:\EBR1001\Task 3 Opportunities and Constraints\Final Draft\Opp_and_Const_Final_Report.doc (01/14/11) 17

21 Stabilize eroding shoreline: stabilization of eroding shorelines is an opportunity to limit sedimentation and degradation of sensitive habitats. Improve stormwater drainage and trail surface: regrade the trail on the southern slope of the Neck to improve drainage and sediment control, direct surface runoff generated on the trail system to bioswales or vegetated channels for improved percolation and on-site treatment. Enhance remnant native coastal scrub at Fleming Point: remove invasive, non-native plant species and revegetate with site specific plant material propagated from existing remnant native coastal scrub. Trailside fencing associated with the new Bay Trail extension would also help protect this habitat from disturbance. Preserve and enhance remnant concrete or rock pier pilings and rubble that serve as roosting habitat for birds and substrate for aquatic organisms: the remains of two derelict piers just north of Fleming Point consist of structures that provide habitat for algae, invertebrates, and fish below the water, as well as perching or roosting habitat for birds above the water. Their function and habitat value could be enhanced by incorporating complementary restoration actions in adjacent areas, such as enhancing or expanding the rocky intertidal shoreline adjacent to the old piers. Trailside fencing associated with the new Bay Trail connection would also help protect these habitats from disturbance. Connect to existing irrigation line: an above-ground publicly owned irrigation line located along Buchanan Street may be available for irrigation of native plantings at habitat enhancement areas in the dunes and wetlands. If a connection is feasible, a temporary irrigation system could be installed and operated for approximately two years to support establishment of planted or seeded vegetation. Constraints Permit requirements: placement of sand and/or rock in the Bay will require specific permits from regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over nearshore and shoreline zones. Permits for placement of sand or rock at Albany Beach will define limits and conditions for activities associated with fill placement including project area, access, site protection and mitigation. These agencies include but may not be limited to NOAA, BCDC, RWQCB, and USACE. Absence of fencing and designated access points to the beach: the dunes and wetlands are unprotected from disturbance and trampling by people and dogs. The existing high use of the site by people and dogs constrains the success of habitat enhancement/restoration, including re-introduction of rare plant species such as San Francisco spineflower, robust spineflower and California sea-blite. Protection of aquatic habitats is limited by logistics: protection of aquatic habitats, such as eelgrass beds or the old pier pilings used as roosting habitat by birds, is difficult to provide in the form of a physical barrier such as fencing. Protection of these resources may be limited to interpretive and regulatory signage on land. Existing paved areas on the Golden Gate Fields property: expansion eastward of the dunes, seasonal wetlands, rocky intertidal zone and sandy beach habitats is constrained by the hard surface, precluding the protection of these habitats from the effects of sea level rise. Property ownership: expansion eastward of the dunes, seasonal wetlands and rocky intertidal zone will not be possible without property acquisition. Acquisition of the 2.8-acre parcel east of the beach would accommodate eastward expansion of the dunes and seasonal wetlands; however, only a limited length of rocky intertidal zone south of the dunes could be expanded and protected from rising sea P:\EBR1001\Task 3 Opportunities and Constraints\Final Draft\Opp_and_Const_Final_Report.doc (01/14/11) 18

22 level. To expand landward and protect the rocky intertidal zone that is located south of the dunes, additional property acquisition would be required. Consider or protect viewshed: revegetation with native plants is constrained by the need to protect the viewshed. Trees and tall shrubs should not be planted where they will obstruct views. Redundant trail system constrains restoration opportunities: parallel trails (upper and lower) along the Albany Neck occupy a substantial area, constraining habitat enhancement opportunities and increasing sedimentation and erosion risk due to the excessive area of unvegetated exposed surface. Potential historic resources at Fleming Point Pier constrain modification: legal requirements for protection of historical resources under CEQA and historic properties under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act may constrain possible actions and areas to reconfigure the shoreline for habitat enhancement objectives. The significance of the pier s association with Golden Gate Fields has not been analyzed, and further study of this structure s significance should be performed prior to park improvements at this location. If this study determines the pier to be of historical significance in relation to the racetrack, it may constrain restoration and public access improvements unless adverse effects to the pier are mitigated. Non-native vegetation constrains habitat diversity and values: non-native plant species are not utilized by native animals and insects for refugia and foraging to the same degree as native plants. Non-native species typically out compete native species due to more aggressive rates of establishment and propagation. Managing non-native plant infestations is a long-term effort that is labor- and costintensive. Eucalyptus grove: the eucalyptus grove constrains native vegetation establishment and dune/wetland expansion. Chemical compounds in the leaf litter (allelopathy) and shade from the eucalyptus trees limit other plant species from establishing and thriving at the site. It is anticipated that the trees disproportionately limit groundwater availability for other plant and tree species in the area. The trees limit potential grading limits to reconfigure and enhance the wetland zone. Availability of irrigation water: connecting to the existing irrigation line at Buchanan Street is not a practical approach to irrigating native coastal scrub plantings at Fleming Point because the site is more than 2,000 linear feet from the existing irrigation line. The distance from the existing irrigation line may make irrigation of other revegetated areas infeasible as well. If necessary, temporary irrigation systems using portable tanks could be installed. Operations capacity limits options: funding for staffing, operations, maintenance and enforcement limits range of options. Vandalism and theft constrain design solutions: irrigation lines, plantings, fencing and water supply are vulnerable to vandalism. Public opposition to limits on access: in practice, if not by law, the public currently has unrestricted use of the entire study area and may oppose options that limit access to dunes, wetlands or other habitat. Costs Sensitive Habitat Protection Designating and directing public access to and through the study area is an effective and financially feasible approach to protecting sensitive habitats. The costs for installing and maintaining fences, boardwalks and signs should be similar to other shoreline park projects that have been implemented P:\EBR1001\Task 3 Opportunities and Constraints\Final Draft\Opp_and_Const_Final_Report.doc (01/14/11) 19

23 in recent years; however, preliminary costs are subject to change as project alternatives are developed and more accurate information becomes available. Creating designated water access involving construction of a ramp is an expensive public access improvement at approximately $50,000 to $100,000 per ramp. At most, two ramps would be constructed in the study area: one on the southern shoreline of Albany Neck and possibly one at the southern end of Albany Beach. Water access costs also are discussed under Subtask 2.2. Incorporation of drought tolerant native vegetation into habitat protection and restoration is generally a cost effective improvement; however, long-term management of weed infestations is necessary for sustaining and protecting native plant populations and is a cost-intensive commitment of labor. Clearing non-native vegetation and planting native coastal scrub at Fleming Point may cost $47,000. Maintenance weed management in easily accessible areas such as the dune/wetland complex, where the substrate is sandy, may cost approximately $15,000 per year. Weed management in more difficult or less accessible terrain will be more expensive. Maintenance weed removal in the coastal scrub and upland transition habitats (i.e., the southern slope of the Neck, along the shoreline south of the beach, and on the slopes of Fleming Point) may cost approximately $105,000 per year. The costs of implementing sea level rise adaptations and shoreline stabilization/expansion are relatively high compared to measures described above; however, these measures are intended to reduce maintenance efforts and costs in the long-term. The costs associated with these measures are addressed under Subtask 1.2 Dune, Sandy Beach and Wetland Habitat Expansion and Subtask 2.1 Debris Removal and Shoreline Stabilization. SUBTASK 1.4: ENHANCEMENT OF EELGRASS AND NATIVE OYSTER HABITAT The intertidal and subtidal waters in the study area support eelgrass beds and native oysters. Within the study area, approximately 0.7 acre of eelgrass (Zostera marina) was present in 2003 according to a survey using sidescan sonar (Merkel and Associates 2004). The acreage of eelgrass within the study area increased substantially between 2003 and 2009, according to a survey using the same methods in fall 2009 (Merkel and Associates 2009, in review). While this most recent survey is not yet publicly available, the GIS data have been released and show an increase in eelgrass acreage in the study area of approximately 3 acres between the two surveys, to a total of 3.76 acres in Whether this increase in acreage between the two survey dates represents a longer-term trend will require additional surveys in the coming years. It is encouraging that eelgrass acreage from Point Isabel to the Bay Bridge was relatively constant in the 2003 and 2009 surveys (~95 acres), with a slight increase attributable to expansion within the Albany Beach area (Merkel and Associates 2009, in review; segment acreage comparison in Appendix 1 of Boyer and Wyllie-Echeverria 2010). The only oyster species endemic to the west coast of North America, including San Francisco Bay, is known as the California or Olympia oyster (Ostrea lurida). 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 study area that are exposed at extreme low tides (Katharyn Boyer, personal observation). In addition, native oysters can be numerous (20 individuals/m 2 ) in the nearby Berkeley Marina area (Zabin et al. 2010), thus suggesting a source of propagules (spat) for recruitment to the Albany Beach area given appropriate substrate. P:\EBR1001\Task 3 Opportunities and Constraints\Final Draft\Opp_and_Const_Final_Report.doc (01/14/11) 20

24 Relevant General Plan Guidelines Project-wide Guidelines: The General Plan includes guidelines for the entire Park that are relevant to Albany Beach: MARINE-1: To the degree permitted by federal and state law, prohibit the use of motorized boats and motorized personal watercraft throughout the park, in order to minimize disturbance of aquatic habitats for eelgrass, waterfowl, and other water birds. MARINE-4: Discourage launching of non-motorized vessels from environmentally sensitive areas of the shoreline. MARINE-7: To the degree permitted by federal and state law, prohibit the collection of invertebrates for food or bait in tidal mudflats, tidal marshes, and natural rocky shoreline areas within the park project. MARINE-8: Post signs in appropriate areas identifying the restrictions on fishing and collection of invertebrates within the park project. MARINE-10: Provide training to park staff regarding the management and protection of marine resources in the park project. The General Plan also discusses potential habitat enhancement activities including: - Restore and expand eelgrass beds in the tidal waters of the park, including sites off the South Richmond Shoreline, Albany Beach, the North Basin, and Emeryville Crescent. Albany Beach Guidelines The General Plan includes a relevant guideline specific to Albany Beach: Guideline A-4: Protect and enhance eelgrass beds that exist off Albany Beach. Explore the possibility of these eelgrass beds being a possible mitigation site (i.e., a receiver site for mitigation from projects outside of the park project). Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals The San Francisco Bay Area Wetlands Ecosystem Goals Project prepared a report of habitat recommendations intended to be a guide for restoring and improving the baylands and adjacent habitats of the San Francisco Estuary. Enhancement and expansion of eelgrass and native oyster habitats within the Albany Beach study area is compatible with the Habitat Goals (Goals Project 1999). As designated by the Goals Project, Albany Beach is located in the Central Bay Subregion, with the following relevant recommendation: Shallow subtidal habitats (including eelgrass beds) should be protected and enhanced. P:\EBR1001\Task 3 Opportunities and Constraints\Final Draft\Opp_and_Const_Final_Report.doc (01/14/11) 21

25 Draft Subtidal Habitat Goals The San Francisco Bay Subtidal Habitat Goals Project is developing a report of habitat recommendations intended to guide restoration, science and management in and around the San Francisco Bay with the goal of achieving a net improvement over the next 50 years of the Bay s subtidal ecosystem. The Goals Project recommends evaluating the Albany shoreline for eelgrass restoration/enhancement and application of Living Shorelines concepts. Discussion Eelgrass and the Olympia oyster require specific habitat conditions to establish and thrive. Water depth, shoreline conditions, substrate and turbidity are all important elements to consider for eelgrass and oyster habitat enhancement actions. Specifically, eelgrass habitat is typically characterized by shallow water, 0.5 meters to 3.0 meters deep, which allows for solar exposure. Most (98.8 percent) of eelgrass in the San Francisco Bay is found within a range of 0.4 to meters mean lower low water (MLLW) (Merkel and Associates 2004). In addition, eelgrass establishes in sandy to muddy substrate with bathymetry ranging from flat to moderately sloped conditions. California oysters establish in high subtidal and intertidal zones within nearshore areas. Oyster habitats are defined by hard, rocky and articulated surfaces which can be expanded through placement of boulder clusters including elements of shoreline stabilization measures at the Albany Beach site. Existing and future shoreline processes and estimates for sea level rise will guide the location and configuration of eelgrass and native oyster habitat enhancement alternatives. Habitat enhancement and shoreline protection measures can provide conditions and incorporate features that will support native eelgrass and oyster populations over time Opportunities Create and expand habitat for eelgrass: place sand shoals offshore to create dynamic multi-function sub-tidal features for eelgrass bed establishment and expansion. Sand shoals are characterized by relatively large deposits of sand that create suitable depth and substrate conditions to support eelgrass establishment. The configuration of the shoals should consider predominant wave directions, nearshore currents and existing habitat conditions. Existing propagules (seeds) of eelgrass within the project area and nearby should aid in recruitment to these new habitat features. Creation of sand shoals also provides an opportunity for beneficial reuse of clean sandy material dredged elsewhere in the Bay. The need for eelgrass mitigation north of Berkeley s North Basin (Merkel 2009) may provide opportunities to fund this type of restoration in the project area. Create and expand habitat for native oysters: place rock clusters offshore and nearshore to create dynamic multi-function sub-tidal features for native oyster establishment. Rock clusters are piles of large boulders placed within shallow subtidal and intertidal zones. The rock clusters create a range of protected interstitial spaces and surfaces for the oysters to attach to and create colonies and should help to stabilize sand to promote eelgrass establishment. Existing propagules (spat) of native oysters within the project area and nearby should aid in recruitment to these new habitat features. P:\EBR1001\Task 3 Opportunities and Constraints\Final Draft\Opp_and_Const_Final_Report.doc (01/14/11) 22

26 Enhance and expand (east and south) rocky shoreline and pocket beaches: improve shoreline by removing debris, including large rubble (concrete and asphalt) and hazardous objects and non-native vegetation. Place rock clusters/groins to create a more topographically diverse intertidal shoreline and to anchor pocket beaches. Rock clusters will stabilize and trap sand to help create and maintain new beach features and provide habitat for native oysters when present at appropriate depths. Nourish beaches through placement of sand offshore. Excavate upper section of shoreline at specific locations between Albany Beach and Fleming Point to expand the intertidal/beach zone eastward. Incorporate multi-functional elements (i.e., Living Shoreline concepts) for habitat enhancement, bank stabilization, and sea level rise adaptation: develop structures that address critical project goals and provide multiple functions under existing and future conditions. Actions to stabilize and protect the shoreline should account for sea level rise and incorporate features that support desired habitat conditions for species such as native oysters and eelgrass. Preserve and enhance remnant concrete or rock pier pilings and rubble that serve as substrate for aquatic organisms: the remains of two derelict piers just north of Fleming Point consist of structures that provide habitat and/or attachment substrate for algae, invertebrates and fish below the water. Their function and habitat value could be enhanced by incorporating complimentary restoration actions in adjacent areas, such as enhancing or expanding the rocky intertidal shoreline adjacent to the old piers. Trailside fencing associated with the new Bay Trail connection would also help protect these habitats from disturbance. Constraints Shallow rock edge does not support native oyster habitat expansion: due to relatively uniform slope and substrate conditions the shallow rock edge limits the potential range for oyster habitat along the shoreline. Limited available bathymetric data constrains habitat characterization and assessments: thorough understanding of existing subtidal conditions and development of appropriate, feasible and successful approaches for habitat enhancement and shoreline protection is constrained by limited data. Water depth constrains eelgrass expansion: eelgrass requires specific water depths to establish and thrive, with a majority (98.8 percent) of eelgrass in the San Francisco Bay occurring at depths of -0.4 to meters (MLLW). Much of the subtidal area offshore of Albany Beach is assumed to be too deep for eelgrass to establish. Existing eelgrass may be impacted by shoreline reconfiguration/stabilization: in addition to water depth, eelgrass habitat is influenced by substrate and turbidity. Shoreline stabilization measures may impact bathymetric conditions and substrate conditions. Permit requirements: placement of sand and/or rock offshore will require specific permits from regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over nearshore and shoreline zones. The permits will define limits and conditions for activities associated with sand/rock placement including project area, access, site protection and mitigation. The agencies include but may not be limited to NOAA, BCDC, RWQCB, and USACE. Potential historic resources at Fleming Point Pier constrain modification: historical values of the pier structures may limit possible actions and areas to reconfigure the shoreline for habitat enhancement objectives. P:\EBR1001\Task 3 Opportunities and Constraints\Final Draft\Opp_and_Const_Final_Report.doc (01/14/11) 23

27 Non-motorized water craft navigation: creation of submerged habitat shoals may pose navigational hazards to non-motorized water craft. The location and/or dimensions of the shoals may be constrained by this potential hazard. Costs Enhancement of Eelgrass and Native Oyster Habitat Costs for eelgrass and native oyster habitat enhancement will range widely based on the scale and approach of the restoration project. Preliminary costs are subject to change as project alternatives are developed and more accurate information becomes available. Factors that will influence costs include, but are not limited to the size and/or extent of the project, materials, project location and construction methods and maintenance requirements. Given the physical conditions and documented existence of eelgrass and oysters at the site as well as the low-tech nature of possible enhancement actions, costs are not anticipated to be prohibitive. In fact, eelgrass and oyster habitat enhancement measures can be integrated with other site protection actions for added value. When integrated with shoreline protection actions, eelgrass and oyster habitat enhancement is considered cost effective. Among recent eelgrass restoration projects using created sand shoals in San Francisco Bay, the one most similar to what is likely feasible at Albany Beach is the nearby Berkeley North Basin project, constructed in 2005 (Merkel 2009). The cost of shoal building for that project was $375,000, including trucking sand to the site and placing 4,400 metric tons of sand (or approximately 3,030 cubic yards) over a 1.24-acre area using a combination of conventional earth moving equipment and hydraulic pumping from a hopper on the beach. This suggests that the overall unit price for constructing the sand shoal was approximately $125 per cubic yard of material, and includes labor, sand, trucking, equipment, and geosynthetics. Bareroot eelgrass transplanting onto the new shoal cost $34,000, or a unit price of approximately $0.63 per square foot. The cost per square foot for shoal building and eelgrass planting was approximately $7.60. The project scientist concluded that this type of project can be implemented much more cheaply (about $3 per square foot) by conducting all hydraulic placement of sand from a barge instead of performing the construction using conventional land-based equipment, land-based hydraulic pumping, and trucking sand to the site. This projected unit cost also includes post-construction monitoring. However, these costs should be escalated from 2005 dollars, and economies of scale could influence overall project costs. PWA generated opinions of costs associated with shoal construction and eelgrass enhancement at Albany Beach that are similar to the example provided above. For the offshore enhancement opportunities presented in this analysis, PWA anticipates that volumes of imported sand needed for shoal construction at Albany Beach would be similar to volumes for the Berkeley North Basin project (approximately 1,000 to more than 5,000 cubic yards), but the overall size of the shoals may vary. However, PWA estimates that the unit price per cubic yard of sand transport and placement will be similar ($100 to $150 per cubic yard). Economy of scale may influence the costs and construction methods pursued at Albany Beach. For example, the easiest and cheapest method for importing and grading small volumes of sand (less than 1,000 cubic yards) is to use trucks and traditional construction equipment; however, for larger volumes of sand, construction could be implemented more cost effectively by hydraulically pumping sand from a barge offshore. To estimate the cost of eelgrass restoration offshore of Albany Beach, the area of available bottom substrate (i.e., not already colonized by eelgrass) will need to be assessed (using the most recent P:\EBR1001\Task 3 Opportunities and Constraints\Final Draft\Opp_and_Const_Final_Report.doc (01/14/11) 24

28 survey data) and accurate bathymetric data of the Bay will need to be acquired to determine the quantity of material to be imported and placed. The cost of rock shoal placement should be typical of other shoreline rock armoring projects, such as riprap placement. It is estimated that creating subtidal rock groins perpendicular to the existing rocky shorelines will cost approximately $10,000 per groin. The study area should be able to accommodate up to six of these rock structures. P:\EBR1001\Task 3 Opportunities and Constraints\Final Draft\Opp_and_Const_Final_Report.doc (01/14/11) 25

29 OBJECTIVE 2 - SHORELINE STABILIZATION AND ACCESS SUBTASK 2.1: DEBRIS REMOVAL AND SHORELINE STABILIZATION Shoreline conditions vary significantly within the Albany Beach site. The shoreline includes areas of eroding slopes, construction debris from landfill along the southern shoreline of the Neck, a broad sandy beach in the center of the study area and shallow rocky slopes interspersed with small beaches and accumulations of boulders and cobble along the south shoreline. These varied shoreline conditions require different approaches for stabilization and public access improvements. Relevant General Plan Guidelines Project-wide Guidelines The General Plan includes guidelines for the entire Park that are relevant to Albany Beach: HYDRO-1: Replace areas of shoreline protection that currently consist of unconsolidated construction debris, concrete, and slag material with appropriate shoreline protection alternatives to improve long-term function, respond to project program priorities, and enhance shoreline appearance. HYDRO-3: Give high priority to shoreline protection improvements in areas of high activity and attractive views, current or pending, with implementation of additional areas phased in the future. HYDRO-4: Give highest priority to improvements in areas of observed erosion that potentially threaten infrastructure, water quality, stability of landfill areas, and/or new facilities for shoreline protection improvements. HYDRO-5: An adaptive management approach is recommended for some of the shoreline stabilization alternatives. Albany Neck/Bulb Guidelines Guideline A-13: Develop and implement a program for the removal of safety hazards associated with construction debris on the surface of the Neck (e.g., unstable rubble piles, unsafe structures and protruding rebar). The clean-up program should be designed to minimize disturbance to upland wildlife habitat. Approaches that involve mass grading and the wholesale removal of vegetation are not appropriate. Given the magnitude of the task, priorities for clean-up, areas for potential temporary closure to public access, and appropriate phasing should be identified. Guideline A-15: Explore options for enhancing the safety, aesthetic, structural and habitat conditions along the south shoreline of the Albany Neck, including the following: P:\EBR1001\Task 3 Opportunities and Constraints\Final Draft\Opp_and_Const_Final_Report.doc (01/14/11) 26

30 - Address transition from Albany Beach into armored shoreline areas including the potential for extending sand beach condition further west - Break up large concrete and construction debris to improve appearance and reduce safety hazards - Consider placement of fill (sand, gravel, cobbles or soil) over the rubble in some select locations to improve habitat, planting, access and safety - Consider and balance necessary structural function and potential habitat enhancements Discussion Shoreline stabilization measures provide opportunities to address erosion protection and adaptation to sea level rise as well as to support public access improvements at the Albany Beach project area. In many cases, measures to stabilize eroding or threatened shoreline areas can be integrated with habitat enhancement and public access features to provide multiple benefits. Determination of appropriate shoreline protection and public access elements will require consideration of current land use patterns, existing habitats, goals for habitat expansion, near-term and future tidal environments associated with sea level rise and site protection, including flooding. Opportunities for shoreline and public access enhancement are limited by a range of issues including available funding, regulatory jurisdictions and requirements as well as site conditions, characteristics and long-term maintenance. Opportunities Provide safe shoreline access: identify appropriate locations to provide public access to the shoreline considering a range of factors including accessibility, public safety, habitat conditions, water craft launch requirements, shoreline processes and wave environment. Enhance and expand (east and south) rocky shoreline and pocket beaches: improve shoreline through removal of debris, including large rubble (concrete and asphalt) and hazardous objects and non-native plant species. Place rock clusters/groins to create more heterogeneous or diverse intertidal shoreline and anchor pocket beaches. Rock clusters will stabilize and trap sand to help create and maintain new beach features. Nourish beaches through placement of sand offshore. Excavate upper section of shoreline along the southern shoreline to expand intertidal/beach zone eastward. Stabilize eroding shoreline: improve shoreline through removal of debris, including large rubble (concrete and asphalt), hazardous objects and non-native vegetation. Resurface and overlay the shoreline for long-term stabilization at strategic locations; 1) remove and/or break up large pieces of concrete rubble; 2) grade smaller pieces and eroded slope zones; 3) cover with bedding material and rough grade to establish uniform 2:1 (maximum) slope; (4) cover with filter fabric; (5) place imported rock armor and large pieces of reclaimed concrete rubble at toe to create rocky intertidal features and provide shoreline stabilization. Focus work on areas of active erosion and public access priorities. Remove hazardous debris for improved public access and safety: miscellaneous construction debris presents significant limitations to public access at the shoreline. Numerous physical hazards including steep and potentially unstable slopes, exposed rebar and metal and deep voids that make the shoreline less desirable for public access. Creosote timbers scattered throughout the study area, including remnants of Fleming Point Pier, may pose a human and ecological health hazard. P:\EBR1001\Task 3 Opportunities and Constraints\Final Draft\Opp_and_Const_Final_Report.doc (01/14/11) 27

31 Provide accessible route to beach: identify locations for disabled access based on proximity to major trails, parking, topographic conditions, interpretive resources and sustainability in the context of the dynamic beach and dune environments. Again, major barriers to beach use for persons with mobility impairments is the difficulty traversing sandy soil. California State Park accessibility guidelines call for at least one permanent beach access route for every half-mile of linear shoreline (99AG ). Beach and shore access includes accessible routes to and across the surface of a beach or shore, but not necessarily to the edge of the water. Occasionally, beach mats, boardwalks or paved multi-use trails along the beach provide some access. Weather conditions, such as blown sand or heavy rain, may sometimes impact accessibility. Because supporting facilities such as parking and restrooms are to be accessible, an accessible path from the parking areas to and along the beach access routes should be considered. A path that is level, firm, and stable would provide access to the shoreline for persons with disabilities. Revegetate access areas: plant around access areas with appropriate native plant species to stabilize slopes, control circulation routes and provide enhanced aesthetic conditions. Create native coastal/upland transition habitat: revegetate areas with appropriate native plant species to establish transitional habitats between shoreline and upland zones. Transitional habitat zones are an opportunity to compliment and augment existing resources including animals, birds and insects that utilize the site. Connect to existing irrigation line: an above-ground publicly owned irrigation line located along Buchanan Street may be available for irrigation of native plantings at planting areas within a reasonable distance of the water supply. If a connection is feasible, a temporary irrigation system could be installed and operated for approximately two years to support establishment of planted or seeded vegetation. Constraints Beach is not accessible: the combination of steep, irregular and unstable earthen slopes creates conditions that do not comply with State Park requirements for disabled public access. It is not feasible to provide unlimited public access, including ADA access, for many areas of Albany Beach. These areas include but are not limited to rocky shoreline zones that are not intended for shoreline access and wheelchair movement across the sandy beach. Beach or shoreline access is not required when a pedestrian route, running parallel along the edge of the beach, is elevated 6 inches or higher above the beach surface. Shoreline access is limited by miscellaneous construction debris and steep slopes, and concrete rubble edge constrains public access and safety: miscellaneous construction debris presents significant limitations to public access at the shoreline. Numerous physical hazards including steep and potentially unstable slopes, exposed reinforcing bar and metal, and deep voids make the shoreline less desirable for public access. Contaminated materials and pier structures present public safety and environmental hazards: potentially contaminated soils within the pier landing and approach may constrain construction that involves soil disturbing activities. The soil and rock cap placed to protect these areas limit the potential habitat value of this area. P:\EBR1001\Task 3 Opportunities and Constraints\Final Draft\Opp_and_Const_Final_Report.doc (01/14/11) 28

32 Costs Debris Removal and Shoreline Stabilization Costs for shoreline stabilization and access will range widely based primarily on the scale of and design approach for the work. Preliminary costs are subject to change as project alternatives are developed and more accurate information becomes available. Factors that will influence costs include, but are not limited to, the size and/or extent of the project, off haul and disposal fees, materials, project location,construction access and methods and maintenance requirements. Prioritization, phasing and the potential for integrating shoreline protection with other project elements (e.g., sea level rise adaptation, habitat enhancement and public access improvements) will add value to these efforts. Based on goals for shoreline protection and public access improvements, costs for the suggested shoreline protection measures are anticipated to be relatively high. Construction costs in shoreline and subtidal areas are also influenced by environmental conditions and requirements for resource protection. Construction costs can be reduced through balancing earthwork (cut and fill) volumes by integrating project program and design elements. Although implementation of shoreline protection measures is costly, long-term maintenance efforts and costs are expected to be low relative to the cost of repairing major erosion damage that would occur if the shoreline is not stabilized in a manner that accounts for sea level rise. A traditional rock revetment was designed for a portion of shoreline at Coyote Point Park in San Mateo County (PWA 2010). The final estimated construction cost of the revetment was approximately $400 per linear foot. However, because of the location, exposure, and geometry of the Albany Beach shoreline, we expect the revetment unit volume to be approximately twice as large as the revetment designed for Coyote Point shoreline. This cost does not include periodic maintenance of the rock revetment, which may include repairs to the structure such as replacement of rocks that have been displaced or destabilized by a storm event that exceeds the intensity that the structure was designed to protect against. Appropriately designed and constructed shoreline stabilization measures can provide benefits to water quality, habitat values and overall site enhancement with relatively low maintenance costs. The longterm benefits of adaptive planning to integrate sea level rise considerations with site protection and public access improvements increase the potential value of these actions. SUBTASK 2.2: WATER ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS Albany Beach and the adjacent rocky shoreline in the study area are not designated as water access points for swimming; however, many park users access the water s edge by walking on the beach or climbing down the rocky slopes. Currently, safe water access is not delineated by signage, parking or designated paths. Under existing conditions the public has access to the water at any point along the Albany Waterfront, regardless of signed safety hazards. Albany Beach is currently used as a water access point for some types of non-motorized water craft, such as kayaks and kite boards. LSA has observed these users accessing the beach by car or truck from the Golden Gate Fields parking lot via Gilman Street. The General Plan identifies the need for improving water access at Albany Beach and the southern shoreline of Albany Neck, both for people on foot to explore the intertidal zone safely and for non-motorized water craft to enter the Bay more conveniently. P:\EBR1001\Task 3 Opportunities and Constraints\Final Draft\Opp_and_Const_Final_Report.doc (01/14/11) 29

33 San Francisco Bay Area Water Trail Plan The California State Coastal Conservancy is leading the implementation of the San Francisco Bay Area Water Trail Plan (San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission 2007), a new regional water access project. A Draft Revised Environmental Impact Report on the plan was released in 2010 and the public review period ended September 21, The water trail plan identifies an existing water access/launch point at Albany Beach for nonmotorized small boats (NMSBs). The following water trail user groups are identified in the plan 1. Their typical launching requirements are summarized below: Type of Non-motorized Water Craft 1 Kayaks Canoes Dragon boats Outrigger canoes Sculls Rowboats/dinghies Sailboards (e.g., windsurfers and kitesurfers) Launch Requirements Sandy, walk-up beach with 6 water depth Sandy, walk-up beach, dock or boat ramp Dock or boat ramp Dock or boat ramp Dock or boat ramp Dock or boat ramp Wind blowing offshore and a 100 -long sandy beach without obstructions Relevant General Plan Guidelines Project-wide Guidelines The General Plan includes guidelines for the entire Park that are relevant to Albany Beach: VISIT-12: Support the concept of an aquatic Bay Trail by providing conveniently spaced shoreline access/resting point along the length of the park project. VISIT-13: Comply with applicable local and state laws and regulations that restrict or prohibit the use of motorized watercraft within the park project waters. VISIT-14: Enhance the recreational use of Bay waters by kayakers, windsurfers, dragon boats, and other human-powered watercraft by providing safe and convenient Bay access facilities. Such facilities will be sited so that they respect sensitive shoreline habitat features. The character of access accommodations (e.g., ramps, steps, gravel/sand beach, etc.) and their design shall be responsive to both the specific setting and the nature of the projected use. Such facilities should be designed to minimize dependence on regular, ongoing maintenance operations, and to avoid altogether activities that would require damaging the environment to remain operational. 1 San Francisco Bay Area Water Trail Plan (San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission 2007). P:\EBR1001\Task 3 Opportunities and Constraints\Final Draft\Opp_and_Const_Final_Report.doc (01/14/11) 30

34 OPER-21: All programs in the Eastshore park project will comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). All proposed structures and landscape features will be evaluated during their design for their compliance with ADA standards. MARINE-8: Post signs in appropriate areas identifying the restrictions on fishing and collection of invertebrates within the park project. Albany Shoreline Guidelines Guideline A-16: Provide shoreline stairs and/or ramp along the south side of the Albany Neck and the south side of the Albany Bulb in order to enhance water access for windsurfers and other human powered watercraft. Work with windsurfers and other user groups to explore options for conveying equipment from the drop-off to the access point. Guideline A-5: Enhance beach/bay access for non-motorized watercraft by creating a vehicle dropoff and parking at the south end of the beach. Locate restroom facilities near the beach water access. Discussion Improving water access in the study area can be integrated with efforts to stabilize the shoreline and enhance the beach. To achieve this integration, water access improvements should be guided by a thorough understanding and analysis of existing and future shoreline conditions in order to develop safe, sustainable and low maintenance facilities. Location of the water access should consider existing habitats as well as water depth and the potential for submerged hazards to navigation. Drive-up access for non-motorized water craft users is feasible at Albany Beach but not on the southern shoreline of Albany Neck. The public is prohibited from driving on the Albany Neck trail system. Opportunities Provide integrated access: creation of designated water access points will provide opportunities for connecting with the proposed San Francisco Bay Area Water Trail. Providing amenities such as a restroom near the proposed parking area and trash receptacles at the beach water access point will help to limit impacts to natural resources by water users. Create designated water access for non-motorized watercraft: identify appropriate and stable location for permanent water access based on existing and future shoreline conditions. Water access may be an opportunity to integrate interpretive elements. Provide accessible route to beach: identify locations for accessible routes based on proximity to major trails, parking, topographic conditions, interpretive resources and sustainability in the context of the dynamic beach and dune environments. P:\EBR1001\Task 3 Opportunities and Constraints\Final Draft\Opp_and_Const_Final_Report.doc (01/14/11) 31

35 Constraints Beach is not accessible to disabled persons: the combination of steep, irregular and unstable earthen slopes creates conditions that do not comply with accessibility requirements for public use. Slopes may not exceed 5 percent to be considered accessible. Permit requirements and resource protection may constrain public access: creating accessible routes to the beach and water may involve placing fill in jurisdictional waters of the United States or in sensitive habitats such as eelgrass beds or rocky intertidal. Such impacts may not be permitted by regulatory agencies or may require mitigation that exceeds the scope of the project. The agencies that would require consultation and/or a permit to implement such activities include but may not be limited to NOAA, BCDC, RWQCB and USACE. Concrete rubble edge constrains public access and safety: miscellaneous construction debris presents significant limitations to public access at the shoreline. Numerous physical hazards including steep and unstable slopes, exposed reinforcing bar and metal, and deep voids make the existing shoreline unsuitable for public access. Limited available bathymetric data constrains habitat characterization and assessments: thorough understanding of existing sub-tidal conditions and development of appropriate and successful approaches for habitat enhancement, shoreline protection and water access is constrained by limited data. Submerged hazards may limit areas for water access and recreation at the site. Costs Water Access Improvements Costs for water access and improvements will range widely based primarily on the scale and design approach of the facility. Preliminary costs are subject to change as project alternatives are developed and more accurate information becomes available. Factors that will influence costs include, but are not limited to, the size and/or extent of the project, materials, project location, construction access and methods and maintenance requirements. Construction costs in shoreline and subtidal areas are also influenced by environmental conditions and requirements for resource protection. Construction costs can be reduced through balancing earthwork (cut and fill) volumes, reuse of materials and by integrating project program and design elements. Estimating more accurate costs would require evaluation of anticipated use, episodic flooding and associated impacts and long-term maintenance. Windsurfer access ramps were designed as part of the Coyote Point Recreation Area Shoreline and Promenade Improvement Project (PWA 2010) to allow safe access from parking to the water for windsurfers carrying large boards and sails. Each ramp was designed at approximately 1,500 square feet in size, to be constructed of approximately 200 cubic yards of rock overlaid with articulating block mat. The final estimated cost of each ramp was approximately $50,000. Ramp design and costs for water access improvements at Albany Beach may differ slightly from the Coyote Point project because the ramp would need to accommodate transport of small boats in addition to boards. P:\EBR1001\Task 3 Opportunities and Constraints\Final Draft\Opp_and_Const_Final_Report.doc (01/14/11) 32

36 OBJECTIVE 3 - RECREATION IMPROVEMENTS SUBTASK 3.1: SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS The San Francisco Bay Trail links the non-contiguous parts of Eastshore State Park both internally and externally to recreation, residential and transit facilities. A significant gap in the Bay Trail exists between Buchanan Street and Gilman Street. Many trail users negotiate this gap by leaving the shoreline and riding on a frontage road east of Interstate 80 (I-80), while others pass through openings in fences and travel along the shoreline through the Golden Gate Fields property where vehicular and non-vehicular traffic are not formally segregated and pavement is in poor condition. The General Plan identifies an extension of the Bay Trail spine along the Beach between the existing Buchanan Street parking lot and Gilman Street (south of the study area). Along with many other opportunities, the new spine of the Bay Trail would provide indirect access to Albany Beach from Gilman Street, if constructed. This Feasibility Study focuses on the trail gap from Buchanan Street south to Fleming Point. Relevant General Plan Guidelines Project-wide Guidelines The General Plan includes guidelines for the entire Park that are relevant to Albany Beach: CIRC-2: Design a circulation system that separates vehicular from non-vehicular traffic as much as possible in order to enhance non-vehicular modes and reduce potential conflicts. CIRC-3: In order to minimize increases in traffic and the demand for parking, provide facilities that encourage and support alternative modes of transportation to the Eastshore park project, including pedestrian, bicycle, bus, and boat. CIRC-4: Emphasize walking, biking, and non-motorized boating as the primary and preferred modes of transportation within the Eastshore park project. CIRC-6: Provide a convenient and attractive system of multi-use trails throughout the park that links all subareas of the park project into an integrated whole. CIRC-7: To the extent feasible, the trail system will be designed and constructed to provide universal access. CIRC-8: Recognize the Bay Trail as the park project s primary non-vehicular transportation corridor and an important means of unifying public use areas within the non-contiguous portions of the park project. VISIT-17: Enhance existing trails and introduce new trails that ensure opportunities for visitors to enjoy the diverse topography, biotic communities, avian habitat areas, and scenic views in the park project. Provide fencing or signing of trails where necessary to protect adjacent resources. P:\EBR1001\Task 3 Opportunities and Constraints\Final Draft\Opp_and_Const_Final_Report.doc (01/14/11) 33

37 Albany Neck/Bulb Guidelines Guideline A18: Maintain a comprehensive and integrated multi-use trail system that provides access throughout the Albany area. As specific improvements are planned for the Albany area, evaluate existing trails and identify trails that need to be closed, improved, or created. Opportunities Provide accessible beach access: Albany Beach provides an opportunity for the public to access and enjoy one of the few sandy beaches along the Bay Trail route. The existing Bay Trail spur that extends from I-80 westward to the end of Buchanan Street can be improved to provide an accessible route to the beach. Use trail easement and preliminary design: the District is evaluating a potential easement (approximately 38 feet wide) through property owned by Golden Gate Fields to construct a Bay Trail spine extension along the Albany shoreline that will close the gap in the trail between Buchanan Street and Gilman Street. The District completed a preliminary trail design for a Class I multi-use path (East Bay Regional Park District 2008). Improve pedestrian and bicycle circulation: closure of the Bay Trail gap in this location will improve pedestrian and bicycle circulation through the Albany Beach area and has the potential to provide an accessible route closer to the beach. Achieve balance between restoration and public access: the alignment of the future Bay Trail extension represents an opportunity to achieve the two major goals of improving public access and habitat. The preliminary Bay Trail alignment, located immediately east of the existing dune field, could be moved farther east onto the adjacent 2.8-acre parcel to provide the opportunity to expand the existing dune field landward. Elevate the trail: the new Bay Trail extension can be elevated to serve multiple purposes as: 1) an adaptation to future sea level rise that potentially reduces long-term maintenance costs; 2) a levee or barrier to hold dunes in place; and 3) as additional cap material over potentially hazardous materials in the soil near the Fleming Point pier. Provide interpretive exhibits: a new trail in this location will provide opportunities for resource interpretation, discussed in greater detail below (see Subtask 3.3). Install bicycle racks: new bicycle racks could be installed at key locations along the new Bay Trail extension between Buchanan and Gilman Streets to allow cyclists to secure their bicycles to access the beach and dunes on foot. Constraints Beach is not accessible: the existing Bay Trail spur that extends from I-80 westward to the end of Buchanan Street does not provide an accessible route to the beach. No formal trail extends to the sandy beach from the spur trail. For the beach to be accessible from the spur trail there would need to be a firm and stable surface at least 36 inches wide extending to the beach. Public access constrains restoration: the Bay Trail easement (dated August 12, 2009) currently under negotiation by the District constrains the alignment of the new trail to a narrow corridor immediately east of the existing dunes along the western edge of the Golden Gate Fields parking area. This P:\EBR1001\Task 3 Opportunities and Constraints\Final Draft\Opp_and_Const_Final_Report.doc (01/14/11) 34

38 alignment, in turn, constrains restoration design from accommodating natural processes such as sea level rise by precluding dune and wetland expansion eastward. Property ownership: to provide a new Bay Trail extension and accommodate dune expansion landward, an adjacent 2.8-acre privately owned parcel must be acquired. Costs San Francisco Bay Trail Improvements Designing the new Bay Trail extension (between Buchanan Street and Fleming Point) in a manner that accounts for and accommodates anticipated sea level rise will influence construction and maintenance costs of several project objectives. Elevating the trail to varying heights between 3 and 5 feet to reduce the risk of flooding (e.g., current and future extreme high tides, storm surges) on and/or over the trail surface will require the importation and placement of approximately 2,000 cubic yards of clean fill at a total cost of approximately $60,000. This preliminary cost is higher than the cost of constructing the trail over the existing grade; however, long-term maintenance costs are expected to be lower for an elevated trail that is less prone to flood damage and seasonal maintenance requirements. The elevated trail design could provide flood management and cost savings in terms of long-term maintenance of the parking area, if the trail is sited landward of the dunes between the beach and a new parking lot (see Subtask 3.2 Parking and Restroom Facility Development). In addition, the elevated trail design could provide long-term cost savings relative to maintenance requirements for dune and wetland features. The trail could be considered an integral component of the site improvements to provide a physical barrier to retain sand and water in the restoration area (see Subtask 1.2 Dune, Sandy Beach and Wetland Habitat Expansion). Other than import of fill to elevate the trail, the cost of trail construction is anticipated to be typical of other multi-use trail construction projects ($18 per square foot). This preliminary unit cost includes grading and excavation, drainage, base rock, asphalt paving with a recycled plastic header suitable for maintenance and emergency vehicle traffic, and decomposed granite shoulders. Construction of the trail segment between Buchanan Street and Fleming Point may cost $432,000, in addition to the $60,000 potential cost of elevating the trail. The cost of interpretative signage associated with the trail would be minimal, even if designed with materials that resist vandalism and water/weather damage (see Subtask 3.3 Picnic Facility and Interpretive Exhibits). Preliminary costs are subject to change as project alternatives are developed and more accurate information becomes available. SUBTASK 3.2: PARKING AND RESTROOM FACILITY DEVELOPMENT A traffic and circulation study conducted in support of the Existing and Future Conditions Report concluded that the number of parking stalls currently available to Albany Waterfront users on Buchanan Street is adequate to support activities of relatively short duration. Parallel parking on Buchanan Street accommodates approximately 60 unmarked parking spaces. Closer to the beach at the western end of Buchanan Street are 43 marked perpendicular parking spaces, constructed by the City of Albany prior to establishment of the State Park. These 43 spaces are located on Golden Gate Fields property and have been made available for public use by an informal agreement between Golden Gate Fields and the City of Albany. One portable toilet, maintained by the District, is located at the western end of this parking lot. At present, the existing parking and the portable toilet serve users of Albany Beach, Albany Neck and Albany Bulb. No agreement is in effect that guarantees the availability of the parking spaces for public use in perpetuity. If Golden Gate Fields were to revoke P:\EBR1001\Task 3 Opportunities and Constraints\Final Draft\Opp_and_Const_Final_Report.doc (01/14/11) 35

39 rights to these parking spaces then available parking would be inadequate. The General Plan (see below) identifies the need for a vehicle drop-off and parking at the south end of the beach, with restroom facilities located near the improved beach water access. Relevant General Plan Guidelines Project-wide Guidelines The General Plan includes guidelines for the entire Park that are relevant to Albany Beach: CIRC-17: Ensure that adequate parking is provided to accommodate public access to the park project and serve park uses and facilities. CIRC-18: Distribute parking areas strategically throughout the Eastshore park project to support proposed activities and facilities. OPER-21: All programs in the Eastshore park project will comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). All proposed structures and landscape features will be evaluated during their design for their compliance with ADA standards. AESTH-11: Buildings, structures, and landscaping should be sited to be sensitive to scenic views from and through the park project. Given the general openness of the site, facilities should be sited to minimize the impact on views from key viewpoints. VISIT-15: Provide upland facilities such as parking, restrooms, potable water, lay-down areas, etc. that support aquatic recreation uses. OPER-16: Sustainable Sites: Minimize the negative environmental impacts of site enhancement, development, maintenance, and operations by considering the following guidelines when implementing the General Plan: - Reuse or rehabilitate existing disturbed or developed sites, and avoid developing sites that contain sensitive species, habitats, or wetlands - Limit the area of parking, paving, and lawns to the minimum that will actually be used OPER-17: Safeguarding Water: Conserve water and protect water quality by considering the following guidelines when implementing the plan: - Minimize the area of impervious surface, including building footprints and paving - Use pervious surfaces in site development, and incorporate features such as vegetated filter strips and bioswales to slow and filter runoff Albany Beach Guidelines P:\EBR1001\Task 3 Opportunities and Constraints\Final Draft\Opp_and_Const_Final_Report.doc (01/14/11) 36

40 Guideline A-5: Enhance beach/bay access for non-motorized watercraft by creating a vehicle dropoff and parking at the south end of the beach. Locate restroom facilities near the beach water access. Opportunities Facilitate water access: expansion onto the adjacent 2.8-acre Golden Gate Fields parcel would provide opportunities for constructing additional parking for water access that is accessible via Buchanan Street. The traffic and circulation study included in the Existing and Future Conditions Report concluded that this parcel could support at least 21 additional parking spaces. Construction of additional parking near the south end of Albany Beach would provide the opportunity to create accessible trails to the beach and enhance water access opportunities for non-motorized water craft. Protect resources: creation of a new parking lot on the adjacent 2.8-acre Golden Gate Fields parcel east of Albany Beach provides an opportunity for siting various amenities (trash and recycling receptacles, bathroom, signage, bicycle racks, etc.) in areas where sensitive habitats will not be impacted. Constraints Permit requirements: a permit from BCDC would be required to construct a parking lot and restroom. Property ownership: the current property ownership does not allow for additional public parking south of Buchanan Street. One access point: access to existing and future parking is limited to the western end of Buchanan Street. Beach access: existing public parking does not provide an accessible route to the beach or vehicular access for non-motorized watercraft drop off. Inundation: the existing Golden Gate Fields parking area adjacent to the beach is subject to flooding and taking on sand during winter storms and high tides. These same maintenance issues would apply to new parking in the area; therefore, new parking should be designed to protect against these processes. Utilities: design of new amenities is constrained by the absence of potable water, electricity, gas and sewer utilities in the study area. Flush toilets, drinking fountains and showers are not feasible given the availability of existing utilities and the high cost of extending distant utilities to the site. Climate: the harsh coastal climate of the site (e.g., flood hazards, high wind, the salt and moisture content of the air) may impact the durability of new amenities. Vandalism and theft constrain design solutions: vandalism and theft in high use areas may constrain the design and affect the durability of new amenities. Existing parking is not guaranteed in perpetuity: the existing 43 parking stalls nearest the beach are located on private property and available to the public through an informal agreement with the City of Albany. P:\EBR1001\Task 3 Opportunities and Constraints\Final Draft\Opp_and_Const_Final_Report.doc (01/14/11) 37

41 Costs Parking and Restroom Facility Development Under existing conditions, the District is responsible for maintaining the portable toilet and the City of Albany is responsible for maintaining the parking lot at the western end of Buchanan Street. The District would incur additional maintenance costs if the adjacent 2.8-acre parcel were to be acquired and improved for parking, access to water and public restrooms. Preliminary costs are subject to change as project alternatives are developed and more accurate information becomes available. The cost of constructing a new parking lot near the beach is likely to be higher than the typical cost of parking lot construction at park units that are not located on the Bay shoreline. To accommodate anticipated sea level rise and reduce the risk of seasonal flooding, a new parking lot at Albany Beach would need to be elevated and/or armored against wave action. Assuming a size of 25,000 square feet, the cost of importing fill to raise the parking area 24 inches may be $52,000. The cost of additional flood protection for the parking area could be incorporated into the cost of siting and elevating the new Bay Trail connection (see Subtask 3.1), which would serve as a physical barrier between the shoreline and the parking lot. The cost of surfacing the parking area would depend on the type of material selected. Asphalt (AC) paving with a sub-base and drainage to a public storm drain utility may cost $450,000, excluding the cost of extending the storm drain system to the new parking area. Alternatively, surfacing the parking area with pervious material that drains to rain garden basins or bioswales may cost $300,000. Extending water, electricity, gas, water, or sewer or storm drainage lines to the new parking lot and restrooms would be cost prohibitive. The nearest power supply is at the Golden Gate Fields grandstand, approximately 1,000 feet from Albany Beach. A preliminary opinion of cost from the City s Public Works Division (Leptien, personal communication) indicates that installation of a 1-inch service to connect the beach to the power supply at Golden Gate Fields could cost on the order of $25 per foot, or $25,000, plus the cost of installing a 5/8-inch meter at approximately $8,000. Easements and/or permits from the private property owner and the Cities of Albany and/or Berkeley would be required. To bring potable water to the facilities at Albany Beach, the District would need to submit an Application for Water Service to the East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD). All applications for water service are subject to review and approval by EBMUD (EBMUD June 2009). The closest water main available for extension to Albany Beach is under Buchanan Street, approximately 3,000 feet north and east. EBMUD requires main extensions to be in or under a street for purposes of maintenance and emergency access (Swearingen, personal communication). A main extension requires a minimum diameter of 6 inches and may cost $200-$300 per foot; therefore, the cost of extending a water main to the beach may be $600,000-$900,000, excluding the cost of the permitting effort. EBMUD does not perform construction associated with main extensions of 1,000 feet or more; therefore, the District would take on the costs of installation. In addition to high costs, the District must consider the likelihood of approval for a main extension from EBMUD. Water demand is one of many factors taken into consideration when EBMUD grants a main extension. Flush toilets, showers and drinking fountains at the beach would not generate enough water demand on the system to prevent stagnation and maintain water quality in the main (Swearingen, personal communication); therefore, approval of a water line extension may not be granted. A preliminary opinion of cost from the City s Public Works Division (Leptien, personal communication) indicates that engineering and construction of a small sewage lift station to service P:\EBR1001\Task 3 Opportunities and Constraints\Final Draft\Opp_and_Const_Final_Report.doc (01/14/11) 38

42 restrooms with flush toilets at the beach may cost on the order of $50,000. The City of Albany s sewer system is located beneath the Buchanan Street bridge, approximately 2,500 feet from Albany Beach. Engineering and construction of a 1½-inch pressure sewer (force main) to the mainline beneath the Buchanan Street structure is estimated to cost on the order of $30 per foot, or $75,000. If an arrangement could be made to connect to the Golden Gate Fields sewer system, which is approximately 1,200 feet from the site, the cost of the sewer force main could be lower, perhaps $35,000. However, this solution would involve costs to prepare an agreement with Golden Gate Fields, which would likely negate any savings. The total preliminary cost of bringing sewer services to the new restroom at the new parking lot, not including the cost of the restroom itself, could range from $85,000 to $125,000. A full service restroom with flush toilets and lights may cost approximately $250,000 to install. A restroom building with two vault toilets that operate without sewer and water may cost approximately $150,000. A low-odor composting toilet that separates liquid from solid waste and runs without sewer and water may cost approximately $10,000 per toilet, including prefabrication, shipping and basic installation. A prefabricated restroom building to support the composting toilets may cost approximately as much as the vault toilet building ($40,000 to $50,000). The composting toilet price includes a photovoltaic array and 12-volt batteries to operate the exhaust fans, pump and lighting. A new accessible restroom building with no utilities would require maintenance; the cost and frequency of maintenance would depend on the amount of use the system receives. Vault toilets typically require pumping out twice a year at an approximate cost of $150 per service. Composting toilets involve more maintenance steps, including: addition of one gallon of bulking agent (e.g., leaf litter, wood chips) per 100 uses; emptying of liquid holding tanks as needed; and removal of finished material (i.e., compost) at least every two years. General cleaning and stocking of any restroom facility is estimated to cost less than $100 per month. SUBTASK 3.3: PICNIC FACILITY DEVELOPMENT AND INTERPRETIVE EXHIBITS Currently no picnic facilities are provided at Albany Beach or elsewhere in the study area. At the Buchanan Street parking lot and trailhead within the study area, visitors have access to one portable toilet, a bulletin board, one bench, and several trash receptacles. A vista point at the junction of the Beach and the Neck provides interpretive signage depicting San Francisco Bay geography, along with two benches, a bicycle rack, and several trash receptacles. Just east of the vista point is a commissioned sculpture called The Cove that serves as a subterranean wind shelter or gathering place. The District maintains the portable toilet and services two trash cans located near the beach at the western end of a rail and cable fence. The other amenities named above are maintained by the City of Albany. The District would be responsible for maintaining new picnic facilities or interpretive signage installed on property co-owned by the State and the District and/or within a legal easement through the adjacent Golden Gate Fields property. P:\EBR1001\Task 3 Opportunities and Constraints\Final Draft\Opp_and_Const_Final_Report.doc (01/14/11) 39

43 Relevant General Plan Guidelines Project-wide Guidelines Relevant to Picnic Facilities The General Plan includes guidelines for the entire Park that are relevant to Albany Beach: VISIT-11: Visitor support facilities such as restrooms, water fountains, benches, picnic tables and parking will be provided in convenient locations throughout the park project. OPER-21: All programs in the Eastshore park project will comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). All proposed structures and landscape features will be evaluated during their design for their compliance with ADA standards. AESTH-11: Buildings, structures, and landscaping should be sited to be sensitive to scenic views from and through the park project. Given the general openness of the site, facilities should be sited to minimize the impact on views from key viewpoints. Project-wide Guidelines Relevant to Interpretive Exhibits The General Plan includes guidelines for interpretive signs relevant to Albany Beach that apply to the entire park: VISIT-16: Incorporate interpretive and educational facilities and programs into the park project. Appropriate facilities may include interpretive centers, observation platforms/bird blinds, vista points, interpretive signage, and public art. In terms of the content for interpretive exhibits, the General Plan includes a section devoted to project-wide interpretation and acknowledges the rich array of resources that can contribute to the public s appreciation and understanding of the shoreline, the Bay ecology, and the effects of human consumption and disposal. The General Plan recommends a Park Unifying Theme: Connections: Linking the Urban and Natural Environments on the Eastshore and outlines a series of Primary Themes: - Connecting with the Water: The Evolution of a Shoreline - Connecting with the Land: Nature and the City - Connecting with the Future: Garbage vs. Resource Recovery - Connecting with the Past: Indigenous Peoples All of these themes have relevance to Albany Beach. The General Plan provides a series of guidelines for each theme to provide further detail on the possibilities for interpretation. Opportunities Provide picnic facility: the eucalyptus grove at Albany Beach provides an opportunity to locate a picnic facility in an area that is sheltered from the wind, sun and waves. P:\EBR1001\Task 3 Opportunities and Constraints\Final Draft\Opp_and_Const_Final_Report.doc (01/14/11) 40

44 Use sustainable materials: construction or installation of new picnic facilities, benches and interpretive exhibits provides an opportunity to utilize recycled, durable materials. Add information stations: new signage at key locations on the shoreline provides the opportunity to inform the public about recreational opportunities (e.g., a map of the Bay Trail and Water Trail routes), resource protection (e.g., bird, marine mammal and invertebrate protection regulations), and safety (e.g., shoreline hazards). Incorporate uncommissioned salvaged art into site improvements: uncommissioned art works salvaged during shoreline stabilization/reconfiguration can be incorporated into the picnic facility and interpretive exhibits. Provide interpretive exhibits: public access improvements and restoration provide numerous opportunities for interpretive exhibits. Ideal subjects for interpretation at this site include: Native American habitation near the project area; The history of the Albany shoreline and industry at Fleming Point; Physical processes that shape the shoreline, such as sea level rise, wind and currents; Natural history (e.g., birds, eelgrass, native oysters, invasive species); Habitat restoration; and San Francisco Bay geography and geologic history. Constraints Potential safety issue: siting a picnic area within the eucalyptus grove poses a potential safety issue during high winds, as branches and other debris may fall from the trees. If improvements are proposed in the eucalyptus grove, it will be necessary to thin and prune the trees to remove these potential hazards. Climate: the harsh coastal climate of the site (e.g., flood hazards, high wind, the salt and moisture content of the air) may impact the durability of picnic facilities and interpretive exhibits. Vandalism and theft constrain design solutions: vandalism and theft in a high use area may constrain the design and affect the durability of picnic facilities and interpretive exhibits. Costs Picnic Facility Development and Interpretive Exhibits The costs of new amenities, such as picnic facilities and interpretive exhibits, should be within the range typical for other shoreline park units. Accessible picnic tables made from recycled plastic and metal may cost $1,800 each, delivered and installed. Additional benches (without tables) may cost approximately $1,100 each. Trash and recycle receptacles that match the recycled tables and benches may cost approximately $2,200 for one trash receptacle and one recycle receptacle. Installation of bicycle racks at the picnic facility or elsewhere in the park may cost approximately $1,500 each. Utilizing recycled products for construction of amenities is generally not cost-prohibitive. In some cases recycled products, such as recycled plastic wood products, may be more durable than natural wood. Durable signage made with porcelain enamel is approximately 30 percent more expensive to construct than plastic-coated signage; however, long-term maintenance costs for durable signage are P:\EBR1001\Task 3 Opportunities and Constraints\Final Draft\Opp_and_Const_Final_Report.doc (01/14/11) 41

45 lower. Plastic-coated interpretative signage would need replacement within five years, while porcelain enamel signage can last at least 15 to 20 years. A grouping of approximately two to three plastic-coated interpretive signs that are accessible per 2009 California State Parks Accessibility Guidelines may cost $12,000 per installation. The preliminary cost includes design, fabrication and installation. Accessible informational station signs may cost $6,000 per installation. Preliminary costs are subject to change as project alternatives are developed and more accurate information becomes available. SUBTASK 3.4: AESTHETIC IMPROVEMENTS The most significant aesthetic features of Eastshore State Park in general and Albany Beach in particular, are the spectacular views of the Bay, San Francisco, the Golden Gate Bridge and the Marin Hills. Improvements at Albany Beach should not detract from these views, but instead provide visitors the opportunity to enjoy the views from different perspectives (e.g., beach, trail, water). The foreground to these views along the Albany Shoreline, including the dunes, wetlands and the beach, also should be aesthetically pleasing to visitors. Relevant General Plan Guidelines The General Plan includes guidelines for the entire Park that are relevant to Albany Beach: Signage/Identity Guidelines AESTH-2: Establish primary and secondary entry points to the park project, and develop design standards for these gateway areas that will create a sense of arrival and establish an initial identity and sense of place for the park project. Landscape Character Guidelines AESTH-4: To the degree practicable, all landscape plantings in improved areas, not including turf areas, (e.g., around buildings, picnic areas, paths, etc.) should use California native species that are endemic to the East Bay shoreline in order to introduce the public to the area s biotic heritage and to enhance habitat values for native wildlife species. All landscaping should also emphasize plant species with low water requirements. OPER-16: Sustainable Sites: Minimize the negative environmental impacts of site enhancement, development, maintenance, and operations by considering the following guidelines when implementing the General Plan: - Preserve existing vegetation, especially native plants, and protect such vegetation during construction. - Design new plantings as diverse communities of species well-adapted to the site. Use primarily native species that require less maintenance and less water than exotics. OPER-17: Safeguarding Water: Conserve water and protect water quality by considering the following guidelines when implementing the plan: P:\EBR1001\Task 3 Opportunities and Constraints\Final Draft\Opp_and_Const_Final_Report.doc (01/14/11) 42

46 - Plant indigenous vegetation and species that are suited to the local environment. - Use water-efficient irrigation design and systems for landscaping. Viewshed Protection Guidelines AESTH-11: Buildings, structures, and landscaping should be sited to be sensitive to scenic views from and through the park project. Given the general openness of the site, facilities should be sited to minimize the impact on views from key viewpoints. 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. Discussion An identity and wayfinding program for Eastshore State Park has not yet been developed. Signing that conveys a connection with the greater State Park would highlight Albany Beach as a significant park feature and would indicate connections to other State Park destinations and the Bay Trail. The City of Albany worked with the California State Coastal Conservancy during the mid- to late 1990s on the development of improvements for the Albany Waterfront spur trail, including the design of interpretive signage, decking, fencing, landscaping and other site improvements. The District may choose to establish a new design palette for site amenities and interpretive signage or repeat the existing design established by the City of Albany for both site furnishings and interpretive signage. Improvements in the form of landscaping would be limited to those areas immediately adjacent to existing and new entry drives, parking lots and the restroom area. Costs associated with revegetation for habitat improvements are considered separately (see Subtask 1.1). The Albany waterfront has a long tradition of artistic expression in the form of public art, both formally sanctioned and spontaneous in origin. The study area includes two installations commissioned and maintained by the City of Albany an interactive sculpture that provides shelter from the wind, called The Cove, and a metal sculpture called Herons. The majority of uncommissioned public art on the Albany waterfront is located outside the study area at the Bulb. A few painted surfaces, bronze plaques and sculptures made of found objects are located on the southern shoreline of the Neck within the study area and on property co-owned by the State of California and the District. The Public Art Management Plan, recommended in the General Plan, has not yet been developed for Eastshore State Park. Opportunities Incorporate aesthetics into restoration and public access: incorporate vegetation and public art into reconfiguration of existing or development of new public amenities; incorporate native plants into sustainable revegetation schemes; and utilize vegetation and public art as a visual barrier between the beach and parking lots. P:\EBR1001\Task 3 Opportunities and Constraints\Final Draft\Opp_and_Const_Final_Report.doc (01/14/11) 43

47 Consider or protect viewshed: select trailside fencing that does not obstruct views. Provide restrooms: Provide durable, low maintenance restrooms near the beach water access to eliminate the need for unsightly portable toilets in view of the beach. Consider composting toilets that reduce odors. Connect to existing irrigation line: an above-ground publicly owned irrigation line located along Buchanan Street may be available for short-term irrigation of landscaping if it is needed at the beach, dunes or trailheads. If a connection is feasible, a temporary irrigation system could be installed and operated for approximately two years to support establishment of planted or seeded vegetation. Cultivate public support: incorporate art created by the local community to beautify and give multiple layers of meaning to the space. Including public art in park improvements can bolster the community s sense of stewardship, involvement and pride in the project. Reuse materials: Clean non-hazardous debris removed from the shoreline may be recycled as art rather than off-hauled to a landfill. Constraints Dogs: off-leash dogs can impact the aesthetic experience for visitors to Albany Beach (pet cleanup and safety) and pet cleanup rules are difficult to enforce. Viewshed protection: revegetation and landscaping is constrained by the need to protect the viewshed. Trees and tall shrubs should not be planted where they will obstruct views. Non-native vegetation: native vegetation establishment is constrained by major non-native plant infestations. Managing non-native plant infestations is a long-term effort that is labor- and costintensive. Public support: aesthetic values are subjective. Public buy-off on aesthetic improvements may be challenging to achieve. Shoreline stabilization goals: uncommissioned public art may be encountered at the rubble armoring of the southern Neck shoreline and may need to be removed for shoreline stabilization. These objects may need to be relocated to maintain public support of shoreline improvements. Public safety concerns: some uncommissioned public art may pose safety hazards to the public. Climate: the harsh coastal climate of the site (e.g., flood hazards, high wind, the salt and moisture content of the air) may impact the durability of public art and other amenities. Vandalism and theft constrain design solutions: vandalism in a high use area may constrain the durability of public art, landscaping and other amenities. Costs Aesthetic Improvements The costs of aesthetic improvements tied to restoration and public access, such as revegetation and signage, have been addressed under previous sections of this report. Other opportunities for aesthetic improvements discussed in this analysis are difficult to apply costs to, such as public support and viewshed protection. In general, aesthetic improvements that require a high degree of maintenance would be costly and undesirable. P:\EBR1001\Task 3 Opportunities and Constraints\Final Draft\Opp_and_Const_Final_Report.doc (01/14/11) 44

48 Incorporation of drought tolerant native vegetation into landscaping is generally a cost effective aesthetic improvement; however, long-term management of weed infestations is necessary for sustaining native plant populations and is a cost-intensive commitment. Revegetation and weed management costs are discussed under Subtask 1.1 Dune, Sandy Beach and Wetland Habitat Enhancement. Durable fencing and low-maintenance vegetation are cost effective options for providing barriers (physical and visual) between the beach and parking/restrooms. Uncommissioned art salvaged from other parts of the shoreline can be incorporated into this barrier or other park amenities at a relatively high cost. Relocation and anchoring of art pieces may cost an average of $11,000 per piece; however, the actual cost would depend on the size of the piece and whether or not anchoring were necessary. Preliminary costs are subject to change as project alternatives are developed and more accurate information becomes available. P:\EBR1001\Task 3 Opportunities and Constraints\Final Draft\Opp_and_Const_Final_Report.doc (01/14/11) 45

49 CONSISTENCY WITH LOCAL PLANS AND POLICIES Eastshore State Park General Plan and East Bay Regional Park District Master Plan Albany Beach is a designated management area within Eastshore State Park. All proposed improvements in Eastshore State Park are subject to the goals and guidelines of the Eastshore State Park General Plan (adopted in 2002) and the East Bay Regional Park District Master Plan (adopted in 1997, revised and adopted in 2008). The opportunities presented in this analysis have been reviewed for consistency with these two plans. The Eastshore State Park General Plan designates Management Zones for various areas of the park. Albany Beach and the associated open water are located in the Albany Shoreline Management Zone and are designated for conservation and recreation, respectively. The opportunities for restoration, enhancement and public access improvements analyzed herein are consistent with the land use designations, goals and policies of the General Plan. The East Bay Regional Park District Master Plan identifies Eastshore State Park as a Regional Shoreline, defined as an area that provides significant recreational, interpretive, natural, or scenic values on land, water, and tidal areas along the San Francisco Bay, San Pablo Bay, and Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta. The opportunities for restoration, enhancement and public access improvements analyzed herein are consistent with this definition and with the guidelines and policies of the Master Plan. City of Albany General Plan and Other City Policy Documents Eastshore State Park lands, such as Albany Beach, that are co-owned by the State of California and the District are not subject to the City of Albany General Plan or Municipal Code, including zoning. However, the City owns Buchanan Street which extends along the Albany Neck. The paved portion of Buchanan Street provides vehicular public access to the Albany Waterfront, including Albany Beach. The Buchanan Street right of way continues west past the turnaround, providing trail access to Albany Bulb for pedestrians and emergency/maintenance vehicles. Thus, Buchanan Street and Albany Neck access stem are subject to the City of Albany s land use authority. Private lands adjacent to lands co-owned by the State of California and the District also are subject to the City s land use authority. If the 2.8-acre privately owned parcel east of Albany Beach is acquired by the State and the District for restoration and public access improvements, the parcel will not be subject to the City s land use authorization; however, the consistency with the City s policies and guidelines will be considered. Albany updated the City General Plan in 1992 as a policy guide for planning and decision making over a 20 year period ( ). In the interest of compatibility with applicable policies, the discussion below references a specific General Plan policy that would affect proposed improvements at Albany Beach. The City of Albany General Plan, Conservation, Recreation and Open Space Element, includes the following goal and implementing policy: P:\EBR1001\Task 3 Opportunities and Constraints\Final Draft\Opp_and_Const_Final_Report.doc (01/14/11) 46

50 Goal: Continue to value the importance of the Albany waterfront area and shoreline as a place of scenic beauty. CROS 5.2 Further preserve the scenic value of the Albany shoreline by prohibiting construction of any building or structure within a 100-foot minimum of the shoreline. Several words used in the above policy could be subject to interpretation. The City s Community Development Director, Ann Chaney, stated in one of a series of telephone conversations with LSA that shoreline can be defined as mean high tide, as used by BCDC and the Coastal Commission. Building or structure, would certainly include a proposed restroom, but might also extend to the proposed trail, proposed parking lot or a proposed seating wall. The City does not require building permits for flat work (parking or trail); however, placing a parking area and the construction of fences and wall within the 100-foot minimum may be incompatible with this policy. Ms. Chaney also referenced Voices to Vision: A Community Vision for Albany s Waterfront (Fern Tiger Associates 2010), a recommended set of guidelines that has been accepted by the City to be used as a living document on waterfront planning. The Vision document (on pages 6 and 7) includes Site Planning and Design Guidelines for the 190 acre (88 acres public, 102 acres private) area known as the Albany Waterfront. According to these guidelines, amenities such as public restrooms that are directly related to park activities can be built within the 100-foot setback from the shoreline The above discussion provides guidance to consider when evaluating public access improvements at Albany Beach. San Francisco Bay Plan In 1965 the California Legislature passed the McAteer-Petris Act, California Public Resources Code Section 66600, which mandated study of the Bay, preparation of a plan (Bay Plan), and formation of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). BCDC is the federallydesignated state coastal management agency for San Francisco Bay and has jurisdiction in the greater San Francisco Bay area to administer the McAteer-Petris Act and the Bay Plan. For Eastshore State Park, BCDC jurisdiction includes Bay waters up to the shoreline, as well as the land area between the shoreline and a line 100 feet inland and parallel to the shoreline: BCDC s 100-foot shoreline band. The shoreline is located at the mean high tide line, except in marsh areas, where the shoreline is located at five feet above mean sea level. The Bay Plan was adopted by BCDC in 1968, enacted by the California legislature in 1969, and revised in Since 1998, BCDC has adopted a series of maps for specific areas called the Bay Plan Maps. These Bay Plan Maps are based on the Bay Plan and show how to apply Bay Plan policies to specific areas. The Bay Plan Policies listed with each Bay Plan Map are enforceable policies. Bay Plan Map 4 Central Bay North (reprinted February 2008) is the relevant Bay Plan Map for this site and designates the majority of the Albany Beach study area as Waterfront Park Beach. The Golden Gate Fields (Magna Entertainment Corp) property within the study area has no designation. The opportunities for restoration, enhancement and public access improvements analyzed herein are consistent with the Bay Plan land use designation. P:\EBR1001\Task 3 Opportunities and Constraints\Final Draft\Opp_and_Const_Final_Report.doc (01/14/11) 47

51 San Francisco Bay Trail Plan The San Francisco Bay Trail Plan (Bay Trail Plan) sets forth policy guidelines for the routing, design, implementation, and protection of the Bay Trail. The goal of the Bay Trail Plan is to complete a 400-mile recreational ring around the Bay in the form of trails for pedestrians and bicycles. The Bay Trail Plan is intended to complement, rather than supercede, the policies of local agencies; however, the local land management agencies are encouraged to include the Bay Trail in their planning and policy documents. Closing the trail gap between Golden Gate Fields and Albany Bulb (i.e., Gilman to Buchanan Streets) was identified by the Bay Trail administration as a project of high benefit. The District supports the Bay Trail Plan and has incorporated it into the 1997 Master Plan, the 2008 Master Plan Map, and the 1988 (Measure AA) and 2008 (Measure WW) financing programs. In 2008, the District sponsored a preliminary design of an Interim Bay Trail along the Albany shoreline between Golden Gate Fields and Albany Beach (East Bay Regional Park District 2008). The Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Feasibility Study identifies closure of this gap in the Bay Trail as a major opportunity for improving public access within Eastshore State Park. P:\EBR1001\Task 3 Opportunities and Constraints\Final Draft\Opp_and_Const_Final_Report.doc (01/14/11) 48

52 REFERENCES Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) San Francisco Bay Trail Plan. Boyer, K. E. and S. Wyllie-Echeverria Eelgrass conservation and restoration in San Francisco Bay: Opportunities and constraints. Final report to the San Francisco Bay Subtidal Habitat Goals Project. East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). June Applicant installed water main extensions. Brochure C-028 produced by Administration Department, New Business Office. East Bay Regional Park District Golden Gate Fields Interim Bay Trail. Engineered plans prepared by Questa Engineering Corp, January 8, Sheets 1-6. Fern Tiger Associates (FTA) Voices to Vision: A Community Vision for Albany s Waterfront. Prepared for the City of Albany, California. April 5, Goals Project Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals: A report of habitat recommendations. M.M. Monroe and P. R. Olofson, editors. Prepared by the San Francisco Bay Area Wetlands Ecosystem Goals Project. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Oakland, California. Kozloff, E.N Seashore Life of the Northern Pacific Coast. An illustrated guide to Northern California, Oregon, Washington and British Columbia. University of Washington Press, Seattle and London. LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA), Philip Williams & Associates, Ltd., Baseline Environmental Consulting, Vallier Design Associates, Inc., and Katharyn Boyer, Ph.D Existing and Future Conditions Report, Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Feasibility Study, Eastshore State Park, California. Prepared for East Bay Regional Park District, January 12, Merkel, K.W. and Associates Baywide eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) inventory in San Francisco Bay: Eelgrass atlas. Report prepared for Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade and Douglass, the State of California Department of Transportation and NOAA Fisheries. Merkel, K. W. and Associates. 2009, in review. San Francisco Bay eelgrass atlas, October-November Submitted to California Department of Transportation and National Marine Fisheries Service. P:\EBR1001\Task 3 Opportunities and Constraints\Final Draft\Opp_and_Const_Final_Report.doc (01/14/11) 49

53 Merkel, K. W. and Associates Pilot eelgrass restoration at Berkeley North Basin, San Francisco Bay, Central Bay eelgrass mitigation program. Report prepared for the California Department of Transportation and National Marine Fisheries Service. Philip Williams & Associates (PWA) Coyote Point Recreation Area Shoreline and Promenade Improvement Project 100 percent Construction Documents. Prepared for San Mateo County Parks Department, June San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Draft San Francisco Bay Area Water Trail Plan. Zabin, C. J., S. Attoe, E. D. Grosholz, and C. Coleman-Hulbert Shellfish conservation and restoration in San Francisco Bay: Opportunities and constraints. Final report to the San Francisco Bay Subtidal Habitat Goals Project. Personal Communications Chaney, Ann, City of Albany Community Development Director. Telephone conversation with Leslie Allen, LSA, June 23, Chaney, Ann, City of Albany Community Development Director. Series of telephone conversations with Laura Lafler, LSA, September Leptien, Randolph, Contract Engineer for City of Albany Public Works Division. Electronic mail correspondence with Ann Chaney, City of Albany, September 8, Swearingen, Mark, EBMUD New Business Office. Electronic mail correspondence with Leslie Allen, LSA, September 13, P:\EBR1001\Task 3 Opportunities and Constraints\Final Draft\Opp_and_Const_Final_Report.doc (01/14/11) 50

54 APPENDIX A FIGURES Figure 1: Opportunities Figure 2: Constraints Figure 3: Opportunities and Constraints Detail of Albany Beach P:\EBR1001\Task 3 Opportunities and Constraints\Final Draft\Opp_and_Const_Final_Report.doc (01/14/11) 1

55 COASTAL/UPLAND TRANSITION HABITAT ENHANCE SHORELINE LIVING SHORELINES SHORELINE ACCESS STABILIZE SHORELINE STORMWATER DRAINAGE AND TRAIL INCORPORATE SALVAGED ART EXISTING TRAIL COASTAL/UPLAND TRANSITION REMOVE MATERIALS FOR ACCESS AND SAFETY STUDY AREA BOUNDARY SHELLFISH HABITAT IMPROVE AESTHETICS AND HABITAT SHELTERED PICNIC FACILITY ENHANCE WETLANDS WAVE AND WIND IN FL UE NC COLOGICAL CE E ENHAN IMPROVE SITE D DRAINAGE N CO E TI NEC R PO TR SAND ANS VI TY T PLACE SAND EELGRASS HABITAT SHORELINE ACCESS EXPAND DUNES REMOVE DEBRIS AND CREOSOTE TIMBER CREATE WATER ACCESS INTERPRETIVE EXHIBITS ENHANCE SHORELINE PRESERVE REMNANT PIER ELEVATE TRAIL FOR SEA LEVEL RISE INTERPRETIVE EXHIBITS ENHANCE COASTAL SCRUB PROJECT: ALBANY BEACH: RESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESS VALLIER DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING DESIGN 210 WASHINGTON AVENUE, SUITE G POINT RICHMOND, CA T: F: NORTH SCALE: 1" = 100'-0" SHEET TITLE: 200 FEASIBILITY STUDY FIGURE 1: OPPORTUNITIES

56 SHORELINE S OR SH OREL ELIN EL INE IN E ACCESS ACCE AC CES CE SS SS LIMITED LIM LI MIIT TE ED BY Y DEBRIS DEB EBRI RIS S REDUNDANT REDU RE UN ND DANT AN NT TRAIL TR TRAI RAI AIL SYSTEM SY S YS ST TEM M NON-NATIVE NO NONON N--N NA ATI T VE V VEGETATION VE EGE GETA T TI TA TION ON N CONSTRAINS CONS CO NST TR RAI AINS NS S NATIVE NA N AT TIIVE E HABITAT HAB BIT TAT AT EELGRASS EE EL LG GRA RASS ASS S IMPACTED IMP MPAC A TE AC ED BY B EXISTING EXI XS ST TIN NG SHORELINE SHOR SH OREL OR REL ELIN ELIN INE E STUDY STUD ST UD DY AREA AR A REA E BOUNDARY BOU UND DAR ARY Y DEEPER D EP DE EPER ER WATER WAT ATER E ER CONSTRAINS CO ONS N TR TRAIINS NS EELGRASS EE ELG LGRA R SS RA SS LIMITED LIMI LI MIT TE ED BATHYMETRIC BA ATH T YM YMET ET E T TRI RIC RI C DATA DA AT TA A ADA ADA COMPLIANCE CO C OM MP PLI L AN A CE C EUCALYPTUS EUC UCAL UCAL ALYP LYP YPTU Y TUS GROVE TU GROV GR OVE SAND SAND SA D SUPPLY SUP UPPL PLY PL Y CREOSOTE CRE R OS OSOT O E TIMBERS OT TIIMB T MBER ERS ER LIMITED LIIM L MIITE TED IRRIGATION IIR RRI RRI R GA G TI TO ON N WATER WA AT TER E EXISTING E IS EX I T TIING N PARKING PAR RKI KN NG G IS IS NOT NO OT PERMANENT PE ERM RMAN MAN ANEN NEN ENT T NON-NATIVE NO N ONN-NA NA ATI T VE VEGETATION VEG GET TAT ATIO IO ON PIER PIE ER STRUCTURES ST TRUCT RU UC CT TUR RES E POTENTIAL POTE PO ENT NTIA I L HISTORIC IA HIIST STORIC OR RIC C RESOURCES RES SOU OURC RCES ES DOGS DO OGS GS PAVEMENT PAVE PA VEME M N NT T SHALLOW SH HAL ALLO LO L OW ROCK ROCK RO C EDGE EDG GE CONCRETE CONC CO CRETE RET RE TE E RUBBLE RUB BBL BLE MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL MULT MULT MU TII-JU JURI JU URI RISD SDIC CTI TION ONAL NA AL L BOUNDARIES BOU OUND DA AR RIE IES ES PROJECT: VALLIER DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING DESIGN 210 WASHINGTON AVENUE, SUITE G POINT RICHMOND, CA T: F: ALBANY BEACH: RESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESS NORTH SCALE: 1" = 100'-0" SHEET TITLE: 200 FEASIBILITY STUDY FIGURE 2: CONSTRAINTS

57 IMPROVE IM MPR PROV OVE AESTHETICS AE EST STHE HET TIICS CS AND AND ND HABITAT HABIT AB BITAT IT TAT AT SHELTERED SH SHEL HEL ELTE ELTE T RE R D PICNIC P CNIC PI CNIC CN C FACILITY FAC A IL LIIT TY ENHANCE ENHA EN HAN NC C CE E WETLANDS WE W ETL T AN ANDS S IMPROVE IMP IM IMPR PR ROV OVE SITE S TE SI TE DRAINAGE DR RA AIN NA AG GE E ECOLOGICA L ANC ENH NON-NATIVE NO N NONONN-NA NAT TIIV VE E VEGETATION VE EG GET GET TA AT TIO ION IT IV CT NNE CO Y SAND TRA N T OR SP LIMITED LIIMI L IMI MITE TED BATHYMETRIC BA AT TH HYM Y ET ETRI RIC RI C DATA D TA DA A DEEP DE EEP EP WATER WAT ATER E CONSTRAINS CONS CO C NS ST TR RAI A NS S EELGRASS EEL LGR G AS SS EXPAND EX XPA PAND AN ND D EELGRASS E EEL ELGRAS EL GR RAS SS HABITAT H BIITA HA AT SHORELINE SHO SH OR REL E IN INE NE ACCESS A CE AC C SS S EXISTING EXIS EX STI TIN NG G PARKING PA AR RK KIIN NG G IS IS NOT NOT OT PERMANENT PER ERMA MANE NE EN NT T EXPAND EXPAND EX EXPA PA P AN ND D DUNES DUN U ES REMOVE REMO RE MOV VE E DEBRIS DE EB BRI RIS AND A D AN CREOSOTE CREO CR OSO SOTE TE E TIMBER TIM IMBE B R CREATE CR CR REA EATE EA T WATER TE WAT ATER ER ACCESS AC CC CES ESS S INTERPRETIVE IN NTE TERP RPRE R TI T VE V EXHIBITS EXHIB XH HIB IBIT IT TS ELEVATE EL LE EV VAT TE TRAIL TRA RAIL IL L FOR FOR OR SEA SEA A LEVEL L VE LE EL RISE RIISE R SE FIGURE FIGU FI GU GURE URE R 3 LEGEND LEG EGEN END EN D NOTES: NOTE NO T S: TE CONSTRAINTS CO C ON NS STR TRA AIINT INT TS OPPORTUNITIES OPPO OP OPPO PORT RT TUN UNIT IT TIE ES PROJECT: ALBANY BEACH: RESTORATION AND PUBLIC ACCESS VALLIER DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING DESIGN 210 WASHINGTON AVENUE, SUITE G POINT RICHMOND, CA T: F: NORTH SCALE: 1" = 50'-0" SHEET TITLE: 100 FEASIBILITY STUDY FIGURE 3: OPPORTUNITIES & CONSTRAINTS DETAIL OF ALBANY BEACH