The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 05241988 - S.1 54 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: Supervisor Tom PowersCOSta May 24, 1988 County DATE: Request for Conceptual Approval of Work Program for North Richmond S U BJE CTI Shoreline Area Study and Request for California State Coastal Conservancy Grant to City of Richmond SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: That the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors approve in concept a Work Program for a North Richmond Shoreline Area Study _i.nvolving County participation with the City of Richmond to meet the following objectives: 1) To prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report . for Segment 4 of the North Richmond Bypass 2) To confirm or modify the land uses 'as proposed in the County's Redevelopment Area and the Richmond Shoreline Conservation and Development Strategy 3) To develop a detailed site specific conceptual plan (Sub-Area Study) for the immediate shoreline areas which would include. a natural resource enhancement component, public access proposals, and identification of 'implementation priorities and methods. 4) To provide, the necessary development controls for future growth. That the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors request the California State Coastal Conservancy to provide a grant to the City of Richmond,, the lead agency for the Sub-Area Study, for development of an urban waterfront restoration and enhancement plan for the shoreline area. That the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors request County Counsel to prepare a Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Richmond for the purpose of executing this Work Program. I BACKGROUND: On May 6, 1988 the Route 93 Policy Committee approved in concept the North Richmond Shoreline Area Study Work Plan. The Committee recommended that the Richmond City Council and the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors approve the concept and request California State Coastal Conservancy Funds. The Route 93 Subcommittee, chaired by Supervisor Powers, developed this i ! Work Program through the participation of County Public Works and Community Development staff, City 'of Richmond Public Works and Planning staff, and California State Coastal Conservancy staff. ' CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT$ X YEB BIONATUREI RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) ACTION OF BOARD ON MdV 24. 1988 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED _x OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AYES: NOES: AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN ABSENT( ABSTAINt AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. CC1 ppublic Ytorkks D'recto City ohmond Public Works, Dept. ATTESTED May 24, 1988 Communf icDeve�0pmen Phil l3atch.elor, Clerk of the Board Attn: Larry. Loder of Supervisors and County Administrato State Coastal Conservancy. Attn: Melanie Denninger 3 Mi 1339 Broadway, Suite 1100 BY ' DEPUTY Oakland, CA 94612 i NORTH RICII�`IOND SHORELINE AREA STUDY DRAFT WORK PROGRAM CONCEPT AND OBJECTIVES: That the City and County participate in a joint powers agreement to have prepared an supplemental environmental impact report for Segment 4 of the North Richmond Bypass and a land use study for the North Shoreline Area. The objectives 'of the studies would be: 1. To determine the most approporiate route for Segment 4 of Route 93 relative to environmental constraints and existing and proposed land uses; 2. To confirm or modify the land uses as proposed in the County's Redevelopment Area and the Richmond Shoreline Conservation and Development Strategy; 3. To develop a detailed site specific conceptual plan for the immediate shoreline areas ciiich would include a natural resource enhancement component, public access proposals, and identification of implementation;priorities and methods including funding analysis and any amendments to local policies, ordinances, and regulations. This shoreline plan would be a Sub-area Study of the overall North Shoreline Area Study. 4. To provide the necessary development controls for future growth. PRO.TEC.T ADMINISTPLMO:- : Project administration would be shared through frequent meeting's between County, Richmond, and Coastal Conservancy staff with direction provided by a technical advisory committee and a citizens advisor- committee. The City and County would serve jointly as cooperative agencies, with the City as the lead and applicant for the Conservancy Grant. Technical Advisory Committee. This Committee would be primarily concerned with the Sub-Area Study and may include staff from the East Bay Regional Park District, the Bay Conservation. and Development Commission, State Lands Commission, State Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Corps of Engineers, in addition to the County, City, and Conservancy. The Committee would report to City and County Staff (herein after referred to as "Staff") , Conservancy, and the Citizens Advisory Committee, and would meet according to need. Staff would arrange and conduct the meetings. Citizens Advisory Committee. This Committee would consist of local residents representing different citizen groups and local property owners. This group would advise the Staff and Conservancy of their views and comments on the consultant work for the Sub-Area Study and direct the work for the overall North Shoreline Area Study. Staff would arrange the meetings as needed. The meetings would be conducted by a chairperson appointed by the Committee. Members of the Ccmmi_ttee would be required to file a Conflict of Interest North Richmond Shoreline Area Study Page 2 Statement with the City. PROJECT AREA: The project area would extend from the Chevron U.S.A. property line and the Santa Fe Railroad line on the south (northwest side of the Iron Triangle) , the Santa Fe Railroad line on the east (also the San Pablo City Limits and Giant Highway), Richmond City limit line on the north, and the San Pablo Bay shoreline on the west (See attached map) . The boundary for the Sub-Area Study would be bounded by Point Pinole Regional Park on the north, the shoreline on the west, the boundary-of the Wildcat Marsh Enhancement Project on the south, and Route 93 on the east (the eastern boundary is subject to change depending on the final location of the Route 93 right-of-way; the attached map indicates the bay-reach route as shown in the Richmond Shoreline Conservation and Development Strategy) . SCOPE OF WORK, ADMINISTRATION, AND ESTIMATED TIME LINE: The supplemental environmental impact report for Segment 4 of Route 93 would be prepared first, and separately from the Area Study. The reason for this separation is to establish the right-of-way early on so that if funded becomes available the road can be constructed. It is important that the right-of-way alignment be at least tentatively established before the Area JStudy has advanced very far. However, it is possible that the hiring of the consultants for the Sub-Area Study and their preliminary work can be started prior to the completion of the EIR. The proposed schedules for the Segment 4 EIR and the Area Study set the timing so this overlap takes place, but that the background work for the EIR is available prior to the preliminary work for the other studies. This is to avoid a duplication of efforts. Supplemental EIR Month of May, Concept approval from the Route 93 Committee. Committee 1988 recommendation to the Richmond City Council -and the Board of Supervisors to proceed. Late May or Approval from both the Richmond City Council and the Early June, 1988 Board of Supervisors for the concept and the request for Coastal Conservancy Grant funds. Month of June, Obtain Coastal Conservancy Grant Authorization. 1988 Late June and Selection of EIR Consultants. Early August, 1988 Months of August Preparation of Draft EIR (includes economic land use and and September, analysis) . 1988 North Richmond Shoreline Area Study Page 3 Months of October Distribution and Circulation Draft EIR. and November, 1988 Late November and Preparation of Final EIR. and Early December, 1988 Late December, Certification of the Final EIR. 1988 or Early January, 1989 Area and Sub-Area Study Month of May, Concept approval from the Route 93 ' Committee. Committee 1988 recommendation to the Richmond City Council and the Board of Supervisors to 'proceed. Late May or Approval from both the Richmond City Council and the Early June, 1988 Board of Supervisors for the concept and the request for Coastal Conservancy Grant funds. Month of June, Obtain Coastal Conservancy Grant Authorization. 1988 (From June through September the Segment 4 EIR consultants are selected and preparing the Draft EIR) . Month of September, Send out RFP for Sub-Area Study consultants; establish 1988 Technical and Citizens Advisory Committee. `Month of October, Select and hire consultants for Sub-Area Study. 1988 Months of November Consultants would: and December, 1989 1. .. Gather and review relevant existing plans, litera- ture and technical data. Prepare written summary of plans and literature to guide plan development. Identify any needs for additional engineering technical data .for enhancement and access purposes. 2. Prepare aerial survey with ground checks at scale of approximately 1 inch = 200 feet and a contour interval of .5 foot. 3. Prepare written and ' graphic analysis of existing physical conditions and access facilities in and adjacent to project area. 4. Prepare written and graphic analysis of North Richmond Shoreline Area Study Page 4 opportunities and constraints for enhancement, access, and mitigation banks relative to the sub- area study. Staff would prepare similar but more general written and graphic summary and analysis for remainder of study area. Month of January, Submit all of the above work for review by Staff, 1989 Conservancy, and Committees review. Revisions made as directed. Month of February, Consultant would prepare draft public access and and March, 1989 enhancement (including any possible mitigation bank) plan and submit to Staff, Conservancy, and Committees for review and comment. The draft public access and enhancement plan would include identification of proposed developable areas; trail use, alignment, width and paving; any fencing, lighting, furniture, signs, overlook, parking, or other associated facilities; specific habitat objectives; short- and long-term habitat conditions (eg. vegetation, period of inundation) ; relationship to access facilities and other adjacent uses; source of water; cut and fill; offsite disposal and borrow sites; structures (eg. culverts, tidegates) ; soil preparation and planting; maintenance and monitoring needs; cost estimates for the foregoing; and a discussion of the operation of any miti-gation bank. Staff would prepare general land use alternatives for the study area and submit to Committees with draft public access and enhancement plan for review and comment. Month of April Consultant would prepare revisions and implementation and and May, 1989 program and preliminary financing plan for the public access and enhancement plan. Submit to Staff, Conservancy, and Committees for review. Staff would prepare a synthesis general land use scheme and necessary elements of the General Plan. Submit to Committees for review. Month of June, Consultants would prepare Draft final public access and 1989 enhancement plan. Staff would prepare necessary environmental review. If a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration is prepared, the studies and environmental review would be completed by August 1, 1989; if an North Richmond Shoreline Area Study Page 5 EIR is required completion would be October 1, 1989. ESTIMATED BUDGET: (to be refined by soliciting estimates from consultants prior to Conservancy grant authorization; excludes staff time) : Conservancy $50,000 from the Urban Waterfront Restoration Program $50,000 from the Waterfront Enhancement Program $100,000 total Conservancy (up to 10% reserved for staff costs) County $20,000 for Segment 4 EIR preparation $10,000 for administrative costs $30,000 total County City $20,000 for Segment 4 EIR preparation $10,000 for administrative costs $30,000 total City Total Cost $160,000 (excludes staff time) NIiT 2.NSHORI,vP.Op1 �1 study Acea '`, Sub-area �-- L—————————————————— I • 1 d 10 � i 1. Wr 1 I11 i 09 f it ,1 � I � 8 1 r •� •,• �Isctor Road m �\ \ Figure 9 Circulation Concept New Arterials o rsoo a000 .soo •000 —1 30