Brickyard Cove resident suggests we should begin conversations about the 'State of the Nation'

----------------------------

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Hello all,

I think that we all share a sense of deep upset about last Wednesday's events in the Capitol. I also think that we at Brickyard are much more politically diverse than the communities of Berkeley and Kensington which I lived in from 1971 to 2003 when we moved here. I think perhaps this diversity and the range of Democrats and Independents and Republicans (both within and between them) could be something of an opportunity rather than merely silently held divisions so we keep getting along with each other (which, in fact, matters a lot) As a country we desperately need to talk to each other and listen to each other across differences. Perhaps we can make one small start here at Brickyard.

I propose that we find a (virtual--phone or Zoom, i.e. safe) way to pair Republicans and Democrats and Independents (who "caucus" with one or the other?) to meet once a month for one hour over coffee, tea or wine to discuss the state of the nation, what we believe and how we might help. I put this same suggestion in Share the Wealth during the election of 2016. There was only 1 answer and the sound of one hand clapping is not enough.

Is anyone up for this now? I don't know if it's a tenable idea, but I'm curious to try. I am, by the way, on the conservative side of progressive democrats or the liberal side of moderate democrats; I'm not sure which. I grew up in a white midwestern Republican middle class suburb. The first political song I learned was in second grade: "Whistle while you work, Stephenson's a jerk. Eisenhower's got the power. Whistle while you work". I had an Ayn Rand phase in high school, my first vote for President was Eldridge Cleaver. I voted for Joe Biden in the primary.

Please contact me by e-mail with any thoughts or suggestions. Yours in humanity (Yes, I KNOW this is really corny),

Carol Morrison Straforini EMAIL: cmstraf@gmail.com

Letter to Water Quality Control Board supports more stringent Terminal One cleanup standards

EDITOR'S NOTE: The following is a copy of a letter sent to the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board in support of pollution cleanup recommendations for the proposed Terminal One residential project in Point Richmond. 

============================================

December 20, 2019

Executive Director

San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board

1515 Clay Street

Oakland, CA 94612

We are writing to support the technical recommendations of GEI Consultants, hired by the Brickyard Cove Alliance for Responsible Development (BCARD) to review the October 2019 Remedial Design Report for Terminal One. The specific concern is contaminant discharges to the Bay and the technical review was for slurry wall design.

For 8 years we have surveyed the abundant avian species (waterbirds, shorebirds, Osprey) foraging, nesting, wintering/migrating at Ferry Point, Brickyard Cove, the Richmond Entrance Channel breakwater offshore from Terminal One, and Miller-Knox Regional Shoreline. We are very concerned that the October 2019 Remedial Design slurry wall construction design and plan, materials (e.g., choice of bentonite), and the proposed limited length of time monitoring of the effectiveness of the slurry wall, have notable deficiencies and will therefore will not protect this special site’s ecosystem, nor its inhabitants. 

We ask that you require effective, modern, site-specific /appropriate slurry wall construction, with third-party quality control, and monitoring of the slurry wall in perpetuity, to ensure protection of the species-rich Point Richmond littoral, subtidal and benthic zones, and the Pacific Herring Fishery.

GEI Consultants’ recommendations regarding the October 2019 Terminal One Remedial Design Report are contained in two emails found at the California geotracker website:

https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/view_documents?global_id=T0601300697&document_id=6008856

Reports resulting from review by consultants of BCARD of the Environmental Report prepared by the consultant originally commissioned by the City of Richmond and Laconia, identified a number of serious deficiencies in the testing and remediation of the contaminated soil at the Terminal One project site. 

We are particularly concerned about issues raised regarding leaking of contaminated groundwater into the adjacent shoreline around Ferry Point and Miller-Knox Regional Shoreline. This shoreline hosts part of the largest meadows of eelgrass (Zostera marina) extant in San Francisco Bay. Eelgrass is a critical component of a healthy San Francisco Bay. Eelgrass habitat acts as a protective nursery ground for finfish and shellfish, as an important food source for both waterbirds and a large variety of invertebrates, and as protection to coastal areas against shoreline erosion. (https://richardsonbay.audubon.org/all-about-eelgrass). 

At Ferry Point and along the Richmond Entrance Channel breakwater, large annual spawning events occur when the Pacific Herring (Clupea pallasii) arrive to deposit their eggs on the eelgrass and other aquatic vegetation. The Pacific Herring Fishery is the last remaining fishery in San Francisco Bay. (https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Fishing/Commercial/Herring). 

A large number of people also take advantage to harvest these herring from the shoreline and pier. The following video, taken at Ferry Point, conveys the excitement and magnitude of these spectacular winter natural events, which attract many thousands of birds, including Scoters, Scaup, Pelicans, Bufflehead, Widgeon, Cormorants, at least 5 species of Gulls, and California sea lions and Harbor seals. (https://youtu.be/KfYZs-qgSAk)  

As well as eelgrass, other types of aquatic vegetation (including Gracilaria, Fucus, Ulva) also occur at this location and provide habitat and other valuable “ecological services”. 

Fish species such as Jacksmelt and Surfperch also spawn at this location. The (insufficient) measures that have been proposed by Laconia and the City of Richmond to prevent release or leaking of toxic groundwater would likely result in injection directly into the intertidal zone exposing the marine vegetation and fauna to maximal levels of contaminants. This could occur during preparation and execution of remediation, and then subsequently during construction, and indefinitely thereafter if remediation and prevention are inadequate. Such contamination is unacceptable. 

Highly conservative design and execution of all steps and stages of this project is essential. The previous testing, proposals and communications by Laconia and the City of Richmond fail to provide confidence that such a rigorous approach has been considered. It is evident that measures to effectively protect this site’s littoral, subtidal, benthic and shoreline environments/habitats, and the myriad species that rely on them, as well as the health of future human residents, will not be put into place unless the Developer and City of Richmond are required to do so by the Regional Water Quality Review Board.  

Thank you for your consideration.

Yvonne McHugh, Ph.D.

Anthony Brake, Ph.D.

Pt. Richmond, CA

Canvas against coal letter to the editor

LETTER TO THE EDITOR:
Canvas Against Coal in Richmond

     Are you one of the many Richmond residents finding black dust on your window sills and cars? Much of that is coming from the coal trains going to the Levin-Richmond Terminal, and some of it is blowing off the uncovered piles waiting for shipment—right into the lungs of everyone breathing it. 

     In November 2017, a concerned group of people got together under the auspices of the Sierra Club to form “No Coal in Richmond,”a citizens’group dedicated to stopping the coal and petroleum coke (“petcoke”) shipments from polluting our air, water and land—and creating a public health crisis.

     The City Council is currently considering an ordinance that would phase out coal and petcoke handling and storage over a period of five years. This is now  being reviewed by the city attorney. To help show community support, No Coal in Richmond will be canvassing neighborhoods with a petition in both English and Spanish that concerned residents can sign. A training session on canvassing is being held Jan. 24, from 7-8:30 p.m.—but you do not have to attend this to help canvass. 

     The training includes a script with talking points and a chance to practice. The event will provide fliers about the No Coal in Richmondcampaign, the letter for signatures—as well as instructions for obtaining signatures via cellphone, a copy of the proposed ordinance, and addresses to canvass.

      Ready to do something local to combat climate change? Then take part in the campaign to stop coal exports from the Bay Area.

     To attend the canvassing training, please RSVP to action@sunflower-alliance.org. Can’t make this meeting but want to canvass? Let us know.

WHEN:

Thursday, January 24, 7 –8:30 PM

WHERE:

Bobby Bowens Progressive Center

2540 Macdonald Ave.

Richmond, CA 94804

(Submitted by Janis Hashe, Richmond)

OPINION: The elephant in the parking place

   POINT RICHMOND - The Point Richmond community was justifiably up in arms a couple of weeks ago when kiosks suddenly were installed on Park Place - the first phase of a City of Richmond paid-parking pilot program.
     They were the mechanical advance guards of a larger city plan to have paid parking on Park Place, Washington Avenue and W. Richmond Ave.
    That kerfuffle is over.
    The kiosks have been yanked out.
    And Point Richmond Business District parking is returning to what passes for normal.
    But that normal might not last very long.

    The 27 newly built apartments in The Point complex next to Mechanics Bank may soon fill with residents.
    The Shea Homes Shoreline development of 60 homes on Seacliff Drive is under construction.
    The 200-unit Quarry residential project off Seacliff (near Canal) is close to getting a city green light.
    And the Terminal One behemoth wedged between Miller-Knox Regional Park on Dornan Drive and the Richmond Yacht Club on Brickyard Cove Road may eventually break ground for 300-plus homes.
    A conservative guess would be that the Point Richmond community population will swell by at least 1,200 people when these new housing projects come online.
    And most - if not all - of these news residents will have at least one motor vehicle of some kind. Many, of course, will have two, perhaps more.
    If you think it's hard to find parking in Point Richmond today, imagine a tsunami of new residents  jockeying their cars (or trucks!) for a choice spot near the public library, the markets, other businesses or the coffee shops on Park Place.
    It would be comforting to think that the City of Richmond planners have thought this all through and have a secret plan to deal with traffic and parking from the new developments.
    Comforting, but don't count on it.
    The city declined to even require some minor citizen-suggested safety measures for Seacliff Drive that would have mitigated traffic impacts related to the Quarry residential project.
    And the confusing debacle over the just-removed parking kiosks isn't very reassuring either.
    Perhaps it's time for the Point Richmond Neighborhood Council to take a strong leadership role on the issue.
    A start might be to have a carefully moderated public forum at which residents could devise strategies for dealing with the anticipated influx of new neighbors, their motor vehicles and where said vehicles might park.
    Would the city listen to Point Richmond residents' ideas on this?
    You can bet a kiosk or two they will pay more attention after the events of the last few weeks.

Michael J. Fitzgerald

Homes vs. vacation & short-term rentals

EDITOR'S NOTE: The following column appeared in the Friday, Jan. 12 edition of the Finger Lakes Times newspaper in Geneva, NY.

Homes versus vacation rentals

By Michael J. Fitzgerald

Economic progress in Watkins Glen, NY is colliding with a growing housing shortage, a byproduct of a village-wide rush to convert homes to seasonal vacation rentals.

In the last few years the homes-to-vacation rentals phenomenon has pulled as many as 30 units out of the housing stock in the hamlet of just 1,900 people. Another 30 units of housing are predicted for conversion in the next two years.

Even a small apartment atop a former health food store is now in the short-term vacation rental pool after years as a year-round residence.

For owners of Watkins housing – and investors looking to make a profit – the math is hard to argue with.

Renting a house (or part of a house) to vacationers on a short-term basis is considerably more lucrative – and often less risky – than leasing to a permanent, year-round tenant.

But not having sufficient, affordable non-vacation housing may be keeping out some of the very people Watkins Glen needs most to support its growing prosperity – the workers.

In recent years new restaurants have been popping up in the downtown. Most report they are doing a brisk business. The 104-room Harbor Hotel is booked solid nearly year round and winning awards for excellence. A slew of other successful tourist-related businesses are making a go of it well past normal summer-visitor months.

These enterprises all need workers who in turn need a place to live within a reasonable distance from the village – or in the village. Plus young professionals moving into the area need housing, too.

Watkins’ economic growth includes a $10 million Downtown Revitalization Grant from New York State, the proceeds of which are the topic of sometimes-heated public discussions on how best to spend the state’s money.

High on the discussion list is a proposal from the Watkins Glen Housing Authority to build 50 units of affordable housing on two separate parcels. One project is proposed for a vacant lot across the street from the 48-unit Jefferson Village apartments near the shore of Seneca Lake. A second project is proposed for closer to Watkins Glen High School.

But the WGHA has struggled with internal squabbling that kept the proposal from moving forward until last week.

Given how fast year-round housing is disappearing – plus the current opportunity to get major projects funded – moving forward quickly is critical.

One oft-stated misconception is that Watkins Glen DRI officials can dole out the $10 million to projects they deem worthy. But NY state officials ultimately decide what projects to fund based on their potential to revitalize the village.

Boosting affordable housing stock is a good bet.

A second misconception is that the WGHA proposal is to build low-income units, often referred to as Section 8 housing.

It’s not.

The WGHA is proposing affordable housing, something that would rent for roughly half of the $2,200 to $2,500 rents charged by a recently constructed – and mostly vacant – apartment complex adjacent to the Elks Club.

There have been few takers for those new apartments. Rents are likely too high given prevailing village wages.

The WGHA’s modest proposal to provide reasonably priced, affordable housing might be just that – too modest. The proposed apartment and townhouse-style units are probably insufficient to counter the continuing momentum of homes-to-vacation rental conversions.

Perhaps additional units could be added.  Or another affordable housing proposal from a developer could surface while the DRI advisory group ponders a long list of ideas the village hopes will snag the state’s blessing and be funded.

In the meantime, Watkins Glen and the DRI might consider using this paraphrase in their application to the state, a spin on a famous line from the 1989 film, “Field of Dreams.”

“Build it and they will come.”

 Fitzgerald has worked at six newspapers as a writer and editor as well as a correspondent for two news services. He splits his time between Valois, NY and Pt. Richmond, Calif. You can email him at Michael.Fitzgeraldfltcolumnist@gmail.com and visit his website at michaeljfitzgerald.blogspot.com.

Letter writer shares Seacliff Dr. safety concerns

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

DEAR EDITOR:

   Recently, while driving up Seacliff after turning off Canal, some lunatic in a SUV tried to pass another car on one of the downhill blind curves.  Fortunately, all three were able to stop without a collision.  

     The fact that we had to stop to avoid collision tells you about all you need to know about the incident.  

     My primary intent in relating this is to emphasize the danger associated with the very bad proposal to create an entrance to the Quarry project off Seacliff Drive. No one can account for all bad drivers.  However, we can create roadways where the chance of incidents are reduced.  

     Allowing high-traffic entrances off a curving road with blind turns invites the chance of accidents.  

     My incident occurred in broad daylight.  Had it occurred at nighttime, well, draw your own conclusions.  Additionally, my incident caused me to ask why Seacliff Dr. is not a no-passing zone.  

     If this incident causes others to ponder the above issues, I encourage them to pass their opinions on to the appropriate parties.  

     I have.

Don Ellis

Brickyard Cove

A Q&A about new Pt. Richmond apartments

 EDITOR’S NOTE: The following interview/question & answer session with  David Trachtenberg, architect of the under-construction Point Richmond Business District housing development was conducted by Laura Paull, a Pt. Richmond resident and journalist.

By Laura Paull

Special to The Point website

The Point, a new downtown housing project, has been in the works for several years. But many Point Richmond residents suddenly had questions when the developers broke ground this winter:

Why were fences going up? Did anyone know what was going on behind Mechanics Bank?

As residents watched the structures rise steadily through the winter rains, the project became the frequent subject of conversations in the Natatorium across the street. The ladies in the locker room wanted to know:

Would the units be affordable? By whose definition? Would there be senior housing? What about the homeless? And who could possibly live next to those screeching trains?

A simple question about the development posted on Next Door Point Richmond June 20 blew up, as it is sometimes said in social media. At the time of this writing, it had 82 comments.

This question and answer with architect, David Trachtenberg of Berkeley was to see what answers he could provide. This is not an investigative piece. Many aspects of the project were not included in this short conversation. But one point he made clear in the interview was that this project was viewed, debated, and approved overwhelmingly by the Point Richmond Neighborhood Council, under the leadership of PRNC Vice President Jordan DeStaebler, three years ago, and pushed for approval from the City of Richmond Planning Department.

LAURA PAULL - Many people are concerned about how this housing project is going to change the “look” of historic Point Richmond. Who designed The Point, and who owns it?

David Trachtenberg: My company, Trachtenberg Architects, designed the project. The ownership entity is Point V Apples LLC, a Tiburon-based California Foreign Limited Liability Company.  The Managing Partner is Integrated Property Company, and the Design-Builder is WEST Builders, Inc.

LAURA PAULL: You have a reputation as an architect sensitive to social issues and community concerns. What was the concept you were going for with the project?

David Trachtenberg: This project, though privately owned and not government subsidized, responds to the overall need for more rental units in Point Richmond. We had many large, well-attended community meetings before launching the design stage. The Point is based on the principle of the “pocket neighborhood. It’s pedestrian oriented and designed to foster a sense of community among the people living there. The housing units are focused inward toward a shared commons. Cars are all parked at the front edge of the project, in this case behind the Mechanics Bank, rather than at the doorstep of each dwelling.  This allows the project to preserve precious site area for people rather than for driveways and garages.

LAURA PAULL - What were the particular challenges of this site?

David Trachtenberg - This site, right at the main entrance to the town, is an oddly shaped piece of surplus railroad land bordered on two sides by active railroad tracks. It’s near the freeway. The bus stops right in front of it and the elementary school is across the street. But mainly the triangular shape of the site was a challenge, and the potential noise, and the need for it to look like an attractive welcome to Pt. Richmond.

LAURA PAULL: So how did you deal with these issues architecturally?

David Trachtenberg - In keeping with the small town character of Pt. Richmond, these will be two and three-story buildings, not all the same height. All of the units have small private outdoor or rooftop gardens. For the ambient noise, the buildings will have quadruple pane windows and spray foam acoustic insulation on all exterior walls and attic spaces.  People are already managing to live in older Pt. Richmond dwellings right near the train tracks, and our buildings will be far quieter for residents.

LAURA PAULL:  So what are we going to see when this project is completed this fall?

David Trachtenberg - There will be a total of 27 residential rental units on the site, including 12 one-bedroom apartments on the ground floors, and 15 two-or three-bedroom apartments on the second and third floors.  The building design is that of traditional party-walled row houses. At the entry of the site is a walled parking court for 30 cars. 

This opens into a triangular shaped interior garden commons, defined on two sides by the row houses. The open end of the triangle faces south to catch the sun and frames a view of the historic Natatorium and the hills beyond. This inward facing scheme provides the residents with a sense of community and provides a peaceful respite from the outside world.

The front of the project at the intersection of S. Garrard and W. Cutting contains 1,130SF of ground floor commercial space.  The architecture of this piece of the project recalls the civic scale and proportion of the Natatorium across the street so as to mark this important gateway to Point Richmond. 

LAURA PAULL: Is there any variance in cost, i.e. are any of units designated as low-income or below market rate?

David Trachtenberg: The developers opted to pay a significant sum, around $450,000 to the City's Housing Trust fund in lieu of providing below market rate units on site. Many locals encouraged us to pay the fee, citing that Point Richmond had a fairly large number of affordable housing buildings around the downtown area. 

LAURA PAULL: What would you say to local concerns about the project’s impact on the quality of life in the Point: increase in traffic, parking, pedestrian safety?

David Trachtenberg: It’s a fairly small project that provides its own parking for residents. We've taken a disused, brown field site and transformed it into much needed, well -located housing.  I think people are going to come to like it.