 |
|
 |
| ||
|
Trials Over Trails
Driving across the flat, concrete-strewn 200 acres of Richmond shoreline that he and two partners bought in 1999, Dave Guthridge enthusiastically describes his plans. He wants to construct a mix of tidal and seasonal wetlands, along with transitional uplands on the land, which lies directly south of the Point Pinole Regional Shoreline and harbors a variety of critters, including the endangered clapper rail, salt marsh harvest mice, shorebirds and raptors.
What he doesn’t want to see is a boardwalk cutting through the middle of the new wetlands. Activists from nearby neighborhoods are pushing for the trail, which would lead to a small spit of land jutting into the Bay. The neighbors’ position is supported by the East Bay Regional Park District, while some environmentalists and federal agencies support Guthridge’s view.
Guthridge’s company, Bay Area Wetlands, LLC actually wants to construct two projects on the land, known as the Breuner property. One is a 550,000 square foot technology park, consisting of two large buildings, and associated parking. The 200 acres of wetlands will be a mitigation bank. He says that the two projects are separate, and that the wetlands will be built first, in part because market conditions for office buildings are uncertain.
Guthridge explains that the new habitat won’t be mitigation for the technology park, which will displace less than a half acre of wetlands. Instead, the company will sell credits to other area developers needing to mitigate projects they want to build on environmentally sensitive sites. He estimates the restoration work will cost $30,000 an acre, enough to give the company a modest profit. He also hopes it will serve as a "showpiece" for similar projects his company would like to build in the future.
Even though it sticks out from the middle of Guthridge’s property, the little spit of land is actually owned by the Park District. It commands a beautiful vista of the Bay and fine views of the land. Bruce Beyaert of the Trails for Richmond Action Committee says that the pathway would be one of the few points of shoreline access for residents of nearby low income neighborhoods. He adds that the proposed alignment is a long-hoped-for spur of the Bay Trail, and is also included in the city’s general and specific plans for the area.
Guthridge says that the trail would cut across the heart of the wetlands, and would be an open invitation for dogs and hikers to strike out on their own across the delicate habitat. Beyaert counters that a properly built and fenced path would protect the wetlands, and Bob Doyle of the Park District agrees, saying that there are "absolutely acceptable" ways to construct the trail.
Suzanne Jones of the Richmond Environmental Defense Fund says that her group has problems with the technology park, the concept of mitigation banks in general, the amount of grading that will take place (and possible impacts on the salt marsh harvest mouse), and the alignment of the proposed Bay Trail spur. "It’s not an appropriate place to have people walking dogs," she says. Jones says that while public access is important and necessary, there are other places to put the trail on the site that would have fewer impacts.
The company has applied for an Army Corps permit to build the mitigation bank. The Corps’ Molly Martindale says that a trail down the middle of the project "would certainly be a problem," though it might not totally derail the application. Martindale and Jones favor an alternative proposal ringing the edge of the technology park, farther back from the sensitive marsh areas. Says Martindale, "The developers have proposed an alternative alignment, situating the trail along the edge of the project, and including a pier that would extend out into the Bay. That would provide people with the opportunity to look back at the shoreline and out at the water." Says Guthridge, "We’re not inclined to fight the federal government when we professionally agree with them." Beyeart notes that the lookout point would be just a few yards from duck blinds owned by a local rod and gun club. "It’s a very scary, noisy place to be."
The land was for sale for a decade, and Guthridge points out that the Park District and several nonprofits unsuccessfully tried to purchase it from the Breuner family. Doyle confirms that worries over suspected toxic plumes from nearby industrial plants caused the District to back off. Guthridge says that his own investigations found no serious contamination, and full CEQA review is underway. Documents should be available at the end of April.
Doyle says that his agency has broader concerns about the project. The District spent $50 million to acquire and restore Point Pinole. "It’s all one hydrology and all one shoreline. We’re not opposed to mitigation banks at all," he maintains. But he says that there has been little, if any, communication between the company and the District. Doyle says that the district will act to protect the park, but he remains optimistic. "There’s no question there’s a compromise that can work for everybody." O’B
[ ABAG HOME | SFEP HOME ]
Copyright © 2002, San Francisco Estuary Project