HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06221993 - H.11C -aa-93 44. 1 I
a.co M
77ONx
': la;:�`�lst5i'.1"�3'�°� n �`°""' t6�� •6'�''sias'aa"�..:,�:.
• k
NORTH
RICHMOND
SHORELINE
SPECIFIC
PLAN EIR
MAY 1992
BRADY AND ASSOCIATES PLANNERS AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
t '
NORTH
RICHMOND
SHORELINE
SPECIFIC
PLAN EIR
MAY 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
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW 1-1
A. Purpose of the Environmental Impact Report I-1
B. Background and Purpose of Proposed Action I-1
C. Significant Issues and Concerns I-2
D. Report Organization I-4
E. Mitigation Monitoring I-5
II. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS II-1
A. Project Under Review II-1
B. Summary of Findings II-1
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION III-1
A. Introduction and Plan Purpose III-1
B. Specific Plan Goals III-6
C. Land Use Element III-9
D. Land Use Designations Summary III-25
E. Development Standards III-25
F. Circulation Element III-26
G. Design Guidelines III-32
H. Implementation Element III-33
IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IV-1
A. Land Use and Public Policy IV.A-1
B. Population, Housing and Employment IV.B-1
C. Traffic, Access and Circulation IV.0-1
D. Infrastructure and Municipal Services IV.D-1
E. Soils, Geology and Seismicity IV.E-1
F. Hydrology IV.F-1
i
NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR MAY 1992
TABLE OF CONTENTS PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT
G. Biotic Factors IV.G-1
H. Visual Factors IV.H-1
I. Archaeology IV.I-1
J. Hazardous Materials IV3-1
K. Noise IV.K-1
L. Air Quality IV.L-1
V. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PLAN V-1
A. Introduction V-1
B. Summary of Alternatives V-1
C. Alternatives Analysis V-2
VI. CEQA-REQUIRED CONCLUSIONS VI-1
A. Growth Inducement VI-1
B. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts VI-2
C. Short-Term Use versus Long-Term Productivity
of the Environment VI-3
D. Irreversible Environmental Changes VI-3
E. Cumulative Impacts VI-3
VII. LIST OF PREPARERS VII-1
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Letter and map from U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, July 25, 1991
Figure A: Areas of Potential Wetland
Appendix B: Figure B: Sanitary Landfill Proposed Uses
Appendix C: Intersection Level of Service Definitions
Appendix D: Caltrans Peak Hour Signal Warrant #11 Criteria and
Design, Policy and Location Information for Signs
Appendix E: Description of Noise and Definitions of Acoustical Terms
ii
MAY 1992 NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Regional Location III-2
2. Aerial Photograph of Plan Area III-3
3. Plan Area Points of Reference III-7
4. Specific Plan Land Use Map III-11
5. Public Access and Recreation III-13
6. Circulation Plan III-29
7. Existing Land Use IV.A-3
8. Development and Planning Activity IV.A-11
9. City General Plan IV.A-20
10. Shoreline Strategy IV.A-27
11. County General Plan IV.A-30
12. Jurisdictions IV.A-39
13. Existing P.M. Peak Traffic Volumes IV.0-7
14. Year 2005 A.M and P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes IV.0-11
15. Soils Map IV.E-2
16. Geology Map IV.E-3
17. Hayward Fault Map IV.E-8
18. Shoreline Conditions IV.F-5
19. Flood Zone IV.F-9
20. Habitat Areas IV.G-2
21. Viewpoint Locations IV.H-2
22. Site Photographs 1-4 IV.H-3
23. Site Photographs 5-7 IV.H-5
24. Site Photographs 8-10 IV.H-7
25. Site Photographs 11-13 IV.H-9
26. Hazardous Materials Sites IV.J-3
27. Noise Contours IV.K-5
28. Alternative B: Mitigated Plan Concept V-11
29. Alternative C: Shoreline Use Concept V-21
LIST OF TABLES
1. Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures II-4
2. Summary of Land Use Allocations III-26
3. Development Standards III-27
4. Existing Land Use in the Plan Area IV.A-2
5. Industrial and Commercial Establishments Observed
in the Plan Area - November 1989 IV.A-6
6. Differences Between Existing Land Uses and
Proposed Plan Designations IV.A-44
iii
NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR MAY 1992
TABLE OF CONTENTS PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT
7. Applicable Zoning Districts IV.A-51
8. Existing Employment in Project Area IV.B-3
9. Unemployment Rates in Richmond and Contra Costa County IV.B-4
. 10. Specific Plan Employment Estimates at Buildout,
Permanent Jobs IV.B-10
11. Job Generation at Full Buildout, Construction Jobs IV.B-11
12. Specific Plan and Richmond Employment Estimates IV.B-12
13. Existing Intersection Level of Service IV.0-6
14. Projected Trip Generation IV.0-9
15, Roadway Dimensions IV.0-10
16. Year 2005 Specific Plan at 100 Percent Buildout IV.0-12
17. Existing Water Supply Main Lines IV.D-3
18. Open Space and Recreation Acreage IV.D-20
19. Major Faults Potentially Affecting Specific Plan
Area IV.E-6
20. Changes in Wetland and Upland Acreage IV.G-9
21. Hazardous Materials Agency Status of Businesses
in Plan Area IV.J-9
22. Identified Contamination Sites and Remediation Status IV.J-12
23. Noise Levels Along the SP Railroad Tracks IV.K-4
24. City of Richmond Noise Compatibility Guidelines IV.K-8
25. Typical Construction Noise Levels IV.K-16
26. Typical Construction Equipment Sound Levels IV.K-16
27. Ambient Air Quality Standards IV.-2
28. Bay Area Emission Inventory IV.L-3
29. Air Quality Summary for Richmond, Number of Day
Standards Were Exceeded IV.L-4
30. Project Emissions, Tons/Year IV.L-9
31. Project Emissions, Pounds/Day IV.L-9
32. Specific Plan Emissions as Percent of Contra Costa IV.L-10
County Emissions
33. Employment Estimates at Buildout for Alternatives,
Permanent Jobs V-3
34. Land Use Designations in Proposed Plan and Alternatives V-4
35. Alternative B Trip Generation V-14
36. Alternative C Trip Generation V-25
IV
Chapter I
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
A. Purpose of the Environmental Impact Report
In fulfillment of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this report
describes the likely environmental consequences of the adoption of the North
Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan. This assessment is designed to fully inform
the City of Richmond, County of Contra Costa, other responsible agencies, and
the public of the proposed action and the potential consequences of the
adoption of the Specific Plan. This report also examines alternatives to the
proposed Specific Plan and recommends a set of mitigation measures that
would reduce or avoid the significant potential impacts identified.
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, regulation, plans, or
other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program." This
Program EIR identifies general countywide effects of the Specific Plan. It is
assumed that individual projects in the Specific Plan area would receive
detailed environmental evaluation during project review and in project EIRs.
B. Background and Purpose of Proposed Action
The North Richmond Shoreline is unique in the metropolitan Bay Area, a
1,951 acre area located on San Pablo Bay near two major transportation
routes, Interstate 580 and 80, in the heart of the East Bay's urban-industrial
complex: Access to this area has been limited in the past, and about 60
percent of the area is undeveloped. In the developed areas, industrial uses
predominate, with some commercial nurseries and very little residential use.
Much of the area is representative of historic San Francisco baylands, with
marshlands and uplands along the shore. Portions of the area have been
identified as important habitat for endangered species.
I-1
NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR MAY 1992
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT
A number of changes are now occurring or planned in the North Richmond
shoreline area. These include the extension of the Richmond Parkway through
the area, flood control improvements to Wildcat and San Pablo creeks, and the_
near term closure of the West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill. With these
improvements, interest in new development in the area is expected to increase
dramatically. In recognition of the impact new development could have on this
sensitive bay shore environment and its ecological importance to the region,
the area was identified as eligible for funding under the State Coastal
Conservancy's urban waterfront restoration and resource enhancement
programs. The City of Richmond, in cooperation with Contra Costa County
and the State Coastal Conservancy, has sponsored a joint planning effort for
the North Richmond shoreline area. The result of this effort has been to
develop the North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan.
The overall goal of the North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan is to recognize
the unique character of the plan area and to guide and regulate development
in the area in a manner that improves its image, benefits community residents,
and accommodates a reasonable level of development within a framework of
conservation and public access to the Bay.
The plan area is located in both the City and the County and both have
jurisdiction over land use decisions. The Specific Plan, once adopted, will be
used by both jurisdictions to guide and regulate development and conservation
activities in the plan area. The primary funding source for the development of
this Specific Plan is the State Coastal Conservancy's Urban Waterfront
Restoration and Resource Enhancement Grant Program. The Conservancy
has been actively involved throughout the planning process, participating in
plan development and providing technical guidance regarding approaches to
resource enhancement.
C. Significant Issues and Concerns
As provided for in the CEQA Guidelines, the focus of this report is limited to
those specific issues and concerns identified as possibly significant in the Notice
of Preparation for this EIR. Based on the Notice of Preparation, consultation
with City and County staff, the North Richmond Citizen Advisory Committee
(CAC) and the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), the following central
issues regarding the proposed Specific Plan have been identified for discussion
in the EIR:
I-2
MAY 1992 NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
1. Land Use and Public Policy. Compatibility of the Specific Plan with
adjacent land uses, compliance with City, County and agency land use policies
and plans.
2. Population, Housing and Employment. Effects of the Specific Plan on
employment in the City, the Plan's relationship to employment and economic
development policies, and the effect of job growth on the availability of
housing and the City's jobs/housing balance.
3. Traffic, Access and Circulation. Specific Plan impacts on local streets
and intersections within and outside of the plan area related to increased
traffic generated by growth. Impacts on bicycle, pedestrian movement and
transit systems.
4. Infrastructure and Municipal Services. Effects of the Specific Plan on
the provision of water, storm drainage, sewer systems and roadways to meet
projected demand; impacts on provision of police and fire protection services;
provision of gas and electric service; potential for hazard from electromagnetic
fields; identification of any shortfall between projected demand and supply of
utilities; municipal services and infrastructure; cumulative effects on local
schools and parks related to increased employment in the area.
5. Soils, Geology and Seismicity Factors. Potential impacts due to seismic
hazards such as the proximity of the Hayward Fault to proposed development;
impact of potential erosion and unstable ground conditions, such as bay muds
and fill.
6. Hydrology. Potential impacts on regional and local drainage, hydrology
and groundwater, with attention to impacts on the shoreline and potential
flood hazards related to Rheem Creek and the coast line.
7. Biological Resources. Specific Plan impacts on existing vegetation and
wildlife, particularly with respect to sensitive species dependent upon wetlands
and associated upland habitats.
8. Visual Factors. Impacts of the Specific Plan on existing visual character,
views and compatibility with surrounding areas, particularly the relationship
between the Plan and views from the proposed Richmond Parkway, Point
Pinole Regional Park and from adjacent residential development.
9. Archaeological and Historic Resources. Specific Plan impacts related to
the disturbance of historic and cultural resources.
I-3
NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR MAY 1992
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT
10. Hazardous Materials. Specific Plan impacts related to hazardous wastes,
the hazards associated with the contaminated sites requiring remediation, and
hazards related to closure of the West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill.
11. Noise. Specific Plan impacts related to increases in ambient noise levels
related to increased traffic generation, industrial activity, shoreline access into
sensitive areas, and land use compatibility of proposed and existing uses.
12. Air QualLty. Specific Plan impacts related to air quality, such as
construction-generated dust, and automobile and industrial emissions.
D. Report Organization
This EIR is organized in the following chapters:
Chapter I. Introduction provides an overview of the EIR purpose and
contents, issues to be addressed, and the proposed Specific Plan.
Chapter H. Summary of Impacts presents in table form a summary of the
significant potential impacts identified in the EIR and the measures proposed
to mitigate these impacts.
Chapter III. Project Description summarizes the purpose and provisions of the
North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan.
Chapter IV. Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures describes the existing
setting, potential impacts of the Specific Plan, and measures to mitigate those
impacts, for each of the 12 topic areas listed above.
Chapter V. Alternatives to the Proposed Plan defines and briefly estimates the
impacts of three alternatives to the proposed Specific Plan:
• Alternative A: No Project. The Specific Plan area would continue
under its existing City and County land use designations.
• Alternative B: Mitigated Plan Concept. The Plan area would be
developed to mitigate identified impacts to wetland areas north of
Rheem Creek, and minimize impacts on sensitive wildlife habitats.
• Alternative C: Shoreline Use Concept. The Plan area would include
shoreline commercial recreational uses to maximize the use and
enjoyment of the shoreline.
I-4
MAY 1992 NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
Chapter VI. CEQA-Required Conclusions summarizes conclusions regarding
growth inducement, irreversible and unavoidable impacts, short-term use of the
environment versus long-term productivity, and cumulative impacts.
Chapter VII. References lists report preparers, agencies and persons
contacted, and references used.
Appendices contain appendix material referenced in the text of the document.
E. Mitigation Monitoring
In compliance with State law, a mitigation monitoring and reporting program
will be prepared and adopted for the Specific Plan at the time findings are
made to ensure successful implementation of required mitigation. The
mitigation monitoring program is intended to ensure compliance during project
implementation and during the life of the project. The mitigation monitoring
program will summarize mitigation measures, specify monitoring and reporting
actions, and identify implementing and funding responsibilities.
I-5
NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR MAY 1992
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT
I-6
Chapter II
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. Project Under Review
This Draft 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 Draft Program. EIR examines the potential significant adverse impacts of
implementation of the proposed Specific Plan, and recommends measures to
mitigate those impacts. The Draft 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: 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.
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
II-1
NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR MAY 1992
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT
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 this
Draft 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.
4. Implementation of Mitigation Measures
This Draft EIR discusses specific mitigation measures that would be
implemented by the City of Richmond and Contra Costa County. The
mitigation measures presented in the Draft EIR would form the basis of a
Mitigation Monitoring Program to be implemented by the City and County in
accordance with State law.
II-2
MAY 1992 NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
5. Alternatives to the Project
The three alternatives to the Specific Plan that are analyzed in this 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:
Alternatives to the Proposed Plan.
6. 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, 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.
II-3
Q
c o an
W � �
U �
C] y w
Cr
4 L' E
Sz ° c
c y.
E E E
U y U o o C° U c
d o cQ cu cc
c O = 7 .L U CG u cv
H L m ,>
c E c - a E
r.r r ti C4 v U '
Op C_ C .� G. C ^C
r.y c W C cam .`� c O O
2 " `c. 3 ° w � a r c E R
A U U Ir U
� '� u. � C U 'G � v-.
'z j O C � � c p L r C •p � C
,,,iej
Q V
c cc
a�
o � G.' h o E
F
z
z U U c s c cu u U a
U U LU- �„ ^ r Ua
c
V 0 � � c =•4 % � c � L:7 v L c
E r c O r
U ti
U n Lc ,E `o ` c
cz
uUa o p c �� c C o •c Y :�
OCE
^� a
O N
l7 c o t a c ,o
v;
Z c o cjsU c c
in Q
OZ CL C 3 c-
cl
LL�
y Z r r hC U C ` r
c c N c 3 c^ U c r Q SG !n
O tb
cr m
15 0
0 C-
.!�, - C
U -q q N U G v UU r- :z
C- Q.- 0
0
C4 U,. C. q u Co y o s G o U v O 'n
Lr -i r-
r M
X: C. 0 ov. C- M
Ln IDti
I
usa 17,
-
;01CZ
mo
cc
"0 cc
C-
05 8
C-
CL tzu
u
cr co
cz
to E r—
-o CL u vi II
ja
.0
ul -o 0
j5l tz
U tM
cm
A $ M
w EID
cc
x
U
c w
'C bD w N 9 d w �.' � C to
N
120
R '" L O O `a 0
ep y C m 0 ca
O
ao a 7 G v E >+.0 Z O N '�
vi O O bq y C O 0 R E a 7 C
c > .5 E v c .�
LV E a� o R
"M 0 0
C C O E h t w U00
w o OV v C L' 'O 'O v w ~ •--'
0 o w w o bn ' °� �' O
R L 0 C w h w o-.a
b00 it 'O 7 I- TJ 3 O R p N N
a0i '= aC6i 3 a aEi c 3 fS. :° a
E OU C > > o N NN+
C N O C p OV N OU F.
L w y N b4'fl 9 'D •C C C
o .bQ a� T O 'o o
E 0 0
p c`a p y Q ❑ Q� =i� 3 io is
E o 2 e •- •em-
y� C
N `� O 'O C �, •� fyi aa b0 b0
y p p O o 7 7
O C C
w cco
R
0 u 3 �
c .V E o o. o J
Ir Qi `v 0 v ami .R is 0 o, 0 •o
ami c@ o a a"i fl 4 O
.r 7 is a3i p 0 U R 7 ca R
EO .D C w 1•.. w U E L .� Q 2
c R o
R � 'G .O O y T � y Y O R C
R CJ �` N W g t r v C •G !�
4 a+ 00 y O C rR 'per ? @ w o �,�., U •w T
u W v a� w O R p O v p m
fi •fl o •� c aXi °'° aUi �' � c L d aui � y R � c
d R c
LQC �. C 7 p •C 'O b vOi 7 w w •R p"
�' y
z c c°.p O0 r`„ �$ ° 3 E fl on R o `v a
wv� aci
o: E o�o •R R � 'v c_a H '� c T c
x O X T3 U ` R O ar v C is N T CCC R
u
z s cCa o f U in 'a E c cc y w E o b4
O [� m e 3 o lz
NL, C u s -w EO
V O r D UI-
y y 3 04 a bo bn O o. n c bb O e`n O ® R
C N C C � C� p
0 0 i o ->_ 3 .�
a W '� 7 w a
z �
F
H
m
Ca
wz a
zy a
a w a 3
OL 4 O 4 L t3 '� C y ua N O R CZ
L
co
vco
U �? C t) co 0 y C u
z ' o b � ° =r a :3h o, Co o o
O @ 'A G .0 .. at ,e ,. C5 a o
@ R c o
Or Q rv C ai CC > GOY L Urn
� � � V C C r• L N .0�.. dl � O ,", '� O_ R � � ,C N 70 p.,
z t7 q =a v C R 'C ci
E W
�.2. p R 0 R R
C c`r TC cCa y '20 u ca O.W i4 O on O O
'« p 14 w
�.' •� T7 c,,6 t, Cl
C o o " 6? u C y o
OC w d CS R p cRi u p y n> > y O a> �
Q Y �^ L
C ° aui c w DI o
R 03
.6 ntC.. R N w GJ j R Ca� 'l7 R :3 CG G Ci U
Q) H
tx b O In U
� u
R
c w ❑� °' ca G L7 t q' M.
> w u b o_ •4 a
cae mCZa 0 w n0 � C 'tri�
R G" ? C 4 *C �' C a c�0 V-0
v C 'u R p C•
u o H75 " R o C u L@ C {fit,
`° co C C ca E i .o
v ro d 'v u R uCo
o C = h t] C cOC R d v
wrv� cOa y S� C 0
cow
u Rwo� "' o ts. N w C.. sc� �i cf a cC y o_R
�j W C•+ u C i y / to 'r+ 4+ b'r .�: yLyt N W 4 GLA• 0r a
U
v �-'� },," V N R L1. y v au.+ i6 G t06
CL U
03
a c & Q o
w o v o u
(� w U a`ri uU 3 cuo N > u co o>
G acd 0b y w c a O o c coc R
o03 R R h O r1
a
U Q v? w 1p cNC U v v) n > C
a
04
H
H
b0
tCS
P64
-- a
p w �
O
R U
coISM
3 Q Q� .5ry, .. m
y G' N> �+ RS V� CCS O ¢. CCS "�
C3. .S4 on C N ✓
ra
� •3
p c o o t 00
n e J: .r w �-' CCS 'OU .. t4 y Cd ca ° "�-+ d •y
ea .�, -• � 'tea � := o°> ° c o. w •� ° h $ � � � � w u.; ,fl
..+ p. epi p v�j O i w t3 C a0i TS ,�> O co
N
icc9b � >Scee tV�jc
5
� p y
co
cc �^S CSC V •7 w.. t�C "''�„
° .• v o
�c o
y � O oa. y Ln
d
sts P.
C'. �� a O N "ms's y fl i� U
G' qC� is O y y0gt 0 �
O S� R OO co v p @
W v O = oA N O C °
5 ca u :01ro °
>
aWC AG c v o a "
w 8
ZLA
pa e A � :-S '3r: 't0
`S >
z
15
ss S we
S- 'a
o 0
S 16
-q .0
%
jF ✓
s > t t is
'Or- —o rJ A
uln
0- So
00
ck-So
0- ts
*0- CB
R � J � 3 cca � � E •o ✓ �`m 3 � 'Z'
00 %
o a oma°' �`�o � �' a x m
� �' a,� T v ,, `J n Ks J `� " �,
te,
J�., 16.
✓ .5 SO P.
IrT
;Ao
VIS
s
ro-
ou
gn _0
I �i G x N
ciV, 0', 0
ti I,
z o 3
x
Ci
w U 6r y DO C
O '
ami c 'g o r y $.�c U
V
U U
y�j V O w
co 0 V; v; U U 'p CO
y 9 C y cCU C v� N y '0 0 O c
@ N ca c0 O C
=0
g E ° Y
L �' cc w m
u d o oU- N y
cC 0 a y .0 -0 ca
y y w O C y N
c0 7 U
U C R U N m cC m C c0 ` y aD
c `= `° v aci ° r
Ca
� '0
►. •yr ca 7 7 7 dO C y U 14 9
O O a a� .c a� O a`°i R O O
Z .8 c`a E ai fX PG L1' Z cc Z
`a fl
ma
c 0
•� cc •L C 7 C w •y
k V > 0
ca a.T.
U y y6 7 .D ►U.
h a 0 y U C y Z
> O
C � C Q C s E U
U 0 ' 0 0u 15
�'
ca R y u co
U F U Q U , C C pIn
a u a� ca fl O d
U y Ov c`v ` = C
ri E aj c p $ cc ' '� O
E
U r, ° a Q C 7 U C cC y O
Z O O. C •_� CQ 'cC b y U V1 .0 C y CL
w C
.�
o C w U O a7 y ' R
p O C r" u
p A y C v eo u g O v w
$ U c y g; r o � ocn
zz
0 c cvg ° c ca y y rs. ca
,c0 n
cts
U O C U = C —0CQ ca
co C
a w e W ca y W �i W -0 c y W@ w c E
O rte. U 'p n. V) y .N rte. .N+ O V V1. N .0 y-.
O Z R Lv ca UU AC L '0 C 7 c_CC
Z z Z OC O U z ca vU Z h Z cC b y fS.
Ln
.�
VIA
;JA
LO
kA
T.7
t '
o -0 a
0
kk
so
ou
to
co 11
N
H
04
ctl
N
� � 03
v_ ,vw,
°
N on •V, 'D O+ C N y ,dy' 47 w F W S] 'Z3 R 9
� ° •� � � 7 fr N CQ a� y �. G L Cc- Q� '
HL ° U U N
GL w ^ R
.a �.. "q
81 0
o ; ° VL o o ° c o a w o °' co c c
w w N cd
on o ° o c cz
o a~ o a�
O C wDo
w v p U v CL
N u v ca ca ; ar Rs v p .-
co U O
O �� ti c4 9. v a 0 L O V1 D w A
fl w v Y
'CL
g
� v � '� � .��' � w GL CSI c�
0o i, cTa " V3i v w � °� a E hQ co
�� •C wJ5 p 4, � � .4 •� w
v
S3 bi
p v
r
co C
� C
co m v G
ca 03
CL n v
o�G v R `� a
v
V3 c r c co O
v a
CL — cep U
a Q awi G L R•
U 7 In
co cn
V cc
•' t' R U
LA
w O
Z
J to N G O co
w O
NzLa
cWC
'C3
U ti w
x O d Q ? a c oco
C4
a ,
zL
Chapter III
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The following summary of the North Richmond Shoreline Specific Area Plan is
provided as an aid in review of the Draft EIR. Please refer to the Specific
Plan document for the complete description of goals and objectives, policies,
development standards, design guidelines, and implementing actions and
requirements.
A. Introduction and Plan Purpose
1. Regional Location
The North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan area is located in western Contra
Costa County, along the shoreline of San Pablo Bay. The Plan area, part of
which is situated within the City of Richmond and part of which is in
unincorporated Contra .Costa County, is approximately 12 miles north of
Oakland and 19 miles northeast of San Francisco. The City of San Pablo is
located directly east of the Plan area. Regional access to the area is available
from Interstate 80 (I-80) and Interstate 580 (I-580). I-80, a major north-south
limited-access freeway which passes about 2.5 miles east of the Plan area, links
the area to other East Bay cities and provides connections with major east-west
routes such as I-580, State Routes 4 and 24 and the Bay Bridge. Interstate
580, which is located about three miles south of the Plan area, provides a
connection via the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge to Marin County and
Highway 101. The regional setting is shown in Figure 1.
2. Study Area Location and Boundaries
As shown in the aerial photograph (Figure 2), the Plan area consists of a
crescent-shaped area of shoreline situated between Point San Pablo and Point
Pinole in the northwestern portion of the City of Richmond. The Plan area,
which consists of approximately 1,951 acres, includes roughly four miles of
shoreline, and extends inland from the shoreline about 2,500 feet on average.
III-1
VALLEJO
----------------
80 MARTINEZ
a
101
PROJECT
LOCATION
SAN RICHMOND
RAFAEL
580
LAFAYETTE
BERKELEY 24 WALNUT CREEK
OAKLAND
580
SAN
FRANCISCO 680
HAYWARD
SAN FRANCISCO BAY
92
C880)
SAN MATED
FIGURE 1
Regional Location
NORTH
RICHMOND
SHORELINE
SPECIFIC
PLAN EIR
BRADYAND ASSOCIATES,INC.PLANNERS AND LANDSCAPEARCIBTECI'S
xA4n+�
is
r
l:
a �
Ol
• 1
+k x P
Alo
„t '^ 5. `5 batt • •'`J .}P'
-
^"�
r
.a rt� c k x J dpi
a W
pp {{T
Ir
,Y�„'w-'+�' .{�, �4:: S �: x � ,Y �' S t `di. s r s f c. z' zy Y2" #��� I•'�Y-$ �
.�' x s 'SY^' ��m>:7 ti.. s,.t�r ,s ,r.�" "'e r`^et":. �i<'•� r.<�aara. 7 $zyt...,�,a r � �`' <� •'� x { r �.
'..,,..*»+,"f�� �"'"`��"{1NS-�"�1��,iix` C* l.c �'� ''S � .kFx# ,`�"�m•�`a%+�,�.,`�,.+'�^^i ,`"f r� �", .•r � t� �,
5M y,
',fig r .,k � r kk •
iPT
�
1 '#a � .i*' � ��..r,:-.' �x��.q,ar� n st y ij ,A' � , �t.` _•"`� t1.��c 'fi;'',
,rs"4�'„l .@��t {1,���f{���Us#fi��y�� � Cifd:•Y�.,�t ;4��<x rr+e'' A�'�**�ry'sr^,t}�ya.f. S � 'ys,. �:�+���� �� �,.,r+;'.a '�;�, �"' •� � .{:k� k '� sy-,q
Ott h ;�'� �'t � a g', ...w�•� ,,:, •., ,K � S.' I
ds :aF�,G`a"1�`.s�'x. t � .'.�1 �� fix. �''� 'ck. t ,��� y,� ��. 4 ar..,:n:.:'k�'"..n»^.. '"`.,'<F+, _ ,"�,yt`,`. �+'�p_;3S yq�t:H�"Z�;ICg��� ".:a•.
p vt4.�S',� ¢r `� !,���`� � >,;a': � 3�, � .y� -i^ e z. Q. �'�'�'",R'tti ��",tS�E• �� tai,,,, -{S'y� s�
n'i�Ff • � .
.+ "k a �
�.�+.t.,.f.'^•." r }
K'e:. „f'�„r� '"k •;%
�. #�.•.•!-��y�;T►t.,..} "'�,�y � kyr° K°�*,�y y .�* ^=i:. i` r F ��� �f� 5� ,� 4r
""'•".,R• „�y , r f�g,p, �1a��t�# f1 �p ti, y�_ ,��fx..• " °'�Y 1v� ..... k �it
' '"'�f`�i c TT f T�r'T�"7Y't..i�§a.wr``t T a T rf�`i lT�Y.rrT'T-rT"ct ccs�.i'T ■T.r ��.'li. ■�aC3"+X'''i"La�,� a a a... � �'�.� -'.. ^i�l..
495
r
t '
"�.� w �y��•#
pop,
T4'•,',a F� 7 �5 �ia yrs Xi1 ti d C'� 3i t i� o AV4dv
i t.
lY
+ : 3 }}y"a� .f z i� rJ `�t��r ..y��� '}� �'i.ik j't�S,r. a ��q..,..•,
z>➢ti • • Y�+'k{� ��p �yy 3t�,\-d��.'� a"'t c. •,P k#k���$�.
M
♦ r
•
r
• i
MAY 1992 NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Figure 3 shows the limits of the Plan area and its relationship to the
surrounding environs.
Local access to the Plan area is currently provided by Parr Boulevard and
Third Street. Parr Boulevard, which forms the southern boundary of the Plan
area, provides access to the area from the City of San Pablo to the east via
connections with Road 20, Rumrill Boulevard and Giant Highway. The Third
Street/Filbert Street corridor provides access from the south via Castro Street
and Seventh Street.
3. Plan Purpose
The specific plan is a planning and regulatory tool available to local
governments in the state. Under California Law (Government Code Section
65459 et. seq.), cities and counties may use specific plans to implement the
jurisdiction's adopted general plan. Specific plans are expected to provide an
intermediate level of detail between the general plan and individual
development projects.
When adopted by the City of Richmond and Contra Costa County, the North
Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan will provide a public document that defines
the amount and type of development that will be permitted by the City and the
County. The plan also sets development standards, design parameters and
recommends implementation steps for future development. Individual
development applications.will be subject to review by the City and County for
compliance with the Plan. If consistent with the Plan, additional
environmental review may be required for project specific impacts identified in
the initial environmental review.
The Specific Plan details land use and circulation policies, standards, capital
improvement requirements, and design guidelines to guide development and
conservation in the Plan area. The Plan also includes a description of the Plan
area in Chapter II, Plan Goals, which provide a framework for the land use,
circulation, natural resources enhancement and public access policies of the
Plan.
The Specific Plan includes the following elements:
• Land Use Element, which sets the land use pattern and standards for
uses allowed in the Plan area;
• Circulation Element, which establishes a circulation system necessary to
provide both pedestrian and vehicular access and to accommodate the
demands generated by development under the land use scheme;
III-5
NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR MAY 1992
PROJECT DESCRIPTION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT
• Design Guidelines, which are recommendations for site planning,
building and open space relationships, architecture and landscape design
and public access; and
• Implementation Element, which describes steps needed to implement
the Plan, including General Plan and zoning changes, phasing and
apportionment of capital improvements, and action programs for
conservation.
B. Specific Plan Goals
The general goal for the Specific Plan is as follows:
a. Recognize the unique character of the North Richmond Shoreline Area
and guide development of the shoreline area in a manner that improves its
overall image, benefits community residents and allows for a reasonable level of
development within a framework of conservation and public access to the Bay.
The following are the six key goals of the Specific Plan:
b. Land Use. Provide fuller utilization of the plan area for a range of land
use, with emphasis given to employment-generating uses, recreational uses,
and preservation of natural resource areas.
C.- Natural Resources. Protect and restore natural resources, with an
emphasis on wetland and riparian habitat and adjacent upland areas.
d. Visual Resources. Create an aesthetically pleasing visual character for the
North Richmond Shoreline area, and an image which is consistent with
the scenic quality of the shoreline setting.
e. Circulation and Public Access. Provide safe and convenient multi-modal
access to and within the North Richmond Shoreline area.
III-6