HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06221993 - H.11A .
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS :.!j ,I Contra
COstd
FROM:
HARVEY E. BRAGDON '� County
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
'M
DATE: May 10, 1993
SUBJECT: North Richmond Shoreline General Plan Amendment
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Open the public hearing and receive testimony on the proposed
General Plan Amendment.
2 . Close the public hearing.
3 . Approve the North Richmond Shoreline General Plan Amendment,
related CEQA findings and the mitigation and monitoring
program. Direct that this amendment be included within a
consolidated General Plan Amendment for 1993 .
FISCAL IMPACT
Costs of preparing this amendment have already occurred out of
Departmental funds.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The Board of Supervisors initiated a joint General and Specific
Plan Study for the North Richmond Shoreline Area. Both
jurisdictions appointed both a Citizen Committee and a Technical
(staff) Committee to work with Richmond and County staff to develop
these plans.
The County Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of
this plan amendment.
CEQA findings on this project should be approved; they are based on
the City of Richmond's adopted findings.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATUR
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF OARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON June 22 , 1993 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
See Addendum A for Board action.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
x_ UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Orig: Jim Cutler (646-2035)
Community Development Department ATTESTED June 22 , 1993
cc: Public Works PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
CAO THE D OF SUPERVISORS
County CouncilMND..� TY ADMINISTRATOR
Richmond City Council BYA ° J , DEPUTY
miscawl/jcrichsh.bo
ADDENDUM A FOR JUNE 22, 1993 ITEM H. 11
This is the time heretofore noticed by the Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors for hearing on the recommendation of the
Contra Costa County Planning Commission on the North Shoreline
General Plan Amendment (5-93-C) ) from Commercial Recreation, Open
Space, Light Industrial, Heavy Industrial and Public-Semi-Public
to those same designations and to Parks and Recreation but in
different configurations; and the recommendation of the Contra
Costa County Planning Commission on the North Richmond Shoreline
Specific Plan (#93-1-SP) to further implement the County' s
General Plan in the Richmond area.
James Cutler, Community Development Department, presented
the staff report on the matters before the Board describing the
site location and he commented on the staff recommendations .
The public hearing was opened and the following persons
appeared to speak in favor of the proposals :
Nancy Kaufman, Richmond Planning Department, 2600 Barrett
Avenue, Richmond;
Barbara Vincent, 2500 Lowell Avenue, Richmond, representing
the League of Women Voters, Richmond area;
Lucretia Edwards, 237 Bishop Avenue, Richmond, representing
the Contra Costa Shoreline Parks Commission;
Hal Saksa, 1519 Milvia Street, Berkeley, representing the
Richmond Rod and Gun Club.
The public hearing was closed.
Supervisor Powers commented on the happiness of this
occasion and he requested that the City and County jointly
recognize the Shoreline Committee for their work. Supervisor
Powers also commented on the work that Chevron USA had done
relative to a marsh preservation project in the area and he
requested that the recognition be planned for the August 10, 1993
board meeting with arrangements made for filming of the procedure
for community access television and that a site event be planned
for September or October with East Bay Regional Parks District,
Costal Conservancy, Fish and Game, state and federal officials as
well as the Design Review Committee participation; and he moved
adoption of the change in the urban limit line and adoption of
the General Plan and to authorize going foward with a rezoning of
this area to bring it in conformance with the Specific Plan.
Supervisor Torlakson congratulated Supervisor Powers on his
leadership in this process and he suggested a note to the files
of Miss Kaufman and Mr. Cutler for their work on the project.
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that recommendations 1, 2, and 3
are APPROVED; and Resolution No. 93/383 in the matter of the
North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan #1993-1-SP is ADOPTED; and
Resolution No. 93/382 in the matter of the North Richmond
Shoreline General Plan Amendment #5-93-CO is ADOPTED; and
Community Development Department staff is DIRECTED to plan the
appropriate recognitions as requested by Supervisor Powers; and
going forward with a rezoning of this area to bring it in
conformance with the Specific Plan is AUTHORIZED.
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on June 22, 1993 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Powers, Smith, Bishop, McPeak, Torlakson
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
RESOLUTION NO. 93/382
SUBJECT: In the Matter of the }
North Richmond Shoreline )
General Plan Amendment #5-93-CO )
The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVES that:
There is filed with this Board and its Clerk a copy of Resolution No. 15-1993, adopted by the
Contra Costa County Planning Commission, which discusses a General Plan Amendment for the
North Richmond Shoreline area (#5-93-CO).
On June 22, 1993 the Board held hearings on the said General Plan Amendment discussed by
the Contra Costa County Planning Commission Resolution 15-1993. Notice of said hearing was
duly given in the manner required by law. The Board, at the hearings, called for testimony of
all persons interested in this matter.
After taking testimony, the Board closed the public hearing and APPROVED the General Plan
Amendment and directed staff to include the North Richmond Shoreline General Plan
Amendment in one of the consolidated general plan amendments as allowed by State Planning
Law.
The City of Richmond served as lead agency on this project and certified the North Richmond
Shoreline Specific Plan EIR as adequate, adopted CEQA findings and adopted a mitigation and
monitoring program. The Board of Supervisors concurs in those actions and adopts those actions
as their own.
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Sup isors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: aZ�
PHIL d4rCHELOR,Clerk of the Board
O upervi rs and n Administrator
O
By ,DenutV
RESOLUTION 93/382
Ms1/jcNoRich.res
. - _ -�•.
TO. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ;�/ f _ .•,.• Contra
Costa
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON W�.,�
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT T "`r
DATE: May 10, 1993
SUBJECT: North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Open the public hearing and receive testimony on the proposed
Specific Plan.
2 . Close the public hearing.
3 . Approve the North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan, related
CEQA findings and the mitigation and monitoring program.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Specific Plan was financed by a grant to the City of Richmond
from the California Conservztion Commission.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The Board of Supervisors initiated a joint General and Specific
Plan Study for the North Richmond Shoreline Area. Both
jurisdictions appointed both a Citizen Committee and a Technical
(staff) Committee to work with Richmond and County staff to develop
these plans.
The County Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of
this Specific Plan.
CEQA findings on this project should be approved; they are based on
the City of Richmond's adopted findings.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDAT ON OF190YID COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON ,Tune 22 , 1993 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHER x
See Addendum A for Board action.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
x UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Orig: Jim Cutler (646-2035)
Community Development Department ATTESTED June 22 , 1993
cc: Public Works PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
CAO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
County CouncilAM CO Y ADMINISTRATOR
Richmond City Council BY ° , DEPUTY
miscuwl/jaichLbo
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on June 22, 1993 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Powers, Smith, Bishop, McPeak, Torlakson
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
RESOLUTION NO. 93/383
SUBJECT: In the Matter of the )
North Richmond Shoreline )
Specific Plan #1993-1-SP )
The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVES that:
There is filed with this Board and its Clerk a copy of Resolution No. 16-1993, adopted by the Contra Costa
County Planning Commission, which discusses the Specific Plan for the North Richmond Shoreline area
(#1993-1-SP)
On June 22, 1993 the Board held hearings on the said Specific Plan discussed by the Contra Costa County
Planning Commission Resolution 16-1993. Notice of said hearing was duly given in the manner required by
law. The Board, at the hearings, called for testimony of all persons interested in this matter.
After taking testimony, the Board closed the public hearing and APPROVED and ADOPTED the Specific Plan.
The City of Richmond served as lead agency on this project and certified the North Richmond Shoreline
Specific Plan EIR as adequate, adopted CEQA findings and adopted a mitigation and monitoring program. The
Board of Supervisors concurs in those actions and adopts those actions as their own.
The Board further directed that the County staff work with Richmond to jointly acknowledge the efforts of the
North Richmond Shoreline Citizens and Technical Committees, that a presentation acknowledging Chevron
efforts on Wildcat Marsh be held before the Board on August 10, 1993, (and to be on the County's Community
Access channel) and that staff work with Chevron and EBRPD to arrange a presentation in September with the
Design Team and other agencies to acknowledge the work accomplished on Wildcat Marsh restoration.
I ;.ereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Su rvisors on the date shown.
Orig. Dept: Jim Cutler (646-2035) ATTESTED: aa- q_�
PHIL ATCHELOR,Clerk of the Board
cc: Director of Community Sup is rs and County Administrator
Development By 1AA Iota --,Deputy
Director of Public Works
County Counsel
County Administrator
RESOLUTION 93/383
W/NRSpeepi.res
ADDENDUM A FOR JUNE 22 , 1993 ITEM H. 11
This is the time heretofore noticed by the Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors for hearing on the recommendation of the
Contra Costa County Planning Commission on the North Shoreline
General Plan Amendment (5-93-C) ) from Commercial Recreation, Open
Space, Light Industrial, Heavy Industrial and Public-Semi-Public
to those same designations and to Parks and Recreation but in
different configurations; and the recommendation of the Contra
Costa County Planning Commission on the North Richmond Shoreline
Specific Plan (#93-1-SP) to further implement the County' s
General Plan in the Richmond area.
James Cutler, Community Development Department, presented
the staff report on the matters before the Board describing the
site location and he commented on the staff recommendations .
The public hearing was opened and the following persons
appeared to speak in favor of the proposals :
Nancy Kaufman, Richmond Planning Department, 2600 Barrett
Avenue, Richmond;
Barbara Vincent, 2500 Lowell Avenue, Richmond, representing
the League of Women Voters, Richmond area;
Lucretia Edwards, 237 Bishop Avenue, Richmond, representing
the Contra Costa Shoreline Parks Commission;
Hal Saksa, 1519 Milvia Street, Berkeley, representing the
Richmond Rod and Gun Club.
The public hearing was closed.
Supervisor Powers commented on the happiness of this
occasion and he requested that the City and County jointly
recognize the Shoreline Committee for their work. Supervisor
Powers also commented on the work that Chevron USA had done
relative to a marsh preservation project in the area and he
requested that the recognition be planned for the August 10, 1993
board meeting with arrangements made for filming of the procedure
for community access television and that a site event be planned
for September or October with East Bay Regional Parks District,
Costal Conservancy, Fish and Game, state and federal officials as
well as the Design Review Committee participation; and he moved
adoption of the change in the urban limit line and adoption of
the General Plan and to authorize going foward with a rezoning of
this area to bring it in conformance with the Specific Plan.
Supervisor Torlakson congratulated Supervisor Powers on his
leadership in this process and he suggested a note to the files
of Miss Kaufman and Mr. Cutler for their work on the project .
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that recommendations 1, 2, and 3
are APPROVED; and Resolution No. 93/383 in the matter of the
North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan #1993-1-SP is ADOPTED; and.
Resolution No. 93/382 in the matter of the North Richmond
Shoreline General Plan Amendment #5-93-CO is ADOPTED; and
Community Development Department staff is DIRECTED to plan the
appropriate recognitions as requested by Supervisor Powers; and
going forward with a rezoning of this area to bring it in
conformance with the Specific Plan is AUTHORIZED.
62toC)(p, rn .
GENERAL PLAN AMETEMNT - SPECIFIC PLAN
NORTH RICWOND SHORELINE GI-NERAL PLAN #5-93-CO
THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDERA GENERAL PLAN. AMENDMENT FROM
COMMERCIAL RECREATION, OPEN SPACE,. LIGHT .INDUSTRIAL,. HEAVY INDUSTRIAL
AND PUBLIC-SEMI-PUBLIC TO. THOSE.SAME.DES.IGNAT IONS AND TO PARKS AND
RECREATION BUT IN DIFFERENT CONFIGURATIONS.
NORTH RICMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN #93-1-SP
THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF A SPECIFIC PLAN
TO FURTHER IMPLEMENT THE COUNTY'S GENERAL PLAN.
THE NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE GENERAL PLAN. AREA IS GENERALLY BOUNDED ON
THE NORTH BY THE PT. PINOLE REGIONAL SHORELINE PARK, IN. THE EAST BY THE
SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD TRACKS AND PARCHESTER VILLAGE, ON THE SOUTH
BY PARR BOULEVARD, AND ON THE WEST BY SAN PABLO BAY.
QbTE: THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA INCLUDES LANDS WITHIN BOTH THE CITY OF
RICHMOND AND THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY) .
RICHMOND AREA.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS -
CONTRA COSTA COUNT
22 JUNE 1993 - 2:06 P.M.
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS / Contra
COSta
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON County-
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: May 10, 1993
SUBJECT: North Richmond Shoreline General Plan Amendment
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Open the public hearing and receive testimony on the proposed
General Plan Amendment.
2. Close the public hearing.
3. Approve the North Richmond Shoreline General Plan Amendment,
related CEQA findings and the mitigation and monitoring
program. Direct that this amendment be included within a
consolidated General Plan Amendment for 1993.
FISCAL IMPACT
Costs of preparing this amendment have already occurred out of
, Departmental funds.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The Board of Supervisors initiated a joint General and Specific
Plan Study for the North Richmond Shoreline Area. Both
jurisdictions appointed both a Citizen Committee and a Technical
(staff) Committee to work with Richmond and County staff to develop
these plans.
The County Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of
this plan amendment.
CEQA findings on this project should be approved; they are based on
the City of Richmond's adopted findings.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATUR
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF IrARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Orig: Jim Cutler (646-2035)
Community Development Department ATTESTED
cc: Public Works PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
CAO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
County Council AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Richmond City Council BY , DEPUTY
mixaW11!Cr chah.bo
• -" - •. ntra
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS / coCon{a
C,os
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT l�lJ��n�# ` Co n y
DATE: May 10, 1993
SUBJECT: North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Open the public hearing and receive testimony on the proposed
Specific Plan.
2. Close the public hearing.
3. Approve the North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan, related
CEQA findings and the mitigation and monitoring program.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Specific Plan was financed by a grant to the City of Richmond
from the California Conservztion Commission.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The Board of Supervisors initiated a joint General and Specific
Plan Study for the North Richmond Shoreline Area. Both
jurisdictions appointed both a Citizen Committee and a Technical
(staff) Committee to work with Richmond and County staff to develop
these plans.
The County Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of
this Specific Plan.
CEQA findings on this project should be approved; they are based on
the City of Richmond's adopted findings.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF ISCOMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Orig: Jim Cutler (646-2035)
Community Development Department ATTESTED
cc: Public Works PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
CAO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
County Council AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Richmond City Council BY , DEPUTY
n&uw1rcrich2.ho
NOTIFICATION LIST - North Richmond Shoreline Gen. Plan Amend.#5-93-CO & Specific Plan #93-1-SP.
City of Richmond Rev. Nelson Bennett, Jr. Ms. Maxine Kyle
27th & Barrett Streets No. Richmond Neighborhood & Parchester Village Homeowners
P. 0. Box 4046 Concerned Citizens Association
Richmond, California 94804 1428 Cherry Street 4413 McGlothen Way
Richmond, California 94801 Richmond, California 94806
Mrs. Lucretia Edwards Rev. J. L. Johnson Ms. Martha Watson
C. C. Shoreline Parks Comm. Ministerial Alliance C.C. Shoreline Parks Commission
237 Bishop Avenue 1900 Garvin Avenue 1255 Kelsey Street
Richmond, California 94801 Richmond, California 94801 Richmond, Califonria 94801
Hrs. Barbara Riven es Mr. Bob Jobe Mrs. Lillie Mae Jones
Golden Gate Audubon Society WCC Council of Industries League of Women Voters
2530 San Pablo Avenue, Ste.#6 Paktank 258 - 6th Street
Berkeley, California 94702 2101 Western Drive Richmond, California 94801
Richmond, California .94801
Hrs. Jay Vincent Mr. Tom Butt Mr. Ed Menosee
Greenbelt Alliance WCC Bayshore Council Interactive No.Richraond Industrial Agricult-
2500 Lowell Avenue Resources ural Association
Richmond, California 94804 117 Park Place 3260 Blume Drive
Richmond, California 94801 Richmond, California 94806
Irs. Oscar Erickson Dr. Mark Mason Mr. Tom Bradner
No.Richmond Industrial & Agric. Sierra Club, S.F. Bay Chapter W.C.C. Bayshore Council
Association 1215 Roosevelt Avenue Middletown. Enterprises
255 Parr Boulevard Richmond, California 94801 2114 Macdonald Avenue
Richmond, California 94801 Richmond, California 94801
Ars. Willie Williams Mr. Allan LaPointe Ms. Alice Simms
:ontra Costa Black Chamber of Urban Creeks Council Parchester Village Homeowners
Commerce 5880 Park Avenue Association
3113 Macdonald Avenue Richmond, California 94805 800 Payne Avenue
Richmond, California 94804 Richmond, California 94806
4r. Harold Saksa Mr. Jessie Slocum, Jr. Mrs. Anice Jackson
Richmond Rod & Gun Club No. Richmond Neighborhood House Greenbelt Alliance
1519 Milvia Street 1551 - 4th Street 215 South 18th Street
3erkeley, California 94709 Richmond, California 94801 Richmond, California 94804
IIr. John Sheridan Mr. M. M. Snodgrass Mr. Steve Crook
conomic Development Commission No. Richmond Industrial & Agri- Economic Development CommissionE
2910 Nevin Avenue cultural Association 124 Washington Avenue
Richmond, California 94804 4505 Macdonald Avenue Richmond, California 94801
Richmond, California 94805
Ars. Helen Klebanoff Mr. Joe Kinard Derwin Cox
Save S. F. Bay Association Richmond Chamber of Commerce Ministerial Allicance
2-659 Mira Vista Drive 3925 Macdonald Avenue 3871 Piedmont Avenue #307
Richmond, California 94805 Richmond, California 94804 El Cerrito, California 94530
4rs . Barbara Vincent Mr. Eric Zell Mr. Sy Zell
-eague of Women Voters Zell & Associates 7305 Pebble Beach Drive
2500 Lowell Avenue 2 Theatre Square, Suite 210 E1 Cerrito, California 94530
Richmond, California 94804 Orinda, California 94563
)TIFICATION LIST, Pg.#2 - No.Richmond Shoreline Gen:,Plan Amend #5-93-CO & Specific Plan #93-1-SP
Mr. Jim Browning
. Henry Kelman Richmond Machine & Fab .
ichmond Chamber of Commerce U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services c/o Albert 0. Engel
17 Hensley Street Ecological Services Division 2801 Giant Road
ichmond, California 94801 2800 Cottage Way #E-1803 Richmond, California 94807
Sacramento, California 95825
iaron Brown Melanie Denninger McInerney & Dillon
300 Appian Way Coastal Conservancy c/o William H. Plageman, Jr.
1 Sobrante, California 94803 1330 Broadway #1100 Ordway Building, #1 Kaiser Plaz,
Oakland, California 94612 Oakland, California 94612
Robert Li'zor Community Development Department C. Overaa & Company
ichmond Rod & Gun Club Attn: James W. Cutler
38 Cheryl Drive 651 Pine Street 200 Parr Boulevard
Richmond, California 94801
in Pablo, California 94806 Martinez, California 94553
Richard Oba Contra Costa Co. Redevelopment Berliner, Cohen & Biagnini
)lden Gate Au dubon Society Agency - ATTN: James Kennedy 10 Almaden Boulevard 11th Floor
')40 Sacramento Avenue 651 Pine Street San Jose', California 95113
chmond, California 94804 Martinez, California 94553
•s. Piedy Kittrell Brady & Associates Reimer Associates
firth Richmond Neighborhood House Attn: Ms. Sheila Brady 601 Gateway Boulevard #600
133 - 4th Street 1828 Fourth Street South San Francisco, Calif.9408C
chmond, California 94801 Berkeley, California 94710
David Ninomiya No. Richmond Project Area General American Tank
.Richmond Industrial & Agricult Committee - ATTN: Henry Clark c/o Patricia M. Stull
ral Association 1019 Macdonald Avenue 2424 - 4th Street
6 Brookside Drive Richmond, California 94801 Berkeley, California 94710
chmond, California 94801
rman E. Welm Greylands Property State Lands Commission
nole Point Properties Attn: Mr. Robert Hicks c/o Ms. Jane Sekelsky
0 Larkspur Landing Cir#240 P. 0. Box 125 1807 - 13th Street
rkspur, California 94939 Campbell, California 95009 Sacramento, California 95814
ncy Schaefer Ms. Katrina Breuner Department of Fish & Game
ust for Public Lands 11355 West Olympic Boulevard c/o Mr. Carl Wilcox
6 New Montgomery Street, Los Angeles, California 90064- P. 0. Box 47
hird Floor 1614 Yountville, California 94599
n Francisco, Calif. 94105
Karen Miller Grubb & Ellis Contra Costa Co. Public Works
S. Fish & Wildlife Services, Attn: John Hillinski Attn: Ms. Teresa Larson
ndangered Species Office 475 - 14th Street #1250 651 Pine Street - 5th Floor
00 Cottage Way #E-1823 Oakland, California 94612 Martinez, California 94553
cramento, California 95825
Ed Menosee ABAG
Rhone-Poulenc, Inc.
o Richmond Sanitary Service Attn: Thomas C. McLaughlin Attn: Ms. Jill Kienach
60 Blume Drive CN 5266 P. 0. Box 2050
chmond, California 94806 Princeton, New Jersey 08543 Oakland, California 94604
40TIFICATION LIST, Pg.#3 - No.Richmond Shoreline Gen.Plan Amend #5-93-CO & Specific Plan#93-1-SP
t.W.Q.C.B. Mr. Steve Malloy
Attn: Mr. Mike Carlin 300 Alhambra Avenue
2101 Webster St. , Suite #500 Martinez, California 94553
)akland, California 94612
3.C.D.C. Kirt Hunter
:/o Mr. Jeff Blanchfield Public Works Dept.
30 Van Ness Avenue #2011
San Francisco, California 94102
A.B.A.G.
Attn: Mr. Gary Binger Ms. Marilyn Williams
I. 0. Box 2050 Public Works Dept.
)akland, California 94604
3.C.D.C. Brian Cooke
Vo Mr. Robert Batha Planning Department
30 VanNess Avenue #2011
San Francisco, California 94102
_.B.R.P.D. Natalia Lawrence
c/o Ms. Beth Stone Planning Department
3. 0. Box 5381
)akland, California 94605
t.W.Q.C.B.
Attn: Steve Berger Mr. Peter Ingram
2101 Webster Street #500 Public Works Dept.
)akland, California 94612
.B.R.P.D.
Hr. Tom Mikkelsen
.0. 0. Box 5381
)akland, California 94605
4.Co.Co.Sanitary District
c/o Mr. William Braga, Gen.Mgr.
2190 Hilltop Drive
Zichmond, California 94806
Supervisor Powers
100 - 37th Street
,Richmond, California 94805
Richmond Planning Department
Attn: Nancy Kaufman
2600 Barrett Avenue
Richmond, California 94806
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
You are hereby notified that on TUESDAY, April 20, 1993, at 7:30
P.M. , in Room #107, McBrien Administration Building, 651 Pine
Street, Martinez, California, the Contra Costa County Planning
Commission will consider a Specific Plan adoption described as
follows:
North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan (#93-1-SP) : This is a
public hearing to consider the adoption of a Specific Plan to
further implement the County's General Plan.
The North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan area . is generally
bounded on the north by the Pt. Pinole Regional Shoreline Park, on
the east by the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks and Parchester
Village, on the south by Parr Boulevard, and on the west by San
Pablo Bay. (Note: The Specific Plan Area includes lands within.
both the City of Richmond and the unincorporated area of Contra
Costa County. )
For purposes of complying with the provisions of the !'California
Environmental Quality Act, an Environmental Impact Report was
prepared by the City of Richmond and certified as adequate by
Richmond serving as lead agency. The County will rely on that
document.
For further details, contact the Contra Costa County Community
Development Department, 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor, North Wing,
Martinez, California, 94553 or phone Jim Cutler at (510) 646-2035.
If you challenge the project in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public
hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence
delivered to the County at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Harvey E. Bragdon, Director,
Contra Costa County Community
Development Department.
Legal WCT 3517
Published April 5, 1993
. 1
Resolution #15-1993
RESOLUTION OF THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE NORTH
RICHMOND SHORELINE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (County File # 5-93-Co)
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors and the Richmond City Council jointly appointed a North
Richmond Citizens' Advisory Committee to review the General Plan in the North Richmond
Shoreline and to create a North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan area; and
WHEREAS, this committee met for approximately two years to develop a new General Plan
for the North Richmond Shoreline area; and
WHEREAS, the North Richmond Citizens' Advisory Committee has urged the County and
Richmond to adopt revised General Plans based on their recommendations; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richmond served as Lead Agency and prepared and circulated an
Environmental Impact Report on these proposals; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on Tuesday, April 20, 1993 and the City of Richmond
testified in support of this general plan amendment and no other public testimony was received;
and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Contra Costa County Planning Commission
finds that the Environmental Impact Report prepared on the project is adequate for County
purposes; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the
North Richmond Shoreline General Plan Amendment, as recommended by staff, including the
text on west Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill and minor map boundary shifts in the location of
Light Industrial, Heavy Industrial, Open Space, Commercial Recreation and Parks and
Recreation categories; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the
minor enlargement of the Urban Limits Line to make the project compatible with this plan
amendment and with the Richmond General Plan; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all written and graphic material developed for and
pertaining to these proceedings are made part of the record; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairman and Secretary of the Contra Costa County
Planning Commission respectively sign and attest the certified copy of this resolution and deliver
the same to the Board of Supervisors, all in accordance with the provision of the Planning Law
of the State of California.
Resolution #15-1993
The instruction by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission to prepare this resolution,
incorporation the above and aforementioned, was given by the Contra Costa County Planning
Commission on Tuesday, April 20, 1993 by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners - Accornero, Clark, Woo, Frakes
NOES: Commissioners - None
ABSENT: Commissioners - Terrell, Gaddis, Sakai
ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None
I, Helene Frakes, Chair of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission, State of California,
hereby certify that the foregoing was fully called and held in accordance with the law on
Tuesday, April 20, 1993, and this resolution was fully passed and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners - Clark, Accornero, Gaddis, Sakai, Frakes.
NOES: Commissioners - None.
ABSENT: Commissioners - Terrell , Woo.
ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None.
Chairman of the Planning Commission
Contra Costa County, State of California
ATTEST:
/4Secretary of the Planning Commission of the
County of Contra Costa, State of California
4-21-93
4/mis/kd:
nrichl.ms
2
WAM'
now
Ff:W
Wr
Sill a (�
.11111�•e !a„� l
'�Ir111111�
....mm
MMM C_�55=m= —
IAA111l1l
lnl'll����l X11101�1I11�w
/•
� �eraarerc��r.�� r■ �r � !�
►� �. ,:1�1�'�IQIIII��!_�Ilil_'�AI:IIArr�rf
Resolution #16-1993
RESOLUTION OF THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENT FOR THE NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE (County File # 93-1-SP)
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors and the Richmond City Council jointly appointed a North
Richmond Citizens' Advisory Committee to review the General Plan in the North Richmond
Shoreline and to create a North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan area; and
WHEREAS, this committee met for approximately two years to create a Specific Plan for the
North Richmond Shoreline area; and
WHEREAS, the North Richmond Citizens' Advisory Committee has urged the County and
Richmond to adopt the Specific Plan based on their recommendations; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richmond served as Lead Agency and prepared on circulated and
:Environmental Impact Report on these proposals; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on Tuesday, April 20, 1993 and the City of Richmond
testified in support of this specific plan and indicated the Richmond City Council had
unanimously adopted the same plan and no other public testimony was received; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Contra Costa County Planning Commission
finds that the Environmental Impact Report prepared by Richmond on the project is adequate for
County purposes; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the
North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan Amendment, as recommended by staff, which includes
the minor wording and map changes already adopted by Richmond; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all written and graphic material developed for and
pertaining to these proceedings are made part of the record; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairman and Secretary of the Contra Costa County
Planning Commission respectively sign and attest the certified copy of this resolution and deliver
the same to the Board of Supervisors, all in accordance with the provision of the Planning Law
of the State of California.
Resolution x#16-1993
The instruction by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission to prepare this resolution,
incorporation the above and aforementioned, was given by the Contra Costa County Planning
Commission on Tuesday, April 20, 1993 by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners - Accornero, Clark, Woo, Frakes
NOES: Commissioners - None
ABSENT: Commissioners - Terrell, Gaddis, Sakai
ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None
I, Helene Frakes, Chair of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission, State of California,
hereby certify that the foregoing was fully called and held in accordance ,with the law on
Tuesday, April 20, 1993, and this resolution was fully passed and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners - Clark, Accornero, Gaddis, Sakai, Frakes.
NOES: Commissioners - None.
ABSENT: Commissioners - Terrell , Woo.
ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None.
Chairman of the Planning Commission
Contra Costa County, State of California
ATTEST:
Secretary of the Planning Commission of the
County of Contra Costa, State of California
4-21-93
4/mis/kd:
nrichl ms
2
Contra Costa County Community Development Department
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report and Recommendations
Tuesday, April 20, 1993
Agenda Items #3 and #4
NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE GENERAL AMENDMENT
(# 5-93-CO) AND SPECIFIC PLAN (#93-1-SP)
I. INTRODUCTION
The Board of Supervisors initiated a joint General and Specific Plan Study for the North
Richmond Shoreline Area of the City of Richmond. The jurisdictions jointly appointed
both a Citizens Committee and a Technical (staff) Committee to work with City and
County Staffs to help develop these draft plans. The work of these Committees focused
on two separate areas as shown on Map 1.
The North Richmond Shoreline General and Specific Plan area is located in a north-south
orientation along San Pablo Bay. A Final EIR, Specific Plan, and related General Plan
changes have been prepared on these projects and are the subject of these hearings. A
larger geographic area was included in North Richmond Area General Plan; that plan
amendment was considered last year and was approved by the County on October 6,
1992. These actions complete the efforts of the North Richmond Shoreline Citizen
Advisory Committee.
H. CEQA AND RELATED PROJECTS
The City of Richmond served as Lead Agency for environmental review on an EIR for
this General and Specific Plan effort. On Monday, March 1, 1993 the Richmond City
Council took final action by approving the Final EIR on these projects. The Draft.EIR
and the Responses to Comments documents are included with the Commissions packet
to help in review of these actions.
M. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
This joint planning process between the City and the County was established due to the
recognition of both jurisdictions that this area should be treated as one for planning
purposes, without regard to jurisdictional boundaries. A twenty-two member citizen
committee was established to assist City and County staff in developing the revised Land
i � i i i � •
r
• N•
�*et► ;�� ��` Fry►. ��"�J*-""�'Il � � ,
tom-
� t.
JIMm,m Nit
. - t� X1!"/11/11 j`•�.�� ���
rr.
WrnrrON tZ1L��ECf i
�INN IMME M
INN1 m OMMINE
INUMMUNIMIr
'SV
mill I
� i Hill
tlttltf.l�!!�l41! t! , 1/1sRl�t�i1
[filil l. . . 11�s ' l��Ftr ► �,r��r��
1� .. ' hi ••. .�;
A •
Use Plan Map. The Committee has met for over two years on developing the Draft
General Plan and the Specific Plan. County General Plan for the area was last
thoroughly reviewed in 1972. The Plan was also part of a joint Richmond/County
planning study which focused on the needs for flood control improvements in the area. .
Since this most recent study was initiated during the preparation of the Countywide
General Plan revision, the Countywide review only modified the 1972 Plan to standardize
the plan categories and to reflect public land ownership. Major issues of policy change
were to await completion of this study.
The City of Richmonds' staff report on their general plan adoption is Attachment A and
the staff report on their Specific Plan adoption is Attachment B.
When the North Richmond Shoreline Citizen's Advisory Committees completed a draft
Specific Plan, an EIR was prepared on that Draft Plan. The Richmond City Council
approved the City's General Plan Amendment and the Specific Plan on Monday, March
1, 1993. That included the minor tett changes included as Exhibit C in the Richmond
staff report on the Specific Plan. (:;;. •.vhment B)
The major point of controversy in the Richmond effort was the designation of the
Bruener's, site which is within the City. The issue focused on how much of the site was
to be protected as wetland. The Draft plan allowed for 51 acres of development and
Alternative B only allowed for 20 acres. City and County staff supported Alternative B
to show a larger area as open space.The Richmond City Council approve Alternative B
and the Specific Plan will be amended to reflect that choice. Since that site is within
the City, staff encourages modifying the Specific Plan to reflect Richmonds' action.
The Draft plan has been away:'- the Norther California Chapter of Landscape
Architects Prestigious Merit Aw:z Attachment Q.
IV. COUNTY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
The existing 1991 County General Plan Land Use Element is shown on Map 2. The
boundaries of the proposed plan amendment within the Specific Plan unincorporated area
are very similar to the boundaries of the existing plan. Minor boundary shifts are
proposed to reflect the alignment of the Richmond Parkway. The proposed General Plan
Land Use Element is shown on Map 3.
There are lands within Richmond which will be designated Office/Industrial Flex, a city
plan designation. The County has no such category and would continue to designated
such lands as Light Industrial in the County General Plan.
Some areas now designated as Open Space in the County General Plan would be
redesignated to allow development to reflect city designation within the corporate
boundaries.
-2-
• 1 • • • A A
i
git"iet- MEN
� .. r7n i
��-
Fitt
1/-
�
:t ~sW -�i:A :'^ •r
��•-;, r_^`. � �� � I V.;. ��^T^ .17 f17� ^r .�._JJ��..,}r11 = �r
J-�s � `�'bt' - ry d�YiYir"`'s�/�B.s�`� ✓1, Er-
OF
AIN
_�� arty �,�., •�
� .WW
.:. �Jai►a►•�ifariyammomwu
1 �■mmmolr ■
1A fit
rrr
Fog
�faYgoff
��I1N1� �511 X11
ftwom
,11111,IVA �I1111. IJ11. :f
•
WNW*�• •
•
1p
a �
-P'
Il
amp
gap
mww-
as��siar ��
az �uu�ri..r[a�
'r► i u kaCDlr�IM���IIIA�1�1�1�11�Il�lii
PROP���
� _ � • .�tttttt�t�r�e� tt��tttt<t,��t �'�t�� �
V. URBAN LIMITS LINE (ULL)
The existing Urban Limits Line shown significant within the city of Richmond as being
outside the County's Urban Limit Line. Staff recommends modifying the ULL to be
consistent with the configuration of industrially designed lands proposed in the General
and Specific plans.
This minor shift will bring Richmond and the County General plans into conformity.
The proposed revised boundary is shown on the proposed General Plana (Map 3)
VI. NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN
This document is relatively self explanatory. Except for the modifications dealing with
the Bruener property discussed in Richmonds' staff report and where Alternative B has
been selected, staff is recommending no additional changes to the Specific Plan map and
only wording changes shown as Exhibit C to Attachment B.
Specific plans provide added detail to a jurisdictions General Plan. This Specific plan
has been crafted to nest within both the Richmond and County General Plans and to
provide for consistent development requirements within the two jurisdictions. We
recommend its adoption.
VII. RICHMOND SANITARY SERVICE FACILITIES
The southwest portion of the Specific Plan area is owned by the Richmond Sanitary
Service and is currently being used as a solid waste landfill. Most of the 350 acre
landfill is within Richmond; approximately 100 acres is in unincorporated County area.
The West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill is anticipated to close in 1994. Richmond
Sanitary Service is proposing to establish a resource recovery facility on an
approximately 60 acre portion of the landfill; ten acres will be located in the
unincorporated area. An EIR has been completed for the project known as the West
County Integrated Resource Recovery Facility MZRF). A General Plan Amendment and
Land Use Permit are currently being processed for this project.
The proposed North Richmond Shoreline General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan
were developed with knowledge of the IRRF project and with the recognition that solid
waste facilities would be used on this area in the intermediate future. The specifics are
to be resolved under the separated IRRF process. The Specific Plan will provide some
site requirements.
Solid waste facilities are allowed within designated Open Space areas according to the
County General Plan. To remove Iany ambiguity, should it exist, text should be added
to the North Richmond discussion in the County General Plan'to insure that those solid
waste applications comply with the County General Plan and can be judged on their own
merit. Text to that effect is proposed as part of Attachment A to this report.
-3-
VIII. ZONING
The existing zoning of the site is shown on Map 4. Given differences between the
County and Richmond ordinances, the unincorporated area needs to be rezoned to P-1
(Planned Unit District) to allow for full implementation of this Specific Plan.
IX. RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Acknowledge the Final EIR is adequate for County actions.
2. Recommend approval to the Board of Supervisors of the North Richmond
Shoreline General Plan Amendment including the minor shift in the Urban Limits
Line boundary as shown on Map 3 and Attachment A.
3. Recommend approval to the Board of Supervisors of the North Richmond
Shoreline Specific plan (as :F h r Richmond on the Brueners property
Alternative B and including text changes listed in Exhibit C of
Richmond's Specific Plan staff report).
4. Recommend that staff initiate a rezoning of the unincorporated area covered by
this Specific Plan to be rezoned to Planned Unit District as fast as this can be
accomplished.
JC:kd
3/miac/kd:nrich.q*03-04-93
-4-
I I
. . ' `�.
� /Ii9ii�l '��►�, �� � � 1
��j I t SII■■� �:� — �►
.' \ ■1 11 C.N. ■.�i1.i.. �_w,._�_��a� :d -
�� �'y 1111 —�.:�■..._
fileNwr
to. i
,,,3r...nu
Attachment A
NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
To integrate the North Richmond Shoreline General Plan Amendment into the County
General Plan, the General Plan Land Use Element (foldout) map will be changed to
redesignate the land uses for approximately 1,951 acres of land. The plan designations and
boundaries are shown on Map A attached.
New policies were added to the County General Plan affecting the North Richmond area
with the adoption of the North Richmond Area General Plan approval on October 6, 1992.
Plan policy 3-198 shall be amended to add sentence to the end of that policy which reads:
"Lands which were the site of the West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill
ownership and which are designated as Open Space, will continue to allow
solid waste facilities on the property as an interim use of the land"
JC:kd
3/miwA :miehapt 03-04-93
-5-
ATTACHMENT A
File: 018 .GP 92-3
CPC Meeting: 1/7/93
Agenda Item No. : 8
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT - REGARDING NORTH RICHMOND
SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN.
INITIATED BY: Richmond City Council.
LOCATION: The North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan area is
generally bounded on the north by the Pt . Pinole
Regional Shoreline Park, on the east by the Southern
Pacific Railroad tracks and Parchester Village, on the
south by Parr Boulevard, and on the west by San Pablo
Bay. (Note: The Specific Plan Area includes lands
within both the City of Richmond and the unincorporated
area of Contra Costa County. As required by law, areas
within the City' s sphere of influence, such as the
unincorporated areas of North Richmond, are reflected
on the City's General Plan. Therefore, this amendment
includes the entire Specific Plan area, but applies
only to the City's General Plan. )
ZONING: M-3, Heavy Industrial; CR, Community Reserve; EA, Exclusive
Agriculture; and PA, Planned Area District.
GENERAL PLAN: General Industry, Special Industry, Agriculture,
Commercial Recreation, Park, Preservation Area, and Sanitary
Landfill . '
AMENDMENT/PURPOSE: Proposal to amend the Richmond General Plan
Land Use, Circulation, Open Space & Conservation, and Safety
Elements and Coastline Plan to remove all inconsistencies between
the existing Richmond General Plan and the proposed Specific Plan.
Consistency is required under State law (Government Code Section
65454) . See Staff Recommendation for specific amendments .
ACTION REQUIRED: Following a public hearing, the Planning
Commission may approve, modify or deny the amendments as proposed; '
and forward its recommendation to the City Council .
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: A Final Program Environmental Impact Report
(FEIR) has been certified as being prepared in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, the State
CEQA Guidelines, and Resolution No. 274-89, as amended by the City
of Richmond. The FEIR (File EID 91-16) provides the necessary
environmental documentation for governmental decisions pertaining
to this General Plan Amendment and the Specific Plan. The FEIR was
certified by the Environmental Assessment Panel, on behalf of the
File: 018 .GP 92-3
Agenda Item No. 8
Page 3
Under Alternative B, the Natural Conservation area would be
expanded by approximately 35 acres to reduce the potential
biological and hydrological impacts of development on a parcel with
significant wetland areas and habitat value for rare and endangered
species (i .e. , California Clapper Rail and the Salt Marsh Harvest
Mouse) . The development potential of the site would be
concentrated in an area of approximately 20 acres located in the
southeast portion of the site, just north of the Creek and adjacent
to the railroad tracks (exact acreage would need to be determined
through further biological, vegetative, and hydrological surveys) .
This Alternative is supported by a preliminary vegetation survey
conducted by San Francisco State University. The State Coastal
Conservancy authorized the survey of the Breuner property in order
to assist in the Specific Plan planning process, - beyond the
analysis required for the Program EIR. The survey was conducted by
students from the State University under the direction of Dr.
Michael Josselyn and Sarah Chamberlain. In a memo to Melanie
Denninger of the State Coastal Conservancy, Dr. Josselyn summarizes
the findings of the survey relative to the restoration potential of
the property (see Attachment B) . Dr. Josselyn concludes that the
southeast corner of the site has the least value in terms of plant
community or associated animals . He notes that native grassland,
small seasonal pools, and patches of willow are found in this area,
but that it is likely the grassland could be transplanted and the
seasonal pools compensated with additional wetland habitat creation
in the central portion .of the site. As included in the mitigation
measures outlined in the Final EIR, Dr. Josselyn recommends that
additional surveys be conducted including a vegetative survey
during the spring and a wetland delineation.
Under Alternative B as presented in the Final EIR, this 20 acre
area would be designated Special Facilities. A pedestrian-only
public access trail would continue along the existing road
alignment to the north, but the Public Access Corridor would
terminate at the intersection of Goodrick and Rheem Creek. There
would also be modifications to the circulation system to
accommodate the change in land uses. In the response to comments
on the Draft Environmental Impact Report, there was strong support
for Alternative B from both the community and responsible agencies .
The modified Alternative B, which is the recommnedation of the
City, County and Coastal Conservancy staff, would be almost
identical to Alternative B, but the 20 acre area would be
designated for office/industrial flex rather than Special
Facilities. Staff supports the EIR analysis which identifies the
reduction in developable area north of Rheem Creek as a measure to
reduce potential impacts on biological resources . However, the
proposed modified alternative also provides this same reduction in
impacts . The intent of the Special Facilities designation is to
File: 018 .GP 92-3
Agenda Item No. 8
Page 5
M. Assist in balancing the environmental, social, and economic
values of the Bay and adjacent areas when formulating plans for
future development in Richmond. Use the area's resources to
produce a kind of growth that will benefit residents of the
community within a framework of conservation, public access to
the Bay, and economic feasibility.
The three land use scenarios are also consistent with most policies
in the pertinent elements of the General Plan. The Public
Facilities Element calls for using the landfill site until a new
site is found, and the Parks and Recreation Element calls for the
conversion of the landfill to a recreational site, consistent with
the alternatives . The Parks and Recreation Element also calls for
development of trails, and the trails described are. similar to
those in the alternatives . The alternatives would improve the
image of the shoreline as called for in the Form and Appearance
Element .
Although Alternative B would most likely generate the least
employment, all three alternatives would support the Economic
Development goals of providing jobs, increasing City revenues, and
improving the business climate through beautification and access.
The increase in land designated for employment-generating uses, and
upgrading the existing industrial uses would achieve the first two
goals . The Plan' s development standards and design guidelines,
which would be the same for each alternative, would contribute to
the third goal .
The proposed Plan would be the most inconsistent with some policies
of the General Plan. The proposed Plan would allow the most
filling of wetlands, contrary to a policy in the Open Space and
Conservation Element. However, all three alternatives would
consolidate the fragmented wetlands into larger areas and would
provide mechanisms for resource protection that would not otherwise
be available.
The alternative land use scenarios are also inconsistent with the
interim and long-term Agricultural Land Use designations on the
areas north of the planned Richmond Parkway; these areas, however,
are not currently viable agricultural uses, and the land is not
prime farm land. Soils are Clear Lake clay and can support only
dry land farming. Except for the property north of Rheem Creek,
the General Plan notes these areas for "future general industry, "
and the Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan
promotes agricultural use only until the land is scheduled for more
intensive development . The isolation of these parcels from other
farm land further contributes to the poor prospect of farming these
lands for economic benefit . The change from agricultural use to
office/industrial use, a use with higher economic return and
employment-generating potential, is not a significant impact . The
k
File: 018 .GP 92-3
Agenda Item No. 8
Page 7
7 . Eliminates the Agricultural designation (both Interim and
Future) from the General Plan Open Space and Conservation Map,
consistent with the Specific Plan.
8 . Changes the Coastline Plan map to reflect the changes outlined
above for the General Plan Land Use map.
9 . Changes Plate 13 of the Coastline Plan to reflect the new trail
alignments and public access corridors .
10 . Changes Map 5 of the Safety Element to reflect changes in
current and future flood hazard conditions, when new Flood
Zone Maps are available.
(Notes: (1) This list of changes is slightly different than the
list identified in both the Specific Plan and the Draft, EIR. After
additional research and study, the list was revised. For example,
Plate 5 of the Coastline Plan indicates the Rod and Gun Club as an
existing condition rather than as proposed; therefore, it is
unnecessary to change the Plate.
(2) The proposed updated General Plan includes designations and
policies consistent with the Specific Plan as recommended. )
JF:NK:GPA-CPC.SR
Attachment: Attachments A and B; Resolution No. 92-26 with Exhibits
A, B, and C (w/Attachments 1-6)
cc: CAC for the Specific Plan; City Council; Parchester Village
N.C. ; North Richmond N.C. , Economic Development Commission;
Cities of San Pablo and Pinole; BCDC; Redevelopment Agency;
and other Interested Persons
File: 018.GP 92-3
ATTACHMENT B
Romberg Tiburon Centers
Center for Environmental Studies P.o.Box 955.3150 Porodhe Drive
San Francisco State University Tiburon.CA 94920 (415)435-1717
. t
December 17, 1992
RECEIVED
TO: Melanie Denninger 2� 1
State Coastal Conservancy
999-2
FROM: Michael Josselyn RICW*.
SUBJECT: Restoration potential for Breuner Property
This is a brief .memo to discuss restoration potential at the Breuner property
based on the results of our vegetation mapping. These recommendations are
subject to the limitations inherent in only utilizing the vegetation study to
base restoration recommendations. As you know, other data is needed to fully
assess the opportunities and constraints affecting wetland restoration
alternatives.
Our work suggests that there are a number of isolated seasonal wetlands
habitats (non-tidal wetlands and- mixed communities) throughout the property;
however, the majority are concentrated in the northern portion. To some
extent, these areas represent historic tidal marshes that have been diked
from tidal action or prevented from receiving tidal flow due to fill
placement. However, there also appears to be several unusual situations that
have developed that are characterized as "Salicornia-alkali flat", "seasonal
swale-pool-halophyte mix", and "non-native grassland-plantago-hemizonia".
These areas represent a gradient between relatively wet to relatively dry
non-tidal sites and due to the perched water table and alkaline soils may
support unique plant communities for the local vicinity. I would not
characterize these areas as "vernal pools" in the sense that they lack
concentric rings of vegetation responding to varying water depths and soil
saturation as occur in the classic vernal pools of the valley. However, they
may function similarly in terms of a shallow impervious layer allowing for
ponding of surface runoff during the winter and spring.
The grasslands are largely composed of non-native annual grasses; however, in
several instances they are accompanied by wetland plant species as
subdominants. These areas may also qualify as jurisdictional areas depending
upon the soil and hydrologic conditions. In fact, since italian ryegrass
(Loliism) is also a facultative wetland species, almost the entire site meets
the vegetative criteria of the three-parameter wetland definition used by the
Corps. Clearly the other features of the site--soil and hydrology--need to
be examined before a final determination can be made.
In terms of the potential for wetland enhancement, clearly all areas with
upland development along the shoreline have the greatest potential for
restoration to either tidal or non-tidal wetlands. The opportunities range
from relatively simple to more complex design and engineering problems. The
simplest form of enhancement would be the removal of grazing from an area
s
File: 018 .GP 192-3
RESOLUTION NO. 92-26
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
APPROVING AND RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF AN
AMENDMENT TO THE RICHMOND GENERAL PLAN LAND USE, CIRCULATION, OPEN
SPACE AND CONSERVATION, AND SAFETY ELEMENTS FOR THE AREA GENERALLY
BOUNDED ON THE NORTH BY POINT PINOLE REGIONAL SHORELINE PARK, ON
THE EAST BY THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD TRACKS AND PARCHESTER
VILLAGE, ON THE SOUTH BY PARR BOULEVARD, AND ON THE WEST BY SAN
PABLO BAY (AREA ALSO KNOWN AS THE NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC
PLAN AREA) .
WHEREAS, the Richmond City Council adopted the Richmond
General Plan by Resolution No. 8481 on September 21, - 1964 as the
official plan to guide the future physical development of the City
of Richmond; and
WHEREAS, the Richmond City Council adopted the Richmond
Coastline Plan as part of the Richmond General Plan by Resolution
No. 44-73 on March 12, 1973 as a Local Area Plan; and
WHEREAS, on December 9, 1992 the Environmental Assessment
Panel, acting in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) , the State CEQA Guidelines, and Resolution No.
274-89 of the City of Richmond, certified that the Final Program
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the North Richmond Shoreline
Specific Plan has been completed in compliance with the CEQA and
the State CEQA Guidelines, as amended. This FEIR was prepared for
the City of Richmond by Brady and Associates and consists of two
separately bound reports bearing the following titles and dates:
(1) Public Hearing Draft - North Richmond Shoreline Specific
Plan EIR, May 1992 .
(2) North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan EIR - Response to
Comments Addendum, November 1992 .
WHEREAS, the Planning Director, pursuant to Resolution No.
274-89 of the City of Richmond, determined that the effects on the
environment caused by implementation of the General Plan amendments
made to make the Richmond General Plan consistent with the North
Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan are covered by this FEIR; and
WHEREAS, the Richmond Planning Commission on January 7, 1993
held a public hearing on and recommended approval of the General
Plan amendment for the North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan Area
(File 018 .GP 92-3 ) ; and
File: 018 . GP 192-3
Resolution No. 92-26
Page 3
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the
City of Richmond, California directs that the Planning Director
transmit this resolution to the Richmond City Council for their
consideration and adoption of this plan amendment .
I certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the
Planning Commission of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting
held January 7, 1993 .
Ayes :
Noes :
Absent :
Chair, Planning Commission
Approved as to form:
Assistant City Attorney
Exhibit A of Resolution No. 92-26
Page 2
Further, the Final EIR prepared for the Specific Plan is a program
EIR. It includes mitigation measures that are to be implemented as
development occurs under the guidelines and regulatory mechanisms
of the Plan. Therefore, until development occurs it is not known
when or precisely in what manner other public agencies will have
responsibility or jurisdiction relative to changes or alterations .
However, mitigation measures relating to traffic, circulation and
air quality will be implemented in consultation with the Bay Area
Air Quality Management District . Mitigation measures affecting
wetlands, marshes, and other critical wildlife habitat must be
approved by the California Department of Fish and Game, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and
Development Commission when they are within the jurisdiction of
those agencies . Mitigation measures related to hazardous materials
will be reported on a case-by-case basis, and in a tiinely manner,
to either the California Department of Toxic Substance Control, or
the State of California Regional Water- Quality Control Board, or
both as appropriate.
Environmental Finding 3 . Specific economic, social or other
considerations made infeasible the mitigation measures or project
alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
Statement: None of the mitigation measures in the Final EIR which
have been identified as the responsibility of the City are
considered to be infeasible.
No Proiect Alternative - Under the No Project Alternative, the
existing land use designations and development standards would not
change. The property would remain under current development and
zoning designations . The No Project Alternative would not
recognize the radically changing trends in land use and circulation
that is occurring due to the Richmond Parkway, flood control
projects, and closure of the landfill . The existing land uses
would remain diverse and, at certain locations, incompatible and/or
transitional . Resulting development would be slow and remediation
of hazardous waste sites would not occur as quickly.
The No Project Alternative would discourage people from using the
shoreline and open space areas because no access roads, trails, or
cleanup would be provided. Illegal dumping would probably
continue, as it is difficult to control without increased use and
activity in the area.
There would less likely be a cleanup and consolidation of the
wetlands to form a contiguous habitat. Isolated pockets of
wetlands would be maintained and mitigated only as part of
individual site developments .
Exhibit B of
Resolution No. 92-26
EXHIBIT B
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines specifies that where the
decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of significant
effects which are identified in the Final EIR but are not at least
substantially mitigated, the agency shall state in writing the
specific reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR
and/or other information in the record.
Areas of potentially significant and unavoidable impacts resulting
from the project relate to biological resources including rare,
locally unique, threatened and endangered species and wetlands;
traffic; seismic hazards; increased intensity of land use; removal
of agricultural lands; visual; construction noise; and school
enrollment . In relation to Section 15093 of the' State CEQA
Guidelines, the Planning Commission of the City of Richmond,
California hereby makes the following statement of overriding
considerations in its decision to approve the General Plan
Amendments related to the North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan.
The Final EIR identifies Alternative B, the Mitigated Plan Concept,
as the environmentally superior alternative. The Modified
Alternative B similarly mitigates the environmental impacts of the
Plan and approval of this Alternative will substantially reduce the
impacts in the areas identified; however, depending on the chosen
threshold it could still be argued that unavoidable significant
impacts will occur. Thus, this Statement of Overriding
Considerations is provided.
The Specific Plan, for which these General Plan amendments are
proposed, was developed as a joint effort between the City of
Richmond, Contra Costa County and the State Coastal Conservancy.
Its development was guided by both a Citizen Advisory Committee and
a Technical Advisory Committee. The Citizen Committee included
representatives from local residents, property owners, industrial
and commercial interests, and environmentalists . The Technical
Committee included responsible and interested public agencies .
The overall goal of the North Richmond Specific Plan is to
recognize the unique character of the Plan Area and to guide and
regulate development in the area in a manner that improves its
image, benefits community residents, and accommodates a reasonable
level of development within a framework of conservation and public
access to the Bay. The Specific Plan meets this overall goal as
well as provides the format and mechanisms for meeting each of the
following Plan Goals, each of which supports the goals of the
Richmond General Plan:
Exhibit C of
Resolution No. 92-26
EXHIBIT C
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GP-3
NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN
The intent of this General Plan Amendment is to remove all
inconsistencies between the existing Richmond General Plan and the
proposed North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan (with a modified
Alternative B Land Use Scenario) . For the Specific Plan to be
consistent with the Richmond General Plan, this General Plan
Amendment :
1. Changes the circulation pattern of the General Plan
Circulation Map to reflect the alignment of the Richmond
Parkway Alignment, Section 4 .
2 . Changes the Rod and Gun Club parcel from Commercial
Recreation to Parks, Recreation, Conservation and Open Space
on the General Plan Land Use Map, and as Wildlife
Habitat/Saltmarsh Preserve and Regional or City-Wide Parks,
Recreation, Open Space on the Open Space and Conservation Map,
consistent with the Specific Plan's Natural Conservation and
Parks and Open Space categories.
3 . Identifies the Natural Conservation and Public Access Corridor
designated areas of the Specific Plan Land Use Map as Parks,
Recreation, Conservation and Open Space on the General Plan
Land Use Map, and as Wildlife Habitat/Saltmarsh Preserve and
Regional or City-Wide Parks, Recreation, Open Space,
respectively, on the Open Space and Conservation Map.
4 . Changes the lands southeast of the Richmond Parkway
alignment from Special Industry to General Industry on the
General Plan Land Use Map, consistent with the Specific Plan's
Heavy Industrial category.
5. Changes the lands west of the Parkway and north of Parr Blvd.
from General Industry to Special Industry on the General Plan
Land Use Map, consistent with the Specific Plan's Light
Industrial category.
6. Changes the lands north of the planned Parkway designated for
Agriculture to Special Industry on the General Plan Land Use
Map, consistent with the Specific Plan's •Office/Industrial
Flex category.
7. Eliminates the Agricultural designation (both Interim and
Future) from the General Plan Open Space and Conservation Map,
consistent with the Specific Plan.
���:�:�;:: .- . � �,��'q+ y�, ;lid•
iriC.�K i i.
• ++ + .• • • .e Yiv s+ tCr'+'.
-
v
nk
����.���� X11 II
�``•4 3
•� �.•titr ,�."►,� � � �� r^r'�� III' -'.
_ _ �tct'I � 1♦
'w+rwwuwrw►•ti..r•�►wwaww.�w.� ...ti�- l.�'..'�•_' 1^--:••cru ...
ilill low 11 r
`war w�w.vMt� •rw�w•wwwaw li _"`� ,'42`-t` 7'
cm
_
•
• 1
• • 1
• 1
1'
' 6
Attad=t 3 of Dbibit C, Res. 92-26
S y n
V
r�. Y
0 E ZZVcc a
1
H nE .�. c V Q > rn Q .�
pgA.
GJ a X t O d Z c. U N a 6 a m o
cz
o c ��l *. 1 . : 1
C-T H
a, a
w
V
z
0
w V
o z
M
P,
[•", ,• I IBJ `IY a 1 �I�I�I�II�• 1�:;:::::�;:;: :. ', t 'o°-••.,, a�.ay_ .•r.+v�wt �• 1
41.
n
jilt
l• µti:.. pP _
94
"Tru i:
`
co
4 � r
i
ISI � IIt
w III ;,�i�i� ����'``�:`::: �. •?� � �ti�rl�tuaprep :.•
�� 11�I ,I gl,li"�IgII�M _�� i%%•_'�nT
F -
s 1='=
Oil
a fd• ..•.1.•
a � k.L"E�ixr•�
C N
O
'5
n as
Attach nt 5 of ESHHt C, Resolution No. 92-2G
ATTACHMENT 5: EXISTING COASTLINE PLAN PLATE 13,
PROPOSED REGIO RECREATION SYSTEM
LEGEND �
.r-REGIONAL TRAILS \�
...'%LOCAL HIKE/BIKE TRAIL CONNECTORS
?OFISHING SITES
BEACHES, PARKS �• i ��..�
• VIEWPOINTS ,••ej''•.• �'�
*' CREEKSIDE RECREATION
—RECREATIONAL RAILROAD / .s
RETREAT or INTERPRETIVE ~•~•
•ee•e•..�1.•e•....e�•N••eee.e•'M
MUSEUM ;INTERPRETIVE .
�•
�! r•
�,. r
O( Non-Tnt¢nSive 'A...�..-. •:
RECREATION :•�
E.BROTHER
Island .•'`. ...e- i '
>v' `
•
•
a ` ` ,1 •ee..e e.•.M..u.eeeep.
M
Lop..., ;
PLATE 23
PROPOSED REGIONAL RECREATION SYSTEM
ATTACHMENT B
File: 304 .N.Shor
CPC Meeting: 1/7/93
Agenda Item No. 9
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning DepartmentAK--
SUBJECT: - NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN.
INITIATED BY: Richmond City Council
LOCATION: The North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan area is
generally bounded on the north by the Pt. Pinole
Regional Shoreline Park, on the east by the Southern
Pacific Railroad tracks and Parchester Village, on the
south by Parr Boulevard, and on the west by San Pablo
Bay. (Note: The Specific Plan Area includes lands
within both the City of Richmond and the unincorporated
area of Contra Costa County. As required by law, areas
within the City's sphere of influence, ' such as the
unincorporated areas of North Richmond, are reflected
on the City's General Plan. Therefore, this amendment
includes the entire Specific Plan area, but applies
only to the City's General Plan. ) )
ACTION REQUIRED: The California Government Code provides under
Section 65453 that "Specific plans shall be prepared, adopted, and
amended in the same manner, as general plans, except that a specific
plan may be adopted by resolution or by ordinance and may be
amended as often as deemed necessary by the legislative body. "
Therefore, the Commission should make a recommendation to the City
Council on the proposed Specific Plan.
PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN: The overall goal of the
North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan is to recognize the unique
character of the area and to guide and regulate future development
in a manner that improves its image, benefits community residents,
and accommodates a reasonable level of development within a
framework of conservation and public access to the Bay.
The Specific Plan includes four elements: Land Use, Circulation,
Design Guidelines and Implementation. It defines the amount, type
and location of development that will be permitted in the North
Shoreline area as well as establishes development standards and
design guidelines for that development. Further, the Plan
identifies locations and standards for natural conservation and
public access . Specific actions, financing methods and sources are
recommended to implement the plan.
With approval of the Plan by both the City and County, a consistent
set of development standards and guidelines will be established
throughout the incorporated and unincorporated portions of the Plan
Area. Development proposals in the Plan Area will be subject to
File: 304 .N.Shor
Agenda Item No. 9
Page 3
Committee, a Technical Advisory Committee was established which was
comprised of representatives from local, regional, state and
federal agencies . The members of the Committees are listed in
Chapter 8 of the Plan.
The Committees met over a three year period and on July 29th o.f
this year the Citizens Committee voted to endorse the Specific Plan
(there was one abstention) with a number of map and text changes .
The changes are outlined in Exhibit C of the attached Resolution.
In endorsing the Plan, the Committee stated that the decision on
the land use alternatives (e.g. , Alternative B) for the Breuner
site should be left to the decision-making agencies . The Committee
also voted unanimously to recommend to the City that the
landscaping for the Parkway should be extended to include entire
gateways and not just the Parkway right-of-way.
In addition to guiding the preparation of the Draft Specific Plan,
the Citizen Committee also reviewed the City and County General
Plan land use categories for the remainder of the North Richmond
Area located outside of the Specific Plan Project Area. The
Committee formulated_ recommendations to the both the City and
County relative to land use designations and policy. These
recommendations have been incorporated into the update of the
City's General Plan. The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
approved the Committee's recommendations for the County area on
October 6, 1992 . F
DISCUSSION: The Staff Report for the related General Plan
Amendment discusses the three basic alternative land use scenarios:
(1) the proposed Specific Plan, (2) Alternative B as described at
the back of the Plan document and in the EIR, and (3) a modified
version of Alternative B. It also explains the staff's rational
for recommending the modified Alternative B.
Except for changes relating directly to the Modified Alternative B
land use scenario (e.g. , circulation patterns) , the text of the
Specific Plan with some revisions has been recommended for approval
by the Citizen Advisory Committee. The City, County and
Conservancy Staff concur with this recommendation; as a result of
the Final EIR, however, several additional revisions have been
added to those recommended by the Committee. All recommended
revisions are included in Exhibit C of the attached Resolution.
As part of their recommendation, the Citizen Advisory Committee
also voted to recommend to the City that the landscaping for the
Parkway be extended to include entire gateways and not just the
Parkway right-of-way. This recommendation has been put into the
form of a revision to page 93 of the Specific Plan and is included
in Exhibit C.
File: 304 .N.Shor
Agenda Item No. 9
Page 5
WCL is also concerned with the proposed public access areas and
the proposal to restore tidal action to the diked basin located
south of the landfill . For WCL's specific concerns please refer
to the Norris and Norris and Richmond Sanitary Service Letters
in the Final EIR.
Response. Mistakes made relative to the landfill operations and
closure plans have been corrected in the Final EIR and are
recommended for correction in the Specific Plan. The Plan
itself, however, does not have to be consistent with WCL's
unapproved plans for the recycling activities . The Specific
Plan is a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City
Council from the Citizen and Technical Advisory Committees.
Further, most of the public access area proposed by the Specific
Plan is consistent with WCL's plans as shown in the- EIR for the
recycling activities. Specific responses are provided to WCL's
concerns in the Final EIR.
. 3 . Breuner Family. Although they did not comment on the Draft EIR,
representatives of the Breuner Family have called Staff to
object to Alternative B which primarily affects future land uses
on the Breuner Property located north of Rheem Creek.
Response. As discussed in the report on the General Plan
Amendment, the Breuner Property has significant habitat value
for rare and endangered species (i .e. , California Clapper Rail
and the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse) and may contain an unusual
variety of native plant species. . Further, a significant portion
of the property has been identified as wetlands and there is a
potential that there are additional unidentified wetlands on the
site.
Alternative B was developed in response to the habitat value of
the site. The modified Alternative B was developed to maximize
the job potential of the Plan Area and to enhance the
development potential of the developable acres north of Rheem
Creek. The increase in the Natural Conservation Area as shown
in Alternative B has the support of the California Coastal
Conservancy, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development
Commission, the State Department of Fish & Game, the Regional
Water Quality Control Board and the East Bay Regional Park
District .
ADOPTION - RESOLUTION OR ORDINANCE: As noted earlier, State Law
allows the City to adopt a specific plan by either resolution or
ordinance. Resolutions are commonly used when the document is more
of a policy document and includes no specific regulating measures .
Specific plans are generally adopted by ordinance when the Plan
amends specific regulatory measures such as the Zoning Ordinance.
File: 304 .N.Shor
RESOLUTION NO. 92-27
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
APPROVING THE NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE AREA
GENERALLY BOUNDED ON THE NORTH BY POINT PINOLE REGIONAL SHORELINE
PARK, ON THE EAST BY THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD TRACKS AND
PARCHESTER VILLAGE, ON THE SOUTH BY PARR BOULEVARD, AND ON THE WEST
BY SAN PABLO BAY (AREA ALSO KNOWN AS THE NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE
SPECIFIC PLAN AREA) ; AND RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT SAID
SPECIFIC PLAN BE ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE.
WHEREAS, the Richmond City Council adopted the Richmond
General Plan by Resolution No. 8481 on September 21, 1964 as the
official plan to guide the future physical development of the City
of Richmond; and
WHEREAS, the Richmond City Council adopted 'the Richmond
Coastline Plan as part of the Richmond General Plan by Resolution
No. 44-73 on March 12, 1973 as a Local Area Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Richmond Planning Commission recommended to the
City Council an amendment to the Richmond General Plan for the
North Richmond Shoreline Area by Resolution No. 92-26 on December
17, 1992 to address the changes that are occurring as a result of
the Richmond Parkway, the flood control improvements, and near term
closure of the West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill; and
WHEREAS, on December 9, 1992 the Environmental Assessment
Panel, acting in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) , the State CEQA Guidelines, and Resolution No.
274-89 of the City of Richmond, certified that the Final Program
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the North Richmond Shoreline
Specific Plan has been completed in compliance with the CEQA and
the State CEQA Guidelines, as amended. This FEIR was prepared for
the City of Richmond by Brady and Associates and consists of two
separately bound reports bearing the following titles and dates:
(1) Public Hearing Draft - North Richmond Shoreline
Specific Plan EIR, May 1992 .
(2) North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan EIR - Response
to Comments Addendum, November 1992 .
WHEREAS, the Planning Director, pursuant to Resolution No.
274-89 of the City of Richmond, determined that the effects on the
environment caused by implementation of the Specific Plan, as
amended by Exhibit C of this Resolution, are covered by this FEIR;
and
Resolution No. 92-26
Page 3
Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the
City of Richmond, California directs the Planning Director to
transmit - the North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan, with
referenced amendments, to the Richmond City Council for adoption by
ordinance.
I certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the
Planning Commission of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting
held January 7, 1993 .
Ayes :
Noes :
Absent :
Chair, Planning Commission
Approved as to form:
Assistant City Attorney
Exhibit A of Resolution No. 92-27
Page 2
the responsibility of the County. These measures include changing
the Urban Limit Line and review of the West County Integrated
Resource Recovery Project .
Further, the Final EIR prepared for the Specific Plan is a program
EIR. It -includes mitigation measures that are to be implemented as
development occurs under the guidelines and regulatory mechanisms
of the Plan. Therefore, until development occurs it is not known
when or precisely in what manner other public agencies will have
responsibility or jurisdiction relative to changes or alterations .
However, mitigation measures relating to traffic, circulation and
air quality will be implemented in consultation with the Bay Area
Air Quality Management District . Mitigation measures affecting
wetlands, marshes, and other critical wildlife habitat must be
approved by the California Department of Fish and Game, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and
Development Commission when they are within the jurisdiction of
those agencies . Mitigation measures related to hazardous materials
will be reported on a case-by-case basis, and in a timely manner,
to either the California Department of Toxic Substance Control, or
the State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board, or
both as appropriate.
Environmental Finding 3 . Specific economic, social or other
considerations made infeasible the mitigation measures or project
alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
Statement: None of the mitigation measures in the Final EIR which
have been identified as the responsibility of the City are
considered to be infeasible.
No Proiect Alternative - Under the No Project Alternative, the
existing land use designations and development standards would not
change. The property would remain under current development and
zoning designations . The No Project Alternative would not
recognize the radically changing trends in land use and circulation
that is occurring due to the Richmond Parkway, flood control
projects, and closure of the landfill . The existing land uses
would remain diverse and, at certain locations, incompatible and/or
transitional. Resulting development would be slow and remediation
of hazardous waste sites would not occur as quickly.
The No Project Alternative would discourage people from using the
shoreline and open space areas because no access roads, trails, or
cleanup would be provided. Illegal dumping would probably
continue, as it is difficult to control without increased use and
activity in the area.
Exhibit B of
Resolution No. 92-26
EXHIBIT B
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines specifies that where the
decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of significant
effects which are identified in the Final EIR but are not at least
substantially mitigated, the agency shall state in writing the
specific reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR
and/or other information in the record.
Areas of potentially significant and unavoidable impacts resulting
from the project relate to biological resources including rare,
locally unique, threatened and endangered species and wetlands;
traffic; seismic hazards; increased intensity of land use; removal
of agricultural lands; visual; construction noise; and school
enrollment . In relation to Section 15093 of the * State CEQA
Guidelines, the Planning Commission of the City of Richmond,
California hereby makes the following statement of overriding
considerations in its decision to approve the North Richmond
Shoreline Specific Plan as amended by Exhibit C of this Resolution.
The approval of a modified Alternative B will substantially reduce
the impacts in the areas identified; however, depending on the
chosen threshold it could still be argued that unavoidable
significant impacts will occur. Thus, this Statement of overriding
Considerations is provided.
The Specific Plan was developed as a joint effort between the City
of Richmond, Contra Costa County and the State Coastal Conservancy.
Its development was guided by both a Citizen Advisory Committee and
a Technical Advisory Committee. The Citizen Committee included
representatives from local residents, property owners, industrial
and commercial interests, and environmentalists . The Technical
Committee included responsible and interested public agencies.
The overall goal of the North Richmond Specific Plan is to
recognize the unique character of the Plan Area and to guide and
regulate development in the area in a manner that improves its
image, benefits community residents, and accommodates a reasonable
level of development within a framework of conservation and public
access to the Bay. The Specific Plan meets this overall goal as
well as provides the format and mechanisms for meeting each of the
following Plan Goals, each of which supports the goals of the
Richmond General Plan:
1. Provide fuller utilization of the Plan Area for a range of
land uses, with emphasis given to employment-generating
uses, recreational uses, and preservation of natural resource
areas .
Exhibit C of
Resolution No. 92-27
EXHIBIT C -- NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN
MAP AND TEXT CHANGES
LAND USE SCENARIO
The land use scenario in the Public Hearing Draft -- North Richmond
Shoreline Specific Plan (May 1992) is replaced with Alternative B,
Mitigated Plan Concept, as described in Appendix A of the Draft
Plan, except that the area designated for Special Facilities is
changed to Office/Industrial Flex. The Circulation and Public
Access and Recreation Plans are also changed to reflect Alternative
B. Alternative B is designed to reduce potential biological and
hydrological impacts of the proposed Specific Plan while retaining
a mix of land uses which will provide an employment base for area
residents .
ADDITIONAL MAP AND TEXT CHANGES
Page
15 Figure 3, Plan Area, Points of Reference, add footnote to
clarify the difference between the 6' contour and the true
edge of shoreline.
15 Figure 3 , Plan Area Points of Reference, delete WCCSD and
replace with WCCSL.
18 Paragraph 1, lines 3, 4, and 5, delete above mean sea level
and replace with NVDG datum; delete saltpans and replace with
salt ponds; delete important and replace with certain.
19 Figure 4, Jurisdictions, add the following footnote to State
Lands Commission-Public Trust Interest: Approximate area of
preliminary determination of public interest is shown.
30 Paragraph 3, line 2, the delete whcih and replace with which.
31 Paragraph 3 , line 2, delete the word close.
36 Paragraph 3, lines 1 and 2, delete and replace with There is
a recorded trail easement along the .western boundary of the
Freethy Industrial Subdivision at the end of . . .
38 Paragraph 1, delete third sentence and replace with: The
Class II municipal waste portion of the site is expected to
stop receiving refuse for disposal in 1994 . The closure plan
was approved for filing by the County Local Enforcement Agency
(LEA) in July of 1991; however, the closure plan is still
Exhibit C of Resolution No. 92-27
Page 3
50 .Paragraph 4, line 1, between the words use and until, insert
as a permitted use; line 2, delete eastern inland and replace
with western; line 3, delete nark and open space use. and
replace with a Natural Conservation Area. ; line 3, delete
which; line 4, delete would become Natural Conservation area.
50 Last paragraph, line 5, delete but are not limited to; line 6,
between fishing, and aolf courses, insert and undeveloped open
space. Uses allowed with a conditional use permit include.
51 First partial paragraph, lines 1 and 2, delete and undeveloped
open space and replace with a single family dwelling,
nurseries, grazing of livestock, keeping of domesticated farm
animals, riding academy, rod and gun clubs, and similar uses .
51 First full paragraph, delete second sentence and replace with:
This facility has not received wastes since 1986 ,and is in the
process of closing. The closure plan is under review by
regulatory agencies and closure is estimated to be completed
in 1996 or 1997 .
54 Table 2, last three categories under Parking-Type of Land Use,
delete descriptions in right hand column and replace with as
per City and County codes as applicable.
54 Table 2, Footnote e, Add sentence reading: Mezzanines shall
not be included in the calculation of FAR, provided that the
following conditions are met: (1) the mezzanine is no larger
than 33% of the first floor area; and (2) there is minimal
traffic generated from the use of the mezzanine (e.g. , few
employees are stationed within the area) .
56 Paragraph e. , line 3, delete: Landscape materials and
irrigation systems shall comply with and insert or; line 6,
after the word Ordinance, continue the sentence with as may be
applicable.
57 Paragraph (5) (a) , line 1, between the words maintained and
fire insert for.
59 Under "General Requirements" , change (5) to (6) and add a new
(5) reading: Public Access should be limited in or near
sensitive habitat areas, if such access would impact sensitive
habitats .
60 Paragraph 1, line 8, between future, and a insert, if
feasible (as determined by the regulatory agencies) , .
Exhibit C of Resolution No. 92-27
Page 5
101 Paragraph 1, last sentence, change to read: There are seven
parts to this Implementation Element. Also, rewrite seven
bullets to read as follows :
* Actions Required for adoption of the North Richmond
Shoreline Specific Plan
* Development review and approval process
* Employment Development Programs
* Richmond Enterprise Zone
* Infrastructure improvements
* Hazardous waste remediation
* Natural conservation implementation actions
106 Paragraph 1, last sentence, continue sentence with: and shall
be considered for approval by the Richmond City- Council and
the County Board of Supervisors.
106 Paragraph 5, line 2, between considered and when insert by the
Development Review Committee hearing body as the primary basis
of approval; last sentence, continue sentence with: and
compliance with stated Specific Plan provisions shall become
the basis for approval .
111 Last paragraph, line 1, at end of line after City insert and
County; line 2, between apply and to insert, as a priority, .
119 Paragraph and bullet 1, at end of line after Richmond insert
or County.
120 Table 9 and text should include assessment districts .
126 Last paragraph, line 4, delete Richmond Sanitary Services and
replace with West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill, Inc.
128 Section g. Enhance Seasonal Wetlands, at the end of this
section add a paragraph reading: Responsibility: Contra
Costa County Flood Control District, BCDC, and the City.
131 Last paragraph of section 3a. Responsibility, at beginning of
sentence insert : Contra Costa County Flood Control District,
BCDC and .
- Include a footnote on the appropriate maps indicating that the
trail alignments and boundary lines of the natural
conservation areas and the public access corridors are not
precise delineations but conceptually represent areas which
are subject to the policies of the Plan and are to be verified
by the regulatory agencies .
ATTACHMENT C
?rA r0STA
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS � Contra
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON S'0 FEB 12 PH 4: 12 " County
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT �,,�,, ,•
DATE: January 20, 1993 MVKOi MERT DEPT
SUBJECT: NORTH RICHMOND SPECIFIC PLAN AWARD
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
Acknowledge the efforts of Supervisor Powers, the North Richmond
Shoreline Advisory Committee, participating staff and Brady and
Associates in the receipt of the Northern California Chapter of the
Association of Landscape Architects prestigious Merit Award.
FISCAL IMPACT
Minor mailing costs.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
Supervisor Powers strongly urged the Board of Supervisor and the
City of Richmond to undertake a joint General and Specific plan
study of the Greater North Richmond Area. His. effort lead to a
State Coastal Conservancy Grant to prepare a Specific Plan for the
North Richmond Shoreline. Upon receipt of the grant the Board of
Supervisors and the Richmond City Council jointly established a
North Richmond Shoreline Citizen Advisory Committee to work with
staff to prepare the Draft North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan.
Jim Cutler of the County Community Development Department , Nancy
Kaufman of the Richmond Planning Department and Melanie Denninger
for the State Coastal Conservancy were charged with providing staff
leadership in the preparation of this plan. . The consulting firm of
Sheila Brady and Associates was hired to work with staff and the
committee in preparation of the Draft.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE
_ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _ RECOMXZgDZ=ON OF 10 D COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON February 9. 1993 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
—2_ UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Orig: Harvey Bragdon (646-2026) ATTESTED February 9. 1993
Community Development Department PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
cc: CAO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Public Works AND COUNTY DMINISTRATOR
North Richmond Shoreline Citizens Advisory omm tee
Jim Cutler BY D , DEPUTY
Melanie Denninger
Nancy Kaufman
City of Richmond
The Draft plan was, submitted to the Awards Committee of the
Northern California Chapter of the American Society of Landscape
Architects. As a result of that submittal the Specific Plan
received the Merit Award from that body.
The Draft plan is in public hearing presently before the Richmond
Planning Agency and will soon start hearing before the County
Planning Commission.
While the draft plan has not yet stood the test of public hearings
and final adoption, it is note worthy nice to have the Specific
Plan receive such a prestigious award. The Board should
acknowledge this award by forwarding a copy of this Board Order to .
all members of the Citizens Advisory Committee, the City of
Richmond, to lead staff members, and the consultant to assure they
are aware of this recognition of their efforts.
JC:kd
2/misc/kd
nrich.BO
-2-