Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06221993 - H.11B OcR NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ■ Response to Comments Addendum NOVEMBER 1992 Prepared for the CITY OF RICHMOND CONTRA COSTA COUNTY By BRADY AND ASSOCIATES PLANNERS AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS In association with CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP ORION ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES PHILIP WILLIAMS AND ASSOCIATES WARD AND ASSOCIATES WETLANDS RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC. SCH#91063030 FILE#EID91-16 North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan EIR Response to Comments Addendum TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION I-1 A. Purpose and Content of the EIR I-1 B. Environmental Review Process I-1 C. How to Use This Report I-2 II. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS II-1 A. Project Under Review II-1 B. Summary of Findings II-1 C. Summary Table II-3 Table 1. Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures 11-4 III. LIST OF COMMENTORS III-1 IV. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES IV-1 V. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR V-1 Appendix Minutes of Public Hearing on the Draft EIR, July 21, 1992 i NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR NOVEMBER 1992 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ADDENDUM TALE OF CONTENTS 11 Chapter I INTRODUCTION A. Purpose and Content of the EIR This report is the second of two volumes, which together constitute the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan. The first volume consists of the Draft EIR (DEIR), dated May, 1992, which includes a description of the environmental setting, the proposed Specific Plan, an assessment of the potential effects associated with the proposed Plan, a comparative evaluation of alternatives, and a set of recommended mitigation measures to avoid or reduce such effects. This second volume is an Addendum to the Draft EIR and consists of Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR. It includes an introduction, a summary of issues, environmental impacts and mitigation measures, revisions to the text of the Draft EIR, a list of commenters on the Draft EIR, verbatim copies of comments, and responses to those comments. The Draft and Final EIR have been prepared according to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is a Program EIR. The CEQA Guidelines state that a Program EIR may be prepared for a series of actions that are related "in connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program." This Program EIR identifies general City and countywide effects of the Specific Plan. It is assumed that individual projects in the Specific Plan area would receive detailed environmental evaluation during project reivew and in project EIRs. B. Environmental Review Process According to State law, lead agencies are required to consult with and respond to any comments received from public agencies having jurisdiction with respect to a proposed project, and to provide the general public and project applicant I-1 NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR NOVEMBER 1992 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ADDENDUM INTRODUCTION with an opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR. This Addendum has been prepared to respond to those comments received and to clarify any errors, omissions, or misinterpretation of discussion or findings in the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR was made available for public review in June, 1992. The CEQA-required 45-day review period ended July 31, 1992, but late comments were accommodated. Copies of all written comments received on the Draft EIR are contained in this volume. Letters are assigned numbers, indicated in the right margin. Responses corresponding to the numbered comments follow each letter. This Addendum and the Draft EIR, combined, will form the Final EIR to be considered by the City's Environmental Assessment Panel (EAP) for certification as a full disclosure of potential impacts, mitigation measures and alternatives. The Final EIR will then be reviewed and considered by the Richmond City Council and Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors prior to approval of the Plan or related General Plan amendments. C. How to Use This Report This report is divided into five chapters, which are outlined below, plus the Appendix, which contains supplementary material. Each of these sections has its own purpose and serves, in conjunction with the Draft EIR, to aid the reader in fully understanding the project and its implications. Chapter I, Introduction notes the purposes and contents of the Final EIR, the environmental review process, and the contents of this report. Chapter II, Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures briefly describes the project and contains two summary tables. Table 1 lists the potential impacts of the proposed Specific Plan, recommended mitigation measures that would reduce or avoid such impacts, and the level of significance of each impact after mitigation is identified. Table 1 has been revised and updated from the table shown in the Summary chapter in the Draft EIR to reflect changes that resulted from the public review process. Other data and detailed discussion of the project are contained in the Draft EIR. Chapter III, List of Commentors includes a list of all agencies and individuals who submitted written comments on the Draft EIR. I-2 ' NOVEMBER 1992 NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN DEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ADDENDUM INTRODUCTION Chapter IV, Comments and Responses includes a reproduction of each letter received during the public review period and responses to each comment. Chapter V, Revisions to the Draft EIR presents a listing of changes to the text of the Draft EIR that resulted from responses to comments raised during the public review period, as well as minor editorial changes for correction and clarification. Minutes of the public hearing on the Draft EIR (July 21, 1992) are presented in Appendix A. No members of the public spoke or commented on the Draft EIR at the hearing. I-3 NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR NOVEMBER 1992 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ADDENDUM INTRODUCTION I-4 Chapter II SUMMARY OF FINDINGS A. Project Under Review This Program EIR has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of the North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan. The North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan has been developed by the City of Richmond, in cooperation with Contra Costa County and the State Coastal Conservancy, to recognize the unique character of the 1,951 acre shoreline area, and to guide and regulate development and conservation activities within the Plan area in a manner that improves its image, benefits community residents, generates employment and allows development within a framework of conservation of natural resources and increased public access to the Bay. The Specific Plan contains goals and objectives, a Land Use Element, a Circulation Element, design guidelines and an Implementation Element. This Program EIR examines the potential significant adverse impacts of implementation of the proposed Specific Plan, and recommends measures to mitigate those impacts. The Program EIR also analyzes the cumulative impacts of all the Specific Plan components. B. Summary of Findings This summary provides an overview of the analysis contained in Chapters IV and V of the Draft EIR: Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures and Alternative Analysis. CEQA requires that a summary include discussions of potential areas of controversy; significant impacts; unavoidable significant impacts; implementation of mitigation measures; and alternatives to the project. II-1 • NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR NOVEMBER 1992 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ADDENDUM SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 1. Potential Areas of Controversy The potential areas of controversy surrounding the Specific Plan that have been raised either by members of the community or representatives of various agencies include land use and public policy; population, housing and employment; circulation and traffic; air quality; vegetation and wildlife; hydrology; and public services. These issues are addressed in detail in the EIR. 2. Significant Impacts Under CEQA, a significant effect on the environment is defined as a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. CEQA requires in-depth analysis of those environmental factors that are identified as having a potential to be adversely affected by the project. Implementation of the Specific Plan has the potential to generate environmental impacts in a number of areas. Impacts in the following areas would be significant without the implementation of mitigation measures, but would be reduced to a less than significant level if the mitigation measures noted in this report are adopted: land use and public policy; population, housing and employment; traffic; noise; geology; utilities and public services; and archaeological resources. 3. Significant Unavoidable Impacts The Specific Plan could have potentially significant unavoidable impacts on biological resources, specifically rare, locally unique, threatened and endangered species and wetlands; and on traffic level of service at the Richmond Parkway/Goodrick Boulevard intersection. It could result in increased exposure of persons to risks and structural damage from earthquake activity; increased intensity of land use and removal of agricultural land in the Plan area, and change in the natural open space visual character of the Plan area. Construction generated noise could adversely affect existing uses in and adjacent to the Specific Plan area. New students resulting from employment generation could impact the Richmond Unified School District. 4. Implementation of Mitigation Measures This EIR discusses specific mitigation measures that would be implemented by the City of Richmond and.Contra Costa County. The mitigation measures presented in the EIR would form the basis of a Mitigation Monitoring II-2 ' NOVEMBER 1992 NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ADDENDUM SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Program to be implemented by the City and County in accordance with State law. 5. Alternatives to the Project The three alternatives to the Specific Plan that are analyzed in the Draft EIR include: • Alternative A: No Project • Alternative B: Mitigated Plan Concept • Alternative C: Shoreline Use Concept The Mitigated Plan Concept, Alternative B, is identified as the Environmentally Superior Alternative. This alternative would fulfill the Specific Plan goals and objectives, although it would reduce the employment- generation potential of this Plan. It would avoid impacts on biological and hydrological resources, and would reduce traffic volumes to acceptable levels at intersections. Each of the alternatives is discussed in detail in Chapter V of the Draft EIR: Alternatives to the Proposed Plan. C. Summary Table Information in the following Table 1, Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures, has been organized to correspond with environmental issues discussed in Chapter IV of the Draft EIR: Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures. The table is arranged in three columns: (1) environmental impacts; (2) mitigation measures; and (3) level of significance after mitigation. A series of mitigation measures is noted where more than one measure may be required to achieve a less than significant impact. For a complete description of potential impacts and recommended mitigation measures, please refer to the specific issue in Chapter IV of the Draft EIR. II-3 3 r Jon c!� w •'" a 3 ��, p � GiC�,, 7 .� G R J a �p y o 'OG •� m 3 � .o `. Ua � `� -S lei `�, G i � � �G O � J J •Y , on IPA tA q Oe 7 ,�" fC •G ."7il 'GS � O � CF+ � � � CL' G s ca �y i � J G w � O '✓ L ✓ � C N i Sr O 14) J@ on i w, 5 �'!�; �✓`a W � G ✓ � @ Own ✓ ? J E G L) ' cs "" •oma � •°�R � °' cn ° ,� 'OJ '�" F 3 � y fl- �,,,/ °r s Ga r L �✓ G• to 0 Ln CO ;� 51 d� a �,N x � �- LL. 3 `� a ` O � x n C v 4 0v c E $' y LL; 3 uc 0 c w ca o c x N � h k" cC n 0 n. N h '> ° w w L C D N w U .v. r C O C O 0 .' E b cc b m V v C. N bbb C r0j C y cp '�^i S? 3r y� U y p "p" •a" C eD m c m 0 3 c- ,o cr. C f V v d cz CL 1. o r _ �E O O .0 aXj Z C / N lC CC [s y C cNC cCdL T} c O p U up L c y v •Ct c a pp L �. N C u p cg �. _N _ E ca N � �' N � C � C E o0 00 V) o o c o E o Q g Z' O U ca wZ rZ. cd v C cd v N N O E �= O >, a d A. �' 'O w u Ou X42 G cG u C o O ° �' cd c b p a u U � qq2 � o o � '-' ' � o s cc-- ^� c u G 3 o^ Ln _C tN 15 _ ,Q O cp U "a oA c 'v E N a� E E �^ [c a H `� g io E Z 3 cLn Z o o c��a z Cl O c 'ro c C. c. c �Wr� 'oo-0 0 rG cA 0. .7 OV Q v la 55 cd C% .0 M.6 w r4 V v a 'O 4. 15. LU ' C .... i7. n O CL >, 0 99 C V U � c 3 �.. � •o �o ,c .Ei o ° c v cn L'i U L C^ C � N C v cG � y C � � .N •p 7 �. � o o 2 0 3 v > 3 C 'p c� ej cr U U ° ' " cuv N V d En c4 a E •'� 8 n o a. ca � •o a� � a� c u � c e _ o � C e� 'o o � •o II u' � cC 3 C) h •0 cyp >_U •C CC ',. 'O � L Q O U 'G � y`°. �y a� >, u C' s _ 'C7 •O L O. ° � V co C ° N .� L > N O ca > c 7 c F w d ccc mo tQ r— >i vc;,z 0 a 'n O V vN vN C C "" cNC• ° '• u 7 '•" O NN` = C •V O oo .. Z u > v Z Q Z sr�;: Z v V� O E o E r L :J O o u O a 3 a o c N u u c W oq . C .5 a13 cs E l+<: a� ::: c .. Gi� C7 °� p N II Zu :t a c .�>: o m N u �-r _ C O oUq CO ' u a 0 • z V C U U O C yj C Cc mo`y o. c ij, C (A c0 O W U t'ao La .c R > 3 0 U Cep p �n p p co cto tQ O L �C. U O C. _C G.3 cv c °= � N C C �' C v W •Qq c0 C. E , 'n U ,d p� U m E ,0 C C CJ •gyp N .0 E C 'p y eq L N O C > C O �.0 O cz r C C O U O O oq C. p 7 U p 3 C N U EL wcr 'o o � �, ,L, o o v0 L � � ` � � o � '� � •� c c c� o o•°c° >' 0 0 0 0 V, .0 ti � C N vN,i '� .` h •(��pp 0 C. C. Cp OA v v U O .o 'L7 C y �+ 6 L L C. O O � to •' •s w0 c e =0 ' O U fx LL' ccv C T ..�'. U ca _ E o c� 3 .0 C. O U CN 0 `" L o �, 3 o EUS m a ri] E c C v h E cLo ca o != pp N 000 p .= Uo C cca U ' u R w U y A y o Cc Q 0 N L N L O C v d > 7 D y ❑ v �" �_ Ri U U O C L C7 C cc 'C 'cu D '0 U h •7 w 3 �" Ei 7LovOLOcca.of y :3 .=cac C' NG > @ N E VjNh;cUa? ���hoLc°iiii aC � 0 c`v c� c' ie �' � c � p•, OG y c0 �, v g D C D s c a o cca 1 O °' o °� —y O cu E c L m e@ 3 O W E i '� c d L D •� to G C H cYv c .E cc o u W C o00 04 co �' N L 'b .>..,•G C N p p F CI '> 00 o A p � C7 3 o M 'a Z fir, s co G vs ro- C-,) B --s S '& S '00 !a o 0 �o CO un -04 'oo "00 bA t so cd lo 00to tll_ Z; �a 5 C.0 A- a I V- rs 0 0 0 oo ota O'k OG y v � SCR„ °. � J �, .� w .`�'.�,,, �.� �.�y O Ca o s 00, —0 01 o -01 09 u c a3 a Lu IF A4 GO C + ITI r ✓� O :; t2::::;C:::: m 7 ttS a r ::: y a O C o ° c h to 0 cu p UOr— p O > 43 o co C p cmu i :5;:i�,i::. :� i' U > m C LC CC ti 'p N v1 .C .;..::.::.;: Cp ca cc cc Cw Z p o cu in p p ' o c ' ocn T c 3:!dti a� a� lu m C C U L .L. m. itl;: C 7 � •o �: �>: iv e3 a cc o .5 c C c•C > J m IC �:> C L N Q N E c m ca n 6 0 ,, op U114 78 8 c c3 m c o m m v >: U. @ c *�• 3 7 Oq d p O O to �- N C L O w P4 U U m 8 L O 0 m 0 c lu w c m a3 5 c c o c3 r zC c o s�::::: ::: ED„ a°3 U 8 9 o Z c E o oCo z ZPW _ Q L iv L o00 v c ' ,.� r W O o m C p a3 A R U c cn m H �+ m Z v; So -S to G �s , I * 0 - - r- A k'� e s !a gyp,'S, s ,,- r- S '65 S '9D 50 � Ci R .0 9 .0-s VO G V-- S s 00- 0oc 16 ' *, 0 , 11 4 0 0 7 - ✓ 'o S S t-4 to 15 � �`G � W J 7 q, °� @ �G G ,p �. c�' � ✓ �\G � N G (1 `A mop � -h 11> So, o p G4 ca 5 Vo -10 19D O ,a ¢ co> lo o iT ,lta QsA CO 00 1 I& coa- 0 P, C3 �4 sz iQ` Gs tg 'o � o C O y 0 z oc�ppo co = E ca CZ ats >i o �'6 MCI 12 v, 00 40 O�uC •2O y O EOtC mioacQ�i sL> C R y 'p R cc yo > c re y .y�o`° c E 0 p aQ M m c a E E Oc OM =ai ca cno c u d c o c = oo R c c ' c CL eo g O p c g 3 O v; F..d 'O ��e :j:;�. •0 LL L p a Q� Q) •a aF J-4 •vEL o .E .E R E ro cc C O = C L L > O C 0 > cc y R u x ^ G O c� cG E .a V . y N @ �,., cV�� y Y @ L• N L TS::: > > 7 C C M cu LO 10 63 cc Z � 'p CL '7 u O V U u C O 0 C c4 cyo � a �' a C p u o c co 0 Ea o w °'c w II O �v 'V b0 G T ❑ cQ y p Z oc 7 t op C O Q, O O Cej iyo rvJ� () act :G::: H u y C O cc� in Z .2 - Ci:z:: a = L co L SJ a3i Q p p, y� R c O w O C C C 'cc W c E N O C 'C C 6J ►-1 -r• �` � �. L\i � z rte-. � cCG ♦�-a �En ..� � 'O p E p y cv a E C w ca II Z v; V2 w 01 C, r.-O 0 "al - '00 s s .0, r- LA co C, co 0 y rz co co 0 r- �, % tt 41 45 00 16 0 -0 t3 co C-- o co Z7, 0 t7- 0. -ILI jz ca o so -0 U tn in r, o p, w0 n 10 O U d C Cy .0 P -0 Ln t.) z oo s o CC 0 M N O+ Qy [ P+ v � - - C Gco X-' O on o O CO10 $' o a 'y tis ca cCc v E3 SG R �" 'Cyy7� •p .� L" •p tNy cw�t Vyi ypp1 +0iny b UO on 0 O r O G q F aq a co U 0tu > a co a Q _ O c cvi cc co 0 Cc 0 N ca zs te=a b tN�tq� ° ,fl b9 .°—' g CL G eM�i p a 96 cOa IG U O C 0 � � U c0 � t4 O @ 'CS to H ay U 1yQ, L ►+a 08: i/j yVj Uyh y_ vim+ Cl t co E C v v L v y go cr 0 O co v y �' @ 4v— v. v C p a y U •� 4S w,., O to ❑ a% w ,p h ro °' c v 'O N !J U _ C W 4.-y— O cd W_ .�+ cn 4: 'O C3 �• L U U i.. cc R �} Z C C CIS 0 c ev :3 ca 06. %:6 y U L C rr � UJ U C a cz $ 0. q>j C .UC UUQ CC V: _ 1 G ti y O O cv � cC ti z77i v E vac p rr u •a ca 0 ? � 0 U Z z a co 1 v CC t8 t5a y p w N > a w N < zV) Chapter III LIST OF COMMENTORS State and Federal! Agencies 1. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, Robert Batha, Planner, August 27, 1992. 2. California State Coastal Conservancy, Melanie Denninger, Project Manager, July 31, 1992. 3. State Lands Commission, State of California, Mary Griggs, Environmental Review Section, Division of Environmental Planning and Management, July 31, 1992. 4. State of California Department of Fish and Game, Brian Hunter, Regional Manager, Region 3, August 7, 1992. 5. State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research, Christine Kinne, Acting Deputy Director, July 31, 1992. 6. State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, Stephen L. Berger, Associate Engineer, July 23, 1992. 7. State of California Department of Toxic Substance Control, Howard K. Hatayama, Regional Administrator, July 29, 1992. 8. United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Wayne S. White, Field Supervisor, September 1, 1992. Other APencies 9. Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit), Cindy Horvath, Research and Planning, July 30, 1992. 10. Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Lowell Tunison, Senior Civil Engineer, July 31, 1992. III-1 NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR NOVEMBER 1992 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ADDENDUM LIST OF COMMENTORS 11. East Bay Municipal Utility District, John B. Lampe, Manager of Water Planning, July 24, 1992. 12. East Bay Regional Park District, T. H. Lindenmeyer, July 29, 1992. 13. East Bay Regional Park District, Beth Stone, Advance Planning, July 23, 1992. 14. Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Susan Pultz, Environmental Review Officer, August 5, 1992. 15. Richmond Unified School District, Santiago V. Wood, Associate Superintendent, July 29, 1992. 16. San Francisco Bay Trail, Association of Bay Area Governments, Jill Keimach, Project Manager, July 30, 1992. Private Organizations 17. Greenbelt Alliance, John A. Vincent, Jr., August 1, 1992. 18. League of Women Voters Richmond Area, Barbara Vincent, August 1, 1992. 19. Norris & Norris, representing the West County Landfill, Inc. and Richmond Sanitary Service, Edward L. Shaffer, July 31, 1992. 20. Richmond Sanitary Service, Larry Burch, Director of Environmental Management, August 3, 1992. 21. West County Legal Defense Fund, Mark Mason, July 31, 1992. Public Hearing Comments A public hearing on the Draft EIR was held on Tuesday, July 21, 1992 in the City of Richmond before the City's Environmental Assessment Panel. No members of the public spoke or commented on the Draft EIR at the hearing. The minutes of the hearing are included in Appendix A. III-2 Chapter IV COMMENTS AND RESPONSES This chapter includes a reproduction of each letter received during the public review and comment period. Comments were received from State, federal, regional and local agencies, the general public, County departments and interested organizations. Each comment and response is labeled with a reference number in the right hand margin. Where the same comment has been made more than once, a response may direct the reader to a previous response. Where a response requires revisions to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), changes have been made to the text and are shown in Chapter II, Summary Tables, and V, Revisions to the Draft, of this Final EIR. The following letters were received directly by the City of Richmond (the lead agency) in response to the DEIR. Each letter is reproduced in its entirety, and is immediately followed by responses to the comments in it. IV-1 PETE WILSON STATE OF CALIFORNIA Governor SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION THIRTY VAN NESS AVENUE, SUITE 2011 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-6080 PHONE: (415) 557-3686 August 27, 1992 Jim Farah, Planning Director ;r City of Richmond 2600 Barrett Avenue P.O. Box 4046 Richmond, California 94804 Subject: North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan EIR BCDC Inquiry File No. CC.NR. 6603.1 BCDC Planning File: North Richmond Specific Plan Dear Mr. Farah: Thank you for requesting the Commission's comments regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan. The planning area encompasses a 1,961 acre shoreline area generally bounded on the north by Point Pinole Regional Park, Southern Pacific Railroad and the Parchester Village Neighborhood on the east, Parr Blvd. on the south and the shoreline on the west. Although the Commission has not had the opportunity to review the project, the staff has reviewed it in light of the McAteer-Petris Act (the Commission's law) and the San Francisco Bay Plan. We have the following comments: Fill in Tidal Areas There is some suggestion in both the plan and EIR that fill in tidal areas may 1-1 be allowed under the proposed plan. While the Commission has not yet made a jurisdictional determination for much of the project.shoreline, Figure 12 suggests that some fill in the Commission's "Bay" jurisdiction may be needed to construct the Richmond Parkway and to develop an area adjacent to the San Pablo Creek Marsh. The EIR also states that "filling or dredging of tidal areas could occur as the result of ... inland realignment of Goodrick Avenue as it extends north from Rheem Creek." (p. IV.A-56). The Commission can allow Bay fill only for those projects that are water- related, where no alternative upland location is available, where the fill is the minimum necessary, and where the fill establishes a permanent shoreline. The Commission can approve earth fill for roads only in the very limited circumstances where it finds that the road is necessary to the health, safety, and welfare of the entire bay area. A pile-supported bridge can be authorized if, after all other upland Mr. Jim Farah August 27, 1992 Page 2 alternatives have been investigated, a route must be located across a waterway. The Commission staff will be happy to work with City and County staff and their consultants in determining the extent of the Commission's jurisdiction throughout the planning area to assure the plan's consistency with the Commission's law and policies. Public Access The staff is pleased with the plan's proposed public access. The public access 1-2 goals, objectives, development standards, design guidelines, and proposed routes are well thought out and seem likely to lead to an attractive amenity for the City of Richmond. The staff recognizes that much of the shoreline in the planning area supports high populations of shorebirds and waterfowl and provides critical habitat for endangered species. However, the staff believes that the proposed parks and open space standards (beginning on page 59 of the Specific Plan) will significantly reduce impacts of people and their pets on the important natural resources found,along this shoreline. In particular, locating trails bordering sensitive habitats along the inland edge of the public access area, and providing a 100-foot wide upland transitional habitat along the shoreline to buffer wetland areas from adjoining development should help reduce impacts of increased public use of the shoreline. The Commission staff looks forward to working with City and County staff and the Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine the appropriate location and type of access to be provided. Landfill Site As stated in the plan, the entire West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill is 1-3 designated in The San Francisco Bay Plan as a proposed waterfront park. The proposed interim use of the landfill for composting and other resource recovery operations are fundamentally inconsistent with the Commission's park priority use designations. The staff continues to believe that these proposed interim uses should be eliminated from the designated park. Corrections There are a few minor misstatements of the Commission's jurisdiction and 1-4 authority in the Plan and EIR. The Commission's "Bay" jurisdiction extends to the line of highest tidal action (approximately 6 feet NGVD datum [not mean sea level]. The Commission also has jurisdiction over salt ponds and certain waterways [not salt pans and important waterways] (p. 18 of the plan and IV A-35 of the EIR). Tidal marshes, salt ponds, and managed wetlands are not priority uses (p. IV.A-36). The EIR should also state that the Commission can allow fill in its "Bay" jurisdiction only for water-related uses and only if a number of conditions are met (see above). Mr. Jim Farah August 27, 1992 Page 3 Conclusion We appreciate the effort that the City has taken to protect sensitive habitat 1-5 and provide for attractive and usable public access within the planning area. While both the proposed plan and Alternative B appear to be consistent with the Commission's law and policies, Alternative B provides greater protection for habitats that are increasingly scarce in the Bay Area, such as freshwater marshes and contiguous upland/wetland habitat. Alternative B also would provide opportunities to mitigate impacts incurred in areas designated for development. Once again, thank you.for the opportunity to comment on the Specific Plan and Draft EIR. Should you have any questions regarding our comments or BCDC's policies please fee free to call. Sincerely, l ROBEJ. BATHA Planner RJB/rjb cc: Ms. Melanie Denninger, Coastal Conservancy Mr. Carl Wilcox, Department of Fish and Game, Yountville Ms. Sharon Moreland, Corps of Engineers, San Francisco NOVEMBER 1992 NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ADDENDUM COMMENTS AND RESPONSES LETTER 1: San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, Robert Batha, Planner, August 27, 1992. Response 1-1. As noted in the DEIR (page IV.A-56), BCDC permits would be required for any filling or dredging in the Bay. The Commission's comments regarding the required findings for.approval of fill and the need for coordination are acknowledged. Response 1-2. Comments regarding public access are acknowledged. Response 1-3. The Specific Plan designates the landfill site as Parks and Open Space (see Figure 4 in the DEIR), although it indicates an interim use as a recycling facility. A separate EIR has been prepared by the County for the proposed recycling facility. The DEIR recognizes that the interim uses of the landfill will limit use of the site for open space and park area. The interim use designation is inconsistent with BCDC's park priority use designation on the landfill site. This letter statement has been added to the text of the DEIR. See Chapter V of this Addendum, reference to page IV.A-56. Response 1-4: The DEIR text has been amended to reflect these corrections. See Chapter V of this Addendum, reference to page IV.A-35-36. Response 1-5: The Commission's support for Alternative B is acknowledged. IV-5 STATE Of CALIRMN1A—THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WlLbON, "map CALIFORNIA STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY 1330 SROAVWAY. SUITE 1100 OAKLAND. CA 94612.2330 20 ATSS $61-1013 TEU2PHONE 415/464.1015 FAX 4151464.0470 July 31, 1992 Ms. Nancy Kaufman Planning Department City of Richmond P.O. Box 4046 Richmond, CA 94804 Re: North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan Draft Program EIR Dear Ms. Kaufman: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Program EIR for the North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan. As you are well aware, the Coastal Conservancy provided the majority of the 2-1 funding for preparation of the Specific Plan, but did not contribute to preparation of the ETR. In the event that the Coastal Conservancy and City of Richmond and/or Contra Costa County determine that it would be appropriate for the Conservancy to provide assistance with implementation of the Specific Plan, the Conservancy would be required to adopt findings regarding the potential significant environmental impacts identified in the plan and to approve the plan. We concur with the conclusion of the Draft EIR that the Mitigated Plan Concept, Alternative 8, is the environmentally superior alternative and, in comparison to the proposed plan, would reduce the avoidable impacts on valuable natural resources, including wetlands. However, even Alternative B is identified as, having the potential to adversely affect at least 5.2 acres of wetlands as well as additional pockets of suspected wetlands (Sections IV.F.2. , IV.G.3. and IV.G.4.) Measures are proposed in general terms for offsetting such impacts to wetlands by restoring disturbed wetlands within the Specific Plan area according to conceptual restoration proposals provided for in the plan. While the level of detail provided in the analysis of potential impacts and 2-2 description of proposed mitigation measures i-s adequate for this program EIR, implementation of projects within the plan will be dependent upon more detailed evaluations of the potential adverse impacts of specific projects and more detailed identification of measures for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for impacts. Ms. Nancy Kaufman - July 31, 1992 Page 2 If you have any questions about these comments, please contact me at 510-454- 1015. Sincerely, Melanie Denninger Project Manager NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR NOVEMBER 1992 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ADDENDUM COMMENTS AND RESPONSES LETTER 2: California State Coastal Conservancy, Melanie Denninger, Project Manager, July 31, 1992. Response 2-1: The Conservancy's support for Alternative B is acknowledged. Response 2-2: The City of Richmond concurs with the statement regarding the need for further evaluations of the potential adverse impacts of specific projects and more detailed identification of measures for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for impacts during plan implementation. As a Program EIR, the DEIR recognizes that future specific projects may require additional environmental evaluation (see page I-1 of the DEIR). IV-8 ' STATE OF CALIFORNIA PETE WILSON, Governor 3 STATE LANDS COMMISSION EXECUTIVE OFFICE 1807- 13th Street LEO T. McCARTHY,Lieutenant Governor Sacramento,CA 95814 GRAY DAVIS, Controller 3 1992 THOMAS W. HAYES, Director of Finance CHARLES WARREN RICHMOND Executive Officer MANNING DEPARTMENT July 31, 1992 File Ref.: SD 92-07-03.10 Ms. Carol Whiteside State Projects Coordinator The Resources Agency 1416 Ninth Street, Room #449 Sacramento, CA 95814 Ms. Nancy Kaufman City of Richmond 2600 Barrett Avenue Richmond, CA 94804 Dear Ms. Whiteside and Ms. Kaufman: Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan (SCH #91063030) Staff of the State Lands Commission (SLC) has reviewed the above referenced document. Based on this review, we offer the following comments. We have reviewed the passage of the DEIR which describes generally the jurisdiction of the State Lands Commission (SLC) in San Francisco Bay and, with more particularity, its jurisdiction within the Specific Plan area. For a fuller discussion of these points, we refer you to our July 29, 1991, letter commenting to the Notice of Preparation (which is attached). However, an abbreviated statement of the jurisdiction of the SLC should include the following points: r 1. The SLC has jurisdiction of the sovereign interests of the State in the tidal 3-1 and/or navigable waters of the State. Its jurisdiction includes the administration of sovereign lands owned in fee by the State and other lands which are subject to a public trust easement, although owned in fee by a private party. 2. As the DEIR describes well, sovereign fee lands within San Francisco Bay 3-2 may be used by lease from the SLC. Such lease may be only for the public trust purposes which you have enumerated. Ms. Carol Whiteside Ms. Nancy Kaufman July 31, 1992 Page Two 3. Private lands subject to a public trust easement may only be used for 3-3 purposes not inconsistent with public trust needs. The State may affirmatively exercise its rights to bar inconsistent private uses or to itself devote the property to public trust uses. 4. A portion of the project involves filled and unfilled Board of Tide Land 3-4 Commissioners's (BTLC) lots. Under a 1980 California Supreme Court decision, these properties remain subject to a public trust easement to the line of highest tidal action as defined in the McAteer-Petris Act. 5. Other portions of the.land within the Specific Plan were included within Rancho San Pablo. The State is precluded from asserting public trust title interests within these lands by the holding in Summa Corporation v. State (1984) 466 U.S. 198. The right to navigate over such lands remains to the extent that they are covered by water of sufficient depth for navigation by small craft. 6. Other lands within the subject area lie within patents from the State of swamp and overflowed lands. These lands are free of sovereign interest to the extent that they were in fact swamp and overflowed lands above the ordinary high water mark. Such lands remain subject to a public trust easement to the extent that they were, in fact, historically tidelands between the high and low water marks. They remain sovereign fee lands to the extent that they included submerged lands (lands below the low water mark). 7. One area within the Specific Plan was subject to a title settlement agreement among the SLC, the City of Richmond, and the Richmond Sanitary District. This agreement, dated December 4, 1980, grants administration of lands confirmed as sovereign to the City of Richmond. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. If you have any questions, please contact Blake Stevenson at (916) 323-8492. Sincerely, MARY , RIGGS Environ ental Review Section Division of Environmental Planning and Management cc: Dwight E. Sanders Blake Stevenson OPR S1AIE. LANDS COMINIIISSI'DW IX1CulrvEorFic l! C�1 A'.�C!•.i,1ML. 1 r (,.• . 1FU7 - 13t►- SI'l-el S�.•r�.rntu.CA S: �M(i1:,l.� L', ill \{ �+. lt ..t.• .•' !. '•;•.:r CHLFEfSY.'LF,RI Fui ,,r OEi.tt-t (F 1 E)322•A 105 FAX (6tE1322.3SE July 29, 1991 File:: W 23786 Jim Farah Planning Director City of Rich.nond Planning Departzent 2600 Barrett Avenue Richmond, California c4B04 Dear Yr. Farah: This letter is. in response to your request for conz..ents to the City of Richmond's Planning Departrent 's Notice of FrepGration (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the 1,orth Richnond Shoreline Specific Plan. Under the provisions of the California Environr. ental Quality Act (CF-QA) , the State Lands Cor,:nission (SLC) will be a Responsible/Trustee Acency. SLC JURISDIC7IO 3-5 The State acquired sovereign ownership of all sovereign tidelands, subzeroed lands, and beds of navigable waterways , upon its admission to the United States in 1550. The State holds the lands for the benefit of ' all the people of the State for the statewide public trust purposes of waterborne cormerce, navigation, fisheries , water-related recreation, habitat preservation, and open space. The landward boundaries of the State 's sovereign interests are generally based upon the ordinary high water narks of these water-ways as they last naturally existed, and thus ray not be readily apparent from present day site inspection. The proposed project involves unfilled and filled sold board of Tide Land Corzissioners (BTLC) lots , lands patented by the State as E>ramp and overflowed lands , lands within Rancho San Pablo, and lands included in a title settler„ent aareenent bet�. 'E:en the SL'C and Richrond Sanitary District and the City of ,Richmond . .7im Farah July 29 , 1991 Page Two With respect to the BTLC lots, the California Suprer,:e Court held in 1980 that tidelands and submerged lands sold by the State into private ownership by the BTLC, which were submerged or subject to tidal action as of the date of the court decisions , February 22, 1980, remain subject to the public trust easenent held by the State. Tidelands sold by the BTLC that were filled and no longer subject to tidal action as of that date are freed of the easement. Uses over privately held lands subject to the easenent cannot be inconsistent with the public trust needs in the area , including the ecological values associated therewith. To the extent the lands described within the Swanp and Overflowed lands were in . fact swamp and overflowed lands lying above the ordinary high water nark, they passed into private ownership free of any sovereign interest. However, to the extent such lands included tidelands (between the ordinary high and low water rr,arks) , they passed into private ownership subject tot he State-retained public trust easenent. This easenent is administered by the SLC. If the lands described in the S&O survey included submerged lands (below the ordinary cu water z;ark) , those sob' lands would not have passed out of State ownership. At the present time, the SLC does not rec-oire pe m its or leases for uses of its easement lands. However, staff reviews proposals on easement lands to determine whether the proposals are inconsistent with trust needs in the area . In evaluating trust reeds for the area , the SLC considers the trust uses set forth in any applicable granting statutes, as well as trust needs generally. Criteria which are considered in evaluating non-trust uses over privately-coned tidelands include : 1 . Whether the use will interfere with existing p'ubl i c trust uses, such as public access to the Bay, navigation, cors;erce , fishing scenic view corridors and wildlife habitat ; 2 . Whether the lands are currently needed for public trust uses ; 3 . Whether the use will interfere with fu -,-,ie public trust uses in the area ; 4 . Whether the subject area is relatively snail in relation to the lands available for trust needs in tl;e vicinity ; 5 . The period of tine for which the lands will to devoted to non-trust uses ; and 1 ' Jim Farah July 29 , 1991 Page Three 6. Whether, by their cost and per:r,anence, the inprovenents associated with the non-trust uses are such as to render difficult or impossible as a practical matter, future devotion of the lands to trust purposes . The SLC r,ay affirmatively exercise the public trust easer.ent over privately-owned tidelands and submerged lands for a valid trust purpose by raking a site specific determination of public trust needs . Such a trust exercise has the effect of devoting affected lands exclusively to those uses which best serve identified public trust needs and barring inconsistent activities. There are also within the study area lands which were included within Rancho San Pablo, a Y.exican land grant confin=ed in private ownership by the United States pursuant to the Treat of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The State is precluded from asserting any public trt:st Interest in these lands by the holding Sun-a Corporation v. State, 466 U. S . 198 (1984) . In su=,ary, private title to lands within the study area derives in part from Rancho San Pablo, and in part from various State patents . Yost of those lands patented by the State remain subject to the public trust easement, a paramount property interest retained by the State. It should be noted that further review nay reveal a basis for claims of the State fee ownership as well . Also included are lands that were confir.^ed by a title settlEr,ent agreement between the SLC and Richmond Sanitary District and the City of Richrond recorded Decer.:er 4 , 119080. As part of this title settle-ment agreement, the administration of the tidelands and submerged lands have been granted to the City of Richnond. SCOPE OF £.N-vIRor'xrKTAL !,NALYSIS The Conmission has a legal responsibility for, and a strong 3-6 Interest in, protecting the ecological and public trust values associated with the State ' s sovereign lands , including the use of these lands for habitat preservation, open space and recreation. Staff of the SLC will , therefore , be concerned with any proposed activities which will have the potential for adversely impacting these values . ,JIm Farah 3uly 29 , 1991 Page Your r .. r j We generally concur with the broad scope of the enviro=enta Issues for this project as presented in the NOP. However, th environmental document should discuss the direct inpacts t. wetlands habitats, as denoted on the U. S . Fish and tiildlif, National Wetlands Inventory Yaps, which occur on the project site, and the indirect impacts on the adjacent wetlands in the Bay fro: sedimentation, runoff, and hunan intrusion as a result of the proposed specific plan. The document should also include a-, analysis of potential impacts to any threatened, endangered, os other species of concern. If you have any questions, please contact Y.ary Howe at (916) 322-5645. sincerely, DW G. T E. Sk DERS , Chief Di%u ion of Environnental Planning and Y.anage=ent cc: Charles Warren Executive Officer Y.ary Howe OPR i i i NOVEMBER 1992 NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ADDENDUM COMMENTS AND RESPONSES LETTER 3: State Lands Commission, State of California, Mary Griggs, Environmental Review Section, Division of Environmental Planning and Management, July 31, 1992. Response 3-1. The DEIR text has been amended to reflect these additions. See Chapter V of this Addendum, reference to page IV.A-37. Response 3-2. Comment acknowledged. Response 3-3. The DEIR text has been amended to reflect these additions. See Chapter V of this Addendum, reference to page IV.A-37. Response 3-4. This paragraph and the following paragraphs 5, 6, and 7 are incorporated by reference into the DEIR. See Chapter V of this Addendum, reference to page A-37. Response 3-5. See responses to comments 3-1 through 3-6 above. Response 3-6. The DEIR addressed these issues. See Chapter IV of the DEIR. IV-15 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 40 POST OFFICE BOX 47 YOUNTVILLE, CALIFORNIA 94599 August 7 , 1992 ('� (707) 944-5500 1 Ms. Nancy Kaufman, Principal Planner City of Richmond 2600 Barrett Avenue Post Office Box 4046 Richmond, California 94804 Dear Ms. Kaufman: Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan Department of Fish and Game personnel have reviewed the DEIR for the North Richmond Specific Plan. The plan addresses future development scenarios for a 2, 951-acre area bordering San Pablo Bay. The planning area extends from just north of Wildcat Creek marsh to Pt. Pinole. The planning area supports mudflats, tidal salt marshes, diked salt marsh, seasonal wetlands, stream, riparian and upland grassland habitat. The area also provides habitat for State and Federally listed threatened or endangered species (California clapper rail , salt marsh harvest mouse, and California black rail) , as well as several other sensitive species. The proposed Specific Plan would allow for development of wetland areas totaling at least 5.2 acres . Additional areas of wetland which have not been delineated may also be affected. The plan would result in the loss of substantial amounts of open grassland which provide habitat for resident mammals and birds, foraging habitat for raptors, and refugial habitat for sensitive marsh species during high tides. The grasslands north of Rheem Creek contain areas of native perennial grassland which the Department considers a sensitive habitat type which should receive protection. Such areas are extremely rare along the east bay shoreline. The specific plan would also provide for the introduction of development and high levels of recreational use into close proximity of mudflats and tidal wetlands which support high populations of shorebirds and waterfowl. Proposed special facilities and observation areas in the northern portion of the area would encroach upon endapgered species habitat. It is the Department's recommendation that the proposed specific plan not be approved. The proposed plan would result in significant impacts to wildlife habitat and wetlands which would not be mitigable in the context of the proposed land uses . We recommend that Alternative B be selected for implementation. This alternative, while incurring impacts to wetlands and grassland habitats, is preferred because it avoids impacts to the majority of the high-value wetland and wildlife habitat within the planning area and provides suitable sites to mitigate impacts incurred in designated development areas. Ms. Nancy Kaufman August 7, 1992 Page Two The Department appreciates the City of Richmond's efforts to protect sensitive habitat areas within the planning area. It is the Department's opinion that avoidance of impacts to wildlife and their habitat is the most effective form of mitigation. We believe that of the plan alternatives, Alternative B most effectively achieves this objective. The mitigation measures for biotic impacts (BIO-1 through BIO-6) , recommended by the document preparers, identify many features incorporated into Alternative B as measures for .mitigating potential impacts associated with the proposed specific plan. Questions concerning our comments should be directed to Carl Wilcox, Environmental Services Supervisor, 707-944-5525. Sincerely, Brian Hunter Regional Manager Region 3 cc: Ms. Melanie Denniger Coastal Conservancy Mr. Bob Batha Bay Conservation and Development Commission Ms. Sharon Moreland Corps of Engineers, San Francisco Ms. Ruth Pratt U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Mr. Tom Lindenmyer East Bay Regional Park District NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR NOVEMBER 1992 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ADDENDUM COMMENTS AND RESPONSES LETTER 4: State of California Department of Fish and Game, Brian Hunter, Regional Manager, Region 3, August 7, 1992. Response. The Department's recommendation that Alternative B be selected rather than the proposed Specific Plan is acknowledged. IV-18 STATE OF CALIFORNIA PETE WILSON, Governor GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARC14 `'�'`,,y� 1400 TENTH STREET f: !J RECEIVED SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 � V�.� �j,; Jul 31, 1992 �� S 1992 NANCY KAUFMAN CITY OF RICHMOND RICHMOND 2600 BARRETT AVENUE PLANNING DEPARTMENT RICHMOND, CA 94804 Subject: NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN SCH # 91063030 Dear NANCY KAUFMAN: The State Clearinghouse has submitted the above named draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to selected state agencies for review. The review period is now closed and the comments from the responding agency(ies ) is (are) enclosed . On the enclosed Notice of Completion form you will note that the Clearinghouse has checked the agencies that have commented. Please review the Notice of Completion to ensure that your comment package is complete. If the comment package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Remember to refer to the project' s eight-digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly. Please note that Section 21104 of the California Public Resources Code required that: "a responsible agency or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency. " Commenting agencies are also required by this section to support their comments with specific documentation. These comments are forwarded for your use in preparing your final EIR. Should you need more information or clarification, we recommend that you contact the commenting agency(ies ) . This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents , pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact Michael Chiriatti at ( 916 ) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process . Sincerely, moi,` ;- ✓' �` l .. .l? ,_y..�. .'•��...�.rte•�L.R.-i Christine Kinne Acting Deputy Director, Permit Assistance Enclosures cc: Resources Agency S..NOT13be.. I ' Mail to:State Clearinghouse,1400 Tenth Street.Sacramento.CA 95814 9161445-0613 SCH A 91063030 Project Title: NORTH RiCHMINO SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR Lead Agency. City of Richmond Contac tp a Nancy Kaufman strut Address: 2600 Barrett Avenue Phane5'TFT10- �. City: Richmond, CA Zip: County: Contra Costa -------.---------------------------------- Project Location Contra Costa Richmond/San Pablo County: Ciry/MTearest Community: Cross Streets: Parr Blvd., Giant Highway T.WAaes, 1,951 Assessor's Parcel No. Section Twp Range; Bax: Within 2 Miles: state Hwy N: I-580/I-80 Waterw .:; San Pabao Bay; Rheem Creek; San Pablo res Airports: Railways: Southern Pacific Schools: Lake emen vey.�, c o0 ------------------------------------------ Document Type CEGA: ❑NOP ❑Supplement/Subsequent NEPA: ❑NOI Other: [D Joint Document ❑Early Cons ❑EIR(Prior SCH No.) ❑EA ❑Final Document ❑Neg Dee ❑Other ❑Draft EIS (]Other i1 Draft EIR ❑FONSI Local Action Type ❑General Plan Update In Specific Plan ❑ Rezone ❑ Annexation General Plan Amendment ❑Muter Plan ❑ Prezone ❑ Redevelopment ❑General Plan Element ❑Planned Unit Development ❑Use Permit ❑Coastal Permit ❑Community Plan ❑Site Plan ❑Land Division(Subdivision, ❑Other Parcel Map,Tract Map,etc.) Development Type ❑ Residential: Units Acres ❑Water Facilities: Type MGD ❑ Office: �Sy ft. Acres Employees C3 Transportation: Type C) Commercial: ft Acres13-11_Employees ❑ Mining: Mineral [S9 Industrial: Sq ft. Acres Employees ❑ Power: Type Watts Educational t ❑Waste Treatment Type Recreation Q _S�..c� 1S L ❑Hazardous Waste:Type ❑ Other. ----------------------------------------- Project ----------------------------------------- Project Issues Discussed In Document ® Aesthetic/Visual ®Flood Plain/Flooding ❑ SchooWUnivenities ®Water Quality ®Agricultural Land ❑Forest Land/Fire Hazard ❑Septic systems ®Water Supply/Groundwater ®Air Quality ® Geologic/Seismic ©Sewer Capacity ® Wetland/Riparian ® Archeological/Historical ❑ Minerals ®Soil Emsion/Compaction/Grading ® Wildlife Q Coastal Zone S F.G-1 ® Noise 0 Solid Waste ®Growth Inducing * Drainage/Absorption ❑Population/Housing Balance ©Toxic/Hazardous S Landuse ® Economic/Jobs ©Public Services/Facilities ®Traffic/Circulation S Cumulative Effects ❑ Fiscal ® Recreation/Parks ® Vegetation ❑Other -----._._.-----------------.----.---------_----- Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Use Zoning: M-3, Heavy Industrial General Plan: Agriculture, General Industry, Special Industry, Comm. Recreation ----------------------------------------- Project Description Overall goal of the N. Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan is to recognize the unique character of the plan area and to guide and regulate development in the area iniaamanner that improves its image, benefi.ts,community residents, and accommodates a reasonable level of development wi.thi:n a framework of conservation and public access to the Bay. CLEARINGHOUSE CONTACT: MICHAEL CSIRIATTI (916) 445-0613 CMT SNT CMT SFT — Resourc State Consumer Svcs STATE REVIEW BEGAN: _ - ♦� Coastal Cotten DEPT REV TO AGENCY: l AGENCY REV TO SCH 4�r A onservation CA Waste t Ed SCH COMPLIANCE 1-31Fish & Game Reg. CB / ons PLEASE NOTE SCH NUMBER ON ALL COMMENTS PLEASE FORWARD LATE COMMENTS DIRECTLY _ TO THE LEAD AGENCY ONLY Caltrans / AQMDIAPCD: 2. (Resources: /otp) tate Lands Cotrim _ _kHealth ('S' - sent by lead I '+' - sent by SCH) NOVEMBER 1992 NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ADDENDUM COMMENTS AND RESPONSES LETTER 5: State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research, Christine Kinne, Acting Deputy Director, July 31, 1992. Response. This letter acknowledges compliance with the State Clearinghouse review requirements. No response is necessary. IV-21 STATE OF CALIFORNIA PETE WILSON, Govemor CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD 6 SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION 2101 WEBSTER STREET, SUITE 500 July 23, 1992 0` OAKLAND, CA 94612 (510) 464-1255 File No. 2118.04(SLB) Jim Farah, Planning Director RECEIVED Richmond Planning Department City Hall JUL 27 2600 Barrett Avenue Ift Richmond, CA 94804 ftAU A1(M0110 SUBJECT: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN SCH# 91063030 Dear Mr. Farah: We reviewed the Draft EIR. for the above project and have the following concerns and comments: 1. The Automobile Salvage Yard mentioned on page III-18, and possibly other industrial 6-1 sites, will require coverage under an NPDES Industrial Storm Water Permit issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board). The Notice of Intent for this permit should have already been sent to the State Board. The permit for the salvage yard must remain in effect as long as any pollutants which were generated by the yard remain on-site. 2. On pages IV.A-37 and A-38, the purposes and roles of the Regional Board in relation 6-2 to the Specific Plan are stated. It is the State Board, not the Regional Board, that will issue the NPDES construction storm water permit . The general permit is expected to be adopted this summer, with an effective date of October 1, 1992. The five acre cut-off limit may be decreased in the final adopted general permit. The Regional Board must certify that the Corps permit will comply with water quality 6-3 standards, or waive such certification. If not waived, the certification can be granted or denied. If two or more acres of wetlands are affected, the certification must be voted on by the Regional Board in a public hearing. Less than two acres can be handled administratively. ' The Final EIR should note the Regional Board's Wetland Fill Policy, which requires no 6-4 net loss of wetland acreage and no net loss of wetland value. Also, if wetlands are filled, mitigation will be required, preferably in-kind and on-site with no destruction of habitat value. 3. On page IV.J-5, it should be noted in the Final EIR that the Regional Board can also 6-5 require soil or sediment investigations and remediation if pollutants in the soil' or sediment threaten or impact beneficial uses of ground or surface waters. Mr. Farah -2- July 23, 1992 4. From the alternatives listed, Alternative B would be the preferred selection for the 6-6 project. If you have any questions, please contact me at (510) 464-0846. Sincerely, /-�TStephen L. Berger Associate Engineer NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR NOVEMBER 1992 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ADDENDUM COMMENTS AND RESPONSES LETTER 6: State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, Stephen L. Berger, Associate Engineer, July 23, 1992. Response 6-1. The Specific Plan does not change the existing use of the Automobile Salvage Yard, but proposes redesignation of the site from Heavy Industry to Light Industry. Comments regarding NPDES permits are acknowledged. Response 6-2. The DEIR text has been amended to reflect this correction. See Chapter V of this Addendum, reference to page IV.A-37. Response 6-3. The DEIR text has been amended to reflect this addition. See Chapter V of this Addendum, reference to page IV.A-37. Response 6-4. Comment regarding the Regional Board's Wetland Fill policy is duly noted. Response 6-5. The DEIR text has been amended to reflect this addition. See Chapter V of this Addendum, reference to page IV.J-5. Response 6-6: The Board's support for Alternative B is acknowledged. IV-24 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROLol REGION 2 i' 700 HEINZ AVE.,SUITE 200 BERKELEY,CA 94710-2737 July 29, 1992 Ms. Nancy Kaufman City of Richmond 2600 Barrett Avenue Richmond, California 94804 COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT OF THE NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR (SCH #91063030) D1 ?r Ms uaiif,?18n: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this draft EIR. The Department of Toxic Substances Control (Department) is currently active at several sites in or adjacent to the planning area. These activities fall into two categories: regulation of hazardous waste management facilities, and mitigation of sites contaminated with hazardous wastes. The presence of these activities has the potential for 7-1 environmental impacts on future land uses of the sites and neighboring areas. The mitigation measures of the final EIR should provide for the mitigation of these impacts. The environmental impacts of hazardous waste management 7-2 facilities on future land uses will usually be similar to the impacts of other industrial facilities. These include the potential for truck traffic and noise. The Public Hearing Draft EIR lists the known contaminated 7-3 sites in the planning area. The final EIR should provide for the discovery of additional contaminated sites. There are a variety of potential environmental impacts due to the presence of contaminated sites. Cleanup activities may cause dust, noise, and traffic impacts to neighboring areas. Some remedial designs might include isolating contamination in place, which will influence the appropriateness of future land uses, both at and near the site. In some cases, deed restrictions will require that a particular site must remain in industrial-type uses. Some remedial designs will involve permanent structures, such as containment caps, subterranean barriers, or long-term groundwater treatment plants. These factors will all affect the environmental appropriateness of particular land uses for the site and neighboring areas. The Specific Plan describes public acce ODb ghout 7-4 the planning area. These public access pro ione analyzed in terms of the health and enviro nt rCf the public' s proximity to hazardous waste site JULCLr1A'9P+v ua an R.cycae Prx• a Ms. Nancy Kaufman July 29, 1992 Page Two Department staff has prepared specific comments on the draft EIR. These appear as Attachment 1. Also, for your information we have updated the description of the sites of our current activities in and around the planning area. This appears as Attachment 2 . If you have any questions, please contact Valerie Heusinkveld at (510) 540-3742 . Sincerely, J! Ch�. 4t,4� Howard K. Hatayama Regional Administrator Enclosures cc: State Clearinghouse 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 CEQA Tracking Center Alternative Technology Division Department of Toxic Substances Control Post Office Box 806 Sacramento, CA 95812-0806 Page 1 ATTACHMENT 1: SPECIFIC COMMENTS Page IV.J-22: "Bay Cities Refuse. " There seems to be some 774 confusion over the sites numbered 23 and 38 on Figure 26. Site number 38 is known to the Department as West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill. The portion identified as Class 1 on Figure 26 is a major hazardous waste landfill. This confusion must be clarified. The environmental implications 'of West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill should be described in greater detail. This is especially important since the Specific Plan proposes public access trails along what is currently considered to be the boundary of the hazardous waste disposal area. Investigations have revealed evidence that hazardous waste may exist outside the described boundary. The EIR should provide much more information on this site in order for the City to make an informed decision on the environmental impacts of the Specific Plan. Page IV.J-24: Wiegman & Rose. The discussion of remediation at 7-5 the Wiegman & Rose site is out of date. The Department is reconsidering the Remedial Action Plan for this site. While the remedial design is expected to involve a containment cap, the features of that cap have not yet been determined. Therefore, we suggest that the end of this section should be deleted, starting with the sentence that begins "Alternative methods were also screened . . " Text could be inserted to the effect that, as of July 1992 , the design of the cap has not been determined. Page IV.J-25 to J-26: Witco Chemical. The Department and U.S . 7-6 EPA issued a post-closure permit for the surface impoundments on May 28 , 1992 . It includes post-closure monitoring of the closed surface impoundments and contaminated groundwater and for cleanup of the contaminated groundwater and soil. As of July, 1992 , the Department and U.S. EPA are considering Witco' s appeal of the permit conditions. Page IV.J-26 to J-29: American Standard Products. The proposed 7-7 land uses in Figure 4 for areas near this site include "Office/Industrial Flex. " According to page III-22 , this designation includes a variety of allowable uses, including child care facilities. It is possible that a remedial action chosen for the American Standard Products site might involve caps or other measures that leave contamination in place. Therefore, it is Page 2 possible that siting a child care facility near this contaminated 7-8 site might have adverse health impacts. Mitigation measures should provide for preventing those adverse impacts. In general, the mitigation measures should provide for potential impacts due to the presence of contaminated sites. Measures might include overlay maps where generally-allowed land uses are specifically not allowed, or requirements for risk assessments for project-level proposals in these areas. Page IV.J-28: Erickson Treatment Transfer Station. Since the 7-9 proposed land use for this site is industrial, presumably the proposed facility is consistent with the City's plans. The Department does not anticipate additional impacts from the heavy industrial designation of this site. 1 Page 3 ATTACHMENT 2: SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF DTSC SITES IN OR NEAR THE PLANNING AREA This is an updated description of the specific sites at which DTSC is currently active. This summary was originally prepared in June 1991. Text added in July 1992 is indicated by double underlining. The three DTSC sites inside the boundaries of the Specific Plan Area are all existing or proposed hazardous waste management facilities. 1. West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill. The hazardous waste 7-10 disposal portion of the landfill is not accepting waste. The Department is in the process of reviewing the closure plan. While the amount of hazardous waste present is not known, it is believed to be large. Evidence indicates that at least 200, 000 drums of industrial waste are present. The site has not yet been fully characterized. Extensive environmental and technical studies will be conducted. However, preliminary information about the site indicates that waste remaining in situ might be appropriate for the hazardous waste portion of the Landfill . It is likely that some closure alternatives will be considered such that it would not be safe for the public to walk on the area underlain by the hazardous waste disposal area. Furthermore, long-term measures to contain hazardous waste may have to be implemented. Any closure alternative would not be expected to be completed before about 1996 . Therefore, the EIR should discuss mitigations for having public access trails pass close to a hazardous waste disposal area. Summary: West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill Type of contamination: a variety of liquid, solid and drummed wastes Time Line: Scoping meeting for EIR June 1992 Final EIR 'and Final Closure Plan about June 1993 Closure Plan implementation till about 1996 Post closure monitoring 30 years minimum Proposed remedial action: too early to propose Deed restrictions: will be proposed after closure implementation 2 . Erickson, Inc. , 255 Parr Blvd. The facility accepts empty 7-11 gasoline tanks for recycling. . M Page 4 Summary: Erickson, Inc. Time Line: currently operating 3 . Erickson Treatment Transfer Station (Proposedl , 2565 7-12 Goodrick Avenue. As proposed, the facility will receive industrial waste for neutralization, solidification, recycling, and transfer. It will accept acids, caustics, solvents, and organic oily wastes. Summary: Erickson Treatment Transfer Station (Proposed) No known contamination Time Line: Construction to commence fall 1992 Operation to commence January 1993 The following sites are all outside the Specific Plan area. They are all to the east of the area, between the Southern Pacific railroad tracks and the Santa Fe railroad tracks. 4 . Witco, 850 Morton Avenue. This is a permitted hazardous 7-13 waste management facility undergoing closure. The groundwater onsite is contaminated with organic compounds. The corrective action is to pump the groundwater and treat it to remove contamination. Movement of the contamination beyond the facility boundaries has not yet been characterized. QTSC and the U. S. EPA issued a post-closure permit for the s rf� acimpoundments on May 28 1992 . It includes monitoring of the closed surface impoundments and of contaminated groundwater, as well as corrective action for cleanup of contaminated groundwater and soil . As of July 1992 , DTSC and U.S . EPA are considering Witco' s appeal of the conditions of the post-closure permit. Ultimately, the remedial measures may involve containment structures under the surface of the ground, or the long-term presence of a treatment plant for the contaminated groundwater. Closure of the treatment and storage portions of this facility are not vet complete. Page 5 Summary: Witco Type of contamination: organic compounds in groundwater Proposed corrective action: pump and treat groundwater Time Line: Investigate migration of contaminants in groundwater: 2-3 years Post closure monitoring: 30 year minimum 5. American Standard - Lazy J Ranch. Lead and zinc 7-14 contamination at the Lazy J Ranch, also known as the Stull/Davi property, was first studied in 1990. The extent of contamination should be determined by early 1992 . Rheem Creek, which flows through this site, does not show elevated levels of lead or zinc. The groundwater also does not show elevated levels. It is possible that the remedial action chosen for this site may involve treating contamination in place. There may be deed restrictions that require that the land remain in industrial or similar use. A rough mapping effort indicates that this site will be across the raised-bed railroad tracks from the area proposed for "Office/Industrial Flex" land use in the Specific Plan. The list of allowable uses on paste III-22 for this designation include restaurants and child care facilities. The mitigation measures should allow for consideration of appropriate land use near a contaminated site or near industrial uses . This could involve the preparation of a health risk assessment when a specific proposal is received. Summary: American Standard - Lazy J Ranch Type of contamination: lead and zinc Proposed remedial action: too early to propose Time Line: Characterize contamination by early 1992 Remedial Action Plan about 1993 Complete remedial action will depend on findings Deed restrictions: if contamination is remediated in situ, deed restrictions will likely be compatible with industrial use 6. Cooper Chemical (also known as Wiegman and Rose, Inc. ) , 2801 7-15 Giant Road. Part of the property is contaminated with heavy metals and organic solvents. An Interim Remedial Measure addressed the organic solvent contamination; the efficacy of the treatment will be determined by further sampling. The contaminated area will be covered with a cap that will be designed to be compatible with the future land use. 4 0 Page 6 Groundwater monitoring will be conducted as part of the Operation and Maintenance phase of the project. A deed restriction will be required. Summary: Cooper Chemical (Wiegman and Rose, Inc. ) Type of contamination: heavy metals and organic solvents Proposed remedial action: cap Time Line: Final Remedial Action Plan May 1993 Complete remedial action Summer 1994 Proposed deed restrictions: light industrial to general industrial uses 7 . FMC Corporation, 855 Parr Blvd. (This site, where Parr 7-16 Boulevard crosses the Southern Pacific tracks, is not directly adjoining the Specific Plan area. ) This site is contaminated with organophosphorus and organochlorine pesticides including DDT. The chosen remedial action for the site was a two-inch thick asphalt cap over eight inches of baserock. It was completed in July 1991 and certified in May 1992 . There is minimal groundwater contamination. Computer modeling indicated that no detectable levels of contaminants would reach the marsh to the west of the site. Summary: FMC Corporation Type of contamination: organophosphorus and organochlorine pesticides Remedial action: asphalt cap Time Line: Complete remedial action July 1991 Proposed deed restrictions: general industrial uses NOVEMBER 1992 NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EiR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ADDENDUM COMMENTS AND RESPONSES LETTER 7: State of California Department of Toxic Substance Control, Howard K. Hatayama, Regional Administrator, July 29, 1992. Response 7-1. Comment is acknowledged. Please see discussion on pages IV.J-29 through IV.J-35 of the DEIR where potential impacts of hazardous materials and mitigation measures are described. The appropriateness of land uses adjacent to areas contaminated by hazardous or toxic materials has been considered as a major determinant in development of the Specific Plan; for this reason, the Specific Plan proposes industrial rather than residential use as a viable future land use. Response 7-2. Comment is acknowledged. Response 7-3. This concern is addressed by the DEIR on pages IV. J-29 and 30. Because the Specific Plan will require clean-up of contaminated sites, it is likely to have a beneficial impact on potential for exposure to hazardous wastes. See also mitigation measures HAZ 1 through HAZ 5 on pages IV. J- 33 through IV. 1-35. Response 7-4. The DEIR text has been amended to reflect this addition. See Chapter V of this Addendum, reference to IV. J-28-29. Pages IV A.10 through 13 of the DEIR address landfill. It says that the closure plan for the Class I facility calls for it to remain as open space, but because of toxicity issues, the area will be fenced, monitored and inaccessible to the public for 30 to 50 years. The concern over public access trails next to what is considered to be the boundary of the hazardous waste area is addressed on pages IV. J-29 and 30 of the DEIR. The implementation of a formal trail system would invite a variety of new recreational users into the Plan area, and the DHS considers the health hazard to be low for recreational users of the trails. Also see mitigation measures HAZ 1 through HAZ 5. The closure plan for the landfill site is currently being reviewed by the California Integrated Waste Management Board. A separate EIR required by the County will provide more detailed information on this site. Response 7-5. The DEIR text has been amended to reflect this addition. See Chapter V of this Addendum, reference to page IV.J-24-25. Response 7-6. The DEIR text has been amended to reflect this addition. See Chapter V of this Addendum, reference to page IV.J-24-25. IV-33 NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR NOVEMBER 1992 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ADDENDUM COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response 7-7. Remedial actions that might involve caps that leave contamination in place will be considered during project specific review for any proposed land use change. Mitigation Measure HAZ-5 on page IV J.-35 of this Addendum recommends that the City and County, in review of remediation projects, recommend to DISC remedial designs that minimize impacts on surrounding land uses. Response 7-8. Refer to Response 7-7, above. Response 7-9. Comment noted. The proposed transfer station land use is consistent with the proposed land use designation in the Specific Plan. The facility has received an approval from the County. Response 7-10. The DEIR has been amended to reflect this addition. See Chapter V of the Addendum, reference to page IV.J-28-29. Also see pages IV. J-29 and 30 of the DEIR and mitigation measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-5 which would reduce potential hazards on public access trails which pass close to a hazardous waste disposal area. Response 7-11. The DEIR has been amended to reflect this addition. See Chapter V of the Addendum, reference to page IV.J-16. Response 7-12. The DEIR has been amended to reflect this addition. See Chapter V of the Addendum, reference to page IV.J-28-29. Response 7-13. Refer to Response 7-6, above. Response 7-14. The DEIR has been amended to reflect this addition. See Chapter V of this Addendum, reference to page IV.J-28-29. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 on page IV J-34 recommends that a preliminary endangerment assessment be prepared by project applicants in conjunction with DHS to determine the existence, type and extent of hazardous materials on sites proposed for redevelopment. These assessments would be required to be completed in coordination with the development review processes of the City or County. Response 7-15. Refer to response 7-5, above. The DEIR has been amended to reflect this addition. See Chapter V of this Addendum, reference to page IV.J-24-25. Response 7-16. The DEIR has been amended to reflect this addition. See Chapter V of the Addendum, reference to page IV.J-17. IV-34 QPP�MgNT OF lye/ ` TAKE�� y o United States Department of the Interior AMERl A� a FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ®� CH 3_,049 Fish and Wildlife Enhancement r Sacramento Field Office 2800 Cottage Way, Room E-1803 Sacramento, California 95825-1846 In Reply Refer To: PPN 769 September 1, 1992 RECEIVED. SEP 4 1992 Mr. James A. Farahl�ri��fi� Planning Director Attn: Nancy Kaufman City of Richmond 2600 Barrett Avenue P.O. Box 4046 Richmond, California 94804 Subject: North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report, San Francisco Bay, City of Richmond, Contra Costa County, California Dear Mr. Farah: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and Specific Plan for the North Richmond Shoreline. These comments are not intended to take the place of any formal comments that may be required at a later date pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act or the Endangered Species Act. The Specific Plan area is located in the northwest portion of the City of Richmond and is bounded by Point Pinole Regional Park on the north, the Southern Pacific Railroad and Parchester Village on the east, Parr Boulevard on the south, and San Francisco Bay on the west. Rheem and San Pablo Creeks, and Giant, San Pablo and portions of Wildcat Marshes are within the planning area. The study area covers approximately 1,951 acres and contains tidal and seasonal wetlands and grasslands which provide habitat for. many wildlife species, including the federally listed endangered California clapper rail and salt marsh harvest mouse. The stated purpose of the Specific Plan is to define the amount and type of development that will be permitted by the City and County. The DEIR and Specific .Plan identify proposed land uses, including heavy and light industrial, office/industrial flex, special facilities, parks and open space, natural conservation areas, public access corridor and trails, and the Richmond Parkway. The DEIR evaluates three alternatives: the proposed Specific Plan; the mitigated plan concept (Alternative B) ; and the shoreline use concept (Alternative C) . 2 GENERAL COMMENTS We fully suppport Objective No. 2, Natural Resources, contained on page 23 of 8-1 the Specific Plan, to "prevent additional filling of wetland areas and re- establish, where feasible, wetland areas which have been destroyed or degaded as a result of filling" . However, there is an inconsistency with this stated objective and the anticipated impacts identified in the DEIR. The DEIR (page IV.G-9) identifies that 5.2 acres of "jurisdictional" wetlands, and 11 acres of "potential" wetlands would be lost with implementation 'of the Specific Plan. Approximately 130 acres of agricultural land would be converted to urban uses. The Service discourages filling of biologically productive wetlands, especially for purposes which are not water dependent such as those proposed. We also recommend selection of the least environmentally damaging reasonable alternative. Therefore, we recommend against approval of the Specific Plan alternative. The mitigated plan concept (Alternative B) was developed to reduce loss of 8-2 wetland habitat and emphasize natural resource preservation, while retaining some development. Implementation of Alternative B would result in the preservation of more wetlands and adjacent uplands than the proposed Specific Plan. This alternative also proposes public access trails which reduce human disturbance to sensitive wildlife species. We support your efforts in developing Alternative B and view it as the least environmentally damaging of the three analyzed alternatives. However, implementation of this alternative would also result in the loss of wetland habitat (e.g. , through development of the proposed special .facilities, office/industrial flex, and Richmond Parkway, identified on Figure 28 of .the DEIR) . We recommend that the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) identify Alternative B, with modifications which will assure satisfaction of your stated objective, to prevent fill of wetlands as the preferred and selected alternative. SPECIFIC COMMENTS The Biotic Factors section of the DEIR did not contain a detailed description 8-3 of the vegetation and wildlife which exist in the planning area. The DEIR (page IV.G-5) states that existing wildlife use of the plan area was determined from available literature. As contained in our July 1, 1991, letter, because the property north (and in some areas south) of Rheem Creek may support unique vegetative species, the Service recommends that a complete botanical inventory be completed, with special attention paid to searching for the candidate plant species listed on the enclosure to Attachment A of that letter. Botanical surveys should be conducted by a qualified botanist at intervals throughout the spring and summer, in order to maximize the likelihood of encountering each species during the season most appropriate for accurate identification. Surveys should be based on field inspection, and not on prediction of occurrence based on habitat or physical features of the site. Guidelines for conducting adequate botanical surveys are available from the Natural Heritage Division of the California Department of Fish and Game. This information will be necessary to complete any future jurisdictional determination of wetlands on these properties and will assist the City in 3 identifying appropriate future land uses. The need for this botanical data should be discusssed in the FEIR. We also recommend that the likelihood of the occurrence of candidate animal 8-4 species listed in the enclosure to our July 1, 1991 letter, but not discussed in the DEIR, be addressed in the FEIR. As suggested during the July 30, 1991, field visit to portions of the planning area, small mammal surveys would be particularly useful. Should the suggested surveys determine that listed, proposed or candidate 8-$ species may be affected by proposed activities within the planning area, we recommend that you, in consultation with this office and the California Department of Fish and Game, develop a plan that mitigates for the project's direct and indirect impacts to these species and compensates for project- related loss of habitat. It is unclear in both the DEIR and the Specific Plan how the anticipated loss 8-6 of wetland habitat with proposed new development will be mitigated/ compensated. The FEIR should identify proposed mitigation/compensation measures and areas required to offset projected losses to wetland habitat and adjacent upland habitat. Pages 126-129 of the Specific Plan contain proposed actions for protection of natural conservation areas. These include City and County plans to investigate restoration opportunities at Wildcat Marsh, with full environmental review of water quality and toxic contamination concerns; to promote restoration of filled portions of San Pablo Creek Marsh and the area north of Rheem Creek; and to enhance seasonal wetlands south of Rheem Creek. The DEIR (page IV.G-10) states that the Specific Plan calls for restoration and enhancement of wetlands in the Wildcat Marsh, San Pablo Creek Marsh and Rheem Creek, with wetland losses due to development replaced in these enhancement areas. The FEIR should clarify whether the proposed protection actions are intended for enhancement of the natural conservation areas or to mitigate anticipated future wetland losses. Similarly, The FEIR 8-7 should also explain the discrepancy between the statement contained on page IV.A-49 of the DEIR that implementation of the specific Plan would increase the overall wetland acreage within the Plan area, and Table 20, Changes in Wetland and Upland Acreage, (DEIR, page IV.G-9) which shows a net loss of wetlands and uplands. The Specific Plan (page 124) also recommends habitat clean-up and monitoring 8-8 actions within natural conservation areas. Because of the widespread incidence of hazardous materials sites in the planning area (Figure 26, DEIR) , we recommend that you add an action for clean-up of toxic and other hazardous materials, to protect fish and wildlife resources within natural conservation areas. Figure 18 in the DEIR depicts the wetlands jurisdictional determination 8-9 completed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) on the Bruener property in March 1989. We understand from Corps staff that the jurisdictional determination which the Corps previously completed only applies to the restoration plan associated with the unauthorized fill on that property. We also understand that it is the Corps' view that additional wetlands currently exist on this property. Since we have not received a formal response to our 4 July 25, 1991, letter to the Corps' District Engineer, contained as Appendix A to the DEIR, we recommend that you to obtain clarification from them on this issue and include this information in the FEIR. The DEIR (page IV.F-14) refers to approximately 18.5 acres of additional wetlands north of Rheem Creek (as depicted in Appendix A) which were not included on wetland delineations completed to date. Page IV.F-14 of the DEIR states that development proposed north of Rheem Creek 8-10 would occur within the 100-year floodplain and that this area is also subject to coastal flooding. Therefore, implementation of the Specific Plan would require flood control improvements for Rheem Creek and shoreline protection measures. We believe that the FEIR should include a more thorough discussion of impacts to the biological resources of Rheem Creek and San Francisco Bay wetlands which would occur with flood control improvements and shoreline armoring, and proposed mitigation/compensation measures which would be provided to offset anticipated impacts, such as some of those contained in Chapter 7.H of the Specific Plan. The DEIR (page IV.G-17) includes a mitigation measure to require leashes for 8-11 dogs on public trails but states that compliance would be voluntary. We recommend that signs be installed along the trails showing that no dogs are allowed without leashes and identifying that sensitive wildlife species occur in the area. If you have any questions about these comments, please contact Ruth Pratt at (916) 978-4613. Sincerely, Wayne White Field Supervisor cc: Reg. Dir. (AFWE) , FWS, Portland, OR Dir. , CDFG, Sacramento, CA Reg. Mgr. , CDFG, Reg. III, Yountville, CA (Attn: C. Wilcox) District Engineer, COE, San Francisco, CA (Attn: S. Moreland) EPA, San Francisco, CA CA Coastal Conservancy, Oakland, CA (Attn: M. Denninger) East Bay Reg. Park Dist. , Oakland, CA (Attn: T. Lindenmyer) Save SF Bay Assn. , Parks & Open Space Com. , Richmond, CA (Attn: L. Edwards) CA Native Plant Soc. , San Carlos, CA (Attn: S. Timby) SCLDF, San Francisco, CA SFBNWR, Newark, CA BCDC, San Francisco, CA (Attn: B. Batha) NOVEMBER 1992 NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PIAN EIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ADDENDUM COMMENTS AND RESPONSES LETTER 8: United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Wayne S. White, Field Supervisor, September 1, 1992. Reponse 8-1. The DEIR identifies loss of wetlands as a significant impact and recommends mitigation through implementation of Alternative B. The recommendation against the proposed Specific Plan by the Service is acknowledged. Response 8-2. The Service's recommendation for Alternative B as the least environmentally damaging alternative, with modifications which will assure satisfaction of the stated wetland objective, is also acknowledged. However, it should be noted that the Specific Plan does not propose the Richmond Parkway, as indicated by this comment. The Richmond Parkway is a separate project, independent of the Specific Plan. The Service's recommendation to mitigate loss of wetlands due to the proposed Special Facilities and Office/Industrial Flex land use designations is in conflict with other objectives of plan to maximize employment opportunities. By re-designating land now in agricultural land use designations for employment-generating uses, the City and County would be providing opportunities for local jobs. The area designated as agricultural land north of Rheem Creek is not currently in agricultural use. As an alternative to implementation of Alternative B, the DEIR recommends mitigation of wetlands loss on a project-specific basis (see Alternate Mitigation Measure BIO-2). Response 8-3. The DEIR provided general information, as appropriate for a Program EIR, regarding biological resources for the entire Plan study area. This information was based on on-site reconnaissance and review of existing literature and data sources completed in 1989 for the Existing Conditions Analysis for the Specific Plan, as well as subsequent wetlands delineations completed by the U. S. Corps of Engineers on specific parts of the study area, as described on page IV. G-3 of the DEIR. As noted on page I-1 of the DEIR, individual projects in the Specific Plan area would receive detailed environmental evaluation during project review and in project EIRs, the appropriate vehicle for more detailed on-site species surveys and wetland delineations. The Service's recommendation for botanical field inspections by qualified biologists at intervals during the spring and summer, consistent with the National Heritage Division of the California Department of Fish and Game Guidelines, has been added as a mitigation measure (Mitigation Measure BIO-7), and Impact BIO-7 included to address impacts to unique vegetative species and habitat value throughout the Plan area. IV-39 NORTH.RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR NOVEMBER 1992 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ADDENDUM COMMENTS AND RESPONSES The DEIR text has been amended to reflect this addition. See Chapter V of this Addendum, reference to page IV.G-17. Response 8-4. The Service's recommendation for field inspections by qualified biologists at intervals during the spring and summer, consistent with the California Department of Fish and Game Guidelines, has been added as a mitigation measure (Mitigation Measure BIO-7), and Impact 13I0-7 included to address impacts to unique vegetative species and habitat value throughout the Plan area. See response 8-3. Response 8-5. The Service's recommendation regarding consultation and development of.a plan to mitigate impacts is noted. This is consistent with Mitigation Measures BIO 1 through BIO 7. Response 8-6. Please see Response 8-3. Any proposed project within the Specific Plan area will be required to conduct wildlife and botanical surveys and perform wetland delineations during the environmental review process. If loss of wetland habitat would result from the proposed project, the project applicant would be responsible for developing a mitigation plan. The implementation actions described in the Specific Plan are intended to both enhance natural conservation areas and to provide opportunities for mitigation of possible future wetland losses, although the latter would depend upon the specific needs and requirements identified through mitigation plans for each proposed project. Response 8-7. Table 20 on page IV.G-9 is correct; there would be a net loss of wetlands as a result of the proposed Specific Plan. Although the sentence on page IV.A-49 is incorrect in stating that there would be an increase in wetlands, it is correct in stating that wetlands which are now fragmented throughout the area would be consolidated into larger wetland areas, and that protections heretofore not available for wetland areas would be implemented by Plan adoption. The sentence on page IV.A-49 has been corrected to clarify this point. See Chapter V of this Addendum, reference to page IV.A-49. Response 8-8. Mitigation measures HAZ 1-4 on pages IV.J-34 and IV. J-35 of the DEIR all respond to this concern, and mitigation measure HAZ 3 specifically addresses contamination within Natural Conservation areas. Response 8-9. The Fish and Wildlife Service's July 25, 1991 request that the Corps re-examine the wetland delineation has not yet resulted in clarification from the Corps. At the time of project-specific environmental review in the IV-40 NOVEMBER 1992 NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ADDENDUM COMMENTS AND RESPONSES area of concern, the Corps would be contacted for final determination regarding wetlands. Please see Response 8-6, above. Response 8-10. Please see Response 8-3, above; also see Section H.2 of the Implementation Element of the Specific Plan which discusses the need for mitigation and compensation of habitat loss due to shoreline protection, and Section H.3 which requires riparian habitat restoration plans in conjunction with flood control measures on Rheem Creek. Response 8-11. Mitigation measure BI0-6 has been revised to include this recommendation. Please see Chapter V of this Addendum, reference to page IV.G-17. IV-41 9 AC.-Transk 1600 Franklin Street,Oakland,California 94612 ❑ (510)891-4777 Alameda-Contra Costa Tmnsft Dlst M tr"i G C E 1 V E D July 2 1992 30, 1992 RICHMOND Mr. Jim Farah, Planning Director ?LANNING DEPARTMENT City of Richmond 2600 Barrett Avenue .P.O. Box 4046 Richmond, CA 94804 SUBJECT: DRAFT EIR FOR THE NORTH RICH.*20ND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN (EID-91-16) Thank-you for the opportunity to be part of the land use planning process in this portion of our service area. The following comments reflect areas of interest to AC Transit. TRANSIT SERVICE TO THE PLAN AREA At this time, the District does not serve the area directly as 9-1 there has been little demand due to limited land uses there. However, policy #1, p. III-10, calls for development of high-end office, light industrial , and research facilities which will undoubtedly result in a large increase in trip generation to the Plan area. In addition, improvements in recreational opportunities (i.e. , the Bay Trail, and increased public access through the development of other pedestrian and multi-use trails) will also increase the number of trips to the Plan area. As indicated in the Specific Plan Circulation Element of the DEIR, there appears to be a need to extend transit services as the area develops. To facilitate this, the District suggests that mechanisms for funding such extensions be provided for in part by fees paid by the developers who will be building in the Plan area. For example, minimum parking requirements for buildings could be 9-2 lowered and developers could be allowed to pay in-lieu fees to support transit for 'every space not provided below the minimum. Also, developers and property owners could be required to jointly contribute money to a fund for extending transit service to the area. FACILITATING TRANSIT USE The DEIR indicates that the major type of development planned for the area is employment centers. In order to encourage transit use, and comply with Traffic Demand Programs and Trip Reduction Ordinances, the District suggests the following: Jim Farah, City of Richmond July 30, 1992 Page 2 * Provide adequate pedestrian access by building sidewalks on all sides of all roads. People must be able to reach transit stops safely. * Limit parking, and place all parking behind or within buildings. * Encourage developers and employers to promote ridesharing and transit usage in the Plan area. * Encourage employers to provide on site transit passes to employees at the employers expense. Once again, thank-you for the opportunity to comment on the North 9-3 Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan. AC Transit should be included in the design and planning process to insure that new roadways built within the Plan area can accommodate transit expansion. The District welcomes the opportunity to work closely with City staff and developers and property owners to assure that transit concerns are addressed. Please contact me at (510) 891-7132 if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely; Cindy Horvat Research and Planning cc: Ken Stanley ref:a:\NorthRichmond Shoreline Specific Plan NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR NOVEMBER 1992 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ADDENDUM COMMENTS AND RESPONSES LETTER 9: Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit), Cindy Horvath, Research and Planning, July 30, 1992. Response 9-1. The Specific Plan Implementation Element contains an action to develop a comprehensive program of Transportation Demand Management and Transportation Systems Management, jointly with AC Transit and other transportation agencies in the region. These programs would be consistent with the City's TDM Ordinance. This action includes provision for improving transit service in the Plan area. Please see pages 114 and 115 of the Specific Plan. The City of Richmond and Contra Costa County will consider imposition of fees on development as part of the TDM and TSM programs; one of the considerations in development of these programs will be the balance between using the fees to improve transit use, and discouraging businesses from moving to the area. Please see also Responses 10-1 and 10-2. Response 9-2. These recommendations are helpful, and will be considered during project-specific development review by the City and County, and during TSM and TDM program development. Development standards and design guidelines contained in the Specific Plan are compatible with these recommendations. Response 9-3. The City and County will coordinate with AC Transit in development of the TDM and TSM programs, as well as during project-specific development review. IV-44 10 Contra Public Works Department J.Michael wntta„aPublic Works Director Costa 255 Glacier Drive County Martinez,California 94553-4897 Milton F.Kubicek FAX: (510)313-2333 Deputy Director Telephone: (510)313-2000 Maurice E.Mitci d Deputy Director July 31, 1992 Jim Farah HECEIVED Planning Director Aflf; 3 1992 City of Richmond R60hmond, CA0 Barrett venue PLA R/Cf� D'tpgRirPa ylEtvr Dear Mr. Farah: We have reviewed the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan and have the following comments and concerns: 1. The EIR indicates that at 100% buildout of the Plan area, the Richmond 10-1 Parkway/Goodrick Avenue intersection would operate unacceptably at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours. The proposed mitigation is dependant on revised land use as proposed in Alternative B of the EIR which is projected to reduce peak hour trip generation by about 14% from that of the proposed project. The EIR further states that implementation of this measure would only partially reduce the significant impact at this intersection, and that even with optimal geometrics and signal timing improvements, a significant unavoidable adverse impact will remain. The use of a grade separated interchange as mitigation should be discussed. The EIR also states that lower than average traffic generation by the Specific Plan area or lower than expected traffic on the Park-Nay may result in an acceptable level of service at this intersection. This may be just wishful thinking rather than a reasonable mitigation measure. A more definitive approach is needed if Congestion Management Program and 10-2 Growth Management Program objectives are to be achieved. As an alternative the EIR should determine the specific reduction of project land use that will result in an acceptable level of service at this intersection. The EIR should also discuss the potential of financial contributions by 10-3 developments and financial incentives to employers and employees that can materially aid in the establishment of alternate modes of transportation. Maintenance Division:2475 Waterbird Way • Martinez,California 94553-4897 • Telephone:(510)313.7000 • FAX:(510)313-7014 Jim Farah Page Two July 31, 1992 2. On page III-28, Section 3 should consists of a 74 foot roadway with a 16-foot 10-4 median. Travel lane widths should be 17 feet at the curb to accommodate bicycles and 12 feet at the median. The right of way should be 94 feet if no trails are proposed, and may be 100 feet if trails are proposed. Section 6 should consists of a 46 foot roadway with 17 foot travel lanes at the curb to accommodate bicycles and a striped 12 foot wide left turn lane. The right of way should be 66 feet if no trails are proposed. Very truly yours Lowell Tunison Senior Civil Engineer Major Projects Division LT:FL:cl CAmnshlnA7 cc: M. Shiu, Deputy PW Director NOVEMBER 1992 NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ADDENDUM COMMENTS AND RESPONSES LETTER 10: Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Lowell Tunison, Senior Civil Engineer, July 31, 1992. Response 10-1. The City of Richmond, in conjunction with other West Contra Costa County municipalities, has adopted a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance (reference: Ordinance 8:92). This ordinance generally requires firms, or business complexes, to implement TDM programs, thereby reducing trips by single-occupancy automobiles on the sub-regional's street and highway network. Because the success of the City's TDM Ordinance cannot be reliably predicted, its impact was not integrated into the traffic forecasts for the Specific Plan. Therefore, the forecasts for all alternatives considered in the EIR represent the highest traffic forecast (i.e., the worst case), and do not reflect the positive effects likely to result from congestion management strategies such as the City's TDM Ordinance. For this reason, the DEIR identifies traffic levels of service as a potentially significant impact, and recommends that Alternative B rather than the Specific Plan be adopted; in addition, the Specific Plan recommends that traffic conditions be monitored at least every two years to determine the actual levels of service as the Specific Plan area builds out, and that phasing of development be based on the results of the monitoring. Response 10-2. The Richmond Parkway is the only facility in the North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan area which is forecast for Levels of Service E and F. This condition reflects the Parkway's regional function and the forecasted LOS of this facility is not solely related to anticipated development within the Specific Plan area. The Richmond Parkway is designated as a "route of regional significance." Consistent with requirements of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA), performance standards for routes of regional significance will be established by the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC). Richmond has successfully adopted a jobsihousing balance strategy aimed at providing an opportunity for people to live and work within the City. Because the strategy can significantly lower demands on major regional corridors, it has had, and will continue to have, a positive impact on the Bay Area's regional traffic networks. Potential development, consistent with the Specific Plan, can enhance Richmond's jobs/housing balance; and is a recognized congestion management strategy. Please see also Response 10-1. IV-47 NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR NOVEMBER 1992 RESPONSE TO COMMEN'T'S ADDENDUM COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response 10-3. Responses 9-2 and 9-3 to the comments by the Alameda Contra Costa Transit District address these concerns. See page IV-44 of this Addendum. Response 10-4. The County Public Works roadway standards cited in this comment are not necessarily those proposed in the Specific Plan. Roadway standards in the Specific Plan are the result of estimates of traffic demand, urban design considerations, private property configurations, and consistency with Richmond Parkway specifications. IV-48 EAST BAY 11 MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT M1 DENNIS L.ALLEN DENNIS M.DIEILMER, CHIEF ENGINEER ASSTS TAN CHIEF ENGA'EER DECEIVED JOHrNE LAM.PE h1ANAGEF�F M1'a i ER FLAN'+:.NG July 24 , 1992 JUL M2 FLAWNG MARTMENT Mr. Jim Farah Planning Director City of Richmond P.O. Box 4046 Richmond, CA 94804 Subject: North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report Dear Mr. Farah: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the . Specific Plan EIR for the subject area. The specific plan area is located within the District's current service area. Water service in this area is provided by the Central Pressure Zone that serves elevations from 0 to 100 feet. The District has the following comments regarding water service. Development in the specific plan area will have an impact on the 11-1 District's water supply. It is not anticipated that major new facilities, such as distribution reservoirs and pumping plants, will be required; however, water main extensions and pipeline improvements will be necessary. The sizes and locations of these new mains and improvements are not known at this time, as specific development plans have not been finalized. The pipeline improvements shown on pages IV.D-13 and 14 are potential pipeline improvements. As stated above, the exact extent and location of the required on-site and off-site improvements cannot be determined at this time. The information on water consumption on page IV.D-13 should 11-2 include a range of estimated peak flow rates, maximum day consumption, and open space irrigation demands. Irrigation and industrial water demands that could be satisfied by reclaimed wastewater should also be identified. The use of reclaimed wastewater is mentioned on page IV.D-2 . 11-3 While reclaimed wastewater is not available in the area at this 375 ELEVENTH STREET. OAKLAND . CA 94CC7.4240. I570; 835-3000 P.O.BOX 24055 . OAKLAND. CA 946237055 BOARD OF DIRECTORS NANCY J.NADEL KENNETH H.SIMMONS . ANDREW COVEN JOHN A.COLEMAN. STUART FLASHh4AN. JOHN M GIOIA . KATHERI"JE McKENNEY Mr. Jim Farah July 24 , 1992 Page 2 time, the flexibility for the use of reclaimed wastewater should be designed and included for irrigation and non-potable industrial water uses. Development in the specific plan area should incorporate water 11-4 conservation measures into the construction and landscaping to help mitigate the impact of additional water service on the District's water supply. The District encourages the use of equipment, devices and methods for plumbing fixtures and irrigation that provide for long term efficient water use. The District also promotes the selection of low water-using plants, inert materials, and reduced turf-covered areas. The District has the following concerns about the hazardous 11-5 materials in the specific plan area, specifically: Construction related exposure; Contaminated groundwater permeating into the pipe zone granular backfill; The long-term effects these conditions will have on the District's distribution facilities. Contaminants permeating the pipe zone granular backfill will have a long-term effect on the pipeline and appurtenances, both PVC and steel, as well as operation and maintenance personnel who maintain these pipelines. Pages .IV.J-34 and 35 present the on-site mitigation measures that will be required prior to development. These measures should include mitigation that is suitable not only for initial construction but also for construction and maintenance that occurs in the long term. The health risks to District workers performing construction or repairs years after initial construction should be identified at each site and proper mitigation measures should be taken. Because of the above mentioned concerns, the District will not allow the installation of water mains or services until the District is assured that each site is safe for the installation and future maintenance of these facilities. Each applicant will be required to perform any and all remedial work necessary, including engineering and monitoring, to provide a safe environment for the installation of water mains and services. Each project sponsor should contact the District's New Business 11-6 Office when development plans are finalized. The District will then estimate the cost of providing water service to the project site, the cost and extent, if needed, of any pipeline improvements, and water system capacity charges as applicable. Mr. Jim Farah July 24 , 1992 Page 3 If you have any questions, or if the District can be of further assistance, please telephone Patricia E. Dustman, Assistant Civil Engineer, Water Service Planning, at (510) 287-1199 . Very truly yours, hn B. &Ivampe Manager of Water Planning JBL:PED:dd 92.17 NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR NOVEMBER 1992 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ADDENDUM COMMENTS AND RESPONSES LETTER 11. East Bay Municipal Utility District, John B. Lampe, Manager of Water Planning, July 24, 1992. Response 11-1. Comments acknowledged. The Implementation Element of the Specific Plan recommends preparation of.an infrastructure master plan, which would provide "detailed estimates of the capital costs of the facilities improvements as well as estimates of ongoing operation and maintenance costs". See page 112 of the Specific Plan. Response 11-2. As stated on page IV.D-13 of the DEIR, the actual consumption rates of water in the Specific Plan area are likely to vary widely depending on a number of factors, primarily the type and size of industrial and office uses that will locate there. The general estimate of typical industry standard used by EBMUD cited on page IV.D-13 of the DEIR is appropriate for the program-level analysis provided in this DEIR. During project-specific environmental review, estimates of peak flow, maximum day consumption and identification of industrial and irrigation demands that could be satisfied by reclaimed water will be developed and evaluated. Response 11-3. Comment acknowledged. Please see Response 11-2. Response 11-4. Development standards in the Specific Plan address this issue. See Chapter 4.E.3.e., page 56 of the Specific Plan. Responses 11-5. Comments acknowledged. The District's concerns regarding hazardous materials will be considered during project-specific environmental review; normal permitting procedures will require that worker health and safety be protected. See mitigation measures on pages IV. J-34 and specifically Mitigation Measure HAZ-2. Response 11-6. Comment acknowledged. IV-52 EAAST-4BAY=R ,GIONA'L -°PARK'�DISTRICT --- July 29, 1992 VEBECEIVED !a;r.ec H Dun-an Presian.. pec RjdW(IeeSJrcf f 1 JUL -n 1992 oil.:er RIC C Y;e55e n r Do-ne[ Mr. Jim Farah Q�1VA11P D DE p,,,p RICHN70pd7 'L:.Ce.I',,:,.5 Richmond Planning Department aRTAI&MMINIG DEPARTMEUT -. P.O. Box 4046 Richmond, CA 94804 SUBJECT: EIR FOR THE NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLANS RICHMOND SHORELINE TO PT. PINOLE REGIONAL TRAIL Dear Mr. Farah: The EBRPD has reviewed the subject document and offers the following comments. The discussion of trail alignment (page IV, A-55) as it relates to the EBRPD could 12-1 be augmented to indicate that the District's trails map is only meant to be a schematic representation. Thus, if the Specific Plan includes a feasible north/south trail accomplishing the same purpose, it would be consistent with the EBRPD Master Plan and Trails Map. The discussion of the EBRPD Master Plan (pages IV D-10 and D-1 1 ) could be 12-2 rephrased to indicate the following. The marshes at the mouths of Wildcat and San Pablo Creeks are part of a potential North Richmond Wetlands Regional Preserve. The EBRPD, as a cooperating agency for the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse and California Clapper Rail Recovery Plan (U.S.F. & W.S., 1984) is committed to assisting in the acquisition and management of these wetlands if funds are available. The discussion of Alternative B (pages V-10 to V-19) should be augmented to 12-3 specifically state that it is the environmentally superior alternative, and to state why it was not selected. ' The EBRPD appreciates this opportunity to review and comment on the subject document. Very truly yours, T.H. Lindenmeyer Environmental Specialist c:tomlrich.eir \i 2950 Peralta Oaks Court•P.O.Box 5381•Oakland CA 94605 0381 a 510 635.0135•FAX 510 569.-"-'c NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR NOVEMBER 1992 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ADDENDUM COMMENTS AND RESPONSES LETTER 12. East Bay Regional Park District, T. H. Lindenmeyer, July 29, 1992. Response 12-1. The DEIR text has been amended to reflect these changes. See Chapter V of this Addendum, reference to page IV.A-55. Response 12-2. The DEIR text has been amended to reflect these changes. See Chapter V of this Addendum, reference to page IV.13-10. Response 12-3. Alternative B is described as the environmentally superior alternative in the Summary chapter of the DEIR, page II-3. The Citizen Advisory Committee decided that Alternative B should be evaluated as an alternative in the EIR, and that the City and County should consider comments and recommendations made during the EIR public review process. IV-54 13 IM T "~ EA5 BAY REGIO`NA4PARK.=::DISTRICT - 1ECEN' - July 23 , 1992 BOARD Nancy Kaufman ::.efH e�cs <. RiGt�MOND o:::e�r�,-,e, Richmond Planning Department rz�znKesse City Hall MING DEPARTMEW o oc.,,_, =z:n g•qr. 2600 Barrett Avenue Richmond, California 94804 SUBJECT: NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN RICHMOND SHORELINE TO PT. PINOLE REGIONAL TRAIL Dear Ms. Kaufman: The East Bay Regional Park District appreciates the opportunity to 13-1 comment on the Draft Specific Plan for the North Richmond Shoreline. As a member of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) , the District has actively participated in the planning process by attending TAC meetings and offering experience and expertise in the planning and management of open space and trails . From the beginning, the TAC has been an effective forum for the citizens of the North Richmond community to voice their interests and concerns . The Draft Specific Plan has effectively addressed many of the issues of interest to the Park District. These issues include: • The land use designation as Natural Conservation Area for the 13-2 marsh areas of the Breuner property which extends north from Rheem Creek to the northern edge of Plan area (the boundary of Point Pinole Regional Park) . This designation supports and is consistent with the interest of the Park District to protect and enhance areas which serve to round out existing park boundaries. This designation also serves to increase acreage and habitat value of existing wetlands, providing for contiguous wetland/upland habitat. This is shown on Alternative B, the "Mitigated Plan Concept" , Figure A, page A- 5 of the Appendix. In this alternative, natural resource preservation is emphasized, while a mix of land uses still provides for an ,employment base for area residents . • The proposed alignments of public access trails . The 1989 13-3 Park District Master Plan designates a regional shoreline trail along the Richmond shoreline to Point Pinole. Alternative B (referenced above) provides an acceptable alignment which will provide for portions of that trail . A trail alignment �, hich avoids the peninsula (a part of which is within the EBRPD lease area) is consistent with the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse and California Cla1Dper Rail Recovery Plan, published by the U. S . Fish and Wildlife Service in 1984 , in which EBRPD is listed as a cooperating agency . 2950 Peralta Oaks Court-P.O.Box 5381 -Oakland CA 94605 0381-510.635.0135•FAX 510.569.4319 North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan Page 2 • The Bay Trail alignment. The proposed Bay Trail (also shown 13-4 on Alternative B) is designated as a 12-foot wide hard surface trail separated from the Richmond Parkway roadway with a planting strip, as described on page 98 of the Design Guideline section. This trail extends beyond the boundaries of the study area and provides for additional opportunities to complete Park District Master Plan trails in the vicinity. The Alternative B: Mitigated Plan Concept acknowledges the 13-5 complexities of planning residential and industrial development and open space. The Design Guidelines offer a reasoned approach to planning shoreline development while protecting the important visual context of . the shoreline. The result- is a Draft Specific Plan which creates a balanced plan which will provide for diversity of recreational opportunities and reasonable growth for the local community and the region. The District encourages the adoption of Alternative B. We have enjoyed serving on the Technical Advisory Committee and participating in this important planning process for the North Richmond Shoreline. We look forward to continuing our working relationship with the City. Sincerely, Beth Stone Advance Planning cc: Jim Farah NOVEMBER 1992 NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ADDENDUM COMMENTS AND RESPONSES LETTER 13. East Bay Regional Park District, Beth Stone, Advance Planning, July 23, 1992. Response 13-1. Comments acknowledged. Response 13-2. Comments acknowledged. Response 13-3. Comments acknowledged. Please see Response 12-1. Response 13-4. Comments acknowledged. Response 13-5. The District's support for Alternative B is acknowledged. IV-57 Rt:ctry ch MTC 4% 7 1999 14 METROPOLITAN RICHMOND TRANSPORTATION C O M M I S S I O N P161NNiNG DEPARTMEN' August 5, 1992 Alameda County EDWARD R.CAMPBELL DAVID S.KARP Jim Farah, Planning Director Contra Costa County Ci ty of R i c h mo n d ROBERT I.SCHRODER 2600 Barrett Avenue STEVE WEIR P.O. Box 4046 Chair Richmond, CA 94804 Marin County KAREN KUNZE Subject: Draft EIR, North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan Napa County FRED NEGRI Dear Mr. Farah: San Francisco- City and County This letter contains Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) HARRY G.BRITT staff comments on the DEIR for the North Richmond Shoreline Specific RUBIN GLICKMAN Plan project. This Plan is to -recognize the unique character of a San Mateo County 1 ,951 acre shoreline area and to guide development and conservation Tom NOLAN activities within the Plan area. The Plan is also intended to JANE BAKER generate employment uses and increase public access to the Bay. Vice-Chair About 35% of the Plan area is proposed for industrial and office Santa Clara County uses, which would generate up to 14,845 jobs and 3,150 p.m. peak ROD DIRIDON hour vehicle trips at plan buildout. The Plan area is located in JAMES T.BEALL,JR. both the City of Richmond and Contra Costa County. It is bounded by Solano County Point Pinole Regional Park to the north, Parr Blvd. on the south and JAMES SPERING the shoreline on the west. Specific Plan development was a joint Sonoma County effort of the City of Richmond, Contra Costa County, and the State PETER C.FOPPIANO Coastal Conservancy. Association of Bay Area Governments 1 . Impacts on Regional Highways. . The DEIR identifies Plan traffic 14-1 DIANNE MCKENNA impacts at a few nearby intersections. However, because a S.F..BayConservation substantial amount of new employment generated traffic is and Development Commission anticipated with plan buildout, the DEIR should also identify the ANGELO 1.SIRACUSA Plan' s traffic impacts on I-80 and I-580. The DEIR should show State Business, peak hour vehicle/capacity ratios and level of service on these Transportation and facilities in year 2010 with and without the Plan. This analysis Housing Agency should assume the completion of approved and likely to be PRESTON W.KELLEY approved development near the Plan area. U.S.Department of Transportation 2 Traffic Impact Analysis Assumptions. In order to allow 14-2 WILLIAM P.DUPLISSEA interested organizations and individuals to assess the quality of U.S.Department the traffic impact analysis, the report should. provide details of Housing p y p and Urban Development about the assumptions used in this analysis. These assumptions GORDON H.McKAY should include trip generation, trip distribution and assignment, and mode split. Executive Director LAWRENCE D.DAHMS Deputy Executive Director WILLIAM F.HEIN . JOSEPH P. BORT METROCENTER • 101 EIGHTH STREET • OAKLAND, CA 94607-4700 510/464-7700 • TDD/TTY 510/464-7769 • FAX 510/464-7848 3. Transit Service The DEIR notes that no transit service is 14-3 provided to the Plan area at the present time, but that AC Transit service could be routed to the Plan area in the future. The DEIR should include a traffic mitigation measure to require Plan area employers to subsidize this transit service. It should also estimate the amount of anticipated demand for this transit service and the potential cost. The reduction in vehicle trip generation due to transit use should be assumed in the traffic generation analysis. . Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this DEIR. We look forward to receiving the final document. Sincerely, Susan Pultz Environmental Review Officer cc: Commissioners Schroder, McKenna, and Weir NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR NOVEMBER 1992 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ADDENDUM COMMENTS AND RESPONSES LETTER 14. Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Susan Pultz, Environmental Review Officer, August 5, 1992. Response 14-1. This request for a regional analysis is beyond the scope of work appropriate for a program level EIR for a Specific Plan. Answers to these questions would require use of a regional/sub region al traffic model. Such a model for the West County is being developed by Contra Costa County's traffic consultant, Barton-Aschman for the County's Measure C program. A sub-regional analysis was included in the EIR for the Richmond Parkway which included the anticipated buildout of this area. Response 14-2. Trip generation information is provided in the DEIR on page IV.0-8 and Table 14. Distribution projections were obtained from the Richmond Parkway Section 4 Study Revised, a subregional traffic model developed for the Richmond area by DKS Traffic Engineers as part of the work underway on the County's Measure C Congestion Management Agency Program, as described in the DEIR on page IV.0-8. Turn movement counts at the Richmond Parkway/Parr and Parkway/Goodrick intersections as presented in the DEIR can be used to obtain distribution and assignment patterns within the project area. Mode split assumptions for the area were obtained from the Richmond Parkway Section 4 Study Revised by. DKS Associates: Response 14-3. Please see Response 9-1. IV-60 • ;� 15 Richmond Unified School District July 29, 1992 Mr. Jim Farah, Planning Director Richmond Planning Department 2600 Barrett Richmond, California Subject: Comments for the North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan EIR Dear Mr. Farah: The Richmond Unified School District (RUSD) appreciates the opportunity to work with the.City of Richmond to provide its residents the best educational facilities and programs possible. Thank you for this opportunity to respond to the North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan EIR. It is the District's request to incorporate the following language changes and/or additions to the above Specific Plan EIR including corrections of several technical misnomers. The purpose of this request is to provide information of the current status of school facilities in the RUSD, and the fiscal burden that development projects included in the Specific Plan EIR could cause to the District. On page II-5, MUNI-3: "Development under Specific Plan would increase the 15-1 employment base on the area which could generate indirectly 3,3404 to 5,102 new students at buildout, assuming 55% of new employees occupy new dwelling units in the District." The 55% figure was revised to 45%, based on the 1990 census, Place of Work Data, Summary Tape File 3A. The District also suggests inserting Richmond Unified School to avoid any confusion with other districts. Even with a 10% decrease in the number of new homes generated, the District feels 15-2 that increasing the schools by 3,000 or more students should be described as "Potentially Significant," rather than "Less Than Significant" as indicated in this section. The cost and installation of a portable classroom could be $67,000-$70,000. Included in 15-3 this amount is the cost for an Office of State Architect(OSA) approved building, permanent foundation, handicap ramp, electrical power, communications, fire and burglar alarms, etc. The state fire marshall requires major capital upgrading for fire alarm systems for schools receiving portables. Also, new restroom facilities are needed for increased student enrollment and teaching staff. Adding portables to existing school sites often reduces the land-to-buildings ratio to the detriment of the District, i.e. loss of physical education and recreation area, loss of landscaped and open space, loss of staff and visitor parking, loss of student pick up and drop off area, and impacts on service and maintenance parking. Santiago V. Wood, Ed.D. • 0(fice or Clic Associate Superintendent 1108 Bissell Aventle Riclmiond, California 94802 . 2.34-3825, Extension 2208 • FAX (510) 2.36-0190 North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan EIR July 28, 1992 page 2 School playgrounds are used by the children and residents during non-school hours, weekends and holidays, so loss of open-space impacts the neighborhood at large as well as the school community. The Richmond Unified School District must collect School Facilities Developer Fee for new construction projects, prior to issuance of any building permits by cities and the county within the district boundaries. The rate is currently $1.65 per square foot for residential construction, $.27 per square foot for commercial or industrial. The next increase is scheduled for 1994. Section IV.D-6. RUSD requests deleting the sentence starting: "Currently, there are 15-4 no...." and substituting the following: "Based upon current enrollment, there is space available at Montalvin, Crespi and DeAnza. However, DeAnza High School and Crespi Junior High have serious problems regarding pedestrian access, site circulation, parking and traffic problems due to student growth. It is not recommended to expand these sites until the circulation problems are mitigated." Additionally, there are several developments (as listed in Major Entitlement Projects 15-5 Under Review/June 1, 1992, City of Richmond, Planning Department).in the planning stage that could have a major impact at the above schools if the proposed developments are constructed. Most notable is the Castro Ranch project to add 200 town houses. This development would also be in the Crespi/DeAnza attendance area. Therefore, the impact would be significant if all projects are constructed. The present front entrance for Crespi Jr. High is a serious safety matter and neighborhood annoyance. The present front entrance does not provide adequate parking, circulation, and drop off/pick-up areas for vehicles and buses. Until vehicle and pedestrian circulation and traffic problems are mitigated, it is not feasible to add additional students or portables to Crespi Junior High. Another area the District feels needs to be addressed is the condition of currently 15-6 operating school sites. Accelerated deterioration of aged school facilities is caused by student population growth. The average age of District facilities is 39 years old. The District suggest the following language: "Due to age and normal wear and tear, permanent buildings and existing portables buildings of the RUSD are in a state of deterioration. The current deferred maintenwice list submitted to the State in March 1992 shows a total of$1.99 million of deferred maintenance needs at Montalvin, $3.81 million at Crespi, and $11.1 million at DeAnza. These costs include repair items such as roofing, plumbing, electrical, paving, restroom, floors, ceilings, heating, windows, doors, lockers, asbestos abatement, intrusion and fire alarms." The District request the following language be included in the EIR "Project sponsor (or sponsors) shall agree to mitigate all detriments to the RUSD caused by this development, i.e., increased enrollment, increased usage of school district buildings and grounds, environmental impacts, and transportation impacts. Appropriate mitigations shall be developed in consultation with the Richmond Unified School District. Prior to project approval by the City of Richmond, the developer shall mitigate impacts and North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan EIR July 28, 1992 page 3 detriments caused by the project to the satisfaction of the Richmond Unified School District. If the developer fails to receive written approval from the District regarding the proposed project mitigations, the City will deny the project in accordance with the Mira Decision." The spelling of Cate Burkhart's name on page IV.D-6 needs correcting. The correct 15-7 spelling is Cate Burkhart. Thank you for your attention in these important matters., Please do not hesitate to contact me at (510) 234-3825, extension 2208 if you have any questions or comments regarding the District's responses to this Specific Plan EIR. Sincerel Santiago V. Wood, Ed.D. Associate Superintendent Administrative Services CSB:GF:SVW cc: Dr. Herbert M. Cole, Jr. Superintendent Dr. Fred Stewart Gary Freschi Jack Schreder Cate Burkhart NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR NOVEMBER 1992 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ADDENDUM COMMENTS AND RESPONSES LETTER 15. Richmond Unified School District, Santiago V. Wood, Associate Superintendent, July 29, 1992. Response 15-1. The DEIR text has been amended to reflect this correction. See Chapter I of this Addendum, reference to Table 1, page II-5. Response 15-2. The DEIR text has been amended to reflect this concern. See Chapter I of this Addendum, reference to Table 1, page II-5. Response 15-3. Comments acknowledged. Response 15-4. The DEIR text has been amended to reflect this correction. See Chapter V of this Addendum, reference to page IV.D-6. Response 15-5. Comments acknowledged. Impacts relating to the Castro Ranch project are identified in the Environmental Impact Report for that project. Response 15-6. The problems facing the Richmond Unified School District are acknowledged. As noted in Mr. Wood's letter, commercial and industrial developers pay a School Facilities Fee. It is too speculative to project which schools or school districts will be impacted by future student enrollment resulting from increases in employment opportunities. Student enrollment is directly related to residential development and long-term maturation cycles of the school district attendance area; mitigation beyond that identified in the Draft EIR should more appropriately come from School Facilities Fees on residential development and as a result of environmental reviews on proposed residential developments. Response 15-7. The DEIR has been amended to reflect this correction. See Chapter V of this Addendum, reference to page IV.D-6. IV-64 RECEIVE6 16 RICHMOND July 30, 1992 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Mr. Jim Farah Planning Director Richmond Planning Department City Hall 2600 Barrett Avenue Richmond, CA 94804 Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan Dear Mr. Farah: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the referenced specific plan. On behalf of the San Francisco Bay Trail Nonprofit, I submit the following comments: 1. The Bay Trail alignment illustrated on the Public Access and 16-1 Recreation Map, Figure 5, page IU-13 of the Draft EIR, does not follow any of the approved proposed Bay Trail alignments through the North Richmond project area. While we support the construction of a separated bicycle path within the Richmond Parkway right of way as an important addition to alternative transportation routes in the area, this path does not meet the Bay Trail's objectives. The Bay Trail's legislative mandate requires that the alignment be as close to the shoreline as possible. Alternative alignments were originally proposed in areas, such as this one, where there were concerns about whether the shoreline route would be feasible. The North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan calls for a shoreline trail that is designated along portions of its length as multi-use and along other portions as a pedestrian trail. We request that the shoreline trail be designed and installed as a multi-use trail so that pedettrians, bicyclists and other users may have access along its entire length. This shoreline trail should be identified in the specific plan as the San Francisco Bay Trail. 2. The Public Access and Recreation map does not indicate how or 16-2 whether the proposed trails will connect with other proposed or existing trails outside the project area. These connections should be illustrated and described in order to properly evaluate the Specific Plan and Draft EIR. If the proposed trails end abruptly with no extensions currently planned it might be difficult to come back later and readily connect trail segments. Adminis:ered by the Association of Bay Area Governments P.O.Box 2050•Oakland California 94604.2050 Joseph P.Bort MetroCenter•101 Eighth Street•Oakland California 94607.4756 Phone:510.464.7935 Fax:510.464.7970 7/30/92 page 2 We are particularly interested in and recommend that a spur trail be 16-3 constructed to connect the proposed shoreline trail from the sanitary district property south to Point Molate. Further, we are concerned 16-4 that by proposing a deadend pathway leading to"Observation Point,"visibility, maintenance and safety issues may become a problem in the future. 3. The cross-section for the Richmond Parkway illustrated on page III— 16-5 28 (#2) indicates a width of 2 feet for the proposed Bay Trail bicycle path. Please let us know what the correct proposed width is so that we may comment. 4. The cross-sections labelled"Gateway Street" and "Bayshore Access 16-6 Road" (page III-28,#s 3 and 4) indicate that multi-purpose paths will be 8 feet wide. While this falls within Caltrans 8 to 10 foot requirement, experience has shown that 8 feet is too narrow for a multi-use path. These paths should be at least 10 feet wide. 5. The cross-section labelled "Road Near Marsh" (page I11-28, #6) 16-7 provides 5 feet for a path. This width is too narrow for use by people who have mobility difficulties. The path should be widened to ensure better access. I would be happy to discuss any of the above comments with you or.a member 16-8 of your staff at your convenience. It is particularly important that the correct San Francisco Bay Trail alignment, roughly following the proposed shoreline trail be reflected and shown as a multi-use pathway. Please call meat (510) 464-7935 if you have any questions. ce ely, J' Keimach oject Manager cs cc: Tom Mikkelsen, Chair San Francisco Bay Trail Nonprofit NOVEMBER 1992 NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ADDENDUM COMMENTS AND RESPONSES LETTER 16. San Francisco Bay Trail, Association of Bay Area Governments, Jill Keimach, Project Manager, July 30, 1992. Response 16-1. One of the primary objectives of the Specific Plan is to 'protect and enhance the natural resources of the area." Strategy 5 of the Specific Plan (page 39 of the Specific Plan and Chapter III of the DEIR) is to "develop a public access system in the plan area with the dual function of providing maximum feasible public access to the Bay, and providing a buffer for natural resource areas." Strategy 5 states: "More intensive public access would be provided where there would be minimal impact to .sensitive habitat, such as at the landfill where there is an abrupt transition to the water and resultant wave energy prohibits marsh conditions. To protect sensitive habitat for endangered species, public access would be minimized in the marsh, wetlands, and riparian areas. "The public access system would provide .....continuous public access along non- sensitive shoreline areas...." The Land Use Element of the Plan (page 49 of the Specific Plan and Chapter III of the DEIR) provides this description of the public access corridor: "This corridor is intended to maximize public access to the shoreline in a manner and location consistent with natural resource protection." Both the DEIR and the Specific Plan clearly describe a hierarchy of public access provisions, ranging from the multi-use Bay trail to pedestrian-only trails intended to protect sensitive habitat areas. The specific purpose and development standards for each trail segment within the Plan area are described in detail in the Land Use Element of the Specific Plan. The Bay Trail is clearly shown in the Public Access and Recreation map, Figure 7 in the Specific Plan and Figure 5 in the DEIR. The relationship. between the Bay Trail alignment as it is proposed in the Specific Plan and the alternative alignments shown in ABAG's Bay Trail plan is discussed in detail on page IV.A-55 of the DEIR. The commentor was a member of the Technical Advisory Committee for the North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan, where these fundamental concepts were discussed and reviewed. Please see also comment letter 4 from California IV-67 NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR NOVEMBER 1992 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ADDENDUM COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Department of Fish and Game, and letter 8 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, where concerns regarding impacts on sensitive habitats resulting from public access provisions are expressed. Response 16-2. Linkages with trails outside the Plan area are described in the Specific Plan (pages 61 and 62) and the DEIR (Chapter IV.A). Linkages are indicated with arrows on Figure 7 in the Specific Plan and Figure 5 in the DEIR. The trail leading to the observation point north of Rheem Creek on the shoreline in the Specific Plan (see Figure 5 in the DEIR) is a pedestrian-only trail which follows an existing road alignment and an existing trail out to the observation point on the jetty. This trail cannot connect through the marsh to Point Pinole due to habitat sensitivity. For the reasons described in Response 16-1, this trail is not intended to be part of the Bay Trail. Response 16-3. A spur south to Point Molate is out of the Specific Plan study area. The San Francisco Bay Trail should direct this comment to the City of Richmond and Contra Costa County for consideration in future planning efforts. Response 16-4. Comment acknowledged. The future detailed design of the "Observation Point" will be analyzed for these safety concerns during project review. Response 16-5. The 2 foot width in the illustration indicates a shoulder to the bike path. The bike path itself has a dimension of 8 feet, as shown in the illustration, for a total dimension of 12 feet. Response 16-6. See Response 16-5. With two 2 foot wide shoulders, the dimension of the bike path is 12 feet. The 8 foot paved dimension with two foot shoulders is consistent with the City of Richmond's minimum standards for paths on separated right-of-ways, as described in the DEIR, page IV.D-22. Response 16-7. The five foot pedestrian path is intended to minimize intrusion into sensitive habitat areas. See Responses 16-1 and 16-2. Response 16-8. See Response 16-1. IV-68 • RECEIVED John A. Vincent, Jr. 2500 Lowell Ave. 3 1992 17 Richmond, CA 94804 AUS RICHIM-0,10 PLANNING DEAR i`.,:!1:N` L August 1!: , 1992 Mr . Jim Farah , Planning Director Richmond Planning Department Richmond City Hall 2600 Barrett Avenue ' Richmond , CA. 94804 Re : North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan EIR Dear Jim, I have reviewed the Brady and Associates ' North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan EIR . The well presented information on a myriad of subjects was very informative and helpful in better understanding the recommendations presented in the Specific Plan . I have been subjected to many EIR ' s and I can truthfully say that this was the best I have encountered . Please express my thoughts to Ms . Shela Brady and her group of associates and my thanks for a job well done . Ms . Nancy Kauffman and her staff also have done an excellent job , not least of which was to maintain harmony among a committee with widely varying points of view , and being able to gain accord on the major sections of the plan . Sincerely , / Vincent Jr �joh A . , for the Greenbelt Alliance 2500 Lowell Avenue ' Richmond , CA . 94804 NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR NOVEMBER 1992 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ADDENDUM COMMENTS AND RESPONSES LETTER 17. Greenbelt Alliance, John A. Vincent, Jr., August 1, 1992. The comments are gratefully acknowledged. IV-70 RICHMOND 18 EL CERRITO SAN PABLO KENPINCLE SINGT N MOR Of WOMER VOTHS RICHMORD HU 0 ELSOBRANTE CROCKETT RODEO August 1 , 1992 RECEIVED James Farah , Planning Director City of Richmond 2600 Barrett Avenue AUr_ 199 Richmond , CA . 94804 RICHMV- Dear Jim, PLANNING It has been a privilege to represent the League of Women 18-1 Voters , Richmond Area , on the North kichmond Specific Plan Study . Sheila Brady and Associates , Nagy Kaufman of your staff , Jim Cutler and Jerry Raycraft from Contra Costa County were able to find acceptable expression in the plan for the widely varied and positively held opinions of the committee members . The final document approved for pre!pnr4tion to the City , if adhered to , should make the North Richmond Shoreline an area of great civic pride . The B Alterntive , if adopted because of restrictions put 18-2 on uses permitted on the Breuner property , is an equally commendable 'plan , one that will provide exciting additions to the Natural Preservation Area available in the North Shore Area . Please know that Sheila Brady and Associates in cooperation with your staff have been a pleasure to work with ; and the plan we have approved for you is good . Sincerely , �. L 7 . Barbara Vincent 2500 Lowell Avenue Richmond , CA . 94804 NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR NOVEMBER 1992 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ADDENDUM COMMENTS AND RESPONSES LETTER 18. League of Women Voters Richmond Area, Barbara Vincent, August 1, 1992. Response 18-1. The comments are gratefully acknowledged. Response 18-2. The commentor's support for Alternative B is acknowledged. IV-72 19 NORRIS V, NORRIS RICHARD E. NORRIS HILLTOP OFFICE PARK TELEPHONE M. JEFFREY MICKLAS DOUGLAS C. STRAUS 3260 BLUME DRIVE. SUITE 200 15101 222-2100 CY EPSTEIN RIcnxoND, CALIFORNIA 94806-1961 COLIN J. COFFEY FACSIMILE JOSHUA G. GENSER (5101 222-5992 SUSAN K. NORRIS S. MARIE HARTSFIELD PLEASANT HILL OFFICE: BENJAMIN KLATSKY SHARON MOODY IVERSEN 3478 BUSKIRK,SUITE 1042 KARI J.OLSON July 31, 1992 PLEASANT HILL.CA 94523 MATTHEW J. WEBB s HAND DELIVERED ( JUL Jim Farah Planning Director RICHP`i-�l�y� Richmond Planning Department City Hall 2600 Barrett Avenue Richmond, CA 94804 SUBJECT: North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan Comments on Draft Plan and Draft EIR Dear Mr. Farah: We have reviewed the Draft North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan and the Draft EIR for that Plan, both dated May 1992 , on behalf of West County Landfill, Inc. ("WCL") , owner of the landfill property located in the Plan area, and Richmond Sanitary Service ("RSS") , proponent of the Integrated Resource Recovery Facility ("IRRF") project. Following are our preliminary comments on the Plan and the Draft EIR. We understand that the City ' s deadline to submit comments on 19-1 the Draft EIR is July 31 . Through an apparent oversight we did not receive the Draft EIR until July 28 . Larry Burch, the chief environmental engineer for WCL who is most familiar with closure plans for the landfill, will be reviewing the Draft EIR during the next few days; any important technical corrections he may identify will be communicated to you as quickly as possible. Our concerns and corrections apply to both the Shoreline 19-2 Plan itself and environmental review of the Plan. Revisions to the Plan appear necessary, and errors and omissions in the Draft EIR must be corrected. Information regarding the landfill operation and closure plans were fully described in the IRRF EIR dated December 1991. We are surprised to find inconsistencies between this Shoreline Plan, and details available to the City regarding landfill operations, closure plans and recycling activities. 1 Jim Farah City of Richmond July 31, 1992 Page 2 The aspects of the Shoreline Plan of concern to WCL include the following items: I. Placement of the pier, visitor facilities and trail in relation to .the nearby barge facility. 2 . Route of the trail along the southern side of the landfill, near recycling activities and the Class I site. 3 . Using vegetation other than shallow-rooted grass on the landfill, that may jeopardize integrity of the landfill cap. 4 . Preservation of the diked basin for runoff retention and as a source of water for compost processing. 5. Expectations regarding short-term recreational use of the landfill property, and misunderstanding of the recycling operation. 6. Failure to recognize the costs of some Plan proposals, and public responsibility for those costs. 7 . Routing of the "C" Street loop through existing recycling support facilities. We expect that the City and the environmental consultants will respond fully and in detail to each of the comments in this letter. Personnel from WCL and RSS will be available to discuss these matters, at your convenience. DISCUSSION 1. General. According to the Shoreline Plan, various 19-3 government agencies seek to utilize portions of the landfill property for trails, 'piers, roads, parking areas, restroom locations, landscaping, etc. This unique property will face many limitations on use after the landfill closes and recycling activities commence. Public use of this privately owned property and the extent of access remain to be negotiated. Closure activities for the Class II Landfill will take place 19-4 one to two years after the facility stops accepting waste for on- site disposal. Conditions of closure needed to protect public health and safety and the environment likely will limit \DOC\R0004035\55305 2 Jim Farah City of Richmond July 31, 1992 Page 3 subsequent public use and require postclosure monitoring and maintenance for 30 years. The potential for unrestricted public recreational use of the property is not likely for several decades. Any public use of the site will require expensive improvements not now envisioned or funded by WCL to maintain the integrity of landfill closure protections. WCL has been working with state and local agencies for a 19-5 number of years to formulate the plan for closing the landfill and conducting recycling operations (see illustration in EIR Appendix B) . Details for closure are highly technical, and the Shoreline Plan should not propose inconsistent treatment of the property. Recycling activities on the property are not intended as only interim; WCL and interested agencies expect the landfill to provide long-term services to process solid wastes in the region for recycling. (The Draft EIR acknowledges the importance of this intended use on p. IV.D-10 top. ) The Shoreline Plan should recognize that these land uses likely will continue for an extended time. Closure of the landfill is being financed by a surcharge on 19-6 ratepayers, which has been levied since 1986 and will be completely funded by 1994. The calculation of funds needed did not provide for extensive public access improvements, recreation facilities or landscaping as shown in the Shoreline Plan, or the special security measures they may force on the landfill . Imposing these expenses may trigger additional charges on area ratepayers. The Plan and its EIR should address the extra cost of proposed access easements and improvements, plus the mitigations needed to accommodate Plan elements (e.g. , trees atop the landfill) , and identify sources of public funding. The landfill property is privately owned. WCL is not 19-7 currently obligated to dedicate easements for public access areas, or construct and maintain proposed improvements, or assume the burden of added security measures needed to protect the landfill and the public. The Plan is incorrect in assuming that WCL will be maintaining public access areas (see bottom of p. 60) . The Shoreline Plan should recognize that its recommendations depend on obtaining public financing, arranging for ongoing responsibility by some agency, and securing concurrence by WCL. \DOC\R0004035\55305 3 Jim Farah City of Richmond July 31, 1992 Page 4 2 . Landfill Closure Schedule. a. Class I Site. The Class I Site will not be 19-8 officially closed in 1994 (see Plan p. 51) . Although waste has not been received since 1986, the schedule for installing closure measures has been delayed by regulatory agencies conducting plan review and decision-making. WCL now estimates completing closure in 1996 or 1997, with the long-term post-closure monitoring process beginning thereafter. b. Class II Landfill . The landfill is expected to 19-9 stop receiving refuse for disposal in 1994 . Closure of the landfill and installation of the barrier cap should be completed in 1995-.96. Wood recycling began this year . Composting activities will begin in 1992 or 1993 , and other recycling operations will be phased in thereafter. For at least 30 years, any public use of the landfill area would require substantial added improvements and security measures to protect public health and safety. 3 . Conflict with Barge Facility. The Shoreline Plan 19-10 proposes a pier on the north side of the landfill , with a parking area and restroom facility nearby. A trail would follow the shoreline westward from this area. These improvements may conflict with planned recycling facilities. A barge loading dock will be located a short distance west 19-11 of the proposed pier (see EIR Appendix B) . A conveyor will run from the dock to the landfill recycling center. Heavy trucks will travel between the dock and landfill via a haul road. A fenced area around the dock will be used for loading operations and truck movements. The Shoreline Plan' s text and maps should identify these facilities, as well as the other landfill recycling operations. (See the IRRF EIR for details of the barge dock and conveyor/road facilities. ) Barge operations may interfere with fishing from the pier 19-12 and other passive recreation uses of the area. The fenced area around the dock may limit the amount of level ground available for the proposed parking lot (see Comment No. 6) . The trail must circumvent the barge facility and safely cross. the conveyor line and haul road. The trail design also will require a bridge . immediately to the west, very close to the barge dock (see Comment. No. 5b) . \DOC\R0004035\55305 4 Jim Farah City of Richmond July 31, 1992 Page 5 4 . Recycling Operation. The Shoreline Plan incorrectly 19-13 refers to the landfill ' s use for recycling as an "Interim Use Recycling Facility" (see Plan Figure 6) . This activity is expected to be long-term and continuous. No specific ending date is proposed. Contrary to the Plan's suggestions (see p. 50) , WCL and RSS do not intend to seek an alternate site, and a "lack of demand" is unlikely. Composting and recycling will be necessary for the West County area to meet mandated State recycling goals. Agricultural operations are envisioned on parts of the landfill, to utilize organic recycled materials and accommodate local businesses that face dislocation from their current sites. The landfill postclosure plan envisions resource recovery and agricultural operations continuing for at least the full 30-year postclosure period. We believe the Shoreline Plan should realistically reflect 19-14 the resource recovery and agricultural land uses expected during the next 20-30 years. The landfill should not be described as park/open space with potential opportunities for public recreation, since such opportunities are very unlikely for many years and would require substantial public expenditures . 5 . Public Access Trail. The Shoreline Plan shows a pedestrian trail circling within the landfill property. There are several practical difficulties with this route, which are not identified in the Plan or addressed by the Draft EIR. a. As described in Comment No. 3 , the barge dock and 19-15 related facilities may affect trail location. b. Access to and along the breakwater at the western 19-16 end of the site may be problematic. At least two bridges will be required to complete the proposed loop -- one very near the barge dock. The Plan does not discuss construction of these bridges or which public agencied would have jurisdiction; the Draft EIR does not evaluate what environmental impacts may be involved. C. The landfill closure plan provides for public 19-17 access on the north side of the property, but not along the south edge (see Draft EIR Appendix B) . The Shoreline Plan ' s trail would pass very close to the Class I Site, which must be fenced off and carefully monitored for at least 30 years. WCL is concerned about children and other pedestrians lingering on the trail while adjacent to this area. Creating opportunities for \DOC\R0004035\55305 5 Jim Farah City of Richmond July 31, 1992 Page 6 vandalism and bringing people in proximity to this area should be discouraged. The Draft EIR does not address this issue. d. The proposed public access trail follows the 19-18 southern edge of the Class II Landfill area, adjacent to planned composting, recycling and agricultural operations. This route may expose trail users to noise, visual, and other impacts from these activities. WCL proposes an alternative route, with the trail following 19-19 the dike dividing Wildcat Marsh and the enclosed freshwater pond. This trail would provide better separation between the public and landfill operations. Trail users also would enjoy an improved nature experience, walking between two different habitat areas in a more serene and isolated setting. As with the Class I Site, public proximity to the southern portion of the landfill should be discouraged. Which government agency will accept responsibility for preventing vandalism or other interference with ongoing landfill activities and closure monitoring facilities, and assume liability for the increased potential for harm to the environment and the public? e. The Shoreline Plan appears to agree that public 19-20 access along the western and southern perimeters of the landfill will only occur sometime in the future "in conjunction with the site' s long-term transition to open space and park use" (p. 60) . The Draft EIR reflects this restriction on "near term recreational activities" (pp.III-17&.18) and states that "no public access or use would be permitted in proximity to the Class I facility" (p. IV.J-31) . This time frame and phasing should be acknowledged more clearly throughout the Plan, to avoid misunderstanding and erroneous expectations. 6. Public Improvements Construction. The Shoreline Plan 19-21 proposes a road along the north side of the landfill, leading to a cul-de-sac, parking area and restroom facility. The current topography of this area and technical plans for landfill closure will not accommodate these improvements without a substantial amount of fill to produce sufficient level ground. Adding extra fill depth along this edge of the landfill may require reassessment of engineering designs and slope stability to meet government regulations for closure.. The extra costs associated with grading and landfill redesign would need to be borne by the \DOC\R0004035\55305 6 Jim Farah City of Richmond July 31, 1992 Page 7 public agencies involved. The Draft EIR does not appear to address the potential impacts from this aspect of the Plan. 7 . "C" Street. A new "C" Street is proposed near the 19-22 western terminus of Parr Boulevard (see Plan p. 72) . No explanation is given for the purpose of the loop portion of this road connecting to Parr Boulevard in two places; it does not appear to be needed to provide access into the landfill area. (Perhaps it is intended to serve future development of adjoining property?) The Draft EIR does not discuss the impact on recycling operations if this portion of "C" Street is built. .The eastern loop of "C" Street crosses through the existing Interim Recycling Center. Current WCL plans are to continue using this area and the building on the site as part of the expanded recycling operation. After the nearby planned central IRRF facility is expanded to house all curbside recycling activities, the building and associated yard area will be used for maintenance of the fleet of refuse collection, long haul and recycling collection vehicles. The truck washing facility and wastewater separation systems also are located on this site . The location of "C" Street must be reconsidered. The Shoreline Plan envisions obtaining rights-of-way for "A" , "B" and "C" Streets by reservation during expected subdivision of adjoining property (see p. 114 , "Action 111) . This method will not work for development of "C" Street or the public access road onto the landfill property, given that subdivision of this area is not planned at this time. 8 . Tree Plantings. The Shoreline Plan recommends that 19-23 large trees such as poplars, cypress or pines be planted on the northern and western slopes of the landfill (see p. 97) . This is inconsistent with the current landfill closure and postclosure plans that have been filed with County and State agencies. Current plans for the general landfill closure cap provide for a total soil layer four feet in depth on top of the compacted solid wastes. This cap will consist of two feet of soil, topped by one foot of low-permeability clay, with a surface layer of one foot of soil . \DOC\R0004035\55305 7 Jim Farah City of Richmond July 31, 1992 Page 8 State regulations require landfill closures to provide a cap that will minimize rainwater infiltration over the long term and not be damaged by vegetation roots. Closure plans commonly include a condition that only shallow-rooted vegetation is allowed. Roots from trees and shrubs penetrate and crack the clay layer and allow water to enter the landfill. In most cases, State closure requirements effectively limit vegetation to shallow-rooted grass -- which serves the purpose of reducing erosion of landfill slopes. WCL must monitor and treat the landfill for 30 years to assure nothing but grass is growing. To accommodate trees on the landfill, soil depth must be sufficient to anchor the trees and the clay barrier must be .protected from root penetration. The large trees proposed by the Shoreline Plan may require a rooting depth of ten feet or more. Due to the steep slopes along the north side of the landfill, it will be difficult to provide a deeper cap suitable for growing large trees. The State will require guaranteed complete assurance that tree roots will not penetrate through the clay layer. The Draft EIR does not appear to evaluate the impacts from this recommendation of the Shoreline Plan, even though it does generally recognize that new development can disturb caps placed over hazardous materials (see p. IV.J-35) . The funds being accumulated from ratepayers for landfill closure were not calculated to provide a thicker soil layer or to install a root barrier -- if such a barrier even is feasible. If this feature of the Plan is adopted, then some public agency must be responsible for modifying the landfill cap to accommodate deeper roots. That agency also must monitor effectiveness of the root barrier and document to the State throughout the 30-year postclosure period that the clay barrier is not being breached. We suggest that all trees and shrubs be deleted from the Plan recommendations,' since under current landfill regulations and requirements the planting of such vegetation is prohibited. If the tree recommendation is pursued, any changes to the landfill closure plan will need to be approved by West County cities and the County, since the increased costs for a deeper cap and root barrier must be financed by higher disposal rates approved by those jurisdictions (or by some other public source) . \DOC\R0004035\55305 8 Jim Farah City of Richmond July 31, 1992 Page 9 9 . Marsh Restoration. The Shoreline Plan proposes 19-24 breaching the dike and restoring tidal action to the remnant of marsh located south of the landfill. This area has been kept enclosed under an agreement with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, and currently functions as an upland wetland. This pond plays two important roles in the recycling operation. Runoff carrying contaminants from the composting and wood waste areas will be collected in this basin, protecting Bay waters and the adjacent Wildcat Marsh. The ponded rain water also is needed to make compost efficiently (a function that cannot tolerate saltwater) . For now the pond should remain enclosed. 10. Noise Impacts. The Draft EIR concludes that the 19-25 concrete crushing area of the recycling facility is too close to public access areas north of the landfill, and will produce excessive noise impacts (p. IV.K-11) . The EIR then proposes two mitigation measures: move the crushing area, and limit operation to Monday through Friday (p. IV.K-18) . There is no reason to relocate this facility or limit days of operation. The Draft EIR apparently failed to adjust its noise calculations to factor in the planned topography of the landfill site. The estimate of noise levels is based on a formula for decibel reductions over a flat distance. However, the concrete crusher will sit in a valley separated from public areas by a ridge approximately 35 feet high (ridge-top elevation is 55 feet, valley floor elevation is 20 feet) . We note that the Draft 'EIR did recognize there will be an intervening ridge in its general discussion of land use compatibility (see p. IV. D-20 bottom) . This location for the concrete crusher was selected after consultation with public agencies precisely for its noise- mitigating terrain. 'Any other site in the landfill likely would cause increased noise impacts to public access users as well as off-site. 11. Technical Corrections. a. Landfill Name and Operator: The Plan (p. 126 19-26 bottom) and the EIR (p. IV.A-10) refer incorrectly to "Richmond Sanitary Services" as the landfill operator. The land is owned \DOC\R0004035\55305 9 Jim Farah City of Richmond July 31, 1992 Page 10 by West County Landfill, Inc. , and the landfill operator is West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill, Inc. The reference on Plan Figure 3 to "WCCSD" Landfill should read "WCCSL. " b. Rock Crushing Operation: The Draft EIR (p. IV.D-20 19-27 bottom) first correctly states that rock crushing would occur when a supply builds up, then inaccurately says it would be needed only once a week, and finally recognizes that the duration will be established for each event based on the supply built up. The reference to "once a week" should be deleted. Crushing activity may continue for several months at a time. C. Barge Operation: The Draft EIR (p. IV.K-10 bottom) 19-28 states that barges would be unloaded at night. While the operator will attempt to undertake most unloading at night, circumstances may require daytime operations involving loading barges and trucks and/or running the conveyor system. To minimize dredging, WCL will need to coordinate barge operations with high tides, which may the dictate hours of activity. The Shoreline Plan should accurately reflect future uses and 19-29 restrictions involving the landfill site and environs, or else it cannot serve as an effective planning tool. The EIR must fully evaluate all potential environmental impacts and constraints that . may be involved. The Plan also must respect the public policies that have been developed to manage West County solid wastes and to establish vital resource recovery processing facilities. We are prepared to discuss these matters with staff and the consultants. WCL and RSS reserve the right to make additional comments concerning the Plan and the EIR during the course of upcoming public hearings. r Very truly yours, f01 NORRIS & NORRIS , P.C. BY EDWARD L. SHAFFER cc: Dennis Varni John Williams Larry Burch \DOC\R0004035\55305 10 NOVEMBER 1992 NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ADDENDUM COMMENTS AND RESPONSES LETTER 19. Norris & Norris, representing the West County Landfill, Inc. and Richmond Sanitary Service, Edward L. Shaffer, July 31, 1992. Response 19-1. A letter from Richmond Sanitary Service commenting on the DEIR is included in this Addendum with responses. Response 19-2. Each of the issues of concern to the commentor are responded to below. See Responses 19-3 through 19-29. Response 19-3. Although the landfill site is acknowledged to be in private ownership, Contra Costa County and the City of Richmond will review landfill closure plans with the public interest in mind, due to the large public investment in landfill closure. The public use envisioned for the northern shoreline of the landfill is consistent with the proposed site plan contained in the West County Integrated Resource Recovery Plan EIR, September, 1991, which is included in Appendix B of the DEIR. The site plan (Figure B in Appendix B of the DEIR) includes an area labelled "public access area." If the Specific Plan is adopted, the City and County would require public access and public access facilities as shown in the Plan. BCDC would also require maximum feasible public access within its area of jurisdiction adjacent to the Bay shoreline. The operator/owner of the landfill would be required to design, provide and maintain public access. Response 19-4. See Response 19-3. The public use envisioned for the northern shoreline of the landfill is consistent with the proposed site plan contained in the West County Integrated Resource Recovery Plan EIR, September, 1991, which is included in Appendix B of the DEIR. The site plan (Figure B in Appendix B of the DEIR) includes an area labelled "public access area." The Specific Plan shows public access facilities that would be consistent with Plan objectives and BCDC requirements for maximum feasible public access on the San Francisco Bay shoreline. Response 19-5. See Response 19-4. Also see page 50 of the Specific Plan which refers to the length of "interim" use. Response 19-6. See Responses 19-3 and 19-4. Public access and maintenance of public access facilities will be required; specifics of the amount and type of funding for such facilities is subject to negotiations between the landowner and public agencies with regulatory authority in the area. Sources of funding for such facilities are described in Appendix C of the Specific Plan, page C-1. IV-83 NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR NOVEMBER 1992 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ADDENDUM COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response 19-7. See Responses 19-3, 19-4 and 19-6. Response 19-8. Comments are noted. The Final Specific Plan will be amended to reflect this change. Response 19-9. Comments are noted. At the time the Draft Specific Plan was prepared, the anticipated closure date was 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 being reviewed by the California Integrated Waste Management Board, and the anticipated closure date will be delayed. The final Specific Plan will be amended to reflect this change. The Specific Plan and DEIR recognize that the interim use of the landfill site may be long-term and indefinite; however, the Specific Plan's proposed land use designation of the landfill site as Parks and Open Space is consistent with City and County General Plans. At such time as the interim use ceases, the site would revert to open space. Response 19-10. The proposed site plan contained in the West County Integrated Resource Recovery Plan EIR, September, 1991, which is included in Appendix B of the DEIR, shows a public access area extending through and beyond the barge mooring site. The pier shown in the Specific Plan is about 400 feet northeast of the barge mooring site. The pier and barge facility should be designed to avoid use conflicts. Detailed design during the implementation phase of the public access project and the resource recovery facility will be reviewed by the City, County and BCDC for use compatibility. Response 19-11. See Response 19-10. None of the specific facilities associated with the proposed resource recovery project on the landfill site are shown in the Specific Plan, nor are the specific characteristics of any other proposed projects shown. The Specific Plan is a long-range land use and circulation plan, and as such is not intended to show specific projects. Response 19-12. See Response 19-10. Response 19-13. See Response 19-9. Response 19-14. See Response 19-9. Response 19-15. The specific design of the public access facilities, including; precise trail alignments and bridges at the breakwater, would be evaluated by the City, County and BCDC prior to approval of the landfill closure plan and IV-84 NOVEMBER 1992 NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ADDENDUM COMMENTS AND RESPONSES the resource recovery project. The final Specific Plan will be amended to indicate that a trail on the breakwater should be developed "if feasible." Response 19-16. As shown on the Specific Plan Land Use map and Public Access and Recreation map (Figures 5 and 6 in the DEIR), both the southern trail alignment and the northern trail alignment border the Class I landfill site. It is anticipated that the landfill closure plan will design public access as feasible to prevent health and safety hazards and vandalism. The Class I site would be fenced and/or buffered and signed. The EIR for the landfill closure plan is the appropriate vehicle for examination of this potential impact, as well as the potential impacts of bridges needed to accommodate public access. Response 19-17, See Response 19-16. Response 19-18. See Responses 19-10 and 19-16. The landfill closure plan should design public access to avoid impacts of composting, recycling and agricultural operations. Response 19-19. The Specific Plan proposes restoration of the remnant Wildcat Marsh area (referred to in the commentor's letter as the "freshwater pond") to marsh; as a restored marsh area, the dike now separating the remnant marsh could be breached, and the area merged with the Wildc.-.4' Marsh. A trail in this area would be unsuitable, and would be likely !u. adversely impact restoration efforts. See also Response 19-3. The Specific Plan, if adopted, will govern public access improvements. BCDC would require public access within its area of jurisdiction, which now follows the dike along the southern boundary of the landfill, as shown in revised Figure 12 in Chapter V of this Addendum. However, if the dike is breached to restore the marsh, the BCDC shoreline band would be in the same location as the public access proposed by the Specific Plan. Vandalism is a problem in many public access areas; the owner or operator would normally be responsible for controlling vandalism and maintaining public access facilities. In some cases, a public agency may acquire or accept management responsibility for public access facilities. Appropriate design can minimize potential for vandalism. Response 19-20. Comment noted. Response 19-21, See Responses 19-3 and 19-4. Response 19-22. The roadway alignments shown in the Circulation Plan map (Figure 6 in the DEIR) are conceptual. Precise alignments and specifications will be developed during design. C Street is intended to provide access to the IV-85 NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR NOVEMBER 1992 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ADDENDUM COMMENTS AND RESPONSES property north of Parr Boulevard in this location. The Circulation Plan map in the DEIR has been revised to indicate that roadway alignments are conceptual; actual alignments would be determined during development of specific projects. The final Specific Plan will be amended to indicate this change. The alignment of C Street on the landfill site should be evaluated as part of the proposed landfill closure plan and the resource recovery facility plan; this evaluation should consider the need to provide access to adjacent parcels as shown in the Specific Plan. Response 19-23. Comment acknowledged. The final Specific Plan will be amended to delete reference to tree and shrub planting in the public access area of the landfill. Response 19-24. See Response 19-19. Continued use of this remnant marsh area for landfill operations is subject to review prior to approval of the proposed resource recovery facility. Response 19-25. The noise analysis in the DEIR states that "the 100 foot buffer called for in the Specific Plan may not be adequate to mitigate noise from the concrete crushing facility without the use of berms, fences o ::;:. ::. noise abatement features." (pg. IV-D.11). The DEIR identifies thisoLe.C.' : significant noise impact in case the proposed design of the landfill changes a: a the concrete facility is not separated by the 35 foot ridge. The mitigation measure NOISE-6 on page IV K-18 is intended to act as a performance standard; if the noise levels do not exceed 70 dBA at public access facilities, the measure would not take effect. The second measure is revised in Chapter V of this Addendum to reflect this intent. See Chapter V of this Addendum, reference to page IV.K-10. Response 19-26. The DEIR text has been amended to reflect these corrections. See Chapter V of this Addendum, reference to page IV.A-10. The final Specific Plan text will be amended to show the changes. Response 19-27. The DEIR text has been amended to reflect this correction. See Chapter V of this Addendum, reference to page IV.D-20. Response 19-28. The DEIR text has been amended to reflect this correction. See Chapter V of this Addendum, reference to page IV.K-20. Response 19-29. See response 19-3. The FIRS for the landfill closure plan and the resource recovery project are the appropriate vehicles for examination of potential impact resulting from these activities. Neither project has yet been IV-86 NOVEMBER 1992 NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ADDENDUM COMMENTS AND RESPONSES approved by the County or the California Integrated Waste Management Board; therefore the burden of conformance and land use compatibility is equally upon the West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill, Inc. and the local agencies. The DEIR for the Specific Plan is a Program EIR, intended to evaluate general environmental impacts of the proposed Specific Plan, not the site-specific impacts of the proposed resource recovery facility or the landfill closure plan. IV-87 20 RICHMOND SANITARY SERVICE 3260 BLU ME DRIVE RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA 94806 August 3 , 1992 HAND DELIVERED Jim Farah Planning Director Richmond Planning Department City Hall 2600 Barrett Avenue Richmond, CA 94804 Subject: North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan; Comments on Draft EIR Dear Mr. Farah: We have reviewed the Draft EIR and have developed the following . comments. We did not comment on most of the items covered in the letter of July 31, 1992 sent to the City on our behalf by our legal counsel, Ed Shaffer of Norris and Norris. The comments in this letter are basically technical corrections and clarifications, however several significant comments are contained on pages 3 and 4 . The following are our comments: Figure 6 (illustration 5) : The Cul-de-Sac shown in Figure 6-5 indicates a radius of 50 20-1 feet (diameter = 100 feet) . The Cul-de-Sac is shown on Figure 6 near the northwest corner of the landfill. On the exterior of the Cul-de-Sac, trees and a sidewalk are shown that would extend the width of this development. There is insufficient width to site this planning feature at the location shown on the landfill. Some other type of road terminus would be needed. If consideration was to be given to adding more fill to provide the wider level area, the significant changes made to the final landfill topography must be understood and evaluated. The landfill is sited on bay mud. Addition of new soil fill on the site will cause settlement of the underlying mud and compression of the wastes. Such added weight must be done only after thorough engineering study of the possible displacement of the landfill' s containment barriers. The construction methods would need to assure that the integrity of the barrier and perimeter leachate extraction system are not compromised. Due to such changes of the topography, the site closure plan/postclos��u'ppr��e�� lan probably would need to be revised. The cost�A6TI TI1'&R� �gAR A 9 -IVities and the (510) ADMINISTRATION 262-1640 • ENGINEE 62-1660 ACCOUNTING 262-1680 FAX 223-1591 permit modifications would need to be borne by the public agency developing these postclosure public use facilities. Pg IV.A-10, (bottom paragraph) : The listing of agencies having jurisdiction over the Class 20-2 II facility does not include the California Integrated Waste Management Board. The plan for the Class II site closure is not "preliminary" 20-3 but is the Final Closure and Postclosure Plan. There is a significant legal distinction between a preliminary plan and a final plan. Pg IV.A-13 : The size of the runoff control pond is 78 acres rather than 20-4 69 acres. Figure 12 : The delineation of the boundary of the 100 foot wide BCDC 20-5 Shoreline Band is incorrectly shown regarding the landfill property. The. band shown along the southern edge of the Class II site is not an area subject to tidal action and hence is not within BCDC's direct jurisdiction. The band should be shown along the extreme southern edge of the West County Landfill, Inc. property, following the dike separating the pond from the marsh. Pg IV.D-9, 2nd paragraph: The listing of "California Department of Waste Management" should be the "California .Integrated Waste Management Board" . In the 3rd paragraph the reference to golf courses and 20-7 Playing fields is inappropriate. A golf course or playing fields would require irrigation of the grass grown on the landfill surface. This will not be permitted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the California Integrated Waste Management Board with the current proposed landfill cap thickness. For an outdoor amphitheater to .be sited on the northern or western edge of ,the landfill, depending upon the capacity of the theater, off-site parking would be required due to the limited space available on the landfill. Such parking is not now contemplated in the Shoreline Specific Plan. The configuration of such an amphitheater has not been stated in the Shoreline Specific Plan. If significant topographical changes would be needed on the landfill (e.g. adding fill material, excavating waste material, etc. ) then changes to the Closure and Postclosure Plans would be needed. As commented for Figure 6-5 above, the extra costs would be borne by the theater project proponent. Such a development 2 would need to specifically assure that there would be no interference with the landfill gas control system and the landfill cap. Pg IV.D. 10 (top) : The reference to the "Marsh Creek" (name should be "Marsh 20-8 Canyon") landfill as an approved landfill is not correct. That site is yet to be approved for operation by several agencies having jurisdiction. Figure 26: This figure indicates sites in the area which have had 20-9 hazardous wastes or .materials, located on them. The map shows the designation No. 38 as the landfill area. If this is a correct map identification, thenthe text is incorrect on Pg IV.J-28 that indicates No. 38 as referring to the Bay Cities Refuse Company, which has no affiliation with the landfill. Note, on Pg IV.J-31 the text correctly indicates Site 38 to be the landfill. Pg IV.J-22 : Item No. 23 refers to the Richmond Sanitary Service 20-10 Corporation Yard and the West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill. A distinction should be made in this paragraph to show the landfill is not owned or operated by RSS. Pg IV.K-10, last paragraph: The asphalt, concrete and wood shredding areas are indicated20-11 to be processed on a quarterly basis. The asphalt and wood would be processed year-round whereas the concrete debris would be processed probably only during one quarter of the year. Dike-Top Trails: Maintenance grading must be performed, on the levees. These 20-12 structures are founded on bay mud and experience slow settlement. Periodically the levee tops must be raised to maintain the levees above the high water level of the adjacent water bodies. During this maintenance work public access would be curtailed and any improvements may be damaged or buried. Interim Transfer Station: Recycling activities are mentioned in many places in the 20-13 draft EIR. These are referred to as including composting, wood waste shredding, asphalt crushing, concrete debris crushing and soil reclamation. Now that the final decisions are about to be made on the Integrated Resource Recovery Facility (IRRF) and the schedule of construction of that facility is better known, there appears to be good probability that the landfill will not have sufficient capacity to remain fully open for waste disposal 3 (landfilling) until the IRRF is ready for use. The representatives of RSS, WCCSL and the West County Solid Waste Management Authority are discussing the temporary use of the wood waste processing area to serve as an interim transfer station for the period of time between when the landfill capacity is exhausted and the IRRF is operational. The Shoreline Plan Draft EIR should indicate this planned short-term interim transfer station operation. The environmental impacts of this temporary operation are anticipated to be similar to the existing landfill, and in most cases are believed to be even of less significance. Indication of the environmental factors can be gotten by reviewing the EIR that was prepared for the Acme Fill Landfill Interim Transfer Station Project in central Contra Costa County. The date of the transfer station operation on the WCCSL has not been accurately forecast, however it probably would be during the 1994 year. The Specific Shoreline Plan should also identify the interim transfer station operation as a potential short-term use of a portion of the landfill. Repair of Earthquake Damage: The landfill owner is required by the Regional Water Quality 20-14 Control Board to evaluate the potential for releases of wastes or their derivatives off site. One of the scenarios evaluated has been the physical response of the site pollution control structures during a severe earthquake. The WCCSL geotechnical consultants are estimating that the most probable magnitude earthquake will cause significant movement at the edge of the landfill in many locations. The public access and recreation facilities being considered for development on the landfill after closure must anticipate the possible damage or destruction of those facilities (e.g. roads, sewer lines, water lines, structures) . WCCSL first is concerned over the design of water lines and sewers that may be included in the public facility developments and how they will be monitored and maintained to be leak free. Further details are needed in that regard. The Draft EIR does not indicate those possible environmental impacts such as ,water line leaks creating additional landfill leachate and explosive landfill gas migration along the below ground utilities. Secondly, the WCCSL is funding a program that will replace or repair portions of the lateral containment barrier along the perimeter of the landfill after the severe earthquake occurrence. The WCCSL will not be responsible for paying the costs for tearing up roads, water lines, sewers, etc. to do the lateral barrier repair, nor the costs for replacing the public use affiliated site features. The public 4 agencies authorizing and approving such postclosure features must accept the risk of placing these non-landfill environmental control improvements on the landfill property in such a sensitive location. They must assume the burden of paying for the post-earthquake reconstruction, repair or replacement costs of the public use facilities. We are prepared to discuss these comments with your staff and the consultants. I can be contacted at 262-1660. Sincerely, RICHMOND SANITARY SERVICE e0o" A"2-ow Larry Burch, P.E. Director of Environmental Management cc: Dennis Varni John Williams Ed Shaffer 5 NOVEMBER 1992 NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ADDENDUM COMMENTS AND RESPONSES LETTER 20. Richmond Sanitary Service, Larry Burch, Director of Environmental Management, August 3, 1992. Response 20-1. See Responses 19-3, 19-22 and 19-23. Response 20-2. The DEIR text has been amended to reflect this correction. See Chapter V of this Addendum, reference page IV.A-10. Response 20-3. The DEIR text has been amended to reflect this correction. See Chapter V of this Addendum, reference page IV.A-10 Response 20-4. The DEIR text has been amended to reflect this correction. See Chapter V of this Addendum, reference page IV.A-13. Response 20-5. The jurisdiction shown on Figure 12 was provided by BCDC, in 1989; however, this jurisdiction line is inaccurate, and should be shown along the south boundary of the marsh remnant, along the dike. Figure 12 in the DEIR has been revised to show this correction. Although this marsh remnant may not at the present time be subject to tidal action, this is the area of historic tidal action, and, if the proposed restoration of this marsh remnant occurs as proposed by the Specific Plan, would be again. Response 20-6. The DEIR text has been amended to reflect this correction. See Chapter V of this Addendum, reference page IV.D-9. Response 20-7. Wording of this paragraph is revised to reflect these corrections. See Chapter V of this Addendum, reference IV.D-9. These uses are those allowed by zoning code within the Parks and Open Space land use designations within the City. An amphitheater is not anticipated at this location by the Specific Plan. Response 20-8. The DEIR text has been amended to reflect this correction. See Chapter V of this Addendum, reference page IV.D-10. Response 20-9. The DEIR text has been amended to reflect this correction. See Chapter V of this Addendum, reference page IV.J-28-29. Response 20-10. The DEIR text has been amended to reflect this correction. See Chapter V of this Addendum, reference page IV.J-22. IV-93 NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR NOVEMBER 1992 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ADDENDUM COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response 20-11. The DEIR text has been amended to reflect this correction. _ See Chapter V of this Addendum, reference page NX-10. Response 20-12. The West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill, Inc. would be responsible for maintaining public access facilities on the levees, even though periodic maintenance of the levees may temporarily close them to public access. Response 20-13. The DEIR is amended to include reference to a possible Interim Transfer Station. See Chapter V of this Addendum, reference page IV.A-13. This is a program-level EIR and proposals for specific projects such as an Interim Transfer Station would be subject to a separate EIR, the appropriate vehicle for evaluating its environmental impacts. Response 20-14. See Response 19-3. i IV-94 21 West County Legal Defense Find 1215 Roosevelt Avenue Richmond, California 94801 �.. . . . - 31 July 1992 t R L Mr. Jim Farah, Planning Director E JUL 3 t 1992 City of Richmond RICHMOND 2600 Barrett Avenue PLANNING oEPA�pAAfiME1iiT Richmond, California 94804 ' Dear Mr. Farah: We wish to comment on the environmental impact report for the North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan (SCH # 91063030). In general, the EIR fails to adequately assess the impacts of the proposed Alternative "B" that is 21-1 referred to as the "Mitigated Plan Concept". We are concerned about the failure to fully address the impacts for what may actually be the only feasible alternative. The project proposal for the proposed plan is extensively studied yet their is reason to believe that this plan will not receive the necessary permits from the California State Department of Fish and Game. This is alluded to in the EIR and, therefore, brings into question the use of this plan as the project proposal. We recommend that the "Mitigated Plan Concept" be fully studied as the true, feasible, project 21-2 alternative. In addition, we believe that the landfill access road that is proposed for the northern margin of 21- 3 the West County Landfill would best serve the public as a pedestrian-bicycle trail. Permitting vehicles to drive to a small cul-de-sac presents potential problems regarding parking, illegal dumping, and security. Restricting vehicle access to this road should also be considered in order to reduce conflicts with shoreline uses by the public and to eliminate vehicle noise. Thank you for your attention to our concerns. -Sincerely_,-_ X/ Mark Mason NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR NOVEMBER 1992 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ADDENDUM COMMENTS AND RESPONSES LETTER 21. West County Legal Defense Fund, Mark Mason, July 31, 1992. Response 21-1.. The impacts of Alternative B, which are less than those of the proposed Specific Plan, are fully described in the assessment of impacts for the Specific Plan. The differences between the proposed Specific Plan and Alternative B are described in page V-10 through V-19 of the DEIR. Impacts from the proposed Plan would be reduced with Alternative B for traffic, air quality, noise, biological resources, visual resources, and municipal services. Response 21-2. On page II-3 of the DEIR, Alternative B is identified as the environmentally superior alternative. Response 21-3. Comment acknowledged. The road along the northern boundary of the landfill is intended to provide maximum public access to the shoreline. Although vehicle use can bring with it the problems identified by the commentor, the absence of such a road in a large public access area can also result in safety and emergency access problems. IV-96 Chapter V REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR This chapter includes revisions to the Draft EIR (DEIR). The revised summary table, showing impacts and mitigation measures with incorporated changes, is shown in Chapter II of this Addendum. This chapter does not include changes to this table. Revisions respond to comments on the DEIR and requests for additional information or clarification from County staff, other agencies and the public during the EIR review period. The comments and their responses are contained in Chapter IV. In this chapter, shaded type represents new or revised text. &Fikeeut type indicates text that is deleted from the draft EIR. V-1 NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR NOVEMBER 1992 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ADDENDUM REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR LAND USE, PAGE MA-10 C. Sanitary Landfill Closure. Although it is still operating, the West County Sanitary Landfill will reach its approved capacity at current rates of deposit between December 1993 and June 1994. , the 'V ±P E s oziEx t lwi7 t ;aa ti "':' tr ci ':"' operator--&- of the landfill aye is required by law to prepare closure plans as facilities near capacity. The landfill contains two different facilities for which plans must be completed: a Class I facility for toxic wastes and a Class II facility for municipal wastes. At present, the Class I facility has reached capacity and is no longer accepting waste. A closure plan is being developed for the 28-acre Class I facility. The plan must be approved by the State Department of Health Services and the Environmental Protection Agency, and an environmental impact report prepared prior to actual closure of the facility. The current schedule calls for final closure of the Class I facility in 1994. The closure plan for the Class I facility calls for it to remain as open space, but because of toxicity issues the area will be fenced, monitored and inaccessible for public use for 30 to 50 years. A similar process will be completed for the municipal landfill as it reaches capacity. The agencies with jurisdiction over the closure and interim use of the Class II facility are the State Department of Health Services, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the County Health Department 6 d th ................... ................. T'te...`a'te.d'W' f' ° ': i e" ""`'t;; ` 8rd. Richmond Sanitary Service has prepared a pr-el�-y ft l closure plan for the 160-acre Class II facility. An EIR has been prepared for a proposal to use approximately 60 acres of the Class II portion of the landfill as part of an integrated resource recovery facility (IRRF), also referred to as a "recycling center". This facility would comply with State and County solid waste management goals. It would provide recycling for 25 percent of the materials brought in and transfer the other 75 percent to appropriate landfills. This proposal includes a Central Facility, including materials recovery, transfer station, public buyback center, and an optional hazardous household waste collection facility . . . LAND USE, PAGE MA-13 Current plans for this facility show public access/open space area, in compliance with BCDC requirements for public access, located in the northern portion of the landfill to take advantage of the bay shoreline. (See Figure B in Appendix B.) No specific uses have been considered for the public access/ open space area at this point although, at a minimum, the area would probably have a trail system along the shoreline for hiking and fishing. Plans also V-2 gg V b R S P � v U pg zZM 10 LC P V It 7717 �•` '`,.. �_, �,��'. `� _a � .��; �-� �''�- ��-`.. Jam_ 111•❖%%% � �`.. , 4Ji; •Z,��• i:;, mom.,,: ., �. fV y 11S.•�•• �_t_.-i '••DH t�tl•:4 uaPy°D. ' � ��. f t{ r:-- - I t p •� " G o S s 9 Z u r N g ^V {}} r t C4 v ,- Y@ U. h l y.F� 14 ter. 'f�,,� �•:l,/�JJ�f •. ,� �'u�� �\ ��� �yu`� ` ly fl �w y , > %`•�/lid;;' �i�f NOVEMBER 1992 NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ADDENDUM REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR indicate that all IRRF facilities would be on the south side of the landfill with the exception of a barge transportation program. The barge transportation program is designed to haul specific wastes to and finished products from the landfill IRRF operations via the San Francisco/San Pablo Bay water transportation network. An existing barge-mooring area located at the extreme northwest corner of the landfill site would be-used in the proposed barge transportation program. A remnant of Wildcat Marsh, approximately 69 71,.. acres, is contained within the southern boundary of the landfill property. This area has been identified on the proposed IRRF plan as a runoff control pond for the composting facilities. Although the IRRF is referred to by the County as an "interim use", and shown as such on the Specific Plan Land Use Map, the life of the facility is indefinite, and its termination would depend upon factors such as availability of an alternative site and lack of demand for its recycling operations. At :::tt�fi xtr�a>txan ler:::statro i'h ciiS.C. l` s::a::> cissi le. use n::a apt:v p... . ....................................................... . ............................................................ ................. ... . .............. ade: LAND USE, PAGE IV.A-35 - 36 (3) Bay Conservation and Development Commission. The California Legislature created the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) in response to concerns over the filling of San Francisco Bay. BCDC regulates development in and adjacent to the bay. Specifically, the BCDC regulates development in: • Areas of San Francisco Bay subject to tidal action, that is, " to the line of highest tidal action since 1965 when the BCDC was formed. In the Richmond area, this line is about six feet -ah-eve Mean sea level. NV:DG • The 100-foot wide shoreline band inland from the line of highest tidal action, • Saltaa1 s 5d5, managed wetlands, and �t cert'ai waterways. The Bay Plan itself contains plan objectives, findings and policies on a number of issue areas, implementation measures, and a set of plan maps applying the plan's policies. The plan has two objectives: • Protect the Bay as a great natural resource for the benefit of present and future generations. V-5 NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR NOVEMBER 1992 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ADDENDUM REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR • Develop the Bay and its shoreline to their highest potential with a minimum of Bay filling. The maps in the Bay Plan designate areas along and within the bay either for priority uses or for other uses. Priority uses include tidal Fnaffih@S, saitpeads and maRaged , airports, port facilities, water-related industry, wildlife areas, and waterfront park or beach. Development within these priority use areas (and within the 100-foot shoreline band) must be consistent with the policies of the Bay Plan for those priority uses. Outside of the priority use boundaries, the BCDC may deny a permit only where the project fails to provide the maximum possible public access to the bay and shoreline consistent with the character of the proposed project. ' 'lepriaussia<l;ctz .a;114 .: l.l:;ui: u;:.;: ::urs «<.;:d` tit'':' <:a be < 'f Ion ter reY ed uses an .a y ° m : r LAND USE, PAGE MA-37 (5) State Lands Commission. The State Lands Commi dict on oionhasJrisf>th lands. The . .. ; e ssavea<et >nterests 6F:.h�:�ta:t in>the»tidal>and/c�z':r vt able wafers>af the ... . .... w T1s�urtsdlct��n tnctuti the gdullni$€ratlpn cif sh erelgn 1 n s o n ,.:..;::e.: ; '..>;:<.: ...: t': st.eas me € ..... .. .. . o€hez.lands Ohl h axe spbJec€ to.....puhllc...xu:........ ::::... :�. athflti:: ori ['in<fe >. ''< `rsvafe The State retains fee ownership to much of the tidal and submerged land it was granted at Statehood. The State holds all of these lands for the benefit of all the people of the State. For lands that the State owns in fee, the use of the land must be consistent with the public trust, namely, the land must be used for maritime related commerce, navigation, fisheries, water oriented recreation, or open space. The use of these lands requires a State Lands Commission permit. T1':Staterap Man .............k .. .. a>trmattvel >ereicise::tts>rr is>tQliar>inconststerit>: rtvat :;;usesortc :tise ..... .. ........ evQte;tla ";zo"e ta; trate;; i<tisfi'uss When the Commission is notified of a project on lands where the State retains or may retain a public trust easement, the Commission reviews the proposed development to ensure that the proposed use is not inconsistent with the public trust. Although the approved use need not be limited to those allowed on State lands, it cannot be incompatible with them. V-6 NOVEMBER 1992 NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ADDENDUM REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR The State of California still owns in fee several properties within the Plan area. The State Lands Commission leases land to the EBRPD for the Point Pinole Regional Shoreline. The State Lands Commission has made a preliminary determination of which parcels within the Plan area have a public trust easement on them. These parcels are shown in Figure 12. wt ;.::::i:.,:::,,::.: t::;.;, >:<.;: ,,>:.;:.: :..:::.;,. c »' �.......,,;:<:e:dried h Qtho part prls t�f h Land wtthtn#hte See...R.Platt ,ere tn. i . . .< . t 1n :..t ;:a'1 '> ::::: �,:.::., .,::.;;..;.a �,.,...;:;. ,, u, <. t t1 1e it# .4� an ��. .. ..::: ...::.;.:::.::....... :5 p�Cec..v.:e::::....�m $S rtu�g>P..:::..tc tt us iterest wtthtrt these lands.by he:hc;'1c1.ltd to Summa Cvt�ol*a Inn . tate : ..4 °:; l S<19$>:. 'h ::r lat=:La na ate:over.s�lch lan:ds<remarns to>:the :>:.::::::::.::::... ..:........:::.::.::..: .:...::::::.::::.::...:.......:::::::...:::::::::::::.:::::::. ....... . tien> t of they re�ovred by watez v sul fictelzt depth f�xz navtatton by ,.... it. ... .::::..... ..:..:.. sm. �ifti b > > Other.at d : tii r :th'e aiib'ee ai a:1 e'with ii:: aterits'frorri tlie<State'of , ::s,..t: , cli:i. : :::::...:.. ::::.::.:.p :::;:;.:; swamp a d v erfl ..<ed Lands "These and:s.are free of sovereign interest to the extent t:;,at they re to £act,swamp and,flverffowed lands abo a the ord>nary lxigh watei mazk. Sizcll iancls ne.ma subject tv a public txust easement fo`the xt nt that they„ware,art f$ct, 11>stprlcally ..idelands between`Elie high a''d low vater:;mar ;:;«I'h . rema}n<;sevri n;>:£e ;:tncl :tn;the;extentthat:;;the ;:;included .: .:.:::...:. ......... ... ..... y . l >:: s'ti logit>';t >:;.. >>.f...fi.A> k 7 ;. :.::: Qzte area wi. to the.;Spec� c Plan was subjeefi>to a,t>tJe settlement ..... ...:::::..:......,::...:::::............:.::................::::...:.........:..,.,...:.:..:..:..<.;.:::.:<..........::.<.:::.:...:.:::::..:....:...::......::.:........:... eement;amon th :;:51 C<<the::Gt ;>t 1:l tcbmond<:and:the;; IC pond ani.ta ..................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... trtet;:>:'t'hie eemertt'::dated>Imber: >;:;19g ranfs;:>adminlstratjon;of z.. .. ....... ...... ln'nds:e-:firmed as soverei' to tl 'e Cit ..G >le.MOM (6) California Regional Water Quality Control Board. The California State Water Resources Control Board and its nine regional water quality control boards review and regulate activities that affect water quality in California. The Regional Water Quality Control Board for the San Francisco Bay Region is responsible for regulating dredging, shoreline modification, discharge of waste to the surface waters of the state, and pollution prevention. The Be afd Sts'fi......ter;Resau::rEes;C :rtrti'( Boal rantspermits for ...A....................::: .........::.:::::........::::::::.......::::::::::::..::...:.::. both point and non-point pollution discharges. Point discharges, such as sewage treatment plant and industrial waste outfalls, as well as non-point pollution discharges, such as dredging and stormwater runoff, are granted under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Permit System (NPDES). Permits are required for discharges associated with industrial activities and construction activities on sites affecting more than five acres. Areas which are separate from industrial activities, including office buildings and parking lots, V-7 NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR NOVEMBER 1992 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ADDENDUM REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR are excluded from permit requirements if the drainage is not mixed with drainage from industrial areas. `]i'h Rtrgiz .....1 D� rd itntz t�ertt>y that a U Army Carps of Engineers permst tit:> 4ilrt 1:: rttl ;:ice€er> va[i s:€aridris;or:.tivat�ve°suchcertiflca'tion;;:tf nit P: ;::..;:.; ::::.... .::::::.:::.:::::::: :::::::::::::::::. :::::.::::::: eetta Gatto :cai ° e:. ran ecl<: r exueeC :>If:tyvri:or` ore acres.cif b;;:::.g.:::..:::::::;;:::::::.::::::::::::::::::.< ::::: :: < . 8:>e.:.t `.;. :,:.. .::.. >:,.:.:>:.>,;;::.;::;::; "`vc :<. :.».:„, ..... a:...e `atria] etl ids:m..:<... .::. ..:<:.:.r ,ct,�to u1uS :;UI✓::::..ted qn by..1�. :R gl ...... .... ... ...:;::......:............: 48Td LAND USE, PAGE IV.A-49 The proposed Plan would be inconsistent with some policies of the Richmond General Plan. The proposed Plan would allow filling of some wetlands, contrary to a policy in the Open Space and Conservation Element.. However, the Specific Plan would iHsFease and consolidate the overall wetland acreage within the Plan area, and would provide protections i of`:oche:z.ne ay it:able for :......:.:.::,...........: the wetland areas. LAND USE, PAGE IV.A-55 (6) Relationship to State, Federal and Regional Agencies. (a) East Bay Regional Park District. The proposed Plan would provide a north-south trail as called for in the District's Master Plan, although the exact alignment of the trails would be different from th* tr e;schetr a:tic ait..... a tatzc rx shown in the District's Regional Parkland and Trails Man. As shown in Figure 8 of this EIR, the District's proposed trail would connect to Point Pinole, traversing the Giant Marsh wetland area. Although this proposed trail alignment was considered during the development of the Specific Plan, it was rejected due to its potential impacts on the sensitive wetland habitat. The wetlands at the mouth of San Pablo Creek are designated Natural Conservation under the proposed Plan. This is consistent with the designation of this area as a potential Regional Shoreline site in the District's Master Plan. LAND USE, PAGE IV.A-56 . . . Sanitary Landfill site, which is designated in the Bay Plan as waterfront beach or ark. e'>':'o`':` ` ;:1 teri 'us i ;the andfill<asia rec c.11n: Tacili.l:. ( )P PP ;+fit;;::.::.:;;;: . 3>; : 5: ; : Y V-8 NOVEMBER 1992 NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ADDENDUM REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR Incohm t :s: ark:;:; rel riE. ;>:tse:ies:� natlans The proposed «. ..:..:...:.:: .:::..:.::F:.... . g .:. P P Specific Plan designations of Parks and Open Space, and Public Access Corridor are consistent with the BCDC designation. TRAFFIC, ACCESS AND CIRCULATION, PAGE IV.0-16 Implementation of this measure would only partially reduce the significant impact. At this level of development, the Richmond Parkway/Goodrick Avenue intersection would still operate +bnacceptably at LOS F during the PM peak hour. This would be a significant adverse impact. INFRASTRUCTURE AND MUNICIPAL SERVICES, PAGE IV.D-6 f. Schools. The Richmond Unified School District serves the cities of Richmond, San Pablo, Hercules, El Cerrito, Pinole, El Sobrante and Kensington. The district does not provide bussing for schoolchildren, with the exception of special education students. , Basd:<l .;::purrentenrollent:there;;as;;.s .ace ;availabte at :::.;.... .:. p Me riita vs >Cres i< ntl:; eAi iza: He wev...er D"Ai za t h:Scheia:i andCres r ::.::..:::.:.::.::.:..... . :. ...:::: P. . I�gh:h..aft:.:.::.::secus,Drab ems regaTdlrtg pedes clan acc ss, slfe circ. anon, ....:::.... . . W...... rI t af�i prtyblems dui t student grC�wth. tis ngt recommended;to pard the sites ritil`€h...:eircula-tIon b le 51,are m,ttgated. INFRASTRUCTURE AND MUNICIPAL SERVICES, PAGE IV.D-9 The Class II municipal landfill, which will be closed in 1994, will be monitored when it reaches capacity. The agencies with jurisdiction over the closure of the Class II facility are the California I.re:�rated Waste Management:Bt" the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the County Health Department. The closure plan for the Class II facility is currently under review. The closure plan includes public access along the northern perimeter of the landfill site, a revegetated buffer area and a recycling operation. 8 Cate Burkhardt, Facilities Specialist, Richmond Unified School District, personal communication, November 15, 1991. V-9 NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR NOVEMBER 1992 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ADDENDUM REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR The Specific Plan designates the Class II portion of the landfill site as open space and park land, with recycling operations (described below) acceptable as an interim use. Park and open space uses will eruld include a pedestrian/ bicycle trail, pedestrian pier, and pessibl ,.playing fields. a-PA INFRASTRUCTURE AND MUNICIPAL SERVICES, PAGE IV.D-10 Resource recovery from the IRRF would be expected to divert 25 percent of the service area's non-toxic, municipal waste from landfills by 1995.12 This will serve a critical role in reducing the waste stream in the County and in reducing disposal at the County's two new appfeWd :glararie i landfills, Keller ................... and Marsh Geeltipon. Keller Landfill is expected to be operational in Spring-1992, prior to the closure of the West County Landfill. The Marsh C- eelE canyon site has not yet received its Section 404 permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. This permit is issued under Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 that regulates filling of any water in the United States.13 j. Parks and Open Space. The Plan area contains approximately 25 acres of recreational land and another 192 acres of marshlands. (1) East Bay Regional Park District Land. Part of the 2,147 acre Point Pinole Regional Shoreline Park, which is owned and operated by the East Bay Regional Park District, is included in the Natural Conservation designation of the Plan. The park provides primarily passive recreation opportunities in a natural setting, with scenic views of the north bay, high quality salt marsh habitat, and a stopover point for migrating water fowl. Principal user activities in the park are fishing, picnicking, hiking, jogging, nature study, bicycling, and horseback riding. Giant Marsh, the crescent shaped wetland located in the northern section of the Plan area, part of which is in Point Pinole Regional Park, is not used for active recreation. The area is below the tideline much of the time, with water extending east to the base of the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way. The 12West County Integrated Resource Recovery Facility DEIR, Page 5-1, September 1991, Contra Costa County. 13Sarah Hoffman, Solid Waste Manager, Contra Costa County Community Development Department, personal communication, December 4, 1991. V-10 NOVEMBER 1992 NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ADDENDUM REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR wetland area separates the Plan area from the more active portions of Point Pinole Park which extends north from the Plan area. The EBRPD Master Plan lists the North Richmond wetlands as a potential regional shoreline park site.. These A-vefl-ands- awe net GleaF15' leGated an the EBRPD MasteF Plan Map, bUt PFObably aFe The marshes located at the mouth of San Pablo Creek and pessibly R-9-h-em: 400efl-ands aleng er- fleaF thO N SheF elille d. ..... RR h d ............. ku na ....... .... .......... B"...... . ................ ... r . "... .. ' . h ......... -an. M- Flapper.. Rr.y.TaUS:T ` h . . . n q,�i'akq:uisftJ,6 d In A* I 94A n.an "d and 19. ....... ... ............. e.......... .... a...e "bl" a u ffi't"tha"g,`:,e::,:M,:,:6- f �0-f:1" �ft �. ft" J.ff Other shoreline areas owned by the EBRPD include Miller/Knox, Brooks Island, and Point Isabel Regional Shorelines south of the Plan area along Richmond's southern shore and the San Pablo Bay Regional Shoreline to the north of the Plan area. INFRASTRUCTURE AND MUNICIPAL SERVICES, PAGE IV.D-20 Recycling activities at the landfill site may adversely affect future public access adjacent to and on the landfill site as proposed by the Specific Plan. The concrete crushing area, proposed as part of the Integrated Resource Recovery Facility, could be within 500 feet of proposed public access according to conceptual plans for the site's recycling center, although it would be separated by an existing landfill ridge up to 50 feet in height. Noise generated by the crushing of concrete may exceed 70 dBA, thereby exceeding noise standards for parks at this distance. The portable rock crusher would be brought to the site when the supply of large concrete demolition and debris builds up. When rock crushing operations start,.the applicant expects it would be needed enly ear.@ a week-,� would operate between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m,, Monday through Saturday. The duration of processing operations would be ... BIOTIC FACTORS, PAGE IV.G-17 Impact BIO-6: Dogs on public access trails can adversely impact wildlife through predation and disturbance due to introduction of public access adjacent to undeveloped wetland and upland areas. Mitigation Measure BIO-6: Leashes for dogs should be required on all public access trails. Compliance would be voluntary since it is unlikely s. that there would be regular patrol of trails. Si should beinstalled : t :e V-11 NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR NOVEMBER 1992 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ADDENDUM REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR ;t e:<tt-zitls::s c <:t a do: sate:allowed:withoufi:Leashes ind :...... ......................................................:..:..:.:.:............... ............ ..... .... d ung:th : este w,'ld] specs :.cr.�n th re m :; : evelartt::;fled:;rrrtral;:lrn:.rorrr; n€ r<:az'<d;shor+rin ...........::. taat >>: xo:eets: ouid::tin .a1<`iri tii ::ve etaite::s `ectes::;and<:habttat;valtae ::.::.::...: ::.:..::..:.I:::.:::.:.:.::. :::::::. ..::::::::::::::::....:.::::. .::::::::.::::::,:::<.P.::::.: ......... ... ..:.:..:::.:.........7?::.:..::::::.:.:...::.:.:.::.::::::..:::::.::::::::::: .:::::::::::: .:::::::::.::::.::.::.:::::::.:::...::::::::.......::::::::. .....: f a ..F¢ri asuFr✓8 ;.... equ> lagtartcal and w]]dLfe slarveys as :.� : .;::::.;: .d ;:>f€ fit v rmnta: ,,. .;_:; oF.th Richman .:...:::::::..n..I::..:;..............::.i:: .:::::: :ro h.;:.; :aa*kira ::::ani men '>. r>ait�ica�l:surue should be:: nducted:u ;>:a.manner. .....:..:.... .......... f� h4`0: mutde to ess>sitvb :Dea0s HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, PAGE IV.J-5 (6) California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The project site is located within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. The RWQCB is authorized by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to enforce the provisions of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969 and the CCR, Title 26, Division 23, Subchapter 10, pertaining to underground storage tanks. Under the Porter Cologne Act, the RWQCB has the authority to require soils; Wdirt<and groundwater investigation and remediation if evidence suggests that the quality of groundwater or surface waters of the state are threatened. The clean-up standards employed by the RWQCB can be more stringent than those used by EPA or DHS based upon regional or site-specific conditions. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, PAGE IV.J-16 (15) Erickson Inc. (Subarea Q. Erickson is a hazardous waste hauler and management contractor. 'r'teFacil`t 'aace'ts:er `"t` '.asoline:tanks`for pciiiY Three underground storage tanks were tested at this site on March 18 and 19, 1985, and two were found to leak. The 8,000-gallon regular leaded tank was losing approximately 0.86 gallons per hour and the 10,000-gallon diesel could not be tested because of excessive leakage. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, PAGE IV.J-17 (16) FMC Corporation (Subarea C). The Agricultural Chemical Group of FMC Corporation is a pesticide formulation plant located just east-e€ V-12 NOVEMBER 1992 NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ADDENDUM REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR L.o Plan r o T uvh r+e:Parr)i3oulevard crosses the Soutliezti: %.' ':tc:tracks�to he s:E; l't2e:1'li a'ee' Waste streams at the FMC laboratories reported in 1985 included chlorinated solvents, flammable solvents, inorganic acids (pH <2), and labpacks. Metals used in pesticide formulation as identified by FMC include arsenic, copper, zinc and lead. Radioactive biological wastes were disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations, according to the hazardous waste generator inspection report dated May 29, 1985. Studies conducted by FMC during the period 1979 through 1981 indicated that the soils and shallow groundwater contained ar i op os l}vr s;at,cS vz a ckflvf ne pesticides (including Aldrin, Lindane, Chlordane, DDT, DDD, DDE, Dichlone, Toxaphene, Heptachlor, Dieldrin, Thiodan, DBCP, PCNB, Ethion, Malathion, Parathion, DNBP, and Carbaryl), some heavy metals (arsenic, copper, lead, and zinc) and petroleum oil. Shallow groundwater containing pesticides is known to have migrated into the southeast corner of the Plan area. In addition, a DHS letter dated August 25, 1988 states that site soils have also been contaminated with total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), but no determination of TPH in groundwater has been made at the site. Pentachlorophenol has been found in soils and groundwater at the site nearby an area that was used for burning site waste. DHS required FMC to install a t T:o=. ��h thick asphalt cap pvet'.s;;ia�hes::of «:««<:.::..:.: .:.:................ . .............. aser4ck as the remediation action for this site. The cap was constructed in li ly 1991, cert lied n''ft.]94 2 and will be subject to on-going maintenance ....... ..:::.::.:.:::.; ;........:....::::... and monitoring. The Long-Term Groundwater Monitoring and Cap Maintenance Plan, submitted to DHS in July 1991, outlines the . . . HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, PAGE IV.J-22 (23) Richmond Sanitary Service (Subarea C). Richmond Sanitary Service is located at the end of Garden Tract Road, and is a solid waste collection vehicle maintenance yard whish -ef of the West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill. Hazardous wastes on the site include petroleum hydrocar- bons from truck operations and underground storage tanks. Two years ago the d s lan f'll t elf Q;<:;:>:. % :..;<:;::::::>:.:;<.::.:. .,<>,: .:,:>;. .-01.;t: ;':.:.:. .,.:. 1 t , caned d operated by West C4 tra Costa taguAry Landfill; lb"6..'. was discovered to be leaking toxic contaminants into San Pablo Creek. A new slurry wall with monitoring wells and sensors was installed to correct the leak. V-13 NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR NOVEMBER 1992 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ADDENDUM REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, PAGE IV.J-24 - 25 A Draft Remedial Action Plan (RAP) for tl}is Elie:.' ooper GY`einicI site was released by DHS in May 1991. This Plan identified containment of the remaining heavy metals to be the goal of the remediation effort for this site. , With 'AV;', kInd Use and existing site uses, teGhReleg�' types, and . to the site and gFaded. An eighteen p=vpvrcT io-rc&tFiGt6E1 €6r light ifiduFAFi l OF OF deyeleppffle t enly. 1 r-eqUi-78d.10 11 T11 :;Ie artme .t ,,;;;::<,,.;<;<;:;. ,:;,>.:<:;:�:�:';f ::.''t.:>e for.. hls � :.::: :.;: „ ,>s,,ct�rrentl :re: .:w:n ;.:h::::R�::.:.:: :..;;.:: ::..: : :. :.:. redaldslgn is expected tc urvalve a containment cap. As 0` i1992e ; #fie features o£that cap have'rie menetetmLl�ed. Tlae cep wi]1 be designed :;::;vv ':,'„: ..:;.: «.;.: ,.: ;... '.".'>'`. '.'<::: ;:" b :`<v '`1'abl.e::ti Via;Vie:-o wAt bie:..:�t he:. utu e:f ed:.use<.:.;: 'he:Ftna�.;.R.Ap:vv�ll :e:a.: i f e;:: .....;... :;>:.::.>,..::.;:.;;:.,:::.; ::..:.. .....:..::e:>':I 'n Suis ine r :l httd h 3mpiete remedial actic�u will t k .p ace t ... ation end r.;;;:,;:. vvat;.:., ;:.;:>anta iri ><.:<.:. ,, ::;:.:;;.>>:: :;,:.:.;.>.,;;.>: :.:;;.,,:.>,,;;::: .>f't :e:, «:era or:. ottn er: . ..::,...r, wtll be condtxcted as par€ © h . ©p a >r .:.;; :>:h'<.;:.:e:.:f:..; >: »:. n:: om:It ht:m us. real to .:: rz; peas. arte ecz A.dee <rpstnpt o E g. (31) Witco Chemical (east of Subarea A). The plant was built in 1957 to manufacture peroxide pastes for use in the plastics industry and the polyvinyl chloride manufacturing industry. In 1975, the plant started to produce low-temperature peroxides used for making PVC, acrylic polymers, and specialty unsaturated polyester resins. Chemical manufacturing on this site was terminated by the end of February 1989. Equipment cleaning and decommissioning was completed by the end of March of that year. Hazardous materials left over were returned to suppliers, shipped to a sister plant or to 11 V-14 NOVEMBER 1992 NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ADDENDUM REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR shipped to an EPA-approved toxic substances disposal facility. Witco still owns the property and maintains a small non-manufacturing presence on the site.10 Between 1967 and 1984, two surface impoundments were used to contain crude wastewater which was then neutralized prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer. The surface impoundments were closed in October 1986 under a closure plan approved by the DHS. However, during operation of the surface impoundment, leakage of chemical constituents of the wastewater into the groundwater reportedly occurred. t sed os -The;De azt nei t vl T' xi : u tangs... ant%[a i V. p .; . .> ;< . ;»; t<.: ::;>: ;.::.::: $ Ito lodes clasur ':periti#`fcsr t sur acre unpd. ndmea� s o May 2 , 192.. d><::>. . .,;.,r,;"'"" ...<.; a:.: '.a c n: am. .... ..... f c(su.r r rilta„t k .:4..:.:::::tr<i )s::::;: t r:a:Ce>tm :;Durr:mntsa ...:...::..:.:... ::::::::::..:..:.;: �::.;.::.. .: .::.;.::...: ..:a .. t ... . . rnu,dwat rand:::fc�r::V.eanu >:c�f::the:>:Cc�ntamtttat d:: roan :ova er and soil;: 1 `'`of „ ;.' I a d''>t e E are: .. xl:< 12`t1' 'De attmnt:ostia'ni"es>Con.ro n h . PA. : ., :::..::. . .::::..::..: Y. :.:::::: ......::....... :::::....:::.:.. ...::......:::... ... c der n V 1':"::: o£; he:: ermf rondrt ons <:.: :,..;.: ;<.;a ><'.s:t:uct: fi. e trrtafely;:tb : m tal measures I<nay <rivpl �nfalnnl nt: r ores u , r. a .:`o;;:;.>: :.:::: », .:,.:.,::>;_:.::.:;.»>;;>>;>::::;::>:;.>::>:.>: a a' men t ` aril>fa �h ;s ;.: :�::::.; :::::.urt.. :;ar: ::icln , erm.;. I :.<.:: .t .:et;,:::,>..:t;.:;;E:::.:t, ;:;:.a 'tar.. e:'' acuities tie:::'''": tnnt ' ra :.< at'er''' ::::>`°``ore' .f. h .. Team > an .s a f o 'a n ..::ate.: fl.:::. . t ark: fltti orlete The wastes that were held in the surface impoundments were composed of alkaline wastewater from the manufacture of organic peroxides. The wastewater included five priority pollutants, including bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, butyl benzyl phthalate, benzene, ethyl benzene, and acetone, and the pH of the wastewater was reported at 12.7 (above the 12.0 criteria for priority pollutant designation). HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, PAGE IV,J-28 - 29 A field investigation to evaluate the extent of lead and zinc in soil and groundwater beneath the f4-m F -- 4aea uFing f^^ I azy;:'J Rarii-b:site took ......................................:.:... place in April and May 1990 and a remedial investigation report was submitted to DHS in July 1990. Elevated levels of lead and zinc were found beneath the asphalt pavement at the northern end of the facility. Petroleum hydrocarbons were found at one soil sampling location. As a result, an investigation to locate possible underground storage tanks was conducted in August 1990 CCCHSD file search, December 1991. V-15 NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR NOVEMBER 1992 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ADDENDUM REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR following a DHS-approved work plan. The results of this investigation were inconclusive and further study is projected in 1992. Both soil and groundwater investigations for lead and zinc were conducted in 1990 at the Lazy J Ranch site. A Remedial Investigation report on this area was submitted to DHS in October 1990 documenting the presence of lead and zinc in soils on portions of the property. Further investigation is projected in 1992. t�'�.2e ed-I + c cz�:T':taa:����d:.�:�:;:a�vatta le:b :�99�° �u : ete: 4.14l a�tldn.:wI :. a :::: ve::t ea , t ts>` ss e''t Zir>tf e'zeiinedta�:atcttczu:ehvsen<10.r. hts::slte.m to of . . r t n Dew g :.;'.�.i::h. .. ...:.:�:......:.......:.. ::ti4i.: .:::.i::.: :<!.ii:Li ii:;: ii:;is:':.:is`: .i:'i:•`ii".::•\:.i:'.....':.....:::.;::::::'i:::.::.:::.:,:......:.:.:::::: :,:':. min aee;>>:` et :::t be::: a d:::r strtq 10.ns::that:::re wre;;ttl.at<;t e F :.i..i :.:; i9 � ::.:::........:.::................::.:...:::,.....:.:.:..:.,,:,. ...,:.::::,.,.... ....,.:.................... :... : . 11•a'tw>�:"",rs' n>�l:n'In dus r a <oY s ri`i ar us Tltts::site::€s: d ant::te:area>: ro .used::;far:"Office/Jt;dustytaI; lx">iit ;tlie ::;:.;, . ,„:.:.:' :»>'.::;::: :.::: ::::.»:,>:;::;::,, 2 his l es%<.' .af on ) .. an 11st of allowab a uses on page l>I 2: fort ' gn . tnclu fi �r staurat is ri'd.clutd>car fa;r t%ties:> t' atlo:ri> Bas it TA »S;allaws .....:::.............:::::.::.::::..:..........:::::::::'::::::::: ::::' Re . ,.... ,.,.....i:.iii..::............. .......;.,;:.i:.i:;,,:::..:::.:.::.i:>;::::.:< :......:::::::..: :a':::<� ate steer. tear orcc�nsiirafiin' :fa : .ro >Gaala:tandsenair cant In . ... .. . ;:........: ' €z:dus rt ] sti `f'la>S<><aVc tees:the;:health;:Itts :: ssessmep;t<when<:.a:s Vic, ,c iii;:.::.i:.;::.::.>:.::::;;:.i;;.;;;;:;:;.i:.i::.;::.>;:.:::::.::.::::::«;:.;i:.;:.::;.:i:;i:.i:.i:.i::.:>:.i;:.:;;: i:.ii p ...... (38) Bas, ies Re s, ntra ''C— Sanitary la'ndfilI formerly United Refuse Service, sends garbage collection trucks from its site at 2525 Garden Tract Road. The company has underground diesel and gasoline tanks on the site for refueling its collection trucks. Truck maintenance generates 30 gallons of oil and one gallon of solvents per month, which are recycled by King Oil Company. Inspections have revealed no problems at the Class II portion 16 of thesite. e;i""rtiad di-tin tod a'< lass>I h6we. �r.. as.a;rn.a o ...:....... hazax tous vvaat ai illali<> u t 'erm9 trt..�sta atz i s.ha...e:zevea a vl. :rt . ;:>' ; e hath:�..at��..:.....::.k�.may ext5t outsute fltf:.deScrab...;;...:t'up:i...:ry...Th:: : .Q. ::'i'1":i h ' rocess .<is>;;:: :::;:>�f'°''::T,:;:.,.;::< �bs'<:<:;;::>><:.: <.:;:f;>:>::;'its>ii .ren t :a :m� �f::. t�x�c:5 .tai�cesin rol : r >.p::::::.»:::.::»>. ::.:::.;'.:::.::;:.i ii:::•i: .:.:.::.:.::.i:''::.:. .�:: ... ...� Y:.:::.::. :':':..A1:.::}i":�.y:i. :.::.::.::.:'::.iii:: .::::. :::.::.::.:::::::::.::.::. triwtn <at<lts�xre: tan:;:£artE :fatwtt:: <t�Vhilet}►Eexact;amant::ahazar:dous 1; i .iaty:::::.;i:.iii:.:;.i;:.;;::.;:.;::<.:::,::.. v to t tat:toast:.20Q 000<cicums of ::.::.:i:.i:.::.;i............ wase:: :res :nt's not Cnc e zdened.1fttt.:<.:ates.i;h ;: ::.. > :::.:.:: ::::::.::. ::::..:::::.:i:,::.:: ciustral`uase arjrsn: V.:. t. e to d':'a ens1. gertiireInlllst >>h`as»nct: fFeen<ftill >cf;`arac .raze .. 3`:::::. :.:::..........::.....:::::.:......:.::.:.:..:::.:..:..:::::::::::: .:..::::::........:............ .................. ens ... a . I l> nd Fora .:: .:::: . , ..i.:.:.:.::::::.>::<::..iii;� .::::.::.:::;,:ii::: iii:> . : tna ..EIR. erivtrc nm-en AF n frrcl tli al::studies`>wtl1:Y e t dnd cLe ..:::A:f. . . >:<.a, :::................ ..::.....:::. Cl6sur Pl n atni �a�rnntafitcin:wtal>nafi>biim ttuzifit :>a :rp�ama:til>:1996 ;; nd s.t 3 i:.FP:F:.: Yt . ... . ?CIisur ut0#itgr�Ig.ur>lt take place fax ac leas€ �years after €hat: (39) Erickson Treatment Transfer Station. This proposed facility at 2565 Goodrick Avenue would receive industrial waste for neutralization, V-16 NOVEMBER 1992 NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ADDENDUM REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR solidification, recycling and transfer. The facility would accept acids, caustics, solvents and organic oily wastes. The facility has received an approval from the city. C. .nsYrtiet�Q. :>I} ':'fac' eyt`:.,... d.. n. min :a 11 .1 an d ty .::::::......:::..::.:.::::::.::::::..::.:: .: .:.:; According to DHS, no known wn contamination occurs on this site.t� HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, PAGE IV.J-35 Impact HA7_-4: New development could disrupt completed remediation efforts, such as caps, and could expose contained hazardous materials. Mitigation Measure HA7_-4: All new development proposals on sites where remediation has occurred should be referred to the appropriate lead agency (RWQCB, DHS, CCCHSD) to determine if the development would disrupt previous remediation efforts. d. 7 u s.an d s' ::: n In nd se a<<edii t ri 'ctivat'a'c :ulel a ge ur ou 1 v. JAZ R.:>rn <4QX.Pa:.>.; g .::.; >:: :'dtrtc.. .>: :ff:.,,,,»::>:;st .'nd. ust. arl�ers'�tlt�reasek:trais,.;n�> � ll�fiti att<inlYteasurt?'IA -5s :'�Vhen:revewin ;remedsaton lansthe ' s :.re< aa :: st C.it `a'iCrffi` sfvulcireemai >tJ'ati;TTC'zt'' u1 xeme de n ...Y.;; : Y9 : l;.::; <:>:::;:::; >e'lin"`:a`'ts'< r.,:. P. ``d" n us d ufl m,;z P.;; .:::.;:<4.;;:>:sur ..;:;;;n:: .;>:g;:: ::: ;;;::::;> :. ; ;; NOISE, PAGE IV.K-10 According to a conceptual drawing of the proposed recycling facility shown in Figure B, Appendix B, the asphalt crushing area would cover 1.5 acres; the concrete crushing area would cover 6 acres; and the wood shredding area would cover seven acres. It is anticipated that processing of these materials cc u'>:'> <> .n;::'rete .rushiri:.vquld:' rom,,.,': will occur he ly-nasi yeah ra ndC >:< ;: ;; P >>: :51 666i,r,d 'ori uart°ez':'af the'year Tractors and bulldozers would aerate the composting materials, which will cover 11 acres and activity would occur year-round. The unloading of barges would occur at night .duriri�;>bi�Yi t cies. ...:..:.::................:........:..... Miti ation Measure NOISE-6a: Wh:'bise:levels a ceecl. it:;:and:;;Q : ............................................................... ................... ........ r:1 :riC is s a d:Ards''':o ..70±d$':;.''i1-,imit days of �f operation for the concrete crushing facility to Monday through Friday. V-17 4 NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR NOVEMBER 1992 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ADDENDUM REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR V-18 Appendix A Minutes of Public Hearing on the Draft EIR July 21, 1992 File: EID 91-16 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PANEL Richmond, California Tuesday, July 21, 1992 The meeting was held in the City Council Chambers, Third Floor, City Hall, Tuesday, July 21, 1992 at 7 : 00 p.m. PRESENT: Chairman Jim Farah, Planning Director Alan Jelten, Deputy Director of Public Works for the Public Works Department Marshall Walker III, Urban Planner for the Redevelopment Agency Mike Powers, Port Director Randy Pace, Deputy Fire Marshal OTHERS: Nancy Kaufman, Principal Planner Sheila Brady, Brady & Associates EID 91-16 : PUBLIC HEARING ON DRAFT EIR, NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN. The "project" is the North Richmond Shoreline. Specific Plan. The North Richmond Shoreline area is located in both the City of Richmond and Contra Costa County. The Project Area is generally bounded on the north by Point Pinole Regional Park, Southern Pacific Railroad and the Parchester Village Neighborhood on the east, Parr Blvd. on the south and the shoreline on the west. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Farah at 7 : 04 p.m. The Chairman explained that the purpose of the public hearing was to receive information and comments relative to the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan. Ms. Kaufman of the Planning Department provided a brief update on the administrative processing that occurred thus far. Chairman Farah introduced Ms. Sheila Brady of Brady and Associates, the firm retained by the City to provide technical assistance in preparation of the EIR. With the aid of slides, Ms. Brady described the existing conditions within the Project Area, the role of the Citizens Advisory Committee, the underlying policies of the Specific Plan, and the impacts of the Project as identified in the Draft EIR. Following Ms. Brady's presentation, Mr. Powers asked for clarification on how the public access would happen; would it be done with public funds. Ms. Brady stated that developers would be responsible for providing some of the public access. She noted that the Plan also includes a discussion of assessment districts and possible public funding sources. Mr. Powers asked if some of the improvements could be funded as mitigation for other projects ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PANEL Tuesday, July 21, 1992 Page 2 Plan includes a discussion of wetland mitigation banks, but that they are difficult to implement. She also noted that other mitigation possibilities such as public access would be subject to regulatory review. Chairman Farah reviewed the purpose of the public hearing and the procedure to be followed. He then opened the public hearing for public testimony and directed Ms. Kaufman to outline the comments on the Draft EIR which had been received to date. Ms. Kaufman noted that, to date, the Department had not received any written comments. Chairman Farah asked if there was anyone in the audience wishing to speak on the item. There being no speakers, Chairman Farah closed the public hearing and indicated that the deadline for written comments is July 31, 1992 . Ms. Kaufman stated the date for consideration of the Final EIR had not been set. The meeting adjourned at 7 : 34 p.m. Jim Farah, Planning Director r M � .