MEETING(S) - (Meetings are virtual)
REGULAR RICHMOND CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, May 24, 2022, 4:00 p.m.
Community Services Building
440 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
Members:
Thomas K. Butt, Mayor
Demnlus Johnson III, Councilmember at Large
NathanielBates, Councilmember at Large
Claudia Jimenez, Councilmember District 6
Eduardo Martinez, Vice Mayor at Large
Melvin Willis, Councilmember District 1
Gayle McLaughlin, Councilmember District 5
Link to City Council Agendas/Packets
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/4157/City-ofRichmond-Council-Meetings Register to receive notification of new agendas, etc.
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/list.aspx
CORONAVIRUS DISEASE (COVID-19) ADVISORY
PURSUANT to the Governor of the State of California’s Assembly Bill 361 and in the interest of the public health and safety, attendance at the City of Richmond City Council meeting will be limited to Council members, essential City of Richmond staff, and members of the news media. Public comment will be confined to items appearing on the agenda and will be limited to the methods provided below.
How to watch the meeting from home:
KCRT – Comcast Channel 28 or AT&T Uverse Channel 991.
Livestream online at http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/3178/KCRT-Live2.
Public comment may be submitted by mail, eComment, email and/or Zoom video conference in the manner that follows, provided that no member of the public may submit more than one verbal comment per agenda item.
Via mail: received by 1:00 p.m. the day of the meeting, sent to 450 Civic Center Plaza, 3rd Floor, Office of the Clerk, Richmond, CA 94804.
Via eComments: eComments are available once an agenda is published. Locate the meeting in "upcoming meetings" and click the comment bubble icon. Click on the item you wish to comment on. eComments can be submitted when the agenda is published and until the conclusion of public comments for the agenda item. eComments can be viewed by the City Council and members of the public as they are submitted.
Email your comment to [email protected] should you have difficulty submitting an eComment during a meeting.
Via email: to [email protected] by 1:00 p.m. the day of the meeting.
Emails MUST contain in the subject line 1) public comments – Open Session prior to Closed Session; 2) public comments – Open Forum; or 3) public comments agenda item #__ [include the agenda item number]. All such email with correctly labeled subject lines will be posted on-line and emailed to the City Council before the meeting is called to order. Email received after 1:00 p.m. will be posted on-line following the meeting as part of the supplemental materials attached to the meeting minutes.
Via Zoom by video conference: for Open Session and City Council: Please click the link below to join the webinar:
https://zoom.us/j/99312205643?pwd=MDdqNnRmS2k4ZkRTOWhlUldQOUF1Zz09 Passcode: ccmeeting
By iPhone one-tap: US: +16699006833,,99312205643# or +13462487799,,99312205643# By Telephone: Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1 669 900 6833 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 929 205 6099 or +1 301 715 8592 Webinar ID: 993 1220 5643
International numbers available: https://zoom.us/u/aehrwCgISx
To comment by video conference: click on the Participants button at the bottom of your screen and select the “Raise Your Hand” button to request to speak when Public Comment is being asked for. When called upon, press the unmute button. After the allotted time, you will then be re-muted. **
CC - 5-24-22 Mtg
To comment by phone: you will be prompted to “Raise Your Hand” by pressing “*9” to request to speak when Public Comment is asked for. When called upon, you will be asked to unmuted by pressing *6. After the allotted time, you will then be re-muted. Instructions of how to raise your hand by phone are available at:
https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/201362663 -Joining-a-meeting-by-phone. **
**The mayor will announce the agenda item number and open public comment when appropriate.
The City cannot guarantee that its network and/or the site will be uninterrupted. To ensure that the City Council receives your comments, you are strongly encouraged to submit your comments in writing in advance of the meeting.
AB 361 Procedures in the Event of Technical Difficulties: In the event the meeting broadcast is disrupted, or if a technical issue on the agency's end disrupts public participation, the legislative body board cannot take any further action on the agenda until the technical issue is resolved.
Properly labeled public comments will be considered a public record, put into the official meeting record, available after the meeting as supplemental materials, and will be posted as an attachment to the meeting minutes when the minutes are posted: http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/Archive.aspx?AMID=31.
Procedures for Removing Items from the Consent Calendar: Members of the public who request to remove an item from the consent calendar must first discuss the item with a staff member by phone or a back-and- forth email discussion, and state the name of the staff member when requesting removal of the item from the consent calendar (by 2 p.m. the day of the meeting).
Any member of the City Council who would like to remove an item from the consent calendar must notify the appropriate staff person and the City Clerk’s Office prior to the meeting. Although members of the City Council are encouraged to ask questions and share concerns with staff ahead of the meeting, they are not required to do so.
The Clerk’s Office must be informed of any requests to remove items from the Consent Calendar. Items removed from the Consent Calendar shall be placed at the end of the agenda for consideration.
Accessibility for Individuals with Disabilities: Upon request, the City will provide for written agenda materials in appropriate alternative formats, or disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services and sign language interpreters, to enable individuals with disabilities to participate in and provide comments at/related to public meetings. Please submit a request, including your name, phone number and/or email address, and a description of the modification, accommodation, auxiliary aid, service or alternative format requested at least two days before the meeting. Requests should be emailed to [email protected] or submitted by phone at 510-620-6513, ext. 9, or 510-620-6509.
Requests made by mail to City Clerk’s Office, City Council meeting, 450 Civic Center Plaza, Richmond, CA 94804 must be received at least two days before the meeting. Requests will be granted whenever possible and resolved in favor of accessibility.
Effect of Advisory on In-person public participation: During the pendency of Assembly Bill 361, the language in this Advisory portion of the agenda supersedes any language contemplating in-person public comment.
CC - 5-24-22 Mtg
Disclaimer: The City Clerk's Office translates agendas to enhance public access. Translated agendas are provided as a courtesy and do not constitute legal notice of the meeting or items to be discussed. In case of discrepancy, the English agenda will prevail.
CC - 5-24-22 Mtg
Pages
A. OPEN SESSION TO HEAR PUBLIC COMMENT BEFORE CLOSED SESSION 4:00 p.m.
B. ROLL CALL
C. CLOSED SESSION
.
C.1. LIABILITY CLAIMS (Government Code Section 54956.9) 221B, 225, 229 & 235 Tunnel Avenue•
12200 San Pablo Avenue•
C.2. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Government Code Section 54957.6)
Agency Representatives: Jaclyn Gross and Anil Comelo•
Employee organizations:
SEIU Local 1021 Full Time Unit and Part Time Unit1.
IFPTE Local 21 Mid-Level Management Unit and Executive
Management Units
2. Richmond Police Officers Association RPOA3.
Richmond Police Management Association RPMA4.
IAFF Local 1885.
Richmond Fire Management Association RFMA 6.
C.3. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (Government Code Section 54956.8)
Property: 1324 Canal Boulevard (General Warehouse, Port of Richmond)
Agency negotiator: Alan Wolken
Negotiating parties: Richmond Grown
Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment
•
CC - 5-24-22 Mtg
C.4. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION (paragraph (1) of Subdivision [d] of Government Code Section 54956.9) SPRAWLDEF et al. v. City of Richmond•
The Guidiville Rancheria of California, et al. v. The United States of America, et. al.
•
North Coast Rivers Alliance et al./Point Molate Alliance et al. v. City of Richmond
•
C.5. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION (Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) or (3) of Subdivision (d) [as applicable] of Government Code Section 54956.9) Three cases:•
In light of the California Court of Appeal's decision in Fowler v. City of Lafayette, the City Attorney's Office is attaching to this agenda four communications regarding the amended judgment and various agreements related to Point Molate. These letters provide the existing facts and circumstances for going into closed session on these items pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2) and (e)(3).
D. PUBLIC COMMENT BEFORE CLOSED SESSION (public comment on Closed Session items only)
E. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION
________________________________________________________ CC - 5-24-22 Mtg
F. REGULAR MEETING OF THE RICHMOND CITY COUNCIL
6:30 p.m.
G. ROLL CALL
H. PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONAL VIDEO
I. STATEMENT OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
J. AGENDA REVIEW
K. REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY OF FINAL DECISIONS MADE DURING
CLOSED SESSION
L. REPORT FROM THE CITY MANAGER (public comment allowed under Open Forum) M. CRIME REPORT FROM POLICE CHIEF - 4th Tuesday (public comment allowed under Open Forum)
N. OPEN FORUM FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
O. CITY COUNCIL CONSENT CALENDAR
O.1. City Council
O.1.a. Resolution Declaring a Climate Emergency and Opposing the Expansion of Fossil Fuels
11 ADOPT a resolution reaffirming a climate emergency, committing to policies opposing fossil fuel expansion and accelerating the clean energy transition as part of the safe cities movement, and endorsing the call for a global fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty – Vice Mayor Eduardo Martinez (510-620-6593).
O.1.b. Resolution Declaring the First Friday in June as Gun Violence Awareness Day
16 ADOPT a resolution declaring the first Friday in the month of June as Gun Violence Awareness Day in the City of Richmond –
Councilmember Demnlus Johnson III (510-620-6568).
O.2. Human Resources
O.2.a. Proposed Employment Severance Package Agreement with Belinda Brown, Director of Finance
21 APPROVE proposed severance package agreement with Belinda Brown, Director of Finance – Human Resources Department/City Attorney’s Office (Anil Comelo 510-620-6602/Dave Aleshire 510-620- 6509).
O.3. Mayor's Office
O.3.a. Vacant Seats on Richmond Boards, Commissions and Committees 27 ANNOUNCE recent resignations from City of Richmond boards, commissions, and committees, and vacancies as of May 18, 2022, and ask that interested individuals send applications to the City Clerk – Mayor’s Office (Mayor Tom Butt 510-620-6503).
CC - 5-24-22 Mtg
P. PUBLIC HEARINGS
P.1. Quarry Residential Project Redesign 31
HOLD a public hearing; and ADOPT a Resolution certifying the Addendum to the Quarry Residential Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and approving a Major Amendment to a previously approved Planned Area Plan; a Density Bonus for the purpose of requesting waivers of certain development standards; a Vesting Tentative Map; and Design Review for the Quarry Residential Project Redesign, subject to conditions of approval – Community Development Department (Lina Velasco/Roberta Feliciano 510-620-6662). This item was continued from the May 17, 2022, meeting.
Q. STUDY AND ACTION SESSION
Q.1. Recognition of National Poetry Month 180
RECEIVE poetry reading from Poet Laureates David Flores and Adriana Avalos in honor of National Poetry Month – Councilmember Melvin Willis (510-412- 2050). This item was continued from the April 26, 2022, meeting.
Q.2. PROCLAMATION Honoring the Children’s Book Loujain Dreams of Sunflowers and its Co-Author Richmond Resident Uma Mishra-Newbery
186
PROCLAMATION Honoring the Children’s Book Loujain Dreams of Sunflowers and its Co-Author Richmond Resident Uma Mishra-Newbery and Proclaiming it a City-Wide Reading Book - Councilmember Gayle McLaughlin (510-620- 6636).
Q.3. Improve Staff Morale 191
RECEIVE a presentation on ideas to maximize communication, raise employee morale, and to acknowledge the dedication of staff; and provide direction to staff. Councilmember Melvin Willis (510-412-2050) and Councilmember Claudia Jiménez (510) 620-6565. This item was continued from the March 22, 2022, and April 26, 2022, meetings.
Q.4. Private Landowner Encroachments 209
RECEIVE a report from the City Attorney regarding the legality of staff awarding and transferring city property without approval from the City Council - Councilmember Nathaniel Bates (510-620-6743). This item was continued from the May 17, 2022, meeting.
Q.5. The Segal Group Inc., Classification and Compensation Study 211 DIRECT the city manager to release the Class and Compensation Study to the City Council – Mayor’s Office (Mayor Tom Butt 510-620-6503). This item was continued from the May 17, 2022, meeting.
CC - 5-24-22 Mtg
Q.6. Contra Costa County Increasing Per Capita Cost for Animal Services in County Cities
292
RECEIVE a presentation from the Contra Costa County Animal Control Department on the proposed new agreement and increase in fees for service – Councilmember Nathaniel Bates (510-620-6743).
Q.7. A3 Miles Hall Crisis Hub Program 293
RECEIVE a report from the Contra Costa Health Services on the A3 Miles Hall Crisis Hub Program (A3) and Measure X – Councilmember Claudia Jimenez (510-620-6565) and Councilmember Melvin Willis (510-412-2050).
Q.8. Point Molate DDA closing issues - Resolution finding closing conditions not satisfied
309
ADOPT a resolution determining that closing conditions have not been satisfied and the sale of property to Winehaven Legacy LLC should not close, and giving notice to Winehaven Legacy LLC and Upstream/Tribe – City Attorney’s Office (Dave Aleshire 510-620-6509).
Q.9. Presentation of Draft Local Roadway Safety Plan 338 RECEIVE presentation of draft Local Roadway Safety Plan; and PROVIDE feedback – Public Works Department (Joe Leach/Patrick Phelan 510-307- 8111).
Q.10. Street Sweeping 521
DIRECT the city manager to incorporate into the 2022-23 budget funding to provide: new street sweeping signage in neighborhoods that have not previously been signed; repairs/replace existing deteriorated signage in neighborhoods that have previously been signed; sufficient staff and equipment to perform scheduled street sweeping operations in all neighborhoods; sufficient enforcement staff to issue citations for vehicles not moved on designated street sweeping days and times. AUTHORIZE vehicle towing operations in areas where citations have not provided sufficient motivation for residents to move vehicles – Mayor’s Office (Mayor Tom Butt 510-620-6503).
R. BUDGET SESSION
R.1. Receive Update on the Refinancing of the Pension Obligation Bonds (POBs) 562 RECEIVE update on the refinancing of the 2005 POBs – Finance Department (Anil Comelo/Delmy Cuellar 510-620-6600).
R.2. Budget Presentation 566
RECEIVE budget presentations from the city manager and the Police and Fire Departments – City Manager’s Office/Finance Department (Shasa Curl 510- 620-6512/ Delmy Cuellar 510-620-6790/ Mubeen Qader 510-412-2077).
CC - 5-24-22 Mtg
R.3. Budget Presentation 606
RECEIVE budget presentations from the city manager and the Community Development and Community Services Departments – City Manager’s Office/Finance Department (Shasa Curl 620-6512/ Delmy Cuellar 620-6790/ Mubeen Qader 412-2077). This item was continued from the May 17, 2022, meeting.
S. REPORTS OF OFFICERS: REFERRALS TO STAFF, AND GENERAL REPORTS (INCLUDING AB 1234 REPORTS)
T. ADJOURNMENT
________________________
CC - 5-24-22 Mtg
May 24, 2022
City Council
DATE: May 24, 2022
TO: Mayor Butt and Members of the City Council
FROM:
Vice Mayor Eduardo Martinez
Subject:
Resolution Declaring a Climate Emergency and
Opposing the Expansion of Fossil Fuels
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The financial impact of ceasing the expansion of fossil fuels is unknown at this time.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
On 7/24/2018, the City Council adopted a resolution
declaring a climate emergency, calling for the creation of a Regional Just Transition and Climate Emergency
Mobilization Effort, and committing to continue
participation in regional efforts to mitigate climate change
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
Our entire community is impacted by the health and
safety risks of fossil fuel expansion, and particularly those who also face socioeconomic and health inequities,
including youth, elders, Indigenous people, people of
color, low-income people, those experiencing mental and physical disabilities, those experiencing homelessness, and people with health conditions
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
ADOPT a resolution reaffirming a climate emergency,
committing to policies opposing fossil fuel expansion and accelerating the clean energy transition as part of the safe cities movement, and endorsing the call for a global fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty – Vice Mayor Eduardo Martinez (510-620-6593).
AGENDA
REPORT
May 24, 2022
DISCUSSION:
The construction of new fossil fuel infrastructure and expanded reliance on fossil fuels exposes communities to untenable risks to the public’s health and safety at the local and global levels.
The economic opportunities presented by a clean energy transition far outweigh the opportunities presented by an economy supported by expanding fossil fuel use and extraction.
Our community is committed to a just energy transition and to appropriate investments that offset the impacts of evolving industries and employment as well as ambitious investments in the green infrastructure and industries that will create jobs, decarbonize our economy, and reduce future climate change.
Pursuant to the Richmond’s city charter and the general police powers granted to Richmond, California empowers and authorize Richmond to adopt land use controls to provide for the regulation of land uses within the Richmond jurisdiction and to provide that such uses shall be consistent with applicable law.
Richmond fully recognizes the limits to its authority over transportation and handling of certain goods or other activities imposed by the city charter and finds that this action is within its authority.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. XX
A RESOLUTION REAFFIRMING A CLIMATE EMERGENCY, COMMITTING TO POLICIES
OPPOSING FOSSIL FUEL EXPANSION AND ACCELERATING THE CLEAN ENERGY
TRANSITION AS PART OF THE SAFE CITIES MOVEMENT, AND ENDORSING THE CALL
FOR A GLOBAL FOSSIL FUEL NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY
WHEREAS, our entire community is impacted by the health and safety risks of fossil fuel expansion, and particularly those who also face socioeconomic and health inequities, including youth, elders, Indigenous people, people of color, low-income people, those experiencing mental and physical disabilities, those experiencing homelessness, and people with health conditions; and
WHEREAS, the construction of new fossil fuel infrastructure and expanded reliance on fossil fuels exposes communities to untenable risks to the public’s health and safety at the local and global levels; and
WHEREAS, the economic opportunities presented by a clean energy transition far outweigh the opportunities presented by an economy supported by expanding fossil fuel use and extraction; and
WHEREAS, our community is committed to a just energy transition and to appropriate investments that offset the impacts of evolving industries and employment as well as ambitious investments in the green infrastructure and industries that will create jobs, decarbonize our economy, and reduce future climate change; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Richmond’s city charter and the general police powers granted to Richmond, California empowers and authorize Richmond to adopt land use controls to provide for the regulation of land uses within the Richmond jurisdiction and to provide that such uses shall be consistent with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, Richmond fully recognizes the limits to its authority over transportation and handling of certain goods or other activities imposed by the city charter, and finds that this action is within its authority; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the city of Richmond, California reaffirms our “declaration” that a climate and ecological emergency threatens our city, region, state, nation, civilization, humanity and the natural world;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Richmond opposes the rollback of climate policy at any level of government, affirms its ongoing commitment to the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement, and pledges to meet its proportionate greenhouse gas reductions under the Paris Climate Agreement; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Richmond endorses the call for a global Fossil Fuel Non- Proliferation Treaty that will end new fossil fuel exploration and expansion, phase out existing production in line with the global commitment to limit warming to 1.5°C, and accelerate equitable transition plans; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, Richmond urges the local, state, and federal governments to support the initiative for a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, Richmond intends to implement policies limiting or preventing fossil fuel expansion and promoting electrification as part of the SAFE Cities movement because of the inherent dangers to the public’s health and safety in extraction, transport, storage, and combustion of fossil fuels; and
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that city staff are directed to explore and develop SAFE Cities policy recommendations within 90 days in keeping with our local law-making power that limit fossil fuel infrastructure expansion and promote electrification and a clean energy future in order to protect public health and safety.
--------------
I certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting thereof held on INSERT DATE, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
CLERK OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
Approved:
Mayor
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
May 24, 2022
City Council
DATE: May 24, 2022
TO: Mayor Butt and Members of the City Council
FROM:
Councilmember Demnlus Johnson
Subject:
Resolution Declaring the First Friday in June as Gun
Violence Awareness Day
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact related to this item.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
n/a
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
Every day, more than 110 Americans are killed by gun
violence, alongside more than 200 who are shot and
wounded, and on average there are nearly 16,000-gun
homicides every year.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
ADOPT a resolution declaring the first Friday in the
month of June as Gun Violence Awareness Day in the
City of Richmond – Councilmember Demnlus Johnson
(510-620-6568).
DISCUSSION:
Americans are 26 times more likely to die by gun homicide than people in other high- income countries. California has 3,160-gun deaths every year, with a rate of 7.8 deaths per 100,000 people. California has the 45th highest rate of gun deaths in the US.
Gun homicides and assaults are concentrated in cities, with more than half of all firearm related gun deaths in the nation occurring in 127 cities. There are cities across the AGENDA
REPORT
May 24, 2022
nation, including Richmond where municipalities and communities are working to end the senseless violence with evidence-based solutions.
The City of Richmond has implemented many strategies to combat and reduce gun violence in our city. Most recently, the City Council established the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force to explore alternatives to the Richmond Police Department responding to every 911 call.
The Office of Neighborhood Safety (ONS) was created in 2007 and is responsible for building partnerships and strategies that produce sustained reductions in firearm assaults and related retaliations and deaths in Richmond.
Gun Violence Awareness Day was created due to the tragic death of Hadiya Pendleton, who was a 15-year-old teenager in Chicago in January 2013. On June 3, 2022, to recognize the 25th birthday of Hadiya Pendleton (born: June 2, 1997), people across the United States will recognize National Gun Violence Awareness Day and wear orange in tribute to Hadiya and the thousands of others that have been killed due to gun violence.
The idea was inspired by a group of Hadiya’s friends, who asked their classmates to commemorate her life by wearing orange; they chose this color because hunters wear orange to announce themselves to other hunters when out in the woods and orange is a color that symbolizes the value of human life. Anyone can join this campaign by pledging to wear orange on June 3rd, the first Friday in June in 2022, to help raise awareness about gun violence.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – Resolution
RESOLUTION XX
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA DECLARING
THE FIRST FRIDAY IN JUNE TO BE
NATIONAL GUN VIOLENCE AWARENESS DAY
WHEREAS, this resolution declares the first Friday in June to be National Gun Violence Awareness Day in the City of Richmond to honor and remember all victims and survivors of gun violence and to declare that we as a country must do more to reduce gun violence; and
WHEREAS, every day, more than 110 Americans are killed by gun violence, alongside more than 200 who are shot and wounded, and on average there are nearly 16,000-gun homicides every year; and
WHEREAS, Americans are 26 times more likely to die by gun homicide than people in other high-income countries; and
WHEREAS, California has 3160-gun deaths every year, with a rate of 7.8 deaths per 100,000 people. California has the 45th highest rate of gun deaths in the US; and
WHEREAS, gun homicides and assaults are concentrated in cities, with more than half of all firearm related gun deaths in the nation occurring in 127 cities; and
WHEREAS, cities across the nation, including in Richmond are working to end the senseless violence with evidence-based solutions; and
WHEREAS, the Office of Neighborhood Safety (ONS) was created in 2007 and is responsible for building partnerships and strategies that produce sustained reductions in firearm assaults and related retaliations and deaths in Richmond; and,
WHEREAS, protecting public safety in our communities is one of our highest responsibilities; and
WHEREAS, support for the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens goes hand-in-hand with keeping guns away from people with dangerous histories; and
WHEREAS, gun violence prevention is more important than ever as the COVID-19 pandemic and racism continue to exacerbate gun violence; and,
WHEREAS, after more than two years of increased gun sales, increased calls to suicide and domestic violence hotlines, and an increase in city gun violence, the nation collectively needs to do more; and,
WHEREAS, in January 2013, Hadiya Pendleton was tragically shot and killed at age 15; and on June 3, 2022 to recognize the 25th birthday of Hadiya Pendleton (born: June 2,
1997), people across the United States will recognize National Gun Violence Awareness Day and wear orange in tribute to (1) Hadiya Pendleton and other victims of gun violence, as well as the loved ones of those victims; and,
WHEREAS, the idea was inspired by a group of Hadiya’s friends, who asked their classmates to commemorate her life by wearing orange; they chose this color because hunters wear orange to announce themselves to other hunters when out in the woods and orange is a color that symbolizes the value of human life; and,
WHEREAS, anyone can join this campaign by pledging to wear orange on June 3rd, the first Friday in June in 2022, to help raise awareness about gun violence; and,
WHEREAS, by wearing orange on June 3, 2022, Americans will raise awareness about gun violence and honor the lives of gun violence victims and survivors; and
WHEREAS, we renew our commitment to reduce gun violence and pledge to do all we can to keep firearms out of the wrong hands, and encourage responsible gun ownership to help keep our children safe.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Richmond City Council declares the first Friday in June, June 3, 2022, to be National Gun Violence Awareness Day and encourages all residents to support their local communities’ efforts to prevent the tragic effects of gun violence and to honor and value human lives.
--------------
I certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting thereof held on INSERT DATE, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
CLERK OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
Approved:
Mayor
Approved as to form:
Interim City Attorney
May 17, 2022
Human Resources
DATE: May 17, 2022
TO: Mayor Butt and Members of the City Council
FROM:
Anil Comelo, Director of Human Resources
Dave Aleshire, Interim City Attorney
Subject:
Proposed Employment Severance Package Agreement
with Belinda Brown, Director of Finance
FINANCIAL IMPACT: This action has a fiscal impact of $100,200.00 based on the terms of the agreement. All costs are included in the Finance Department’s budget (01171115-400001)
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
The City Council’s approval is required for the severance agreement with Belinda Brown, Director of Finance. The
proposed severance package agreement sets forth the
terms of the severance with Ms. Brown which will be
made in a one-time payment, upon approval by City
Council, on or after May 17, 2022.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
APPROVE proposed severance package agreement with
Belinda Brown, Director of Finance – Human
Resources/City Attorney’s Office (Anil Comelo 510-620-
6602/Dave Aleshire 620-6509).
AGENDA
REPORT
May 17, 2022
DISCUSSION:
The proposed severance package agreement with Ms. Brown sets forth the terms and conditions of her severance. The most significant provisions of the agreement are summarized below:
Terms:
Ms. Brown agrees to a mutually-agreed separation of her employment and to provide a standard release of claims against the City in exchange for a severance payment.
Severance Pay:
The severance payment that will be paid to Ms. Brown pursuant the agreement is a total of $100,200.00, less applicable deductions for taxes.
Medical Benefits:
No medical benefits are provided in connection with this agreement.
Total fiscal impact of the severance package agreement with Ms. Brown is approximately $100,200.00.
NEXT STEPS:
Staff recommends approval of the severance agreement with Ms. Belinda Brown.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – Belinda Brown Severance Agreement
May 24, 2022
Mayor's Office
DATE: May 24, 2022
TO: Members of the City Council
FROM:
Mayor Tom Butt
Subject:
Vacant Seats on Richmond Boards, Commissions and
Committees
FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
N/A
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
Several of Richmond’s boards, commissions and
committees have vacant seats. Residents that are
interested in serving on a board, commission, or
committee are invited to submit their applications to the Richmond City Clerk.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
ANNOUNCE recent resignations from City of Richmond
boards, commissions, and committees, and vacancies as
of May 18, 2022, and ask that interested individuals send applications to the City Clerk – Mayor’s Office (Mayor
Tom Butt 510-620-6503).
AGENDA
REPORT
May 24, 2022
DISCUSSION:
The City of Richmond enjoys a long history of community involvement. Through a variety of volunteer boards, commissions, and committees, Richmond residents play an important role in advising the Mayor, City Council, and City staff on important public policy issues.
Resignations from City of Richmond Boards, Commissions, and Committees Between March 30, 2022 and May 18, 2022 City staff was informed of the following resignations from City of Richmond Boards, Commissions, and Committees:
- James Lee, Reimagining Public Safety Community Task Force, term expiration date June 30, 2024, resigned on April 27, 2022.
- Kevin Ruano Hernandez, Youth Council, term expiration date October 1, 2022, resigned on April 28, 2022
-
Vacancies on City of Richmond Boards, Commissions, and Committees The following boards, commissions and committees currently have vacancies:
- Art and Culture Commission
- Community Police Review Commission
- Commission on Aging
- Contra Costa Mosquito & Vector Control Board
- Design Review Board
- Dept. of Children and Youth Oversight Board
- ECIA Grant Review Ad Hoc Committee
- ECIA Transportation Oversight Committee
- Housing Advisory Commission
- Human Rights and Human Relations Commission
- Library Commission
- Personnel Board
- Recreation and Parks Commission
- Reimaging Public Safety Community Task Force
- Shimada Friendship Commission
- Urban Forest Advisory Committee
- Workforce Development Board
- Youth Council
- Zhoushan Friendship Commission
Residents can learn more details about each board/commission/committee and apply for a vacant seat by contacting the Richmond City Clerk or visiting the Richmond City Clerk’s website.
May 24, 2022
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – Board and Commission Vacancy Roster, May 24, 2022
City of Richmond, Boards, Commissions, and Committee Vacancies As of May 24, 2022
BOARD/COMMISSION YEARS PER TERM
LIMIT OF
CONSECUTIVE
TERMS
# OF SERVING
COMMISSIONERS
# OF
VACANCIES
TOTAL # OF
SEATS
Art and Culture
Commission 4 2 7 8 15
Commission on Aging 4 N/A 10 3 13
Community Police
Review Commission 3 3 8 1 9
C.C Mosquito & Vector 2 0 1 1
Design Review Board 2 4 6 1 7
Dept. of Children and
Youth Oversight Board* 1,2 N/A 11 4 15
ECIA Grant Review
Committee 2 3 2 5
ECIA Transportation
Oversight Committee 3 3 2 3 5
Economic Development
Commission 3 3 11 4 15
Historic Preservation
Commission 2,4 4 7 0 7
Housing Advisory
Commission 2 N/A 6 1 7
Human Rights/Human
Relations Commission 3 3 8 1 9
Library Commission 3 2 4 1 5
Oak. Airport Comm.
Noise Forum 2 N/A 2 0 2
Personnel Board** 5 N/A 4 1 5
Planning Commission 2 4 7 0 7
Recreation and Parks
Commission 3 3 8 1 9
Re-Imaging Public Safety
Community Taskforce 17 4 21
Richmond Rent Board 2 4 5 0 5
Shimada Commission 3 3 10 1 11
Urban Forest Advisory
Committee 3 3 7 4 11
Workforce Development
Board*** 4 N/A 24 15 39
Youth Council 1 N/A 5 6 11
Zhoushan Commission 2 9 2 11
*Dept. of Children and Youth Oversight Board: One vacancy for eligible candidate between the ages of 15- 24 **Personnel Board: One vacancy is appointed by the mayor and one vacancy is elected as a general employees representative.
***Workforce Development Board: The composition of this board is to be composed of (20) local business representatives, (10) representatives of each of the "One-Stop" Partners; (9) representatives of education
May 24, 2022
Community Development
DATE: May 24, 2021
TO: Mayor Butt and Members of the City Council
FROM:
Lina Velasco, Director of Community Development
Roberta Feliciano, Senior Planner
Subject: Quarry Residential Project Redesign
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There may be potential property tax revenue once the Project is developed.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
February 20, 2018, and February 27, 2018
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
New West Company (Applicant) proposes revisions to its
Quarry Residential Project (Original Project) that the City Council approved in February 2018. The Original Project consists of the development of up to 200 condominium
units in 15 buildings and associated common areas and
amenities on approximately 18.4 acres on Sea Cliff Drive and Canal Boulevard. The proposed change to the
Original Project would instead develop 76 detached
single-family houses across the site (Modified Project).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
HOLD a public hearing; and ADOPT a Resolution
certifying the Addendum to the Quarry Residential
Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and adopting
a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
and approving a Major Amendment to a previously
approved Planned Area Plan; a Density Bonus for the
purpose of requesting waivers of certain development
standards; a Vesting Tentative Map; and Design Review
for the Quarry Residential Project Redesign, subject to conditions of approval – Community Development (Lina
AGENDA
REPORT
May 24, 2022
Velasco/Roberta Feliciano 620-6662). This item was
continued from the May 17, 2022, meeting.
PROPOSAL:
New West Company (Applicant) proposes revisions to its Quarry Residential Project (Original Project) that the City Council approved in February 2018. The Original Project consisted of the development of up to 200 condominium units in 15 buildings and associated common areas and amenities on approximately 18.4 acres on Canal Boulevard. The proposed change to the Original Project would instead develop 76 detached single-family houses across the site (Modified Project) (See Attachment 1).
Applicant proposes to subdivide a portion (6.3 acres) of the Project site into 76 residential parcels ranging in size from 2,068 to 3,081 square feet. Seven (7) additional common-interest parcels are also proposed. The subdivision includes four (4) new privately maintained and owned streets and an emergency vehicle access road. All the proposed homes will be two-story homes ranging from 1,645 to 1,840 square feet and up to 28 feet in height. The Applicant proposes homes with lot coverages ranging from 37 to 56 percent (the above collectively known as the Revised Project).
As part of the project, the portion of the Bay Trail that extends along Seacliff Drive adjacent to the project site will be improved. These improvements will include widening the existing paved trail to 12 feet and providing 5-7 feet of landscaping (low ground cover) between the trail and Seacliff Drive, and adding a 3-foot shoulder, comprised of packed decomposed granite, between the trail and the landscaping leading up to the project buildings. Traffic safety improvements on Seacliff Drive are also proposed aimed at reducing speeds of vehicles. In addition, an enhanced staging area serving the existing East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) Crest Trail is proposed adjacent to the site on land owned by the City and EBRPD.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
1. Hold a public hearing; and
2. Adopt Resolution No. ____ (see Attachment 1) certifying the Addendum to the Quarry Residential Project EIR and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and approving a Major Amendment to a previously approved Planned Area Plan; a Density Bonus for the purpose of requesting waivers of certain development standards; a Vesting Tentative Map; and Design Review for the Quarry Residential Project Redesign, subject to conditions of approval.
EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The Project site (Project site) consists of one parcel (APN 560-330-043) totaling approximately 18.4 acres in size located south of the intersection of Canal Boulevard
May 24, 2022
and Seacliff Drive, at 1135 Canal Boulevard. The Project site is located approximately
0.2-mile north of the San Francisco Bay within the Point Richmond area of the City. The picture below illustrates the Project site’s local context.
The Project site is bounded by Seacliff Drive (east), vacant property and Canal Boulevard (north), vacant property, then Seacliff Drive (south), and Miller/Knox Regional Shoreline Park (Miller/Knox Park), an EBRPD open space area (west and north).
The City of Richmond General Plan designates the project site as Open Space and Medium Density Residential. The Zoning map designates the Project site as OS, Open Space and PA, Planned Area District.
DISCUSSION:
New West Company (Applicant) proposes revisions to its Quarry Residential Project (Original Project) that the City Council approved in February 2018. The Original Project consisted of the development of up to 200 condominium units in 15 buildings and associated common areas and amenities on approximately 18.4 acres on Canal Boulevard. The proposed change to the Original Project would instead develop 76 detached single-family houses across the site (Modified Project) (See Attachment 1).
Planned Area (PA) Plan
Pursuant to RMC Section 15.04.810.070.B, the City Council considers Major Amendments to an approved Planned Area Plan at a duly noticed public hearing. An amendment shall be deemed major if it involves one or more of the following changes:
May 24, 2022
1. Change in Planned Area District’s boundary;
2. Increase or decrease in the number of dwelling units for the Planned Area District greater than the maximum, or less than the minimum, stated in the Planned Area Plan;
3. Increase or decrease in the floor area for any non-residential land use that results in the floor area exceeding the minimum or maximum stated in the Planned Area Plan by ten percent (10%) or more;
4. Change in land use or density that is likely to negatively impact or burden public facilities and utility infrastructure, as determined by the City Engineer;
5. Change in land use or density that is likely to negatively impact or burden circulation adjacent to the Planned Area District or to the overall major street system, as determined by the City Engineer; or
6. Other proposed change(s) to the Planned Area Plan or the conditions of approval, which substantively alter one (1) or more of its components, as determined by the Zoning Administrator.
The Revised Project proposes a Major Amendment to an approved Planned Area Plan pursuant to Article 15.04.810 of the Richmond Municipal Code (RMC) to decrease the number of dwelling units for the Planned Area District. The decision to amend the Planned Area Plan is subject to City Council approval.
The purpose of the Planned Area district is to facilitate orderly development of larger sites consistent with the General Plan, where a mix of uses or character is desired that can best be achieved through an integrated development plan. The subject site is 18.4 acres. The portion to be developed is approximately 6.3 acres. The proposed project density is 12.06 units/acre with 76 total residential units proposed.
Other standards such as minimum lot size, setbacks, building height limits, and other development standards and similar regulations of the base zoning districts may be modified as part of an approved PA district. As noted above, the Applicant seeks waivers to five (5) development standards, including lot size, setbacks, and lot width.
The development standards that would guide future development of the Planned Area District are included in the modified Planned Area Plan (see Exhibit C, PA Plan for a description of the development standards).
Applicant proposes a Major Amendment to an approved Planned Area Plan pursuant to Article 15.04.810 of the Richmond Municipal Code. The purpose of the Planned Area district is to facilitate orderly development of larger sites consistent with the General Plan, where a mix of uses or character is desired that can best be achieved through an integrated development plan. To be considered for a Planned Area District, the site shall be a minimum of five (5) acres. The subject site is 18.4 acres, and the portion to-be- developed is 6.3 acres.
As discussed below in the Density Bonus description, Applicant seeks waivers to five (5) development standards, including lot size, setbacks, and lot width.
May 24, 2022
Lot Size: The 76 lots range in size from 2,068 to 3,081 square feet; Applicant requests a modification of the minimum 5,000 square feet requirement.
Lot Width: The lots have a minimum width of 34 feet; Applicant requests a modification of the minimum, 50-foot requirement.
Setbacks: All lots have a minimum, five (5)-foot front setback. Applicant requests a modification of the minimum front yard setback prescribed in the RM-1 zoning (e.g., ten [10] feet). The rear setbacks will vary; however, they will be no fewer than eight (8) feet, which is a modification of the minimum 20-foot rear setback. Lots have a minimum, four (4)-foot side yard setback, which is fewer than the five (5)-foot requirement.
Density: The Medium Density Residential designation allows for a density of ten (10) to 27 du/ac. The Revised Project has a density of 12 du/ ac and thus meets this requirement.
Building Height: All the homes will be two (2)-story structures. The maximum building height of the proposed residences is 28 feet. The permitted height in the RM-1 zoning district is 35 feet. The Revised Project meets this requirement.
Maximum Lot Coverage: The maximum lot coverage allowed is 65 percent. The proposed lot coverages range from 37 to 56 percent. Therefore, the Revised Project meets this requirement.
Common and Private Open Space: The RM-1 zoning district requires a minimum 75 square feet of private and 100 square feet of common open space per unit. The Revised Project proposes to conform to this requirement. Private open space is provided in the rear of each parcel. The total common open space is 15,450 SF, which is 203 per unit, provided in three distinct locations throughout the subdivision. The project will also upgrade the existing Bay Trail located adjacent to the project frontage, create a new staging area for the EBRPD Crest Trail, and enhance the landscaping of City-owned property along Canal Blvd.
Off-Street Parking: Residential units will have two (2)-car garages, which meets the off- street parking requirement. Because the proposed new streets would limit on-street parking, guest parking is being provided in various designated locations within the development at a ratio of one (1) stall per five (5) units.
One Percent (1%) Public Art: The Applicant proposes to pay its required one percent (1%) public art fee in lieu of providing public art on-site.
Inclusionary Zoning: The Revised Project will construct its inclusionary units on-site.
Therefore, ten percent (10%) of the project units will be for sale to households at the moderate-income level (up to 120% of Area Median Income). The City will require a regulatory agreement between it and Applicant to ensure these units remain affordable for up to 45 years.
May 24, 2022
Natural Gas Ban: The Revised Project will be all-electric and will not bring natural gas services to the subdivision. In addition, the California Building Code requires mandatory solar for all new single-family units, making this project all-electric with solar off-set.
Vesting Tentative Map
The applicant is proposing to subdivide the existing site into approximately 76 residential parcels and seven common interest parcels. A homeowners’ association would be formed to maintain the subdivision improvements, including the common areas and the Bay Trail, adjacent to the project site.
Subdivision Improvements and Landscaping
The Revised Project includes the construction of several 34-foot-wide streets with five (5)-foot sidewalks abutted by a five (5)-foot front yard setback on both street sides. A 24-foot-wide travel lane is proposed, with no on-street parking. The Revised Project also includes a 24-foot emergency vehicle access (EVA) road that connects A Street with Seacliff Drive. The subdivision improvements include traffic calming improvements to the Seacliff Drive right-of-way, along the site frontage, including addition of landscaping, installation of enhanced lighting especially at the intersection of the Project driveway and Seacliff Drive, speed limit signage, striping, and improvements to the Bay Trail, including adding a three (3)-foot decomposed granite shoulder on one side and five (5) – seven (7) feet of landscaping on the other.
Conformance with Zoning Ordinance
The developed portion of the proposed subdivision would be located in a PA, Planning Area Zoning District, with the remainder being located in the OS, Open Space Zoning District. The OS district does not have a minimum lot size. The PA Plan would specify the minimum lot size, if any. In this case the applicant is proposing a minimum lot size as discussed above. Development of the subdivision would be consistent with the PA Plan. Therefore, the proposed subdivision is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance.
Conformance with the Subdivision Ordinance and Subdivision Map Act
A Tentative Subdivision Map is required for subdivisions resulting in five or more parcels. The project’s Vesting Tentative Map is shown in Exhibit D. The Vesting Tentative Map has been reviewed for compliance with applicable provisions of the City’s Subdivision Ordinance (RMC 15.04.700, et seq.), and determined that it satisfies the requirements of the Richmond Subdivision Ordinance. A Vesting Tentative Map is processed in the same manner as a tentative map; however, if approved, it confers a vested right to proceed with development in substantial compliance with ordinances, policies, and standards described in Government Code Section 66474.2, that were in effect at the time the application was deemed complete.
May 24, 2022
Density Bonus
To comply with the City’s inclusionary ordinance, the Applicant proposes that ten (10) percent of the units (e.g., 8 units) will be deed-restricted to be affordable to moderate- income households. Although a project with ten (10) percent moderate-income units is entitled to a five (5) percent (5%) density bonus, the Applicant has elected not to request any increase in allowed density. However, any project eligible for a density bonus is also eligible for “concessions” and “waivers.” “Concessions” provide cost reductions that provide for the affordable housing. “Waivers” refers to development standard modifications that, if applied, would physically preclude a project’s construction at density and with incentives otherwise permitted by law.
The Applicant requests five (5) waivers under state Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code, § 65915; see letter dated February 8, 2022, Attachment 2).
The Revised Project is eligible for a density bonus because it contains eight (8) moderate-income units, or ten percent (10%) of the total units. Although the Applicant has not requested a density increase, a density-bonus eligible project such as this one is also eligible for an unlimited number of “waivers” related to City development standards such as height, setbacks, open space requirements, etc. Under a recent court decision, the City must grant waivers to permit a project to be built as designed unless a waiver would violate state or federal law(s); have an adverse impact on a property listed on the California Historical Register; or have a specific, adverse health or safety impact that cannot be mitigated. Applicant does not seek to build any bonus units nor seek any incentives or concessions, but it has requested the following waivers: 1) Minimum lot size; 2) Minimum lot width; 3) Minimum front setback; 4) Minimum interior side setback; and 5) Minimum rear setback.
1. Minimum Lot Size
RM zones have a 5,000 square foot (sf) lot area minimum standard. Applicant proposes a 2,100 sf minimum. This smaller lot size is necessary to achieve the minimum density of 12 dwelling units per acre (du/ac).
2. Minimum Lot Width
RM zones have a 50-foot minimum lot width standard. Applicant proposes a 34-foot minimum width. This narrower width is necessary to achieve the minimum density of 12 du/acre.
3. Minimum Front Setback
RM zones have a 10-foot minimum front yard setback. Applicant proposes a 5-foot minimum setback. The project has smaller lot sizes (to achieve the needed density).
With this smaller lot size, it then becomes necessary to have smaller front setbacks to create a buildable area that accommodates required parking and creates adequate ground floor living space.
May 24, 2022
4. Minimum Interior Side Setback
RM zones have a 5-foot minimum interior side yard setback. Applicant proposes a 4- foot minimum setback. The Revised Project has narrower lot widths (to achieve the needed density). With this smaller width, it then becomes necessary to have smaller side yard setbacks to create a buildable area that allows for adequate ground floor living space.
5. Minimum Rear Setback
RM zones have a 20-foot minimum rear yard setback. Applicant proposes an 8-foot minimum setback. The Revised Project has smaller lot sizes (to achieve the needed density). With this smaller lot size, it then becomes necessary to have smaller rear setbacks to create a buildable area, which accommodates required parking and creates adequate ground floor living space. Without the waiver, the Revised Project’s density would be significantly reduced.
The City must approve the above Applicant-requested waivers because the waivers do not violate state or federal law; would not have an adverse impact on a property listed on the California Register; nor would they impact health or safety.
Housing Accountability Act
Under the Housing Accountability Act, a housing project cannot be denied, or the density reduced, unless the project is either: (1) inconsistent with objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria; or (2) the City can make the following finding for denial:
“The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. A “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete; and
“There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density.”
With the approval of the waivers, the project conforms with all objective standards.
There is no evidence that the project would have a significant impact on public health or safety. Therefore, under the Housing Accountability Act, the project cannot be denied, or the density reduced. However, the City Council may add conditions of approval so long as they do not have the effect of reducing the density of the project.
House Plans
Applicant proposes three (3) design styles, which are variations on coastal architecture:
May 24, 2022
Southern, California, and Contemporary collage(s) with three (3) different floor plans for each of the Cottage styles. All floor plans include a bedroom versus a loft option. All three (3) design themes will be two (2)-story structures for a total of nine (9) distinct home styles (e.g., three (3) Cottage types, with each type then having three (3) specific style options).
The three styles are variations on coastal architecture:
• Southern Cottage (light stucco exteriors with dark wood accents, hurricane shutters, bay windows, divided light windows);
• California Cottage (shingled and stucco exteriors, corbels supporting overhangs, vertical proportions to windows); and,
• Contemporary Cottage (stucco with board and batten exteriors, wood brackets, some standing seam metal-roof accents).
The Applicant proposes three (3) color schemes for each of the design styles (elevations). Overall, the Revised Project embraces an urban context that harmoniously celebrates livability and contemporary principles.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RECOMMENDATION:
A public hearing to consider the project design, density bonus, and PA Plan was held on March 9 and March 23, 2022 (on March 9, 2022, the DRB voted to continue the item to the March 23, 2022, meeting to allow the Applicant time to address comments provided). In response to the comments provided by the DRB, the Applicant made several changes to the Revised Project Plans, as shown in Attachment 1, Exhibit D. At the conclusion of the March 23rd hearing, the DRB unanimously recommended approval of the proposed project with additional conditions (see Exhibit B, Conditions #42-62 in Attachment 1).
PLANNING COMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
A public hearing to consider the project design, density bonus, vesting tentative map, EIR Addendum and Modified PA Plan was held on April 21, 2022. During the meeting, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the Project to the City Council.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
Public notification consisted of publishing a legal notice in the local newspaper and notification by mail of owners within a 300-foot radius of the subject property.
NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL:
The project is located in the Point Richmond neighborhood. City staff received the attached letter from the Point Richmond Neighborhood Council (see Attachment 2). The
May 24, 2022
Applicant modified its proposal to address comments received with the exception of density increases, which is the basis of their major amendment to the Planned Area Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The City of Richmond (City), acting as Lead Agency, certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse #2017062083), as part of the original approvals in 2018. The City has prepared an Addendum to the 2018 EIR to analyze the physical and environmental impacts associated with the proposed revisions to the original project, per the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) statutes (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations 15000 et seq.).
The 2018 EIR analyzed the impacts of development within the Project site. The Modified Project would not result in substantial changes or involve new information not already analyzed in the 2018 EIR because the level of development now proposed for the site is within the development assumptions analyzed in the 2018 EIR. The Modified Project would not cause new significant impacts not previously identified in the 2018 EIR, or result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts. No new mitigation measures would be necessary to reduce significant impacts.
No changes have occurred with respect to circumstances surrounding the Project site that would cause new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects, and there is no substantial evidence in the record that shows that the Modified Project would cause any significant environmental impacts. Therefore, no supplemental environmental review is required or allowed in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21166, and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 through 15164.
Based on the foregoing and the detailed analyses and conclusions set forth in this document; the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the 2018 EIR included the potential environmental effects associated with the Modified Project and none of the criteria calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration under Sections 15162 have occurred. The information and analysis presented in this environmental review document supports that the Modified Project meets all requirements under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15164 and determinations that the Modified Project qualifies for an Addendum to the 2018 EIR. Therefore, this CEQA analysis makes findings of consistency with Sections 15164. As a result, no supplemental environmental review is required in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15164.
PLANNED AREA PLAN FINDINGS, DENSITY BONUS, VESTING TENTATIVE MAP, AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT FINDINGS:
The City Council must adopt certain findings in recommending approval of the Major Amendment to an approved Planned Area Plan, Density Bonus for Waivers, Vesting Tentative Map, and Design Review. Statements of fact for supporting the required
May 24, 2022
findings are contained in the draft Resolution in Attachment 1. The recommended conditions of approval, including those of the DRB (attached as Exhibit B) for the proposed project are also contained in the draft Resolution No.
CONCLUSION:
The Revised Project will establish a new community on an existing, underutilized site.
The proposed Revised Project’s density is within the range for the Medium Density Residential land use designation. The Revised Project’s density is typical of others in the area and will complement existing residential developments in the area. In addition, the proposed PA District would result in improvements to the Bay Trail, adjacent to the project site, and a design and urban form that are compatible with surrounding development. City staff recommends that, based on the evidence in the record, including but not limited to the Addendum to the Final EIR, the proposed Conditions of Approval, including the proposed Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the application, plans, and materials submitted to the City, the City Council adopts the Addendum to the Final EIR, and approval of a Major Amendment to an Approved Planned Area Plan, Density Bonus for Waivers, Vesting Tentative Map, and Design Review for the Quarry Residential Project Redesign, subject to conditions of approval.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – Resolution
Exhibit A: Addendum to EIR with Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Exhibit B: Conditions of Approval
Exhibit C: PA Plan
Exhibit D: Project Plans with Vesting Tentative Map
Attachment 2 – Point Richmond Letter
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. _____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND CERTIFYING AN ADDENDUM TO THE QUARRY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR (SCH# 2017062083) AND MITIGATION AND MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM ; AND APPROVING A MAJOR AMENDMENT TO A PLANNED AREA PLAN; DENSITY BONUS FOR WAIVERS; MAJOR DESIGN REVIEW; AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
FOR THE QUARRY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT REDESIGN
I. GENERAL FINDINGS
A. Introduction. New West Company (“Applicant”) is proposing to construct up to 76 single -family dwelling units of varying sizes from 1,645 to 1,840 square feet and associated common areas and amenities on approximately 6.5-acres of the 18.4-acre site in the City of Richmond, Contra Costa County, California . The houses are 2 stories in height and are on lots varying from 2,068 to 3,081 square feet (“Quarry Residential Project Redesign” and "Project”). Required Project approvals include: (1) a major amendment to an approved Planned Area plan; (2) a Density Bonus for waivers; (3) Major Design Review for house plans; and (4) a Vesting Tentative Map (collectively referred to as the “Project Approvals”).
B. Environmental Review Process . On February 20, 2018, the City Council of the City of Richmond adopted Resolution No. 08-18 certifying the Quarry Residential Project Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) (SCH#2017062083) and Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”). Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15164, th e City has prepared an Addendum affirming that the analysis contained in the Quarry Residential Project EIR adequately addresses the potential physical impacts associated with the proposed Quarry Residential Project Redesign. The Addendum to the Quarry Re sidential Project EIR, attached hereto as Exhibit A, was prepared in compliance with the requirements of the CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Richmond Guidelines and Procedures for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act; and based upon the evidence submitted and as demonstrated by the analysis included in the Addendum, none of the conditions described in Sections 15162 and 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines calling for the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR o r negative declaration have occurred; specifically:
a. There have not been any substantial changes in the project that require major revisions of the EIR because of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; b. There have not been any substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that require major revisions of the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effe cts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and c. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the ti me the EIR was certified that shows any of the following: (a) the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the EIR; (b) significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the EIR; (c) mitigatio n measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (d ) mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; and
C. Administrative Record. The administrative record, upon which all Findings related to the approval of the Project are based, includes the following:
(1) The Quarry Residential Project Final EIR and all documents referenced in or relied upon by the Final EIR.
(2) The Addendum to the Quarry Residential Project EIR and all documents referenced in or relied upon by the EIR Addendum. Page 42 of 690
(3) All information (including written evidence and testimony) provided by City Staff to the Design Review Board, Planning Commission and the City Council relating to the EIR and Addendum, the approvals, and the Project.
(4) All information (including written evidence and testimony) presented at or in preparation of any City public hearing or City workshop related to the Project and the EIR. (5) For documentary and information purposes, all City -adopted land use plans and ordinances, including without limitation the general plan, specific plans and ordinances, together with environmental review documents, findings, mitigation monitor ing programs and other documentation relevant to the Project site.
(6) The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) for the Project. (7) All other documents composing the record pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21167.6(e).
The custodian of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of the proceedings upon which the City’s decisions are based is the Director of Community Development or their designee. Such documents and other materials are located at City Hall, Planning Division, 450 Civic Center Plaza, Richmond, California, 94804.
D. Findings. On March 9 and March 23, 2022, the Design Review Board reviewed the proposed project and recommended approval to the Planning Commission with additional conditions (see Exhibit B, Conditions #42-62 in Attachment 1). On April 21, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Project and recommended approval to the City Council.
On May 17, 2022, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Project.
After considering public testimony and materials in the staff report, including the Final EIR (State Clearinghouse #2017062083), the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and findings in support of the Major Amendment to a PA Plan, De nsity Bonus, Vesting Tentative Map, and Design Review, the City Council approved the Project subject to conditions, in its independent and objective judgment , stating that the Addendum is adequate and sufficient in all respects and the findings set forth b elow are appropriate and adequate to support adoption of the Addendum to the Quarry Residential Project Final EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and adoption of the Project Approvals. These findings are made pursuant to CEQA and City o f Richmond Municipal Code. These findings support the adoption of the Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and include the findings to support the approval of the Major Amendment to PA Plan, Density Bonus, Vesting Tentative Map, and Design Review.
II. CEQA FINDINGS.
The City of Richmond is the Lead Agency with respect to the Project pursuant to Section 15367 of the CEQA Guidelines. The following findings support the City Council’s decision to adopt the Addendum and MMRP:
A. The Addendum has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., and the City of Richmond's Guidelines and Procedures for Implementation of CEQA, Resolution No. 31 -21 (adopted March 16, 2021), and reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City.
B. The City hereby adopts and makes conditions of approval of the Quarry Residential Project Redesign all of the mitigation measures that are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City that are identified in the CEQA Findings for the Quarry Residential Project EIR.
C. The City finds based upon the evidence submitted and as demonstrated by the analysis included in the Addendum that none of the conditions described in Sections 15162 and 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines calling for the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR or negative declaration have occurred.
D. The City hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Quarry Residential Project Redesign, attached hereto as "Exhibit A."
III. PLANNED AREA PLAN FINDINGS
Pursuant to Section 15.04.810.040, in approving a major amendments to an approved Planned Area Plan (attached as Exhibit C), the City Council, makes the following findings supported by statements of fact.
A. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan, including the height, density, and intensity limitations that apply unless these limitations are to be amended;
Staff Statement: Criterion Conditionally Satisfied. The Revised Project is consistent with the proposed Medium Density Residential land use density because it is within the specified range (10 to 40 du/ac). With approval of the Major Amendments to the Planned Area Plan, t he various development standards for the RM -1 zoning district may be modified.
B. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the proposed land use;
Staff Statement: Criterion Satisfied. The Project site is an infill site locat ed in an urbanized area with existing drainage, sewer, water, and infrastructure improvements.
The Project site is suitable for residential development because it is located in close proximity to residential uses and has existing services and utilities ava ilable to serve the development.
C. Adequate transportation facilities and public services, as defined in the General Plan and in the design standards established in the Subdivision Regulations exist or will be provided in accordance with the conditions of Planned Area Plan approval to serve the proposed development; and the approval of the proposed development will not result in a reduction of transportation service for all modes of travel or public services so as to be a detriment to public health, safety, or welfare;
Staff Statement: Criterion Conditionally Satisfied. The Revised Project will not include new public transit services, but that does not preclude the enhancement of transit services and connections. Additionally, the Revised Project will facilitate multimodal travel (i.e., pedestrian and bicycle infrastruct ure and facilities) through its Bay Trail improvements.
Per condition of approval No. 8, the Revised Project will prepare a transportation-demand management plan to reduce the miles travelled by single-use occupancy vehicles.
D. The proposed developmen t will not have a substantial adverse effect on surrounding land uses and will be compatible with the existing and planned land use character of the surrounding area;
Staff Statement: Criterion Satisfied. Existing land uses surrounding the Project site comprise predominantly recreation/open space, industrial port -related uses, and residential uses. The Revised Project will establish a new residential community and include improvements to both Seacliff Drive and its bordering Bay Trail. Further, the Revised Project will improve vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle infrastructure and connections near the site. The proposed detached single -family use is similar to existing uses in the surrounding area. Therefore, the Revised Project will not have a substantial adverse effect on the existing surrounding uses.
E. The development generally complies with applicable design guidelines; and
Staff Statement: Criterion Satisfied. The modified Planned Area Plan specifies development standards for the Revised Project that the project design conforms to. The Revised Project will use high-quality design and materials and is substantially consistent with the Planned Area Plan, as modified, and the City’s design review criteria within Section 15.04.805.040.
F. The propose d development is demonstratively superior to the development that could occur under the standards applicable to the underlying base district, and will achieve superior community design, environmental preservation and/or substantial public benefit. In makin g this determination, the following factors will be considered:
1. Appropriateness of the use(s) at the proposed location.
Staff Statement: Criterion Satisfied. The Revised Project will provide medium density, market-rate housing, including ten percent (10%) affordable units at the Moderate-Income level, which the City needs to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation. Without the Planned Area Plan, this type of housing could not be provided under the base Zoning District’s regulations. Several of the surrounding residential developments in the area were also developed as Planned Area districts that included deviations from similar development standards such as setbacks and minimum lot size.
2. The mix of uses, housing types, and housing price levels.
Staff Statement: Criterion Satisfied. The Revised Project proposes 76 single -family detached units and lots of varying sizes. Amenities will be provided, including a play area with benches and picnic tables. Given the varying unit sizes and types, the single -family units will be made available to a range of home buyers, including ten (10%) affordable units at the Moderate-Income level.
3. Provision of units affordable to persons and families of low and moderate income or to lower income households.
Staff Statement: Criterion Conditionally Satisfied. The Revised Project will be required to comply with the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and build its inclusionary units on-site. The Revised Project proposes to build 10% of the total units as affordable units at the Moderate -income level. During the 5 th Cycle Housing Element, the City was assigned 410 units at the moderate income level. As of December 31, 2021, no units had been built that were deed restricted at the moderate income level. The Revised Project will help the City provide this missing aff ordable unit type in its Regional Housing Needs Allocation.
4. Provision of infrastructure improvements.
Staff Statement: Criterion Satisfied. The Revised Project will provide for utilities and public services that will not exceed the capacity of existi ng and planned public services and infrastructure. The Revised Project includes the installation of new water, stormwater, and sanitary sewer infrastructure(s). In addition, the project will include improvements to both Seacliff Drive and the Bay Trail alongside Seacliff Drive, which will improve vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle infrastructure and connections near the Project site.
5. Provision of open space.
Staff Statement: Criterion Satisfied. The Revised Project will include landscaped common ar eas that the Homeowners Association (“HOA”) will maintain. In addition to landscaping, the Revised Project will provide enhancements to the section of the Bay Trail on Seacliff Drive along the Project site. The trail will be rebuilt as a 12 -foot-wide paved trail with five (5) to seven (7) feet of landscaping (low ground cover planting) between the trail and Seacliff Drive, and three (3) feet of decomposed granite between the trail and the landscape leading up to the project buildings. Pathways within the de velopment will link open spaces and residences. Additionally, the Revised Project will build a new staging area for the Crest Trail.
6. Compatibility of uses within the development area.
Staff Statement: Criterion Satisfied. The Revised Project proposes residential uses (plus amenities) and open space, which are compatible uses.
7. Creativity in design and use of land.
Staff Statement: Criterion Satisfied. The Revised Project will develop a vacant, underutilized site with high-quality residential buildings. The buildings have been located on the Project site to minimize impacts to the slope on the western portion of the site and to allow for amenity spaces and connectivity throughout the developed portion of the site.
More than half of the site will be undeveloped open space, which includes Bay Trail enhancements and a new staging area for the EBRPD Crest Trail.
8. Quality of design, and adequacy of lig ht and air to the interior spaces of the buildings.
Staff Statement: Criterion Satisfied. The Revised Project will provide architectural design that includes high-quality materials and finishes. Buildings have been located on the site with sufficient separation to allow adequate light and air into the interior spaces. Buildings have also been oriented to allow for maximum view orientation and natural light for safety and comfort.
9. Overall contribution to the enhancement of neighborhood character and th e environment of Richmond in the long term.
Staff Statement: Criterion Satisfied. The Revised Project will improve the aesthetic and economic value of the site, adjacent properties, the neighborhood, and the entire City by revitalizing an unimproved infill site. It also will help fulfill the City’s need for additional housing.
IV. VESTING TENTATIVE MAP FINDINGS
Pursuant to Section 15.04.702.100 in approving the Vesting Tentative Map, attached as Exhibit D , the City Council makes the following findings and statements of facts for approval:
A. Consistency. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the General Plan, any applicable specific plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and other applicable provisions of the City’s Municipal Code.
Statement of Fact: Criterion Conditionally Satisfied. The Revised Project is consistent with the Medium Density Residential land use designation under the General Plan, as well as with applicable General Plan goals and policies.
The following list highlights a selection of the General Plan goals and policies that project supports or accomplishes:
• The project would meet future housing needs within City limits through infill development in an area already served by community facilities, utilities, and transportation systems. (Goal LU-K)
• The project would provide a high standard of design and planning, and construction of new facilities, infrastructure, and services. By implementing several sustainability measures, the project will promote a planning approach that supports a sustainable and healthy community and reduces impacts on the environment. (Goal LU 6) • The project achieves a higher standard for housing design, current green building standards, seismic requirements, and pedestrian friendly design. (Goal LU 6.5) • The project has a pl anting and landscaping plan that is consistent with the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commissions’ Landscape Guide for the San Francisco Bay. (Goal PR3)
B. Physically Suitable. The site is physically suitable for the type of development and the proposed density of the development.
Statement of Fact: Criterion Conditionally Satisfied. The 6.3 acres proposed for development are physically suitable for development of the proposed subdivision. The parcels meet the minimum area for a Planned Area District. The Project site is served by existing streets and existing services and utilities are available to serve the development.
The Medium Density Residential land use designation has a density range of 10 to 40 dwelling units per acre. The r esulting subdivision would create an 83 -parcel subdivision with some of those lots being common interest lots. The proposed density of development falls within the 10 to 40 dwelling units per acre at 12 du/acre.
C. No Environmental Damage. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, unless an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prep ared and a finding Page 46 of 690 was made that specific economic, social, or other considerations make the mitigation measures or Project alternatives infeasible, pursuant to Section 21081(a)(3) of the Public Resources Code.
Statement of Fact: Criterion Conditionally Satisfied. As specified in the Addendum to the Quarry Residential Project Final EIR, the Project could result in some significant impacts to the environment related to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources and noise; however, with implement ation of the mitigation measures in the MMRP, all impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. In addition, the proposed Project is on a previously disturbed site.
D. Public Health Problems. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is not likely to cause serious public health problems.
Statement of Fact: Criterion Conditionally Satisfied. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause any serious public health problems because the Project consists of development of a typical residential housing development consisting of 76 single -family lots, and will be constructed to meet all applicable building and safety codes. The proposed subdivision would result in the redevelopment of the site from a former quarry to a medium density residential development, including improvements to Seacliff Drive and an improved Bay Trail along the Project frontage. In addition, the Project will implement mitigation measures designed to reduce potentially significant impacts to less- than-significant levels.
The Addendum to the FEIR addresses the Project’s potential to affect the public health in a number of ways (e.g., generation of emissions, noise, etc.) and the FEIR determined that with mitigation, the Project would have no significant impacts.
E. No Conflict with Easements. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of proper ty within the proposed subdivision. The City may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements for access or for use will be provided and that these easements will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public.
Statement of Fac t: Criterion Satisfied. The design of the subdivision and future improvements for development of the property will not conflict with easements acquired for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision because no such easements exist.
F. Availability of Water. Water will be available and sufficient to serve a proposed subdivision with more than 500 dwelling units in accordance with Section 66473.7 of the Subdivision Map Act.
Statement of Fact: Criterion Not Applicable. The Project proposes up to 76 dwelling units, which is below the 500-dwelling unit threshold.
V. DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS
Pursuant to Section 15.04.805.050, in approving the Design Review of the Project Plans attached as Exhibit D, the City Council makes the following findings and statements of facts for the proposed application as it is consistent with:
A. The General Plan and any applicable specific plans;
Staff Statement: Criterion Conditionally Satisfied. The Revised Project is consistent with the Medium Density Residential land use designation under the General Plan, as well as with applicable General Plan goals and policies.
The following list highlights a selection of the General Plan goals and policies that project supports or accomplishes:
The project would meet future housing needs within City limits through infill development in an area already served by community facilities, utilities, and transportation systems. (Goal LU-K)
The project would provide a high standard of design and planning, and construction of new facilities, infrastructure, and services. By implementing several sustainability measures, the project will promote a planning approach that supports a sustainable and Page 47 of 690 healthy community and reduces impacts on the environment. (Goal LU 6) The project achieves a higher standard for housing design, current green building standards, seismic requirements, and pedestrian friendly design. (Goal LU 6.5) The project has a planting and landscapin g plan that is consistent with the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commissions’ Landscape Guide for the San Francisco Bay. (Goal PR3)
B. Any applicable design guidelines;
Staff Statement: Criterion Satisfied. There are no applicable design guidelines that affect this property. As noted below in paragraph ‘D,’ the Revised Project is consistent with the City Design Review Criteria in Section 15.04.805.040 of the Zoning Ordinance.
C. Any approved tentative map, Use Permit, Variance, or other planning or zoning approval that the project required;
Staff Statement: Criterion Conditionally Satisfied. The project includes a request for a Major Amendment to an approved Planned Area Plan and Vesting Tentative Map which must be reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council. The Revised Project is substantially consistent with the Vesting Tentative Map and the Planned Area Plan, as modified.
D. The design review criteria in Section 15.04.805.040.
The project must satisfy these criteria to the extent applicable. Criteria Met? A. The overall design of the project, including its scale, massing, site plan, exterior design, and landscaping, reflects design integrity and the relationship of form and function in a coherent manner.
Yes No
B. The project design evidences a sense of place and consideration of scale, mass, height, building siting, and privacy in a neighborhood and community context; does not overwhelm or adversely impact adjoining properties; and respects prevailing setbacks and the scale and heights of neighboring buildings and how they relate to the street.
Yes No
C. The project’s design elements, materials, signage, and landscaping are internally consistent, fully integrated with one another, and applied in a manner that is visually consistent with the proposed architectural design.
Yes No
D. Lighting and lighting fixtures are designed to complement buildings, be of appropriate scale, provide adequate light over walkways and parking areas to create a sense of pedestrian safety, and avoid creating glare.
Yes No
E. The proposed building design and landscaping supports public safety and security by allowing for surveillance of the street by people inside buildings and elsewhere on the site.
Yes No
F. Landscaping is designed to be compatible with and enhance the architectural character of the buildings on site. Proposed planting materials avoid conflicts with views, lighting, and signage.
Yes No
Staff Statement: The Revised Project will achieve a high-quality design. The design of the Revised Project will create a cohesive neighborhood context. The community park and open space areas will provide gathering spaces for the community. The three (3) design types and nine (9) color and material schemes will provide variation and visual interest.
The conditions of approval will ensure that lighting and lighting fixtures are designed to avoid creating a glare. The design of the buildings and site landscaping support pu blic safety and security by allowing surveillance of the street and open space area by people inside buildings and elsewhere on the site. The Revised Project will include Building Energy Efficiency Standards, as required by Title 24, Part 6, intended to sa ve energy, increase electricity supply reliability, and avoid the need to construct new power plants.
The Revised Project will also be subject to CALGreen, which requires energy efficient appliances for all homes that the project will develop. CALGreen als o requires EV charging and spaces, water conservation measures, recycling by occupants and 65% construction waste diversion. The landscape irrigation design complies with the City’s and State of California’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance using low wa ter delivery equipment, as well as adhering to all East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD) standards. The irrigation meter applications and system design will be submitted to and reviewed by EBMUD for compliance.
VI. DENSITY BONUS WAIVERS FINDINGS
The Revised Project is density-bonus eligible because it contains eight (8) Moderate-Income units, or ten percent (10%) of the base -proposed density. The Applicant has requested the following waivers under state Density Bonus Law, all as shown on the plans:
1. Minimum Lot Size: 2,068 to 3,081 square foot lot size, rather than 5,000 required.
2. Minimum Lot Width: 34-foot minimum width, where 50 feet are required.
3. Minimum Front Setback: Five (5) -foot minimum setback, where 10 feet are required.
4. Minimum Interior Side Setback: Four (4)-foot minimum interior side setback, where five (5) feet are required.
5. Minimum Rear Setback: Eight (8)-foot minimum rear setback, where 20 feet are required.
The City has granted the waivers to permit the Project to be built as designed. No substantial evidence in the record shows that the Revised Project would violate state or federal law(s); have an adverse impact on a property listed on the California Historical Register; or have a specific, adverse health or safety impact that cannot be otherwise mitigated.
VII. THOROUGH AND FULL REVIEW
In making the findings listed above and the approvals set forth below, the City Council has thoroughly reviewed the land use program, site plan, architectural plans, and landscap e plans, as further described in the PA Plan, as well as the Density Bonus for Waivers, Design Review, and the Vesting Tentative Map, and has fully considered modifications to these elements of the Project to address issues raised and comments of the public, DRB, PC and public agencies on both the Addendum and the Project.
VIII. SEVERABILITY
Should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this Resolution be rendered or declared invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences and words of this Resolution shall remain in full force and effect.
IX. APPROVALS
The City Council does hereby adopt the Addendum to the Quarry Residential Project Final EIR (State Clearinghouse #2017062083), with findings pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081, and other findings contained herein, adopt s the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approve s the Major A mendment to a Planned Area Plan, Density Bonus for Waiver, Vesting Tentative Map, and Design Review for the Quarry Residential Project Redesign.
Exhibit A: Addendum to Final EIR with Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Exhibit B: Conditions of Approval
Exhibit C: PA Plan
Exhibit D: Project Plans with Vesting Tentative Map
*****************************
I certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting held on May 17 , 2022 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
Clerk of the City of Richmond
Approved:
(SEAL)
Tom Butt, Mayor
Approved as to form:
Dave Aleshire, Interim City Attorney
Quarry Residential Project
i
ESA
/
D161035.01
EIR Addendum
March 2022
R
EVISED
Q
UARRY
R
ESIDENTIAL
PROJECT
Addendum
to the Quarry Residential Project
EIR
1. General Project Information
1.1 Project Title
Quarry Residential Project
1.2 Le
a
d
Ag
enc
y
N
a
me
an
d
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
City
o
f
Richmond
Planning and Building Services Department
4 50
Civic Center
Plaza
PO Box 4046
Richmond
,
CA 94
804
-
1630
1.3 Project Case File Number
City Project Case Number:
PLN21
-
327
; State Clearinghouse (SCH) Number: 2017062083
(Quarry Residential Project EIR certified 2/20/2018)
1.4 Contact Person and Phone Number
Lina Velasco
,
Direc
tor of
Community Development
Community Development
Department
(510)
620
-
6841
1.5 Pr
o
j
e
c
t L
o
c
a
t
i
on
1135 Canal Boulevard
, Richmond, CA.
Assessor’s Parcel No.
560
-
330
-
043
1.6 Project Applicant’s Name and Address
New West
Company
1100 G
rier Drive
Las Vegas, NV
8911
9
1. Project Information
Quarry Residential Project
ii
ESA
/
D161035.01
EIR Addendum
March 2022
1.7 Existing General Plan Designations
Open Space and Medium Density Residential
1.8 Existing Zoning
OS, Open Space, and PA, Planned Area
1.9 Requested Permits
CEQA determination, Vesting
Tentative
Subdivision
Map,
Major Amendment to PA
Plan,
Density Bonus
for
waivers
,
Design Review,
grading
permits, encroachment permits, building
permits, other City approvals as
necessary
to develop the project.
Quarry Residential Project
iii
ESA
/
D161035.01
EIR Addendum
March 2022
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Addendum to the Quarry Residential Project
EIR
Page
1. General Project In
formation
................................
................................
............................
i
1.1 Project Title
................................
................................
................................
...............
i
1.2 Lead Agency Name and Address
................................
................................
.............
i
1.3 Project Case File Number
................................
................................
.........................
i
1.4 Contact Person and Phone Number
................................
................................
.........
i
1.5 Project Location
................................
................................
................................
........
i
1.6 Project Applicant’s Name and Address
................................
................................
....
i
1.7 Existing General Plan Designation
................................
................................
...........
i
1.8 Existing Z
oning
................................
................................
................................
..........
ii
1.9 Requested Permits
................................
................................
................................
....
ii
2 .
Purpose and Determination
................................
................................
...........................
1 2
.1
Project
Overview
and Purposes
................................
................................
...............
1 2
.2
Applicable Provisions for CEQA Compliance
................................
..........................
1 2
.3
Determination
................................
................................
................................
...........
3 3
.
Project Description
................................
................................
................................
..........
3 3.1
Project Site
................................
................................
................................
...............
3 3.2
Original Project
................................
................................
................................
.........
4 3.3
Modified Proje
ct
................................
................................
................................
........
8 3.4
Modified Project
A
pprovals
................................
................................
....................
10 3.5
References
................................
................................
................................
.............
12 4
.
CEQA Analysis
................................
................................
................................
..............
13 4.1
.
Overview
................................
................................
................................
................
13 4.2
Aesthetics
................................
................................
................................
...............
14 4.3
Air Quality
................................
................................
................................
...............
16 4.4
Biological Resources
................................
................................
..............................
20 4.5
Cultural and Paleontological Resources
................................
................................
23 4.6
Energy
................................
................................
................................
....................
27 4.7
Geology, Soils and Mineral Resou
rces
................................
................................
..
29 4.8
Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
................................
................
31 4.9
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
................................
................................
.........
34 4.10
Hydrology and Water Quality
................................
................................
.................
37 4.11
Land Use and Planning
................................
................................
..........................
39 4.12
Noise
................................
................................
................................
......................
41 4.13
Population, Housing, and Employment
................................
................................
..
4 4
4.14 Public Services
................................
................................
................................
.......
46 4.15
Trans
portation and Traffic
................................
................................
......................
48 4.16
Utilities and Service Systems
................................
................................
.................
53
Table of Contents
Quarry Residential Project
iv
ESA
/
D161035.01
EIR Addendum
March 2022
5 .
Conclusion
................................
................................
................................
.....................
55 5
.1
Proposed Changes to the
Original Project
................................
............................
55 5
.2
Implications of Proposed Project Changes to the
Original
Project
........................
55 5
.3
Findings
................................
................................
................................
..................
55 Attachment
A
Revised Mitigation Monit
oring and Reporting P
rogram
for the Modified
P
roject
................................
................................
................................
..................
A
-
1 List of Figures
3 -
1 Project Site and Surrounding Uses
................................
................................
...........
5 3
-
2 Original Project
Site Plan
................................
................................
...........................
6 3
-
3 Modified Project Site Plan
................................
................................
.........................
9 List of Tables
2 -
1 Land Use Program and Major Project Characteristics,
Mod
ified Project
and Original Project
................................
................................
..............................
10 4
-
1 Unmitigated Average Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions
of the Original and Modified Project
................................
................................
.....
18 4
-
2 Estimated GHG Emissions Generated by the Modified Project
..............................
32 4
-
3 Automobile Trip Generation Estimates
................................
................................
....
49
2. Purpose and Determination
Quarry Residential Project
1 ESA
/
D161035.01
EIR Addendum
March 2022
2. Purpose and Determination
2.1 Project Overview
and Purpose
New West Communities, LLC
(
Project
Applicant
)
proposes
revisions to the
Quarry Residential
Project
(
Original
Project)
that was analyzed under the
certified
201
8 Quarry Residential Project
EIR
(SCH N
o.
2017062083
)
(201
8 EIR).
1 The previously approved Original Project consists of
the
development of up to 200 condominium units in 15 buildings and associated common areas and amenities on approximately 18.4 acres
at 1135
Canal Boulevard
(Project Site)
.
Th
e proposed
change to the Original Project would instead develop
76 detached single
-
family houses across the
site (Modified Project
).
The City of Richmond (City) has prepared this Addendum to the 2018 EIR to analyze the physical and environmental impacts as
sociated with the propose
d
revisions to the Original
Project, per the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) statutes (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations 15000
et seq.).
An evaluation of the Modified Project is provided in the CEQA analysis Section 4 that follows.
This environmental review document is intended to assist the City to determine the appropriate
CEQA documentation for the
Modified
Project
.
Specifica
lly, t
he analysis in this environmental
review document
is intended to assist
City’s assessment of whether an addendum is suitable for the
Modified
Project.
2.2 Applicable Provisions for CEQA Compliance
CEQA Guidelines Section 15164
provides that the lead age
ncy or a responsible agency shall
prepare an Addendum to a previously certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or adopted Negative Declaration (ND) if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Sectio
n 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR or ND have occurred (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15164).
An Addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the Final EIR or ND (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subd. ( c)). The decision
-
making body shall
consider
the Addendum to the Final EIR prior to making a decision on the Project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subd. (d)). An agency must also include a brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR
or ND pursuant to Section 15162 (CEQA Guidelines
Section 15164, subd. (e)).
Consequently, once an EIR or ND has been certified or adopted for a Project, no subsequent EIR or ND shall be prepared under CEQA unless, based on substantial evidence:
1 For the purpose of this
Addendum analysis, the 2018 EIR is comprised of the following documents:
Quarry
Residential Project
Draft EIR
, October, 2017 (Draft EIR); and
Quarry Residential Project Final EIR Response to
Comments,
January 2018.
2. Purpose a
nd Determination
Quarry Residential Project
2 ESA
/
D161035.01
EIR Addendum
March 2022
1)
Substantia
l changes are proposed in the project
that
will require major revisions of the
previous EIR or ND . . . due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
2)
Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken
that
will require major revisions of the previous EIR or ND . . . due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in
the
severity of previously identified significant effects; or
3)
New information of substantial importance,
that
was not known and could not have been
known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or t
he ND was adopted. . . shows any of the following:
a)
The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or ND or negative declaration;
b)
Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown i
n the previous EIR or ND;
c)
Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the miti gation measure or
alternative; or
d)
Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR or ND would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents d ecline to adopt the
mitigation measure or alternative (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15162, subd. (a); see also Pub. Resources Code, Section 21166).
This Addendum, checklist, and attached documents constitute substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that
preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR is not required or allowed pursuant to CEQA.
In accordance with California Public Resources Code Section and
21166; and CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162 through 15164, and as set forth in the analysis below, the
Modified Project
qualifies for an addendum because the following findings can be made:
Addendum.
The 2018 EIR analyzed the impacts of
development within the Project site. The
Modified Project would not result in substantial changes or involve new informat ion not
already analyzed in the 2018 EIR because the level of development now proposed for
the site
is within the development assumptions analyzed in the 2018 EIR. The Modified Project would not cause new significant impacts not previously identified in th e 2018 EIR, or result
in
a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts. No new mitigation measures would be necessary to reduce significant impacts. No changes have occurred with respect to circumstances surrounding th
e Project site that would cause
new
significant environmental impacts
or
a substantial increase in the severity of previously
3. Project Description
Quarry Residential Project
3 ESA
/
D161035.01
EIR Addendum
March 2022
identified significant effec
ts
, and
there is no substantial evidence in the record
that shows that
the Modified Project would caus
e
any
significant environmental impacts. Therefore, no
supplemental environmental review is required
or allowed
in accordance with Public
Resources Code Section
21166, and CEQA
Guidelines Sections
15162 through 15164.
2.3 Determination
Based on the foregoing a
nd the detailed analyses and conclusions set forth
in this document
; the
analysis, findings, and conclusions of the 2018 EIR included the potential environmental effects associated with
the
Modified
Project and none of the criteria calling for preparation of a
subsequent EIR or negative declaration under Sections 15162 have occurred.
The information and
analysis presented in this environmental review document supports that the Modified
Project
meets
all requirements under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15164
and
determinations that the
Modified
Project qualifies for an Addendum to the 2018 EIR. Therefore, this CEQA analysis makes findings of consistency with Sections 15164.
As a result, no supplemental environmental
review is required in accordance with
CEQA Guide
lines Sections
15164
.
Overall, based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the 2018 EIR, the potential environmental impacts associated with the Modified Project have been adequately analyzed and covered in the 2018 EIR. Therefore
, no further review or analysis under CEQA is
required.
The
Modified Project is also
required to comply with the applicable mitigation measures identified in the 2018 EIR, except as updated
in the
modified Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (MMRP)
, which is included as
Attachment A
to this Addendum
.
3. Project Description
3.1 Project Site
The Modified Project site
(Project site) is the same as the Project site for the Original Project
which
consists of one parcel (APN 560
-
330
-
043) totaling approximately
18.4 acres in size located
at 1135 Canal B
ou
l
e
v
ar
d,
south of the intersection of Canal Boulevard and Seacliff Drive. The Project site is located approximately 0.2
-
mile north of the San Francisco Bay within the Point
Richmond area of the City.
Figure 3
-
1 il
lustrates the Project site’s local context. The Project site is bounded by Seacliff Drive (east), vacant property and Canal Boulevard (north), vacant property then Seacliff Drive (south), and Miller/Knox Regional Shoreline park (Miller/Knox park), an East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) open space area (west and north).
The Project site is unchanged from conditions described in the 2018 EIR and is currently vacant and undeveloped
after reclamation of the
Canal Quarry (CA Mine ID #91
-
07 -
0007) was complete
d
in 2012
. The relief of the landscape is generally flat on approximately 6.3 acres, with a steep, east
-
facing slope rising to a bluff on the west side of the property where the grade rises sharply.
Vegetation on the site consists largely of grasses and sc attered shrubs, with trees also located on
the bluff above the site.
Subdrain pipes extending out of the ground midway along the face of the slope drain groundwater from the slope and into a vegetated, constructed drainage.
Water in this
drainage flows alo
ng the toe of the slope from north to south and to a location in the southern part
2. Purpose a
nd Determination
Quarry Residential Project
4 ESA
/
D161035.01
EIR Addendum
March 2022
of the site where it begins to flow east, flowing for a short distance within a culvert under an unpaved access road on the site, and ultimately into a catch basin approxima tely 20 feet from
Seacliff Drive, which eventually discharges into the Bay.
The entire Project site ha
s
a General Plan land use designation of
Open Space and Medium
Density Residential
and
is
zoned
OS, Open Space, and PA, Planned Area
.
As discussed
in the
2018 EIR
, the
Original
Project
included
an application for a
General Plan Land Use Map
Amendment and zoning reclassification, from Parks and Recreation to Open Space (for 12.1 acres of the site) and Medium Density Residential
to
Planned Area District (PA)
(for 6.3 acres of the
Project site
referred to in this Addendum as the “Project development area” of the site ).
The PA
zoning designation
facilitates the orderly development of larger sites in the City consistent with the General Plan, especially where a p
articular mix of uses or character is desired that can best be achieved through an integrated development plan
.
3.2 Original Project
The
Original Project
would develop approximately 6.3 acres of the Project site and preserve the remainder of the site (12.1 ac
res) as open space
(see
Figure 3
-
2 )
. The Original Project c
onsist
ed
of the following com
ponents
:
DORNAN DR
MALLARD DR
PROJECT
SITE
Keller Beach
BRICKYARD COVE RD
SANDPIPER SPIT
Brickyard
Cove MarinaRichmond
Yacht
Club
San Francisco Bay
Harbor
Channel
Santa Fe Channel
MILLER/KNOX
REGIONAL
SHORELINE
BRICKYARD
LANDING
SEA CLIFF
BOTTOMS
RESIDENTIAL
PROJECT
TERMINAL ONE
PROJECT
SANDPIPER SPIT
SANDERLING
ISLAND
BRICKYARD
COVE
RESIDENTIAL
PROJECT
COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL USES
Cyprus Point
Ferry Point
PELICAN W
AY
Quarry Residential Addendum . 161035.01
Figure 3-1
Project Site and Surrounding Uses
SOURCE: ESA, 2017
0 1000
Feet
Residential
Private Recreational
Public Park Land
Commercial and Industrial
Planned/Proposed Residential
Vacant Land
Quarry Residential Addendum . 161035.01
Figure 3-2
Original Project Site Plan
SOURCE: KTGY
0 80
Feet
3. Project Description
Quarry Residential Project
7 ESA
/
D161035.01
EIR Addendum
March 2022
1. Up to 200
condominiums units of varying sizes in 15 buildings three -
story building
s,
some with four
-
story elements;
2. Maximum building height under 50 feet.
3. Approximately 289 parking spaces (252± garage and carport spaces for residents and approximately 37± spaces for guests, including 8 accessible spaces);
4. Amenities, including a clubhous
e and swimming pool;
5. Landscaping, pathways, and small open space areas throughout the site;
6. Improvements to the Seacliff Drive right
-
of
-
way along the Project site frontage, including
addition of landscaping, installation of enhanced lighting especially at the intersection of
the Project driveway and Seacliff Drive, and improvements to the Bay Trail;
7. Rolled curbs at the Project access for emergency vehicles;
8. Installation of utilities and infrastructure improvements that would be required to serve the new h
omes
; and
9. Contribution or creation of a staging area for the
EBRPD
Crest Trail at Canal Boulevard
.
Given concerns raised regarding preexisting traffic safety conditions on Seacliff Drive, the Project Applicant
agreed to pay for and/or install the following
improvements to Seacliff Drive:
1. Speed feedback signs in both directions;
2. Striping on both sides of Seacliff Drive to provide 2 -
foot shoulders and 12
-
foot travel
lanes in both directions; and
3. The following signage:
a.
25 miles per hour (mph) speed limit (Sign
R2
-
1) on both directions of Seacliff Drive;
b.
Curve arrows (W1
-
8) on both directions of Seacliff Drive; and
c.
Stop Ahead (W3
-
1) on northbound Seacliff Drive on the approach to Canal B
ou
l
e
v
ar
d; and Intersection Ahead (W2
-
2) on both directions of Seacliff Drive
approaching the Project driveway.
The Original P
roject was
anticipated to be developed in one phase, with a construction period of 16 months. Project site preparation would include extensive site grading and fill within the Project development area. All c
onstruction staging would also be contained within the Project development area
,
and construction vehicles would primarily use
a service road off Canal
Boulevard
to access the Project site
and minimize construction traffic on
Seacliff Drive
where
feasible
.
The Original Project would use existing and available water and wastewater treatment and off -
site
transmission/conveyance capacity. The Project Applicant would
assume responsibility for
constructing all required additional on
-
site and offsite utilities a
nd connections. Project site
2. Purpose a
nd Determination
Quarry Residential Project
8 ESA
/
D161035.01
EIR Addendum
March 2022
stormwater
associated with the Original Project
would be treated on
-
site
and
includ
e
8,550
square
feet of on
-
site bioretention features
that included
a tiered landscaping system
with two bioretention
areas
fronting the Project
site.
3.3 Modified Project
The
Project Applicant proposes
revision
s
to the Original Project
to
develop
76 detached
sing
le
-
family houses
rather than 15 condominium buildings
across the
Project development area of the
site
(Modified Project)
(see
Figure 3
-
3 )
.
Th
e houses would be 3
-
and 4
-
bedroom homes with a
maximum building height
of
30 feet.
Two
-
car garages
attached to each home
would provide 15
2 garage spaces for residents
,
and
approximately
3 4
surface parking spaces, including
two
accessible spaces, would be
provided for
guests for a total of
up to
1 86
spaces
on the Project site
.
The land use program and other
m
ajor
characteristics
of the Modified Project
compared to the Original Project
are
shown in
T
able 3
-
1 .
The Modified Project would not include
the
recrea
tion center or associated amenities
,
such as the
clubhouse and swimming pool
, which were part of the Original Project
.
The
Modified
Project’s
Preliminary Utility Plan and Stormwater Control Plan
would continue to include a tiered
landscaping system, which
would be
expanded to approximately 9,520 square feet of bioretention areas
compared to approximately 8,550 square feet proposed with the Original
Project.
Nearly all other major components of the Original Project would remain unchanged
with the
Modified P
roject
,
including primary and emergency vehicle access, construction phasing, as well as offsite Bay Trail
improvements
, Crest Trail staging area,
and roadway
improvements.
Also, the
Modified Project is consistent with the
existing
Open Space and Medium De
nsity Residential
General Plan land use designation
s
, and the OS and PA zoning
, both designated with approval of
the Original Project.
Date
Project#
Checked
Drawn
Scale
Sheet Description:Rev:
5870 Stoneridge Mall Rd, Suite 203
Pleasanton, California, 94588
http://www.cswst2.com
925.523.4001
C S W S T 2
AS SHOWN
CSE
RS
01/19/22
2130074
Seal & Signature:
Sheet Number:
RICHMOND CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA
Date: Description:
C3.0 THE QUARRY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
Graphic Scale (in feet)
0 1 inch = 80 ft.
80 LEGEND:
BOUNDARY LINE
LOT LINE
EXISTING EASEMENT
PROPOSED EASEMENT
RIGHT OF WAY
Quarry Residential Addendum . 161035.01
Figure 3-3
Modified Project Site Plan
SOURCE: CSW | ST2, 2022
2. Purpose a
nd Determination
Quarry Residential Project
10 ESA
/
D161035.01
EIR Addendum
March 2022
T
ABLE
2 -
1 L
AND
U
SE
P
ROGRAM AND
M
AJOR
P
ROJECT
C
HARACTERISTICS
M
ODIFIED
P
ROJECT AND
O
RIGINAL
P
ROJECT
Proposed Land Use
2018
EIR Original Project
Modified Project
Residential (units)
Detached Single
-
family
0 76
Condominiums (Multi
-
Family)
200
0 TOTAL
200
76 Residential Unit Characteristics
Average Unit Size
1,100 sf
2,183 sf
Tot
al Gross Floor Area
220,000 gsf
165,968 gsf
Building Height
1 3
-
4 stories/ 40
-
50 ft
2 stories / maximum 30 ft
TOTAL SF
221,100
165,968
Amenities
Clubhouse/Recreation Center/Pool
3,000 sf
0 Parking (spaces)
Resident
+/
-
252
(garage/carport)
+/
-
152
(attached 2
-
car garage per unit)
Guest
+/
-
37 +/
-
34 Accessible
+/
-
8 +/
-
2 TOTAL
+/
-
289
+/
-
186
Open Space
and Site Area
Common Open Space
(within Project Development Area)
40,450 sf
34,444
sf
2 Remnant Open Space
(No
n
-
Development Area)
530,000 sf (12.1 ac
3 )
637,315
sf
(
14.6 ac)
Total Site Area
18.4 ac
18.4 ac
Stormwater Treatment and Earthwork
Stormwater Bioretention Area
8,550 sf
9,520 sf
Estimated Fill (cubic yards)
85,000 cy
52,400 cy
1 Height above finished
floor elevation of ground level units measured to the
highest point of roof
.
2 Parcels A through F (see Figure 3
-
3).
3 Parcel G
and Parcel 2 (see Figure 3
-
3). The
1.5 -
acre Par
cel 2
Conservation Easement
was inadvertently omitted from the
12.1 -
acre
Origi
nal Project
Remnant Open Space acreage
.
3.4 Modified
Project
Approvals
Required Jurisdictional Approvals
City of Richmond
Implementation of the Modified Project
would require a series of interrelated planning and
regulatory
approvals by the City, as Lead Age
ncy. Specifically, the City is considering taking the following approval actions
, which are generally the same as those previously approved for the Original Project
:
3. Project Description
Quarry Residential Project
11 ESA
/
D161035.01
EIR Addendum
March 2022
1. Certification of the Quarry Residential Project EIR
Addendum
pursuant to CEQA;
2. Approval o
f a Major Amendment to a Planned Area Plan
to reduce density and
modify unit types
;
3. Approval of a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map.
The applicant will apply for a
Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map to create legal parcels for the purpose of subdividing the
property into
76 single
-
family lots and seven common
-
interest lots
;
4. Approval of Design Review Permits
for the design of the residential structures;
5. Approval of a Density Bonus
for
waivers of certain development standards;
and
6. Other
City
approvals that m
ay be required
, such as:
Grading permits,
Encroachment permits,
including as needed for Crest Trail staging area
improvements,
Building permits, and
Other City approvals as necessary to develop the Project.
The
Modified
Project and associated approvals wo
uld require review and recommendation by
DRB
and
P
lanning Commission to the City Council, followed by consideration and action by the City Council. This
Addendum
is intended to provide the CEQA
-
required environmental
documentation for use in considering th
ese and any other City approvals required to approve the Project.
Other Governmental Agency Approvals
As the Lead Agency and as appropriate under CEQA, the City also intends this Addendum
to serve
as the CEQA
-
required environmental documentation for consid
eration of the
Modified
Project by
other Responsible Agencies and Trustee Agencies which may have limited discretionary authority over development proposals associated with the
Modified
Project. Under the CEQA Guidelines, the
term “Responsible Agency” incl
udes all public agencies, other than the Lead Agency, which have discretionary approval power over aspects of a project for which the Lead Agency has prepared an EIR (Section 15381); and the term “Trustee Agency” means a State agency having jurisdiction by
law over natural resources affected by the project which are held in trust by the people of California (Section 15386).
Responsible Agencies and Trustee Agency approvals for the Modified
Project may include, but
are not limited to, the following:
Local A
gencies
Richmond Municipal Sewer District approvals will be required for sewer hookups and any upgrades to the backbone sewer system.
Contra Costa Environmental Health Department review and permits may be required, if wells or soil borings are required (fo
r
geotechnical studies
, for example.
2. Purpose a
nd Determination
Quarry Residential Project
12 ESA
/
D161035.01
EIR Addendum
March 2022
Regional and State Agencies
Encroachment
Permit from East Bay Regional Park District
(EBRPD)
for the
emergency
vehicle access
and, as needed, to accommodate construction of Crest Trail staging area improvements
.
EBMUD a
pprovals will be required for water hookups and water lines.
East Bay Municipal
Utilities District (
EBMUD
)
review of the Project’s water needs assessment will also be required.
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB) required appro vals
will include:
–
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for storm water discharges associated with construction activity,
–
Notice of Intent for construction activities, and
–
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for
on
-
site storm water management
and pollution prevention.
_________________________
3.5 References
City of Richmond, 2017.
Quarry Residential Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
(Draft
EIR).
October, 2017
.
City of Richmond, 2018.
Quarry Residential Proje
ct Response to Comments / Final
Environmental Impact Report
(
Final
EIR).
January
, 201
8 .
New West Communities
, 202
2 .
Quarry Housing Project Submittal
.
January 19, 2022
, with
amendments dated March 1, 2022
.
4. CEQA Analysis
Quarry Residential Project
13 ESA
/
D161035.01
EIR Addendum
March 2022
4. CEQA Analysis
4.1 Overview
This CEQA analysis summar
izes the impacts and findings of the Original Project analysis from the
Quarry Residential Project EIR
(2018 EIR), followed by a discussion of any changes in
circumstances, new information, or differences between the proposed Modified Project and the Origi
nal Project that could result in changes to the previous impacts and/or mitigation measures.
Specifically, the analysis discussion is framed to determine for each environmental topic if any of the CEQA provisions calling for the preparation of a subsequent
EIR or negative declaration have
occurred.
2 This CEQA analysis hereby incorporates by reference the discussion and analysis of all potential environmental impact topics as presented in the certified 2018 EIR and explains the various mitigation measures t
hat apply to the Modified Project by impact area. The analysis provides a determination of whether the Modified Project would result in:
Equal or Less Severity of Impact Previously Identified in 2018 EIR;
Substantial Increase in Severity of Previously Iden
tified Significant Impact in the 2018 EIR;
and/or
New Significant Impact.
This CEQA analysis also identifies where the Modified Project would result in significant impacts that are:
Not identified in the 2018 EIR including offsite and cumulative;
Due to su
bstantial changes in the Project;
Due to substantial changes in circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken; and/or
Due to substantial new information not known at the time the 2018 EIR was.
However, none of the aforementioned conditions were
found for the Modified Project, as
demonstrated throughout the following CEQA analysis
t
hat specifically describes how the Modified
Project meets the criteria and standards specified in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15164.
Since the City certified the 2018
EIR, there have been modifications to Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines that affect the organization and/or text of certain environmental topics and significance criteria. Any notable differences are disclosed herein, and for ease of review, the analysis p
resentation in this CEQA analysis largely aligns with that presented in the 2018 EIR.
2 Public Resources Code Section
21166 an
d CEQA Guidelines Sections
15162 and 15164 (Subsequent EIRs,
Supplements and Addenda to an EIR or Negati
ve Declaration).
4. CEQA Analysis
Quarry Residential Project
14 ESA
/
D161035.01
EIR Addendum
March 2022
4.2 Aesthetics
PREVIOUSLY
-
IDENTIFIED
ORIGINAL PROJECT
IMPACTS
I
N
THE
2018
QUARRY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
EIR
Impact AES
-
1:
The Project would not have a substantial adverse e
ffect on a scenic vista nor substantially
damage scenic resources. (Criteria a. and b.)
(Less than Significant, No
Mitigation Required)
Impact AES
-
2 : The Project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings. (Criterion c.)
(Less than Significant, No Mitigation Required)
Impact AES
-
3:
The proposed Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. (Criterion d.) (Le
ss than Significant, No Mitigation
Required)
Impact C
-
AES
-
1:
The proposed Project would not result in a cumulative aesthetics impact when considering the combined effect of the Project, and past, present, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable futu re
projects.
(Less than Significant, No Mitigation Required)
These
impacts
are
addressed
in
detail
on pages
4.1 -
14 through
4.1 -
28 of the Draft EIR and
page 2
-
13 of the
Response to Comments/
Final EIR
document
.
Views
The 2018 EIR concluded that, although
the Original Project would change views from public
access areas such as trails in Miller/Knox
Regional Shoreline
, the change would not have a
significant adverse effect.
Similar to the Original Project, the Modified Project would transform a portion of t he Project site,
but would keep intact and undeveloped the most visible portions of the hillside and designated open space. The Modified Project would develop housing within the same 6.3 -
acre Project
development area, and within the same parameters set for th in the proposed PA zoning and
Medium Density Residential land use designation including setbacks, housing types, and residential density. The Modified Project would develop buildings of up to 30 -
feet in height
which would be considerably less visible co
mpared with the Original Project buildings up to 50
-
feet in height. Overall, the Modified Project would result in the same or reduced impacts with respect to scenic views.
Visual Character / Visual Quality
The 2018 EIR concluded that, the Original Project
would alter but not substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of the Project site and its surroundings.
The Modified Project would develop housing within the same 6.3 -
acre Project development area
and would include the same off
-
site im
provements proposed
under
the Original Project.
As noted
above, t
he
modified
development proposal was designed within the same parameters set forth in the proposed PA zoning and Medium Density Residential land use designation
although at a
reduced height a
nd density compared with the Original Project.
The Modified Project would
adhere to the same proposed development standards and design parameters, and would be
developed using a color and materials palette purposefully selected to be compatible with the ne
utral light tones of the surrounding industrial uses located closest to the Project site.
4. CEQA Analysis
Quarry Residential Project
15 ESA
/
D161035.01
EIR Addendum
March 2022
The new development design and associated landscape plan for the Project development area would be subject to the same design review process and applicable design re view permit criteria.
the DRB, the Planning Commission, and ultimately the City
Council will assess all aspects of the
Project’s design, including materials and lighting, and
conditions may be added to the Project to
further address glare and lighting, to
ensure quality
design.
Overall, the Modified Project would
result in the same or reduced impacts with respect to visual character and
visual quality.
Lighting / Glare
The 2018 EIR concluded that the Original
Project would not create a new source of substan
tial
light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
The Modified Project would result in shorter buildings, fewer residents and visitors, and less vehicular activity compared with the Original Project. The Modified Project would include the
similar
color and materials pallet
purposefu
lly selected to minimize
effects related to glare.
Like
the Original Project, the Modified Project would
be subject to the City’s development standards
set forth in Zo
ning Ordinance Section
15.0 4.604 (Lighting and Illumination)
, which establish
standards for light and glare.
As noted above, the Modified Project
would
also
be subject to
the
same design review process and applicable design review permit criteria. Overall, the Modified Project would
result in reduced impacts with respect to light and glare.
Cumulative
As discussed above in this section, the Modified Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts compared to those identified in the 2018 EIR, and its contribution to
cumulative
aesthetic
effects would be the less than identified in the 2018 EIR.
Summary
Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of 2018 EIR, implementation of the Modified Project would not substantially increase the severity
of significant impacts
identified in the 2018 EIR, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to aesthetics that were not identified in the 2018 EIR. No revisions are required to the 2018 EIR analysis of the Original Project to address potenti
al aesthetics impacts of the Modified Project.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the 201
8 EIR to address aesthetics impacts.
4. CEQA Analysis
Quarry Residential Project
16 ESA
/
D161035.01
EIR Addendum
March 2022
4.3 Air Quality
PREVIOUSLY
-
IDENTIFIED
ORIGINAL PROJECT IMPACTS IN THE
2018 QUARRY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EI
R
Impact AIR
-
1:
The Project could conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. (Criterion a.) (
Less than Significant, No Mitigation Required
)
Impact AIR
-
2:
Project construction would result in increased emissions of criter ia air pollutants. (Criterion b.)
(
Less than Significant with Mitigation
)
Impact AIR
-
3:
Operation of the Project would result in increased emissions of criteria air pollutants. (Criterion b.) (
Less than Significant, No Mitigation Required
)
Impact AIR
-
4:
Construction of the Project could increase emissions of toxic air contaminants (TACs), and increase health risks for nearby residents. (Criterion d.) ( Less than Significant
, No
Mitigation
Required
)
Impact AIR
-
5:
Project operations could expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations
including toxic air contaminants and increase health risks for existing and proposed residents. (Criterion d.) (
Less than Significant, No Mitigation Required
)
Impact AIR
-
6:
The Project could create objecti
onable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
(Criterion e.)
(Less than Significant, No Mitigation Required)
Impact C
-
AIR
-
1:
The Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development of cumulative projects woul
d contribute to cumulative regional air quality impacts. (Criterion c.) (
Less Than Significant
, No
Mitigation
Required
)
Impact C
‐AIR
-
2:
The Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development of cumulative projects would contribute to cumulative health risk impacts on sensitive receptors. (Criterion c.) (
Less Than Significant
, No
Mitiga
tion
Required
)
These
impacts
are
addressed
in
detail
on pages
4.2 -
15 through
4.2 -
56 of the Draft EIR
.
Evaluation of Construction
-
related Emissions and Health of the
Modified Project
The analysis in the 2018 EIR (Impact AIR
-
2) found that construction of
200 multi
-
family units
would result in
estimated
average daily
construction
-
related exhaust emissions
that
would not
exceed the thresholds for ROG, NOx, PM
10 or PM
2.5 and would result in a
less
-
than
-
significant
impact
.
Modified Project would only construc
t
76 single
-
family residences. C
onstruction
activities
related emissions would be similar to the Original Project analyzed in the 2018 EIR.
The CalEEMod model (version 2020.4.0) was used to estimate project construction emissions conservatively assuming th
e 85,000 cubic yards of material import that was assumed for the Original Project.
Similar to the Original Project, t
he model indicates that construction
-
related
emissions of
NOx ROG, PM10, and PM2.5
under the Modified Project would be well below the
BAAQM
D adopted significance thresholds for these pollutants.
The reductions in particulate and
ROG emissions are the result of improved on
-
road emission factors in the updated version of
CalEEMod that are assumed for the fleet of haul trucks importing clean fil l. Therefore, the
Modified Project would result in the same less
-
than
-
significant impact with respect to
construction
-
related exhaust emissions of criteria pollutant emissions of concern.
Mitigation
Measure
AIR
-
1: Best Management Practices for Controlling
Particulate Emissions
would
still apply to address fugitive dust emissions.
4. CEQA Analysis
Quarry Residential Project
17 ESA
/
D161035.01
EIR Addendum
March 2022
For construction
-
related health risk impact, this same method can be used to estimate the reduction in diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions associated with the Modified Projec t.
Impact AIR
-
4 of the 2018 EIR determined that project construction would result in increased emissions of DPM and that, unmitigated, these emissions would result in an increased cancer risk of 11.6 in one million thereby exceeding the BAAQMD 1 on 10 mill ion increased cancer risk
threshold. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure
AIR
-
2, BAAQMD’s Enhanced Exhaust
Emission Reduction Measures
would reduce the impact to less than significant. The CalEEMod model (version 2020.4.0) indicates that construction
-
relat
ed PM
10 , as a surrogate for DPM
emissions, under the Modified Project would be 70 percent less than that of the Project analyzed in the 2018 EIR. These reductions in particulate and ROG emissions
are the result of improved
on
-
road emission factors in the u
pdated version of CalEEMod that are assumed for the fleet of haul trucks importing clean fill. Therefore, the Modified Project would also have a less than significant impact with respect to construction
-
related health risk, as it is reasonable to correlate
the percentage reduction of PM
10 emissions
(70 percent)
with a similar reduction in overall
increase in cancer risk from DPM exposure yielding an increased cancer risk under 4 in one million.
Mitigation Measure AIR
-
2: Enhanced Exhaust Emissions Reduction
Measures would not
be required for the Modified Project.
Evaluation of Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions of the Modified Project
The analysis in the 2018 EIR (Impact AIR
-
3) found that, under the Original Project, operation of 200 multi
-
family un
its would result in increased emissions of criteria air pollutants below the applicable BAAQMD thresholds of significance resulting in a less than significant impact. The Modified Project would only construct
up to
76 single
-
family residences and vehicle t
rip
generation and other area sources would be reduced compared to the Original Project analyzed in the 2018 EIR
(see Section 5.15,
Transportation and Traffic
, below)
. The transportation analysis
indicates that vehicle trip generation would be reduced by 4 1 percent, from 1,396 daily vehicle
trips under the Original Project to 822 vehicle trips under the Modified Project.
Table
4 -
1 presents the estimated criteria pollutants of the Modified Project compared with the Original Project. The CalEEMod model (vers
ion 2020.4.0) indicates that operational NOx
emissions under the Modified Project would be reduced from 10.36 pounds per day under the Original Project to 2.91 pounds per day under the Modified Project. Criteria air pollutant emissions under the Modified P
roject would be below the BAAQMD thresholds for reactive organic gases, NOx, and particulate matter. Therefore, the Modified Project would also have a less than significant impact with respect to operational criteria pollutant emissions of concern.
Evaluat
ion of Operational Health Risk Impacts of the Modified Project
The analysis in the 2018 EIR (Impact AIR
-
4) found that under the Original Project, operation of
200 multi
-
family units would not result in increased health risks associated with toxic air conta
minants (TACs) and the impact would be less than significant. As the Modified Project would not result in any new, additional sources of TACs (e.g., backup diesel generators or
4. CEQA Analysis
Quarry Residential Project
18 ESA
/
D161035.01
EIR Addendum
March 2022
industrial stationary sources), the Modified Project would also have a less -
tha
n
-
significant impact
with respect to operational health risks.
There have been no updated air quality thresholds of significance or updates to the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines published by BAAQMD since publication of the 2018 Draft EIR.
T
ABLE
4 -
1 U
NMITIGATE
D
A
VERAGE
O
PERATIONAL
C
RITERIA
P
OLLUTANT
E
MISSIONS
OF THE ORIGINAL AND
MODIFIED
P
ROJECT
Air Pollutant
Estimated Emissions (lbs/day)
ROG
NO
X
PM
10 PM
2.5 Mobile Sources
a
Original Project
Mobile Sources
a
Modified Project
2.19 1.89
9.81 2.09
6.52 3.83
1.81 1.04
Area Sources
a
Original Project
Area Sources
a
Modified Project
5.42 3.61
0.11 0.04
0.05 0.02
0.05 0.02
Energy Sources
a
Original Project
Energy Sources
a
Modified Project
0.05 0.09
0.44 0.78
0.05 0.06
0.05 0.06
Total
Original Project
Total Modified Pro
ject
7.67 5.74
10.36 2.91
6.63 3.91
1.92 1.12
BAAQMD Threshold for
Significant Operations Impacts
b
54 54
82 54
Significant Impact?
No
No
No
No
a
Mobile sources are motor vehicles and trucks. Area sources include landscape maintenance (equipment used for
these activities such
as gasoline
-
powered lawnmowers and blowers), maintenance application of paints and other interior and exterior surface coatings, and use of consumer products that result in emissions of ROG. Energy sources include natural gas combust ion for space and water heating.
b
Operational thresholds are from Table 2
-
1 of BAAQMD’s 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (BAAQMD, 2017a).
SOURCE: ESA .
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure from the 2018 EIR will continue to apply to the
Modified
Project to address
the
significant air quality impact.
Mitigation Measure AIR
-
1: Best Management Practices for Controlling Particulate Emissions.
The Project
applicant shall implement the following BAAQMD Best Management Practices for particulate
control. These
measures will reduce particulate emissions primarily during soil movement, grading and demolition activities but also during vehicle and equipment movement on unpaved areas.
1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil pil es, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall
be watered two times per day.
2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off -
site shall be covered.
3. All visible mud or dirt track
-
out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using
wet power vacuum street
sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15
mph.
5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.
Building pads shall
be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5
minutes (as required by the Cal
ifornia airborne toxics control measure Title
13, §
2485 of
California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
4. CEQA Analysis
Quarry Residential Project
19 ESA
/
D161035.01
EIR Addendum
March 2022
7. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordanc e with manufacturer’s
specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications
prior to operation.
In addition, construction vehicle washing shall be prohibited on the Project site.
Mitigation Measure AIR
-
2: Enhanced Exhaust Emissions Reduction Measures.
The applicant shall implement
the following measures during construction to further reduce construction -
related exhaust emissions:
All off
-
road equipment greater th
an 25 horsepower (hp) and operating for more than 20
total hours over the entire
duration of construction activities shall meet the following requirements:
1. Where access to alternative sources of power are available, portable diesel engines shall be prohibi ted; and
2. All off
-
road equipment shall have:
a.
Engines that meet or exceed either USEPA or CARB Tier 3 off -
road emission standards, and
b.
Engines that are retrofitted with a CARB Level 3 Verified Diesel Emissions Control Strategy. Acceptable options for reducin
g emissions include the use of late model engines, low
-
emission diesel products,
alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after
-
treatment products, add
-
on devices such as particulate
filters, and/or other options as such are available.
4. CEQA Analysis
Quarry Residential Project
20 ESA
/
D161035.01
EIR Addendum
March 2022
4.4 Biologic
al Resources
PREVIOUSLY
-
IDENTIFIED
ORIGINAL PROJECT IMPACTS IN THE
201
8 QUARRY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR
Impact BIO
-
1:
Development of the Project could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on species identifie
d as candidate, sensitive, or special
-
status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (Criterion a.) (
Less Than Significant with Mitig
ation
)
Impact BIO
-
2:
Construction of the Project could have a substantial adverse effect on Waters of the U.S. and the state. (Criterion c.) (
Less than Significant
, No Mitigation Required
)
Impact BIO
-
3:
The Project would not interfere substantially with
the movement of native resident or
migratory bird species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. (Criterion d.) (
Less Than Significant, No Mitigation Required
)
Impact BIO
-
4:
Implementation of the Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, or adopted local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. (Criteria e., f.). (
Less than Significant with Mitigation
)
Impact C
-
BI
O
-
1:
The proposed Project, in conjunction with other past, current, or foreseeable development in Richmond, could result in cumulative impacts on special -
status species, habitats, wetlands and other waters of
the U.S. (
Less than Significant with Mitigation
)
These
impacts
are
addressed
in
detail
on pages
4.3 -
1 9
through
4.3 -
30 of the Draft
EIR
.
Project Construction
The 2018 EIR concluded that construction of Original Project would result in less than significant impacts on waters of the U.S. and the state
,
and less than significant impacts to special
-
status and
nesting birds with implementation of
Mitigation Measures BIO
-
1 :
Nesting Bird Protection
Measures
and
C
-
NOI
-
1 :
Construction Noise Control Measures and
Noise Control Plan
(see
below).
No aspect of the
Modified Project would change the conditions or environmental impacts regarding
biological
resources identified for the Original Project in the 2018 EIR.
The Modified
Project would be developed within the same 6.3
-
acre Project development area requiring t
he
same or reduced level of construction
-
related activity. The Modified Project would not result in changes to project construction as analyzed in the 2018 EIR and, therefore, would not change the Original Project’s potential impacts from construction on b iological resources including waters of
the U.S. and state, special status species, and nesting birds. The Modified Project would implement
Mitigation Measures BIO
-
1 :
Nesting Bird Protection Measures and C
-
NOI
-
1 :
Construction Noise Control Measures and
Noi
se Control Plan
to reduce potential
construction
-
related impacts on biological resources to a less
-
than
-
significant level.
Project Operation
The 2018 EIR concluded that
compliance with
existing regulations
would ensure that new
sources of nighttime light
associated with the Original Project would not
appreciably increase the
overall amount of lighting
in the surrounding vicinity such that
a substantially adverse
impact to
birds would occur.
4. CEQA Analysis
Quarry Residential Project
21 ESA
/
D161035.01
EIR Addendum
March 2022
The Modified Project would be developed within
in the same Project
development area as the
Original Project although in a less dense configuration and with buildings up to 30 -
feet tall rather
than up to 50
-
feet under the Original Project. Buildings under 45
-
feet are exempt from the City of
Richmond’s
Bird
-
Safe Buildings
Municipal Ordinance. However, the most recent (2019 or 2022) California Green Building Standards Code of Regulation, Title 24, Part 11 (CALGreen) and Richmond’s Municipal Code section 15.04.604,
Lighting and Illumination
, would apply to the
Modified Projec
t and would
help eliminate Project
-
related lighting impacts to areas beyond the
project footprint. Given that the Modified Project would not introduce new sources of nighttime light taller
than
28 feet, the Modified Project would result in reduced impacts to birds associated
with nighttime lighting.
Cumulative
As discussed above in this section, the Modified Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts compared to those identified in the 2018 EIR, and its contribution to cumulative
effects on biological resources would be the same or less than identified in the 2018 EIR.
Summary
Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the
2018 EIR,
implementation of the Modified Project would not substantially increase the severity of
significant impacts identified in the 2018 EIR, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to
biological resources
that were not identified in the 2018 EIR.
Mitigation Measures
BIO
-
1 , Nesting Bird Protection Measures
and
C
-
NOI
-
1 , Construction Noise Control
Measures and
Noise Control Plan
would be applicable to and would be implemented by the
Modified
Project and would
ensure that
impacts
on biological resources
would be less than
significant.
No revisions are required to the 2018
EIR analysis of the Original Project to address
potential
biological resources
impacts of the Modified Project.
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures from the 201
8 EIR will continue to apply to the
Modified
Project to address significant
b
iological resources impacts.
Mitigation Measure BIO
-
1:
Nesting Bird Protection Measures. The Project applicant shall conduct preconstruction nesting bird surveys in areas containing, or likely to contain, habitat for nesting birds (i.e., areas with shrub v
egetation) as a condition of approval for any development -
related permit. Specific measures to avoid and minimize impacts on nesting birds include, but are not limited to, those described below.
a)
Construction activities including vegetation removal and cons truction shall be performed between September 1
and January 31 in order to avoid the avian nesting season.
b)
If construction activities cannot be completed between September 1 and January 31, a preconstruction survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by
a qualified biologist. During the avian nesting season (February 1 through August 31), a qualified biologist shall survey construction areas within and in the vicinity of the Project site for nesting raptors and passerine birds not more than 30 days prior to any ground
-
disturbing activity or vegetation
removal. All accessible potential nesting habitat, including bare ground, in the Project site and within a 500 -
foot
buffer area (for raptors) and 250
-
foot buffer area (for all other species) around any constr uction activity will be
4. CEQA Analysis
Quarry Residential Project
22 ESA
/
D161035.01
EIR Addendum
March 2022
surveyed.
c)
If active nests are found either within the Project site or within the survey buffer, “no -
work” buffer zones shall
be established around the nests by a qualified biologist in coordination with CDFW as necessary depending on
the specific species encountered. No vegetation removal or ground -
disturbing activities shall occur within the
no
-
work buffer zone until young have fledged or the nest is otherwise abandoned as determined by the qualified biologist. If work during the n
esting season stops for 14 days or more and then resumes, then nesting bird surveys shall be repeated, to ensure that no new birds have begun nesting in the area.
Typically, the
size of individual “no
-
work” buffers ranges from a minimum of 250 feet for ra
ptors to a minimum
of 50 feet for other birds but can be adjusted based on an evaluation of the site by a qualified biologist in cooperation with the USFWS and/or CDFW as necessary (i.e., in the case of protected species). Buffer distances may also be modi
fied if obstacles such as buildings or trees obscure the construction area from active bird nests, or existing disturbances create an ambient background disturbance similar to the proposed disturbance.
d)
Birds that establish nests after construction starts a
re assumed to be habituated to and tolerant of the indirect impacts resulting from construction noise and human activity. However, direct take of nests, eggs, and nestlings is still prohibited and a buffer must be established to avoid nest destruction.
e)
Res
ults of the surveys shall be forwarded to CDFW (if required by state law based on the species observed) and avoidance procedures shall be adopted, if necessary, on a case -
by
-
case basis. These may include construction
buffer areas (up to several hundred fee
t in the case of raptors) or seasonal avoidance.
Mitigation Measure C
-
NOI
: Construction Noise Control Measures and Noise Control Plan .
(
See full text l
isted
under Section 4.12,
Noise
.
)
4. CEQA Analysis
Quarry Residential Project
23 ESA
/
D161035.01
EIR Addendum
March 2022
4.5 Cultural
and
Paleontological Resources
PREVIOUSLY
-
IDENTIFIED
ORIG
INAL PROJECT
IMPACTS
I
N
THE
201
8 QUARRY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
EIR
Impact CUL
-
1:
Project implementation would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines, Section
15064.5. (Criterion a.) (
Less than Significant, No
Mitigation Required
)
Impact CUL
-
2:
Project construction could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource, including those determined to be a historical resource defined in Section 15064.5
or a
unique archaeological resource defined in PRC 21083.2. (Criterion b.) ( Less than Significant with Mitigation
)
Impact CUL
-
3:
Project construction could disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. (Criterion c.) (
Less
than Significant with Mitigation
)
Impact CUL
-
4:
The Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource. (Criterion d.) (
Less than Significant with Mitigation
)
Impact CUL
-
5:
Project construction could direc
tly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. (Criterion e.) (
Less than Significant with Mitigation
)
Impact C
-
CUL
-
1:
Construction activity and development of the Project, in combination with past, present,
existing, approved, pending and reasonably foreseeable future projects within and in the vicinity of the Project site, would contribute to an adverse cumulative impact to cultural resources, but the contribution would not be considerable. (
Less Than Signi
ficant with Mitigation
)
These impacts are addressed in detail on pages 4.4
-
13 through 4.4
-
22 of the Draft EIR and
page 2
-
16 of the
Response to Comments/
Final EIR
document
.
The 2018 EIR determined that no historic
-
era architectural or built environment r
esources are
located within the Project development area and that the Original Project would result in less than significant impacts to historic era architectural resources. The 2018 EIR concluded that construction of the Original Project on the Project de
velopment area would have potentially
significant impacts related to archaeological resources, human remains, and/or paleontological resources and that these impacts would be reduced to less -
than
-
significant levels with
implementation of
Mitigation Measure
s CUL
-
1: Preconstruction Training, Cultural
Resources
Monitoring, and Inadvertent Discovery of Cultural Resources ;
CUL
-
2: Inadvertent
Discovery of Human Remains
; and
CUL
-
3:
Preconstruction Training, Paleontological
Monitoring, and
Accidental Discovery of P
aleontological Resources
(see below). Following
formal consultation between the City of Richmond and the Native American Heritage Commission
-
identified Native American individuals/organizations according to the provision of Assembly Bill 52, the 2018 EIR d
etermined impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources would also be reduced to less
-
than
-
significant levels with implementation of
Mitigation Measures
CUL
-
1:
Preconstruction Training, Cultural Resources
Monitoring, and Inadvertent Discovery of
Cultural Resources
;
and
CUL
-
2: Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains
.
No aspect of the Modified Project would change the conditions or environmental impacts regarding cultural or paleontological resources identified for the Original Project in the 2018 EIR.
The Modified Pro
ject would be developed within the same Project development area where no historic
-
era architectural or built environment resources are located. The type of development and ground disturbance area would be the same as considered in the 2018 EIR. Further, t he
4. CEQA Analysis
Quarry Residential Project
24 ESA
/
D161035.01
EIR Addendum
March 2022
scale/height of development and associated depth of construction and overall construction activities would be the same or reduced relative to the Original Project analyzed in the 2018 EIR.
The Modified Project would implement
Mitigation Measures CUL
-
1:
Preconstruction
Training, Cultural Resources
Monitoring, and Inadvertent Discovery of Cultural Resources ;
CUL
-
2: Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains
; and
CUL
-
3:
Preconstruction Training,
Paleontological Monitoring, and
Accidental Discovery of Paleontolo
gical Resources
to reduce
potential impacts to cultural resources to a less
-
than
-
significant level.
Cumulative
As discussed above in this section, the Modified Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts compared to those identifi
ed in the 2018 EIR, and its contribution to
cumulative effects on cultural resources would be the same or less than identified in the 2018 EIR.
Summary
Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of 2018 EIR, implementation of the Mo
dified Project would not substantially increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the 2018 EIR, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to cultural resources that were not identified in the 2018 EIR.
Mitigation Measures
CUL
-
1 :
Preconstruction Training, Cultural Resources
Monitoring, and Inadvertent Discovery of
Cultural Resources
;
CUL
-
2: Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains
; and
CUL
-
3:
Preconstruction Training, Paleontological Monitoring, and Accidental Discovery of
Paleonto
logical Resources
would be applicable to and would be implemented by the Modified Project and would ensure that impacts on cultural resources would be less than significant. No revisions are required to the 2018 EIR analysis of the Original Project to addr ess potential
cultural resources impacts of the Modified Project.
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures from the 2018 EIR will apply to the Modified Project to address significant cultural and paleontological resources impacts.
Mitigation
Measure CUL
-
1: Preconstruction Training, Cultural Resources Monitoring, and Inadvertent Discovery of Cultural Resources.
a.
Archeological Site CA
-
CCO
-
400: Preconstruction Training and Cultural Resources Monitoring.
Prior to
authorization to proceed, a Secreta
ry of the Interior
-
qualified archaeologist shall prepare a cultural resources monitoring plan. The City of Richmond shall review and approve the plan. The plan shall include a requirement for monitoring of construction activities
within 200 feet of archeol
ogical site CA
-
CCO
-
400 by both a qualified
archeologist and, if reasonably available, a Native American representative . The City shall conduct good faith
outreach (phone calls and emails) to tribal representatives identified by the Native American Heritage
Commission in
their February 6, 2016 letter as having potential interest in the Project site (see Appendix D of the Draft EIR).
The plan
shall include (but not be limited to) the following components:
A training program for all construction and field work
ers involved in site disturbance that would be
completed prior to the commencement of construction activities and that would train site workers in the identification of potential cultural resources, and actions to be undertaken in the event that potential cultural
resources are discovered;
4. CEQA Analysis
Quarry Residential Project
25 ESA
/
D161035.01
EIR Addendum
March 2022
The identification of person(s) responsible for conducting monitoring activities, including Native American monitors;
The identification of person(s) responsible for overseeing and directing the monitors;
Monitoring proto
cols and procedures and the required format and content of monitoring reports;
The schedule for submittal of monitoring reports and identification of person(s) responsible for review and approval of monitoring reports;
A protocol for notifications in the e
vent cultural resources are encountered, as well as methods of dealing with the encountered resources (e.g., collection, identification, curation);
Methods to ensure the security of cultural resources sites; and
A protocol for notifying local authorities (
i.e. Sheriff, Police) should site looting and other illegal activities occur during construction.
During the course of the construction monitoring, the archaeologist may adjust the frequency, from continuous to intermittent, of the monitoring based on the
conditions and professional judgment regarding the potential to impact resources.
b.
Project Site
-
Wide (Including Archeological Site CA
-
CCO
-
400): Inadvertent Discovery of Cultural Resources.
If archaeological resources are encountered during Project construct ion, including in the vicinity of
archeological site CA
-
CCO
-
400, the following steps shall be undertaken:
All soil disturbing activities within 100 feet in all directions of the find shall cease until the resource is evaluated;
The monitor shall immediatel
y notify the City of Richmond of the encountered archaeological resource;
The monitor shall, after making a reasonable effort to assess the identity, integrity, and significance of the encountered archaeological resource, present the findings of this asses sment to the City; and
A Secretary of the Interior
-
qualified archaeologist shall inspect the find within 24 hours of discovery.
Prehistoric archaeological materials might include obsidian and chert flaked -
stone tools (e.g., projectile points,
knives, scrap
ers) or toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil (“midden”) containing heat -
affected rocks,
artifacts, or shellfish remains; and stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabs); and battered stone tools, such as hammerston
es and pitted stones. Historic
-
period materials might include stone,
concrete, or adobe footings and walls; filled wells or privies; and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse.
In the event archaeological resources qualifying as either historical resources pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines
Section15064.5 or as unique archaeological resources as defined by Public Resources Code 21083.2 are encountered, mitigation shall be implemented in accordance with PRC Section 21083.2 and Section
15126.4 of
the CEQA G
uidelines, with a preference for preservation in place. The archaeologist, in consultation with the City of Richmond and the culturally
-
affiliated Native American group(s) shall determine whether to pursue preservation in place. Consistent with CEQA
Guidel
ines
Section 15126.4(b)(3), this may be accomplished
through planning construction to avoid the resource; incorporating the resource within open space; capping and covering the resource; or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement.
If preser
vation in place is not pursued, the City of Richmond shall ensure implementation of a detailed Archaeological Research Design and Treatment Plan (ARDTP), in consultation with the affiliated Native American tribe(s), if applicable. A qualified archaeologist , in consultation with the City of Richmond, shall
prepare and implement the ARDTP, which shall include a data recovery program. The Project archaeologist, the applicant, and the City of Richmond shall meet to determine the scope of the ARDTP. Treatment of
unique
archaeological resources shall follow the applicable requirements of PRC Section 21083.2. The ARDTP shall identify how the proposed data recovery program would preserve the significant information the archaeological resource contains, and shall inc
lude and/or require the following:
Identification of the scientific/historic research questions applicable to the expected resource, the data classes the resource is expected to possess, and how the expected data classes would address the applicable resea
rch questions;
Documentation of the results of the investigation in a timely manner, in a technical report that provides a full artifact catalog, analysis of items collected, results of any special studies conducted, and interpretations of the resource wit
hin a regional and local context;
Details regarding treatment, which for most resources would consist of (but would not be not limited to)
4. CEQA Analysis
Quarry Residential Project
26 ESA
/
D161035.01
EIR Addendum
March 2022
sample excavation, artifact collection, site documentation, and historical research, with the aim to target the recov
ery of important scientific data contained in the portion(s) of the significant resource to be impacted by the Project;
Dissemination of report/s to local and state repositories, libraries, and interested professionals; and
Curation of artifacts and data a
t an approved facility.
The City of Richmond shall submit all technical documents to the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System.
Mitigation Measure CUL
-
2: Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains.
Prior to the
commencement of Project
construction, the applicant shall ensure that Project construction personnel receive training regarding the possibility of encountering human remains during construction, and apprised of appropriate procedures to undertake in the e
vent of such a discovery. Pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, and Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code of the State of California, in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains during construction activities, s
uch activities within 100 feet of the find shall cease until the Contra Costa County Coroner has been contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) will be contacted within 24
hours if it is determined that the remains are
Native American. The NAHC will then identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendant from the deceased Native American, who in turn would make recommendations to the City of Richmon d for the
appropriate means of treating the human remains and any grave goods.
Mitigation Measure CUL
-
3: Preconstruction Training, Paleontological Monitoring, and Accidental Discovery of Paleontological Resources.
Prior to construction, a qualified paleon
tologist with expertise in California
paleontology will develop a paleontological resources training program for all construction and field workers involved in ground
-
disturbing activities that details the recognition and importance of paleontological reso urces, and
establishes accidental discovery procedures should paleontological resources be encountered during construction.
Paleontological monitoring is necessary when ground
-
disturbing activities occur in previously undisturbed
sediments mapped as Franci
scan sandstone or greywacke (see Engeo Inc., 2017 for detailed geologic mapping of the Project site). Monitoring is not necessary in other sediments on the Project site, including artificial fill, colluvium, or landslide deposits, or in areas that have bee
n previously disturbed. Monitoring should be conducted by a qualified paleontological monitor that meets the standards of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP; 2010).
If paleontological resources, such as fossilized bone, teeth, shell, tracks, trai ls, casts, molds, or impressions are
discovered during ground
-
disturbing activities, work shall stop in that area and within 100 feet of the find until a qualified paleontologist can assess the nature and importance of the find and, if necessary, develop a ppropriate
treatment measures in conformance with SVP standards, and in consultation with the City of Richmond.
4. CEQA Analysis
Quarry Residential Project
27 ESA
/
D161035.01
EIR Addendum
March 2022
4.6 Energy
PREVIOUSLY
-
IDENTIFIED
ORIGINAL PROJECT
IMPACTS
I
N
THE
2018 QUARRY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
EIR
Impact ENE
-
1:
Construction and operation
of the Project would not conflict with adopted energy conservation plans, violate energy standards, or result in wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary use of energy, and the Project would not require substantial additional capacity. (Criteria a. through d .) (
Less Than Significant, No Mitigation
Required
)
Impact C
-
ENE
-
1:
The proposed Project, in conjunction with other past, current, or foreseeable development in Richmond, would not conflict with adopted energy conservation plans, violate energy standards, or result in
wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary use of energy, such that a cumulative impact would occur. ( Less Than
Significant, No Mitigation Required
)
These impacts are
addressed
in detail on page 4.5
-
17 through 4.5
-
26 of the Draft EIR.
The 2018 E
IR determined that construction and operation of the Original Project would result in less
-
than
-
significant energy impacts. The Original Project would be subject to applicable standards and policies aimed to reduce energy consumption including the City’s C AP, the State’s
Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards, CALGreen standards, and General Plan 2030 policies. The Original Project’s construction and operation would result in energy consumption typical for a new project of its size. The energy demand from the
construction and operation of the Original
Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary use of energy, and would not require substantial additional capacity. This impact would be less than significant.
The Modified Project would be de
veloped within the same 6.3
-
acre Project development area
requiring the same or reduced level of construction
-
related activity. Modified Project construction
and operation would be subject to the same
or updated
standards and policies
mentioned above
.
In p
articular, since
certification of the 2018 EIR, the City adopted its Energy Reach Code, which embodies amendments to, and exceeds the 2019 California Energy Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6). The Energy Code implements strategy measur es identified in the
Richmond CAP that require electricity, instead of natural gas, as the sole fuel source for newly constructed buildings in Richmond as of June 10, 2020. Implementation of these strategies were needed for the City to reach its adopted cl
imate and health co
-
benefit goals by 2050.
Relevant to
the Modified Project, t
he Energy Reach Code requires
t
hat newly constructed residential
buildings be all
-
electric, except for cook
ing appliances and fireplaces.
Also,
on
January 1, 2022,
the City
’s
ado
p
t
ed Natural Gas Ban C
ode was enacted (Richmond Municipal Code new Chapter
9.64) that would ban natural gas infrastructure in newly constructed buildings , reducing energy
consumption.
Further, energy consumption, including mobile fuel use from project -
gene
rated
traffic, would be reduced relative to the Original Project analyzed in the 2018 EIR. Therefore, the energy demand from the construction and operation of the Modified Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary use of energy, as was determined in the 2018 EIR.
Cumulative
As discussed above in this section, the Modified Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts compared to those identified in the 2018 EIR, and its contribution to
4. CEQA Analysis
Quarry Residential Project
28 ESA
/
D161035.01
EIR Addendum
March 2022
cumulative effects relat
ed to energy consumption would be the same or less than identified in the 2018 EIR.
Summary
Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of 2018 EIR, implementation of the Modified Project would not substantially increase the severit y of significant impacts
identified in the 2018 EIR, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to energy use that were not identified in the 2018 EIR. No revisions are required to the 2018 EIR analysis of the Original Project to address potent
ial energy impacts of the Modified Project.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the 2018 EIR to address energy impacts.
4. CEQA Analysis
Quarry Residential Project
29 ESA
/
D161035.01
EIR Addendum
March 2022
4.7 Geology, Soils and Mineral Resources
PREVIOUSLY
-
IDENTIFIED
ORIGINAL PROJECT
IMPACTS
I
N
THE
2018
QUARRY RESI
DENTIAL PROJECT
EIR
Impact GEO
-
1:
Development of the Project could expose people or structures to seismically induced ground shaking and thereby to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death. (Criterion a.2) (
Less
than Significant, No
Mitigation Required
)
Impact GEO
-
2:
Project development could expose people or structures to seismically related ground failure including liquefaction and thereby expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, in
cluding the risk of loss, injury, or death. (Criterion
a.3) (
Less than Significant, No
Mitigation Required
)
Impact GEO
-
3:
Project development could expose people or structures to landslides or slope failure on the Project site thereby exposing people or s
tructures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death. (Criterion a.4) (
Less than Significant, No
Mitigation Required
)
Impact GEO
-
4:
The Project could result in soil erosion during excavation, grading, and constr uction activities.
(Criterion b.) (
Less than Significant, No Mitigation Required
)
Impact GEO
-
5:
The Project could result in on
-
or off
-
site lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or
collapse from placement of improvements on unstable geologic units or soils. (Criterion c.) (
Less than
Significant, No Mitigation Required
)
Impact GEO
-
6:
Project implementation could occur on expansive soils, creating substantial risks to life and property. (Criterion d.) (
Less than Significant, No Mitigation Required
)
Impact GEO
-
7:
The proposed Project could result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State, or locally. (Criteria f. and g.). ( Less than
Significant, No Mitigation Required
)
Impact C
-
GEO
-
1:
The Project, in conjunction with past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to geology, soils, seismicity, or mineral resources. (
Less than Significant, No Mitig
ation Required
)
These
impacts
are
addressed
in
detail
on pages
4.6 -
18 through
4.6 -
28 of the Draft
EIR
.
The 2018 EIR determined that construction and operation of the Original Project would result in less
-
than
-
significant impacts regarding geology, soils
and mineral resources. The Original Project
would be subject to final project
-
specific design
-
level geotechnical recommendations in
accordance with the current seismic design criteria required under the California Building Code (CBC). Adherence to standar
d industry practices and geotechnical recommendations contained in the final approved report would reduce the potential impacts associated with ground shaking during a major seismic event; seismically
-
related ground failure, including liquefaction; slope
i
nstability and slope failure; unstable geologic units; and expansive soils to a less than significant level. Implementation of the Original Project’s Erosion Control Plan and required BMPs as part of the NPDES Construction General Permit would reduce impac ts associated with erosion to a
less than significant level. Finally, the 2018 EIR determined the Original Project would have a less
-
than
-
significant impact on mineral resources.
No aspect of the proposed project would change the conditions or environment al impacts
regarding geology, soils and mineral resources identified for the Original Project in the 2018 EIR.
As previously described, the Modified Project would be developed within the same Project development area, with the same geologic characteristics
and seismic hazards analyzed in the
2018 EIR. The ground disturbance area would be the same as considered in the 2018 EIR.
4. CEQA Analysis
Quarry Residential Project
30 ESA
/
D161035.01
EIR Addendum
March 2022
Further, the scale/height of development and associated depth of construction and overall construction activities would be the same
or reduced relative to the Original Project analyzed in the 2018 EIR.
A preliminary geotechnical investigation determined that the Original Project was feasible with implementation of specific geotechnical recommendations. A final design -
level geotechnical
investigation would be performed for the Modified Project and Project site in accordance with standard industry practices and code requirements. The Project -
specific geotechnical
recommendations and design parameters for earthwork, retaining walls, founda tions, foundation
slabs, and any surrounding related improvements, utilities, roadways, parking lots, and sidewalks would be revised to accommodate the Modified Project’s reduced height and scale. Like the Original Project, the final Project
-
specific geote
chnical recommendations would be reviewed and
approved by a California registered geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist and the City.
The Modified Project’s proposed building height and scale would be reduced compared with the Original Project. T
he revised design would still be subject to the current industry standard geotechnical practices and seismic structural design according to the requirements found in the most recent version of the CBC, which would mitigate all seismic hazards discussed in the 2018
EIR. Implementation of the final geotechnical recommendations and conformance with the current seismic design provisions of the CBC would reduce potential impacts related to exposure to ground shaking, ground failure including liquefaction, slope failure, and unstable geologic
units or materials to a less
-
than
-
significant level. Further, implementation of the Erosion Control Plan and required BMPs as part of the NPDES Construction General Permit would minimize erosion impacts during construction an
d reduce potential impacts to less
–
than
-
significant levels.
Cumulative
As discussed above in this section, the Modified Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts compared to those identified in the 2018 EIR, and its contribution to
cumulative effects related to geology, soils, and mineral resources would be the same or less than identified in the 2018 EIR.
Summary
Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of 2018 EIR, implementation of the Modified Projec
t would not substantially increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the 2018 EIR, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to geology, soils and mineral resources that were not identified in the 2018 EIR. No revisions are req uired to the
2018 EIR analysis of the Original Project to address potential geology, soils and mineral resources impacts of the Modified Project.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the 2018 EIR to address geology, soils, and mine ral
resources impacts.
4. CEQA Analysis
Quarry Residential Project
31 ESA
/
D161035.01
EIR Addendum
March 2022
4.8 Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
PREVIOUSLY
-
IDENTIFIED
ORIGINAL PROJECT
IMPACTS
I
N
THE
2018
QUARRY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
EIR
Impact GHG
-
1:
Development of the proposed Project would produce GHG emissions that could have a significant impact on the environment. (Criterion a.) ( Less Than Significant, No Mitigation Required
)
Impact GHG
-
2:
Development of the Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation of an appropriate regulatory agency adopted for
the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. (Criterion b.) ( Less
Than Significant, No Mitigation Required
)
Impact C
-
GHG
-
1:
Development of the Project, combined with cumulative development, including past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably f
oreseeable future development in the vicinity of the
Project site, would result in cumulative impacts regarding GHG emissions and climate change. ( Less Than
Significant, No Mitigation Required
)
These
impacts
are
addressed
in
detail
on pages
4. 7
-
25 through
4. 7
-
35 of the Draft EIR.
Evaluation of Construction and Operational GHG Emissions of the Modified Project
The analysis in the 2018 EIR (Impact GHG
-
1) found that under the Original Project, construction
and operation of 200 multi
-
family units would resul
t in increased GHG emissions below the
applicable thresholds of significance of the BAAQMD. Additionally, the emissions from the Original Project would represent more than a 15 percent reduction when compared to a business as usual scenario, consistent wit
h the City of Richmond’s Climate Action Plan and, therefore, a less than significant impact. The Modified Project would only construct 76 single
-
family
residences and the vehicle trip generation and other area sources would be reduced compared to the Origi
nal Project analyzed in the 2018 EIR. Vehicle trip generation would be reduced by 41 percent. Additionally, construction
-
related GHG emissions would be similar to or reduced
compared to the Original Project because the level of construction intensity and i ts related
emissions would be reduced compared to the Project analyzed in the 2018 EIR.
The CalEEMod model (version 2020.4.0) indicates that operational GHG emissions under the Modified Project would be 44 percent less than that of the Project analyzed in the 2018 EIR.
GHG emissions under the Modified Project would be below the BAAQMD screening threshold of 1,100 metric tons per year. Therefore, the Modified Project would also have a less than significant impact with respect to GHG emissions.
While the BAA
QMD GHG thresholds were developed to address the year 2020 reduction targets of the original State of California Scoping Plan, more aggressive targets for year 2030 have been adopted by the 2017 Update to the Scoping Plan. The 2017 Scoping Plan Update outl ines the
proposed framework of action for achieving the 2030 GHG target of 40
percent reduction in
GHG emissions relative to 1990 levels (CARB, 2017), which is a further 40 percent reduction beyond the year 2020 targets.
As indicated in the 2018 EIR, the O
riginal Project would be
consistent with BAAQMD thresholds developed for year 2020 reduction targets. As the Modified Project’s GHG emissions would be 45 percent less than the Original Project, the Modified Project would be considered consistent with the y
ear 2030 as well as the year 2020 reduction targets.
4. CEQA Analysis
Quarry Residential Project
32 ESA
/
D161035.01
EIR Addendum
March 2022
Therefore, the impact of the Modified Project with respect to GHG emissions that could have a significant impact on the environment would be less than significant.
T
ABLE
4 -
2 E
STIMATED
GHG
E
MISSIONS
G
ENE
RATED BY THE
M
ODIFIED
P
ROJECT
Emission Source
Total Emissions (MT/Year)
CO
2 CH
4 N
2 O
Total CO
2 e
Area Sources
0.99 <0.01
0.00 0.99
Energy Sources
223.08
0.01 <0.01
224.64
Mobile Sources
596.56
0.04 0.03
606.15
Solid Waste
19.01 1.12
0.00 47.10
Water a
nd Wastewater
5.33 0.17
<0.00
10.80 Total Modified Project
Total Original Project
844.95
1,562.81
1.35 1.19
0.04 0.01
889.69
1,596.90
Project
-
level Screening Threshold
1,100
Modified Project Exceeds Significance Threshold?
No
Modified Project
Service P
opulation
212
Total Modified Project GHG Emissions by Service Population
4.2 Project
-
level Service Population Threshold
4.6 Modified Project Exceeds Significance Threshold?
No
NOTE:
Columns may not total precisely due to rounding, and due to the infl uence of minimal amounts of less common GHGs not
represented in the table.
SOURCE: ESA, 2021
Evaluation of the Modified Project’s
C
onsistency with Plans to
Reduce GHG Emissions
The analysis in the 2018 EIR (Impact GHG
-
2) found that under the Original Proj
ect, construction
and operation of 200 multi
-
family units would be subject to applicable policies in the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) adopted by the City on October 25, 2016 and that the Original Project met the City’s 2020 GHG reduction target as pres
ented in the CAP. Additionally, an assessment
was made to determine that the Original Project was consistent with each applicable policy and action of the Energy and Climate Change Element of the City’s General Plan and the CAP.
As the Modified Project wo
uld also be subject to applicable policies in the CAP and the General Plan, it likewise would be consistent with local planning efforts to reduce GHGs.
As discussed in
Section 4.6,
Energy
, above, the Modified Project would also adhere to the City’s 2020 En ergy
Reach Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6) and the City’s Natural Gas Ban Code that became effective January 1, 2022 (Richmond Municipal Code new Chapter 9.64), both adopted since certification of the 2018 EIR and that will reduce G HG emissions associated with
natural gas.
Further, as discussed above, in consideration with the emissions of the Original Project and the findings of the 2018 EIR, the Modified Project’s quantitative GHG emissions would be consistent with the comparative
GHG reduction targets of the State’s Climate Change
4. CEQA Analysis
Quarry Residential Project
33 ESA
/
D161035.01
EIR Addendum
March 2022
Scoping Plan Update and would, therefore, be consistent with Statewide efforts to reduce GHGs.
Consequently, the impact of the Modified Project with respect to conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation of an appropriate regulatory agency adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions is less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the 2018 EIR to address climate change and greenhouse gas emissions.
4. CEQA Analysis
Quarry Residential Project
34 ESA
/
D161035.01
EIR Addendum
March 2022
4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
PREVIOUSLY
-
IDENTIFIED
ORIGINAL PROJECT
IMPACTS
I
N
THE
2018
QUARRY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
EIR
Impact HAZ
-
1:
The Project would include the routine transport, use and disposal of hazardous materials but would not create a signif
icant hazard to the public or the environment. (Criterion a.) ( Less than Significant, No
Mitigation Required
)
Impact HAZ
-
2:
The Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment through an upset or accident involving the release o
f hazardous materials. (Criterion b.)
(Less than Significant, No Mitigation Required)
Impact HAZ
-
3:
The Project would not impair the implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. (Criterion
g.) (
Less than Significant, No Mitigation
Required
)
Impact HAZ
-
4:
The Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or wher e residences are
intermixed with wildlands. (Criterion h.) (
Less than Significant, No Mitigation Required
)
Impact C
-
HAZ
-
1:
Development under the proposed Project, combined with cumulative development in the region, including past, present, existing, appro
ved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future development, could contribute considerably to cumulative impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. ( Less than
Significant, No Mitigation Required
)
These impacts are addressed in detail on pages 4.8
.17 through 4.8.24 of the Draft EIR.
The 2018 EIR concluded that construction of Original Project would result in less than significant impacts with respect to the potential upset or accidental release of hazardous materials through either transport, use
and disposal of hazardous materials or ground disturbance. The 2018 EIR also concluded that potential hazards impacts resulting from the Original Project circulation plan and residential use would be reduced to less than significant with adherence to exis ting regulatory
requirements and all City and Fire Code requirements.
No aspect of the proposed project would change the conditions or environmental impacts regarding hazards and hazardous materials identified for the Original Project in the 2018 EIR. As p
reviously described, the Modified Project would be developed within the same Project development area, with the same soil and groundwater characteristics disclosed and analyzed in the 2018 EIR. The ground disturbance area and proposed land use would be the
same as
considered in the 2018 EIR. Further, the scale/height of development and associated depth of construction and overall construction activities would be the same or reduced relative to the Original Project analyzed in the 2018 EIR.
Project Construc
tion
The Modified Project would be developed within the same 6.3 -
acre Project development area
requiring the same or reduced level of construction
-
related activity. The Modified Project would
not result in changes to project construction as analyzed in the
2018 EIR. Compliance with
existing regulations (i.e., the NPDES permit program), which is a necessary condition of construction, would address potential upsets and accidents related to transport, use and disposal of hazardous materials.
4. CEQA Analysis
Quarry Residential Project
35 ESA
/
D161035.01
EIR Addendum
March 2022
The Original Proj
ect site preparation and grading plans, including extensive grading, soil import, mixing, and placement at depths ranging from approximately 1.0 feet to 18 feet, is the same
or
reduced
for the Modified Project. Therefore, disturbance of subsurface soils at
the Project site
would not result in the accidental dispersal of contamination into the environment nor expose construction workers or the public to contaminants. The Modified Project would not change the Original Project’s less
-
than
-
significant construct
ion
-
related impacts with respect to hazards and
hazardous materials.
The Project applicant would develop and implement a construction Traffic Control Plan (TCP) to the satisfaction of the City of Richmond Department of Public Works, Police Department, and
Fire Department, would preserve emergency vehicle access during construction, and would not interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan.
Project Operation
The Modified Project would introduce the same residential land use and associate d transport,
handling, and use of small quantities of hazardous materials, although reduced given the reduced residential density. Adherence to existing regulatory requirements would reduce potential impacts to a less
-
than
-
significant level.
The Modified P
roject would revise the internal circulation to accommodate the single -
family
home development. However, the appropriate emergency access to and egress from the site is unchanged from the Original Project circulation plan that was designed in accordance wi th all
City and Fire Code requirements (for further information, see Section 4.1 5 ,
Transportation and
Traffic
). The Modified Project would result in the same less
-
than
-
significant impacts with respect
adopted emergency response or evacuation plans and risk s associated with wildland fires.
Cumulative
As discussed above in this section, the Modified Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts compared to those identified in the 2018 EIR, and its contribution to cumulative effects rel
ated to hazards and hazardous materials would be the same or less than identified in the 2018 EIR.
Summary
Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of 2018 EIR, implementation of the Modified Project would not substantially incre
ase the severity of significant impacts
identified in the 2018 EIR, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials that were not identified in the 2018 EIR. No revisions are required to the 2018 EIR analysis of th
e Original Project to address potential hazards and hazardous materials impacts of the Modified Project.
4. CEQA Analysis
Quarry Residential Project
36 ESA
/
D161035.01
EIR Addendum
March 2022
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the 2018 EIR to address hazards and hazardous materials.
4. CEQA Analysis
Quarry Residential Project
37 ESA
/
D161035.01
EIR Addendum
March 2022
4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
PREVIOUSLY
-
IDENTIFIED
ORIGINAL PROJECT
IMPACTS
I
N
THE
2018
QUARRY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
EIR
Impact HYD
-
1:
The Project could result in an increase of stormwater pollutants due to construction activities and/or the introduction of new impervious surfaces with
development but would not violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements. (Criterion a.) ( Less than Significant, No Mitigation Required
)
Impact HYD
-
2:
The Project would increase impervious surfaces which would reduce the amount of st
ormwater runoff available for groundwater recharge but not to the extent that it would substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. (Criterion b.) ( Less than Significant,
No Mitigation Required
)
Impact H
YD
-
3:
The Project would not alter the drainage pattern of the site such that it would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off the site. (Criterion c.) ( Less than Significant, No Mitigation Required
)
Impact HYD
-
4:
The Project would not alter t
he drainage pattern of the site or surrounding areas such that it would result in a 100
-
year flood event on
-
or off
-
the site. (Criterion d.) (
Less than Significant, No Mitigation
Required
)
Impact HYD
-
5:
The Project would not create or contribute runoff w
ater which would exceed the capacity of
existing drainage systems or provide additional sources of polluted runoff. (Criterion e.) ( Less than Significant,
No Mitigation Required)
Impact HYD
-
6:
The Project would not expose people or structures to a signifi cant risk of loss, injury or death
involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam or sea level rise. (Criterion i.) (
Less than Significant, No Mitigation Required)
Impact HYD
-
7:
The Project would not result in or cause
inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
(Criterion j.) (
Less than Significant, No Mitigation Required
)
Impact C
-
HYD
-
1:
Development of the Project, in conjunction with past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in signif
icant cumulative impacts with respect to hydrology, water quality, or flooding. (
Less Than Significant, No Mitigation Required
)
These
impacts
are
addressed
in
detail
on pages
4.9 -
13 through
4.9 -
22 of the Draft EIR
and pages 2
-
13 of the Final EIR.
The 20
18 EIR concluded that through compliance with existing regulations, the site construction SWPPP (including BMPs), the required erosion and sediment control plan, and adherence to the NPDES MS4 permit requirements, construction and operation of the Original
Project would
result in less
-
than
-
significant impacts regarding water quality standards, waste discharge requirements, groundwater supplies, erosion and siltation, on -
or off
-
site flooding, and existing
drainage system capacity. The Project site is not lo
cated in a
dam failure inundation area or
low
lying coastal area subject to inundation by sea level rise.
No aspect of the proposed project would change the conditions or environmental impacts regarding hydrology and water quality identified for the Origi nal Project in the 2018 EIR. The
Modified Project would be developed on the same Project development area with the same topographic characteristics. The site preparation and construction activities, the proposed land uses, and the overall layout of roadway
s and development, including the distribution of unpaved or pervious areas, are generally the same as envisioned and analyzed for the Original Project.
4. CEQA Analysis
Quarry Residential Project
38 ESA
/
D161035.01
EIR Addendum
March 2022
Moreover, the Original Project’s Preliminary Utility Plan and Stormwater Control Plan, including approx
imately 8,550 square feet of bioretention areas on the site to manage and treat runoff, would be developed and expanded to approximately 9,520 square feet of bioretention areas as a part of the Modified Project. The Modified Project would disturb more than
one acre of soil
during construction and would be subject to the same NPDES General Construction Permit requirements, NPDES MS4 permit requirements including Provision C.3, Contra Costa Clean Water Program requirements, and City’s sediment and erosion con trol plan requirements.
Therefore, the Modified Project would result in the same less -
than
-
significant impacts with
respect to water quality standards, waste discharge requirements, drainage capacity, groundwater levels, erosion or siltation, and flooding.
A final design
-
level geotechnical investigation would be
performed for the Modified Project and Project site in accordance with the current seismic design criteria required under the CBC and impacts related to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow wou
ld be less than significant.
Cumulative
As discussed above in this section, the Modified Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts compared to those identified in the 2018 EIR, and its contribution to cumulative effects related
to hydrology and water quality would be the same or less than identified in the 2018 EIR.
Summary
Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of 2018 EIR, implementation of the Modified Project would not substantially increase the s everity of significant impacts
identified in the 2018 EIR, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality that were not identified in the 2018 EIR. No revisions are required to the 2018 EIR analysis of the Original Pr
oject to address potential hydrology and water quality impacts of the Modified Project.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the 2018 EIR to address hydrology and water quality.
4. CEQA Analysis
Quarry Residential Project
39 ESA
/
D161035.01
EIR Addendum
March 2022
4.11 Land Use and Planning
PREVIOUSLY
-
IDENTIFIED
ORIGI
NAL PROJECT
IMPACTS
I
N
THE
2018
QUARRY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
EIR
Impact LUP
-
1:
The Project would not divide an established community.
(Less than Significant, No Mitigation
Required)
Impact LUP
-
2:
The Project would not conflict with applicable regional or l ocal plans and policies adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects. (Less than Significant, No Mitigation Required)
Impact C
-
LUP
-
1:
Development of the Project, in combination with past, present, existing, approved, pending and
reasonably foreseeable future projects within and in the vicinity of the Project site, would not result in significant cumulative impacts to land use and planning. ( Less Than Significant, No Mitigation Required
)
These
impacts
are
addressed
in
detail
on p
ages
4.10 -
19 through
4.10 -
30 of the Draft EIR.
The 2018 EIR included a thorough land use and planning consistency analysis including an assessment addressing consistency with applicable General Plan 2030 policies and actions (see Table 4.10
-
1 of the Draf
t EIR). The 2018 EIR concluded that the Original Project and associated General Plan Land Use Map Amendment would not divide an established community or conflict with applicable regional or local plans
and policies adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mi
tigating environmental effects
, and impacts would be less than significant.
No aspect of the proposed project would change the conditions or environmental impacts regarding land use and planning identified for the Original in the 2018 EIR. The Modified Pro ject
would develop a residential community within the same Project development area and include similar
vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure improvements facilitating connections between communities.
The
Original
Project
amended the
General Pl
an Land Use Map Amendment and zoning, from
Parks and Recreation to Open Space
/OS, Open Space
(for 12.1 acres of the site) and Medium
Density Residential /
PA,
Planned Area District (PA) (for the 6.3 acres of the Project development area). The Medium Densit
y Residential land use designation allows for the revised single
-
family housing type at a
12.1 units
-
per
-
acre density proposed under the Modified Project.
Although eligible, the Project Applicant has not requested a density increase allowed under the State
Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code, § 65915). The Project Applicant has requested eligible waivers to the following specific City development standards ,
as allowed for density
-
bonus
eligible projects: 1)
a reduced m
inimum lot size; 2)
a reduced m
inimum lot widt
h; 3)
a reduced
m
inimum front setback; 4)
a reduced m
inimum interior side setback; and 5)
a reduced m
inimum
rear setback.
The Modified Project
has proposed
an updated Planned Area Plan (PA Plan) describing the
standards under which the
Modified
Project wou
ld be developed
(including the waivers listed
above)
, a
new Tentative Map, and Design Review
application
for the house plans.
As noted in the
2018 EIR, the City Planning Division staff would review the PA Plan for consistency with the General Plan
, and the
PA Plan would also be subject to Planning Commission and City Council
4. CEQA Analysis
Quarry Residential Project
40 ESA
/
D161035.01
EIR Addendum
March 2022
review and approval. This process would ensure the Project’s consistency with the Zoning Ordinance.
Despite
the proposed
shift in housing type and residential density, the Modified Pro ject would be
consistent with
pertinent land use policies of the General Plan 2030.
Several land use policies
highlighted in the 2018 EIR would not be fully supported by the Modified Project (see the Draft EIR Table 4,10
-
1). Policies LU1.1:
Higher
-
Density
and Infill Mixed
-
Use Development
, LU5.1:
A
Balanced Mix of Land Uses
, and LU6.1:
Pedestrian and Transit
-
Oriented Urban Environment
,
call for higher
-
density residential development and diverse housing options. While the Modified Project would not develop th
e density or diversity of housing options proposed under the Original Project, it would not be inconsistent with these policies or preclude denser, more diverse housing types, and mixed
-
use development in the Point Richmond community.
The reduced resident
ial density would not alter the 2018 EIR’s consistency finding with the Parks Master Plan and Urban Greening Master Plan, East Bay Regional Park District Master Plan 2013, the Miller/Knox Regional Shoreline Land Use Plan Amendment (LUPA), and ABAG’s goals for
the Bay Trail project. As described in Section
4.8 ,
Climate Change and
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
, of this document, the Modified Project would be consistent with the City’s current Climate Action Plan and would therefore be consistent with the overall g oals of Plan Bay Area.
Cumulative
As discussed above in this section, the Modified Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts compared to those identified in the 2018 EIR, and its contribution to cumulative effects related to land
use and planning would be the same or less than identified in the 2018 EIR.
Summary
Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of 2018 EIR, implementation of the Modified Project would not substantially increase the severity of si gnificant impacts
identified in the 2018 EIR, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to land use and planning that were not identified in the 2018 EIR. No revisions are required to the 2018 EIR analysis of the Original Project to address po
tential land use and planning impacts of the
Modified Project.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the 2018 EIR to address land use and planning.
4. CEQA Analysis
Quarry Residential Project
41 ESA
/
D161035.01
EIR Addendum
March 2022
4.12 Noise
PREVIOUSLY
-
IDENTIFIED
ORIGINAL PROJECT
IMPACTS
I
N
THE
2018
QUARRY RESIDENTI
AL PROJECT
EIR
Impact NOI
-
1:
Construction of the Project would result in a temporary increase in ambient noise levels. (Criteria a., c.) (
Less Than Significant, No Mitigation Required
)
Impact NOI
-
2:
Occupants of the proposed Project buildings could be ex posed to high noise levels. (Criteria a.,
b.) (
Less than Significant, No Mitigation Required
)
Impact NOI
-
3:
Project operations could cause a long
-
term increase in ambient noise levels in the Project site vicinity. (Criterion b.) (
Less Than Significant, No
Mitigation Required
)
Impact NOI
-
4:
Project construction could generate ground
-
borne vibration. (Criterion f.) (
Less Than
Significant, No Mitigation Required
)
Impact C
-
NOI
-
1:
Project construction activities combined with cumulative construction noise in the vicinity
of the Project site could cause a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project site vicinity during construction. (
Less than Significant with Mitigation
)
Impact C
-
NOI
-
2:
Operation of the proposed Project
when considered with other cumulative development
would not cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity. ( Less Than
Significant, No Mitigation Required
)
These
impacts
are
addressed
in
detail
on pages
4.11 -
15 thro
ugh
4.11 -
24 of the Draft EIR
.
The 2018 EIR concluded that construction of the Original Project would result in less than significant noise impacts with implementation of Mitigation Measure
C
-
NOI
-
1: Construction
Noise Control Measures and Noise Control Pl
an
(see below). Operation of the Original Project
was also determined to result in less
-
than significant impacts related to exposure to high noise levels and long
-
term increases in ambient noise levels.
No aspect of the proposed project would change the co
nditions or environmental impacts
regarding noise identified for the Original Project in the 2018 EIR. The Modified Project would be developed on the same Project development area. The site preparation and construction activities would be the same or reduc
ed relative to the Original Project analyzed in the 2018 EIR.
The Modified Project would be subject to the City of Richmond Noise Ordinance regulating construction noise times, days, and standards. Therefore, the Modified Project would result in the same l
ess
-
than
-
significant impacts with regard to temporary increases in ambient noise levels and ground
-
borne vibration during construction.
The Modified Project would introduce single
-
family homes to the Project site at a reduced
residential density compared w
ith the Original Project analyzed in the 2018 EIR. As discussed in the 2018 EIR, the Richmond General Plan 2030 establishes land use compatibility standards for new development within Richmond. Ambient noise levels are “normally acceptable” if below 65 L
dn
around new multi
-
family residential uses and if below 60 L
dn
around new single
-
family
residential uses. “Conditionally acceptable” noise levels are the same for multi -
family and single
-
family homes at between 60 and 70 L
dn
. As presented in Figure 4.11
-
2 i
n the Draft EIR,
monitored long
-
term noise levels at the Project site ranged from 57
to 60 L
dn
and thus would be
considered to be normally acceptable for the proposed single -
family land use.
4. CEQA Analysis
Quarry Residential Project
42 ESA
/
D161035.01
EIR Addendum
March 2022
As shown in
Table
4 -
3 the Modified Project would result in fewer
daily and peak hour (AM and
PM) vehicle trips compared with the Original Project traffic. Therefore, the Modified Project would result in the same or reduced less
-
than
-
significant traffic noise impacts.
Cumulative
The 2018 EIR identified a potentially sig
nificant cumulative noise impact, specifically on the
residences in the Sea Cliff Estates subdivision, if the Original Project were to be constructed simultaneously with the Miller/Knox park LUPA which is within 300 feet of the Project site. The exact phas
ing and type of development under the Miller/Knox park LUPA is still not known as of the date of this document. Therefore, because construction activities that would take place within Miller/Knox park are as yet unknown, this impact is conservatively deter mined to be potentially
significant and Mitigation Measure
C
-
NOI
-
1: Construction Noise Control Measures and
Noise Control Plan
, would apply to the Modified Project.
As discussed above in this section, the Modified Project would not result in new or substan tially
more severe impacts compared to those identified in the 2018 EIR, and its contribution to cumulative effects related to noise would be the same or less than identified in the 2018 EIR.
Summary
Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and
conclusions of 2018 EIR, implementation
of the Modified Project would not substantially increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the 2018 EIR, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to noise that were not identified in the
2018 EIR. Mitigation Measure
C
-
NOI
-
1: Construction Noise Control
Measures and Noise Control Plan
would be applicable to and would be implemented by the
Modified Project and would ensure that impacts related to noise would be less than significant.
No revi
sions are required to the 2018 EIR analysis of the Original Project to address potential noise impacts of the Modified Project.
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures from the 2018 EIR, will continue to apply to the Modified Project to addre
ss significant noise impacts.
Mitigation Measure C
-
NOI
-
1: Construction Noise Control Measures and Noise Control Plan.
For any Project
construction activities that would take place simultaneously with construction activities that would take place in Miller/
Knox Regional Shoreline park (as part of activities associated with the Land Use Plan Amendment) and within 500 feet of the Project site, the applicant shall employ site -
specific noise attenuation measures during Project
construction to reduce the generati
on of construction noise. These measures shall be included in a Noise Control Plan that shall be submitted for review and approval by the City of Richmond Planning and Building Services Department to ensure that construction noise meets the standards set f orth in the City’s Noise ordinance. Measures
specified in the Noise Control Plan and implemented during Project construction may include the following noise control strategies:
Equipment and trucks used for construction shall use the best available noise c ontrol techniques (e.g., improved
mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds);
Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills) used for constructio n shall be
4. CEQA Analysis
Quarry Residential Project
43 ESA
/
D161035.01
EIR Addendum
March 2022
hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. Where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall b
e used; this muffler can lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to approximately 10
dBA. External jackets on the tools themselves or similar devices shall be used; this could achieve a reduction of 5
dBA. Quieter procedures, such as use of drills rather
than impact tools, shall be used;
and
Stationary noise sources on site shall be located as far from adjacent receptors as may physically be accommodated, and they shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, incorporate insulation barriers, or in
clude similar measures to reduce noise.
4. CEQA Analysis
Quarry Residential Project
44 ESA
/
D161035.01
EIR Addendum
March 2022
4.13 Population, Housing, and Employment
PREVIOUSLY
-
IDENTIFIED
ORIGINAL PROJECT
IMPACTS
I
N
THE
2018
QUARRY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
EIR
Impact POP
-
1:
The Project would not directly or indirectly induce substantial popula tion growth. (Criterion a.)
(
Less than Significant, No Mitigation Required)
Impact C
-
POP
-
1:
Development of the Project, in combination with past, present, existing, approved, pending and reasonably foreseeable future projects within and in the vicinity of
the Project site, would not result in a
significant impact on population and housing. (
Less Than Significant, No Mitigation Required
)
These
impacts
are
addressed
in
detail
on pages
4.12.6 through
4.12 -
10 of the Draft EIR.
The 2018 EIR analysis relied o
n a four percent vacancy factor and an average of 1.9 persons per household yielding 365 new residents associated with the Original Project’s proposed 200 multi -
family residential units. The direct population growth was determined to be consistent with cit
ywide population (and housing) forecasts, assumptions of growth in the City overall anticipated by General Plan 2030, Association of Bay Area Governments -
(ABAG) projected
growth within the City, and housing goals of the
Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(
RHNA).
The 2018 EIR concluded that the Original Project would not induce indirect growth by constructing new infrastructure such as roads and utilities due to the limitations of the new infrastructure within the Project development area, surrounding land u se designations, and other
physical constraints. The potential for the Original Project to induce new commercial development by creating demand for services and goods was determined to be speculative and insubstantial and the overall impact would be less t
han significant.
The Modified Project would develop
76 single
-
family detached homes ranging between
2,100
and
3,100
square feet. Although the average persons
-
per
-
household in the Project site census tract
is 1.9, given the change in density, unit size, and
housing type, it is reasonable to assume a
persons
-
per
-
household rate for the Modified Project that is closer to the rate for surrounding census tracts (2.1, 3.2, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, and 3.9) and the City and County as a whole (3
and 2.9
respectively). Therefo
re, this analysis assumes a four percent vacancy factor and an average of
2.9 persons per household resulting in approximately
212
new residents, a reduction compared
with the Original Project. The reduced population would result in the same less -
than
-
sign
ificant
impacts related to direct population growth and indirect population growth due to increased demand for services and goods.
The Modified Project would not alter that Original Project’s proposed infrastructure, including roads and utilities, and the
refore would result in the same less
-
than
-
significant impacts with
respect to the indirect inducement of population growth.
Cumulative
As discussed above in this section, the Modified Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts com
pared to those identified in the 2018 EIR, and its contribution to
4. CEQA Analysis
Quarry Residential Project
45 ESA
/
D161035.01
EIR Addendum
March 2022
cumulative effects related to population and housing would be the same or less than identified in the 2018 EIR.
Summary
Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions o f
the
2018 EIR,
implementation of the Modified Project would not substantially increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the 2018 EIR, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to population and housing that were not identifie d in the 2018 EIR. No revisions are
required to the 2018 EIR analysis of the Original Project to address potential population and housing impacts of the Modified Project.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the 2018 EIR to address
population, housing, and
employment impacts.
4. CEQA Analysis
Quarry Residential Project
46 ESA
/
D161035.01
EIR Addendum
March 2022
4.14 Public Services
PREVIOUSLY
-
IDENTIFIED
ORIGINAL PROJECT
IMPACTS
I
N
THE
2018
QUARRY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
EIR
Impact PUB
-
1:
The Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with t he
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, res
ponse times or other performance objectives for any of the public services. (Criteria a., b., c.) (
Less Than Significant, No Mitigation Required
)
Impact C
-
PUB
-
1:
Construction activity and operations for development of the Project, in combination with past
, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects with the vicinity of the Project site, would not contribute considerably to a cumulative impact related to public services and recreation. (
Less than Significant, No
Mitigat
ion Required
)
These impacts are addressed in detail on pages 4.13
-
10 through 4.13
-
16 of the Draft EIR.
The 2018 EIR concluded that the Original Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with an increased demand for publ
ic services. The new residential community
at the Project development area would not affect fire or police service ratios or response times, impact park facilities to an extent that new facilities would be required, or otherwise substantially impact other
public services such as hospitals or libraries. The Original Project would be required to comply with Senate Bill (SB) 50
,
which would fully mitigate the potential effect of new student population on public school facilities.
As discussed in the previous s
ection regarding population, housing and employment; the Modified Project would generate
76 residential units and an estimated
212
residents compared
with the Original Project’s 200 residential units and 365 residents.
The Modified Project would
have the s
ame or reduced less
-
than
-
significant impacts related to fire, police, schools, and other public services.
The Modified Project would not include private amenities to accommodate some of the potential increase in demand for recreational opportunities. Howe ver, the Modified Project would still
rebuild a portion of the Bay Trail and the Project Applicant has agreed to contribute funding for local park improvements in addition to the required development impact fee. The adjacent 307 -
acre Miller/Knox park would
provide ample open space and recreation area for the new project residents and the impact would be less than significant.
Cumulative
As discussed above in this section, the Modified Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts com
pared to those identified in the 2018 EIR, and its contribution to cumulative effects related to public services would be the same or less than identified in the 2018 EIR.
4. CEQA Analysis
Quarry Residential Project
47 ESA
/
D161035.01
EIR Addendum
March 2022
Summary
Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the
2 018 EIR,
implementation of the Modified Project would not substantially increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the 2018 EIR, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to public services that were not identified in the 2018 EIR. No revisions are required to the
2018 EIR analysis of the Original Project to address potential public services impacts of the Modified Project.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the 2018 EIR to address public services and recreation.
4. CEQA Analysis
Quarry Residential Project
48 ESA
/
D161035.01
EIR Addendum
March 2022
4.15 Transportation and Traffic
PREVIOUSLY
-
IDENTIFIED
PROJECT
IMPACTS
I
N THE
QUARRY
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
EIR
Impact TRF
-
1:
The Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non
‐motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and free ways.
(Criterion a.) (
Less than Significant, No Mitigation
Required
)
Impact TRF
-
2:
The Project would not conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or oth er standards established by the
county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. (Criterion b.) ( Less than Significant, No
Mitigation Required
)
Impact TRF
-
3:
The Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.,
use
of large farm equipment). (Criterion c.) (
Less than
Significant, No Mitigation Required
)
Impact TRF
-
4:
The Project would not result in
inadequate
emergency access. (Criterion
d.) (
Less than
Significant, No Mitigation Required)
Impact TRF
-
5:
The Project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance
or safety of suc
h facilities. (Criteria e., f.)
(
Less than Significant, No Mitigation Required)
Impact TRF
-
6:
Project construction would result in a substantial, though temporary, adverse effect on the circulation system during the Project
construction
period. (Criterion
g.) (
Less than Significant, No Mitigation
Required)
These impacts are addressed in detail on pages 4.14
-
26 through 4.14
-
39 of the Draft EIR, and
pages 2
-
17 through 2
-
19 of the Final EIR.
Modified
Quarry Residential
Project Analysis
The Modified Project
would have similar residential uses at the same location and similar modifications to the surrounding transportation network as the Original Project evaluated in the 2018 EIR but with fewer units. Thus, as described below, the Modified Project would resul t in
similar less
-
than
-
significant impacts on transportation and traffic as the Original Project.
Although CEQA requirements for identifying transportation and traffic impacts have changed since the certification of the 2018 EIR to rely on vehicle miles t raveled (VMT) instead of level of
service (LOS) or similar measures of automobile delay and congestion, this Addendum does not directly address the impacts of the Modified Project on VMT because VMT was accounted for in the air quality and GHG impact evalu
ation of the 2018 EIR, and therefore, is not considered a new impact topic that would need to be disclosed. Specifically, VMT is not considered new information that was not known and could not have been known when the 2018 EIR was certified (Public Resourc
e Code Section 21166) as described in more detail below.
Trip Generation
Table
4 -
3 summarizes the trip generation for the Modified Project generally
and compares it with
the trip generation for the Original Project evaluated in the 2018 EIR. As shown in Ta ble
4 -
3 ,
80
4. CEQA Analysis
Quarry Residential Project
49 ESA
/
D161035.01
EIR Addendum
March 2022
units
would generate
approximately
46 fewer trips during the AM peak hour,
approximately
52 fewer trips during the PM peak hour, and
approximately
574 fewer trips on a typical weekday
than the Original Project evaluated in the 2018 EIR.
Since t
he Modified Project proposes slightly
fewer than 80 units (76 units), the peak hour and total daily trips would be slightly less than those shown in Table 4
-
3 and thereby the 2018 EIR.
T
ABLE
4 -
3 A
UTOMOBILE
T
RIP
G
ENERATION
E
STIMATES
Land Use
ITE
Code
Unit
s
a
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Daily
Total
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
Residential Units
210
b
80 DU
16 45
61 51
30 81
822
Total Automobile Trips (Modified Project)
16 45
61 51
30 81
822
Total Automobile Trips (Original Project)
c
21 86
107
89 44
133
1,
396
Net Difference
-
5 (
-
25%)
-
41 (
-
48%)
-
46 (
-
43%)
-
38 (
-
43%)
-
14 (
-
32%)
-
52 (
-
39%)
-
574
(
-
41%)
NOTES:
a
DU = dwelling unit
. Trip generation estimates shown are conservative (overstated) as the Modified Project
proposes
76 units, fewer
than
the 80 units
assumed
in this table.
b
ITE
Trip Generation (11th Edition)
land use category 210 (Single
-
Family Detached Housing):
AM Peak Hour: Ln(T) = 0.91 Ln(X) + 0.12, (26% in, 74% out)
PM Peak Hour: Ln(T) = 0.94 Ln(X) + 0.27, (63% in, 37% out)
Daily: Ln(T) = 0.9
2 Ln(X) + 2.68
Where T= Trips Generated, X = Number of Units
c
Source: Quarry Residential Project Draft EIR, Table 4.14 -
5 Source: Trip Generation (11th Edition), ITE, 2021; Fehr & Peers
Intersection Operations
The 2018 EIR evaluated the impacts of the
Original Project on five intersections under Existing
Plus Project and Cumulative (2040) Plus Project conditions based on LOS and did not identify any significant impacts on intersection operations. Since the Modified Project would have a lower trip genera
tion than the Original Project, it would add fewer trips to the five study intersections.
Therefore, the Modified Project would have a smaller impact at the study intersections and not cause new significant impacts at the study intersections under Existing
Plus Project or
Cumulative (2040) Plus Project conditions.
Freeway Operations
The 2018 EIR evaluated the impacts of the Original Project on two freeway segments under Cumulative (2040) Plus Project conditions using Delay Index and did not identify any sig nificant
impacts on freeway operations. Since the Modified Project would have a lower trip generation than the Original Project, it would add fewer trips to the two freeway segments. Therefore, the Modified Project would have a smaller impact on the freewa y segments and not cause any new
significant impacts on the freeway segments under Cumulative (2040) Plus Project conditions.
4. CEQA Analysis
Quarry Residential Project
50 ESA
/
D161035.01
EIR Addendum
March 2022
Hazards and Safety, Emergency Access, Plan Consistency, and Construction
The project area for the Modified Project, including the location of the main driveway and the
emergency vehicle access only driveway on Seacliff Drive, is consistent with the project area for the Original Project. Therefore, it would result in the same less -
than
-
significant impacts identified
in the 2018 EIR re
garding the potential for the Modified Project to increase hazards due to a design feature. The Modified Project would also allow for adequate emergency access to the site, same as identified for the Original Project. Since the Modified Project would conti nue to provide
similar land uses and have the same modifications to the surrounding transportation network as the Original Project, it would continue to have the same less -
than
-
significant impact on
consistency with adopted policies, plans and programs sup porting alternative transportation. In
addition, construction activity anticipated for the Modified Project also would be similar to that analyzed in the 2018 EIR, and therefore would remain less than significant.
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Art
icle 15.04.612 of the City’s Zoning Code requires residential developments with more than ten units to implement transportation demand management (TDM) measures that reduce to the extent feasible single
-
occupant vehicle trip generation rates 15 percent bel
ow the standard rates as
established in the most recent edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. However, considering the location of the Modified Project in a somewhat isolated area with limited non
-
automobile con
nections, over one
-
mile from the nearest transit
service, and not within walking distance of any major commercial or employment centers, there are no feasible infrastructure improvements or operational strategies that could reduce the single -
occupant vehic
le trips generated by the Modified Project to 15 percent below the trip generation estimated by the ITE Trip Generation Manual and presented in Table 4 -
3 .
Vehicle Miles Traveled
On September 17, 2013, California Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill (SB)
743 into law.
SB 743 required changes to the CEQA Guidelines regarding the analysis of transportation impacts. Historically, most lead agencies treated automobile delay and congestion as environmental impacts, and those impacts were measured using LOS ana lysis. SB 743 instead
required the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to revise the CEQA Guidelines to prescribe an alternative analysis metric to LOS that would promote the reduction of GHG emissions, the development of multimodal transporta
tion networks, and a diversity of land uses.
Once the CEQA Guidelines were updated to reflect the directives of SB 743, automobile delay or other measures of traffic congestion were not to be used to measure a significant environmental impact.
In December
2018, the California Natural Resources Agency certified and adopted an update to the CEQA Guidelines that incorporated the direction of SB 743, specifically including modifications to the Appendix G Checklist questions for transportation impacts. CEQA Guid
elines Section 15064.3 requires transportation impacts to be analyzed using VMT; this section began applying to new CEQA documents as of July 1, 2020. The City of Richmond adopted CEQA thresholds of significance for VMT analysis in February 2021, consisten t with the
ones recommended by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority.
4. CEQA Analysis
Quarry Residential Project
51 ESA
/
D161035.01
EIR Addendum
March 2022
VMT has long been used as a metric for measuring air quality and GHG impacts in California.
The 2018 EIR evaluated the air quality and GHG impacts associated with potential VMT chang es
resulting from the Original Project. The adoption of VMT as a new metric for the measurement of transportation impacts under CEQA does not constitute new significant information, because VMT associated with the Project was already disclosed and evaluate d in the 2018 EIR.
Furthermore, an addendum is not required to consider new impact areas added to CEQA after the underlying EIR was certified. See
Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin
(2013) 214
Cal.App.4th 1301, 1320 (adoption of new guidelines fo
r GHG evaluation was not significant new
information requiring further CEQA review because GHG emissions were known information and could have been addressed in the original EIR);
Fort Mojave Indian Tribe v. Dept. of Health
Servs.
(1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 157
4, 1605 (new critical habitat regulation was not significant new information because impacts to the species had already been addressed in original EIR.).
The 2018 EIR’s discussion of VMT makes clear that VMT was a clearly understood metric for measuring a
ir quality and GHG impacts at the time the EIR was certified. Thus, no new analysis of VMT to address the Project’s impacts on transportation and traffic is required.
Cumulative
As discussed above in this section, the Modified Project would not result in n ew or substantially
more severe impacts compared to those identified in the 2018 EIR, and its contribution to cumulative effects related to transportation and traffic would be the same or less than identified in the 2018 EIR.
Summary
Based on an examinati
on of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of 2018 EIR, implementation of the Modified Project would not substantially increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the 2018 EIR, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to tra nsportation
and traffic that were not identified in the 2018 EIR. Nor is there new information of substantial importance that would change that analysis. The adoption of VMT as a new metric for the measurement of transportation impacts under CEQA does not constitute new significant
information, because VMT associated with the Project was calculated and disclosed at the time of the 2018 EIR for use in the air quality and GHG impact analyses. Thus, impacts related to VMT were known or could have been known at
the time the 2018 EIR was certified.
See
Concerned
Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin
(2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1320 and
Fort Mojave Indian
Tribe v. Dept. of Health Servs.
(1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1574, 1605. For these reasons, no revisions are required to
the 2018 EIR analysis of the Original Project to address potential transportation and traffic impacts of the Modified Project and no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the 2018 EIR to address transportation and traffic
impacts.
4. CEQA Analysis
Quarry Residential Project
52 ESA
/
D161035.01
EIR Addendum
March 2022
4. CEQA Analysis
Quarry Residential Project
53 ESA
/
D161035.01
EIR Addendum
March 2022
4.16 Utilities and Service Systems
PREVIOUSLY
-
IDENTIFIED
ORIGINAL PROJECT
IMPACTS
I
N
THE
2018
QUARRY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
EIR
Impact UTL
-
1:
The Project would not require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. (Criterion b.) (
Less Than Significant, No Mitigation Required
)
Impact UTL
-
2:
The water demand generated by development under
the Project would not exceed water
supplies available from existing entitlements and resources, or need expanded entitlements. (Criterion d.) ( Less
Than Significant, No Mitigation Required
)
Impact UTL
-
3:
Development of the Project could exceed the wastew
ater treatment requirements of the San
Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board or result in a determination that new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities would be required. (Criteria a., b., and e.) ( Less Than Significant, No Mitigation Requi
red
)
Impact UTL
-
4:
Development of the Project would require or result in construction of new onsite stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. (Criterion c.)
(
Less Than Significant, No Mitigation Required
)
Impact UTL
-
5:
Development of the Project would not violate applicable federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, or generate solid waste that would exceed the permitted capac ity of the
landfills serving the area. (Criteria f. and g.) (
Less Than Significant, No Mitigation Required
)
Impact C
-
UTL
-
1:
Project construction activity and operational activities in combination with past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reason
ably foreseeable future projects in the vicinity would not contribute considerably to cumulative impacts to utilities and service systems. ( Less Than Significant, No Mitigation
Required
)
These impacts are addressed in detail on pages 4.15
-
18 through 4.15
-
26 of the Draft EIR
and page 2
-
19 of the Final EIR.
The 2018 EIR concluded that the Original Project would result in less -
than
-
significant impacts to
utilities and service systems. Construction
-
related impacts associated with Project utility
infrastructu
re improvements were addressed and mitigated throughout the 2018 EIR.
Construction of other necessary improvements to infrastructure were not anticipated to result in significant environmental effects. The Original Project’s increased demand for fire flow,
water
treatment, potable water, wastewater treatment and conveyance, would be accommodated by existing facilities, infrastructure improvements included as a part of the Project, and compliance with existing regulations such as City ordinances, NPDES Gener al Construction Permit, and
CALGreen. New impervious surface and associated stormwater runoff would be mitigated by approximately 8,550 square feet of on
-
site bioretention features and compliance with Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater NDPE
S Permit. Finally, the 2018 EIR determined that
compliance with existing regulations such as AB 939 and CALGreen would ensure solid waste generated by Project construction and operation could be accommodated by existing solid waste facilities and that the
Original Project would not impede the City’s ability to meet diversion requirements and other solid waste regulations.
No aspect of the proposed project would change the conditions or environmental impacts regarding utilities and service systems identifie
d for the Original Project in the 2018 EIR. The
Modified Project would be developed on the same Project development area using the same Preliminary Utility Plan
.
The updated Stormwater Control Plan would increase the size of
4. CEQA Analysis
Quarry Residential Project
54 ESA
/
D161035.01
EIR Addendum
March 2022
bioretention areas on the site
to approximately 9,520 square feet. Construction activities, proposed land use, and distribution of unpaved or pervious areas, are generally the same as envisioned and analyzed for the Original Project. The reduced residential density would result in reduc
ed demand for all utilities and service systems relative to the Original Project analyzed in the 2018 EIR. The Modified Project would be subject to the same NPDES General Construction Permit requirements, NPDES MS4 permit requirements including Provision C .3, City ordinances,
and CALGreen. Therefore, the Modified Project would result in the same less -
than
-
significant
impacts with respect to fire flow, water treatment, potable water, wastewater treatment and conveyance, stormwater treatment and conveyance, a
nd solid waste.
Cumulative
As discussed above in this section, the Modified Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts compared to those identified in the 2018 EIR, and its contribution to cumulative effects related to utilities a
nd service systems would be the same or less than
identified in the 2018 EIR.
Summary
Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of 2018 EIR, implementation of the Modified Project would not substantially increase the severity of s ignificant impacts
identified in the 2018 EIR, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to utilities and service systems that were not identified in the 2018 EIR. No revisions are required to the 2018 EIR analysis of the Original Project to a
ddress potential utilities and service systems impacts of the Modified Project.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the 2018 EIR to address utilities and service systems.
5. Conclusions
Quarry Residential Project
55 ESA
/
D161035.01
EIR Addendum
March 2022
5. Conclusions
An evaluation of the Revised Quarry Residenti
al Project is presented in the CEQA Analysis in
Section 4 of this addendum. The evaluation supports a determination that the Modified Project qualifies for an addendum to the certified 2018 EIR.
5.1 Proposed Changes to the Original Project
Summarizing from S
ection 3, Project Description, the Modified Project’s project site and Project development area is the same as the project site and Project development area for the Original Project. In terms of land uses and development, compared to the Original Project, the Modified
Project would develop
76 detached single
-
family houses as opposed to the Original Project’s 200
multi
-
family units resulting in 12
4 fewer residential units overall. These changes result in approximately
153
fewer residents compared to the 365
previously analyzed in the 2018 EIR.
5.2 Implications of Proposed Project Changes to the Original Project
This evaluation concludes that the Modified Project qualifies for an addendum. Any potential environmental impacts associated with development of the Modi fied Project were adequately
analyzed and covered by the analysis in the 2018 EIR
.
The Modified Project would be required to
comply with the applicable mitigation measures identified in the 2018
EIR and presented in the
Section 4
and the revised MMRP (Atta
chment A)
. With implementation of the applicable
mitigation measures, the Modified Project would not result in an increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts in the
2018
EIR or result in any new significant impacts
that were not p
reviously identified in the 2018 EIRs.
Therefore, no further review or analysis under
CEQA is required.
5.3 Findings
In accordance with California Public Resources Code Section 21166, CEQA Guidelines Sections
15162 and 15164, and as set forth in the CEQA Analy
sis in Section 4 of this document,
the Revised Quarry Residential Project qualifies for an addendum because the following findings can be made:
Addendum Findings:
The Revised Quarry Residential Project:
would not cause new significant impacts not previous
ly identified in the previously
certified 2018 EIR; nor result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts;
no new mitigation measures would be necessary to reduce significant impacts;
no changes have occurred w
ith respect to circumstances assumed in the 2018 EIR
that would cause significant environmental impacts to which the Campus Bay Project would contribute considerably; and
5. Conclusions
Quarry Residential Project
56 ESA
/
D161035.01
EIR Addendum
March 2022
no new information has been put forward that shows that the Revised Quarry Residenti
al Project would cause new significant environmental impacts.
Therefore, no supplemental environmental review is required or allowed
in
accordance with Public Resources Code Section
21166 and CEQA Guidelines
Sections
15162 and 15164.
The above findings sa
tisfy CEQA compliance for the proposed
r
evised Quarry Residential Project
(Modified Project)
.
___________________________________
Quarr
y Residential Project
ATT
-
A
ESA
/
D161035.01
EIR Addendum
March 2022
ATTACHMENT A
Revised Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP) for the Modified Project
Blank
This page is intentionally blank.
Quarry
Residential Project
A
-
1 ESA /
D161035
EIR Addendum
March 2022
MITIGATION MONITORIN
G AND REPORTING PROG
RAM
Project Mitigation Measures
Implement
ed
By
Monitored By
Monitoring and Reporting
Action
Monitoring
Schedule
Verification of
Compliance
4.1 Aesthetics
None
required.
4.2 Air Quality
Mitigation Measure AIR
-
1:
Best Management Practices for
Controlling Particulate Emissions.
The following BAAQMD Best
Management Practices for particulate control will be implemented for all project construction activities. These measures will reduce particulate emissions primarily during soil movement, grading and demolition activities but also
during vehicle and equipment
movement on unpaved project sites
1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or
other loose material off
-
site shall be covered.
3. All visible mud or dirt track
-
out onto adjacent public roads shall be
removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
4. All vehicle speeds on u
npaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
6. Idling times shall be
minimized either by shutting equipment off
when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, § 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be pr
ovided for construction workers at all access
points.
7. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and
determined to be running in
proper condition prior to operation.
In addition, construction vehicle washing shall be prohibited on the Project site.
Project
Applicant /
Project
Contractor
City of
Richmond
Building
Division and
Engineering
Services
Department
Engineering Services
Dep
artment
to v
erify inclusion
of
BAAQMD
BMPs in
applicable construction plans
and specifications.
City of Richmond Building
Division
to i
nspect site during
construc
tion to ensure
compliance with P
roject
construction plans.
Prior to issuance of
building
permit.
Field inspections
during construction.
Verified by:
Date:
Mitigation Measure
AIR
-
2 :
Enhanced Exhaust Emissions
Reduction Measures
.
The applicant shall implement the following
measures during construction to further reduce construction -
related
exhaust emissions:
Project
Applicant /
Project
Contractor
City of
Richmond
Building
Division and
Engineering
Engineering Services
Department
to verify inclusion
of
enhanced exhaust emissions
reduction measures
in
applicable construction plans
and specifications.
Prior to issuance of
building
permit.
Field inspections
during construction.
Verified by:
Date:
M
itigation
Monitoring and Repor
ting Program
Quarry
Residential Project
A
-
2 ESA /
D161035
EIR Addendum
March 2022
Project Mitigation Measures
Implement
ed
By
Monitored By
Monitoring and Reporting
Action
Monitoring
Schedule
Verification of
Compliance
All off
-
road equipment greater than 25 horsepower (hp) and
operating for more than 20 total hours over the entire duration of construction activities shall meet the following requirements:
1. Where access to alternative sources of power are
available,
portable diesel engines shall be prohibited; and
Services
Department
4.2 Air Quality (cont.)
2. All off
-
road equipment shall have:
a.
Engines that meet or exceed either USEPA or CARB Tier 3 off
-
road emission standards, and
b.
Engines that are retrofitted with a CARB Level 3 Verified Diesel Emissions Control Strategy. Acceptable options for reducing emissions include the use of late model en
gines,
low
-
emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine
retrofit technology, after
-
treatment products, add
-
on devices
such as particulate filters, and/or other options as such are available.
(cont.)
City of Richmond
Building Division to inspect si
te
during construction to ensure
compliance with Project
construction plans.
4.3 Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure BIO
-
1: Nesting Bird Protection Measures
.
The
Project applicant shall conduct preconstruction nesting bird surveys in areas
containing, or likely to contain, habitat for nesting birds (i.e., areas with shrub vegetation) as a condition of approval for any development
-
related permit. Specific measures to avoid and minimize impacts on nesting birds include, but are not limited to,
those described
below.
a)
Construction activities including vegetation removal and construction shall be performed between September 1 and January 31 in order to avoid the avian nesting season.
b)
If construction activities cannot be completed between
Septembe
r 1 and January 31, a preconstruction survey for
nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist.
During the avian nesting season (February 1 through August 31), a qualified biologist shall survey construction areas within and in the vicinity of
the Project site for nesting raptors
and passerine birds not more than 30 days prior to any
ground
-
disturbing activity or vegetation removal. All
accessible potential nesting habitat, including bare ground, in the Project site and within a 500
-
foot buffer
area (for
raptors) and 250
-
foot buffer area (for all other species)
around any construction activity will be surveyed.
c)
If active nests are found either within the Project site or within the survey buffer, “no
-
work” buffer zones shall be
established around
the nests by a qualified biologist in
coordination with CDFW as necessary depending on the
Project
Applicant
/
Project
Contractor
City of
Richmond
Building
Division
Building Division
to r
eview and
approve a qualified biologist
,
and to r
eview pre
-
construction
survey reports.
If active nests are found,
inspect construction site to
confirm buffer zones.
Review
prior to
issuance of
building permit.
Field inspections
30 days
prior to
construction
and
after breaks of 14
days or longer if
construction falls
within nesting
season (January 15
–
August)
.
Verified by:
Date:
Miti
gation Monitoring
and Reporting Program
Quarry Residential Project
A
-
3 ESA /
D
161035
EIR Addendum
March 2022
Project Mitigation Measures
Implement
ed
By
Monitored By
Monitoring and Reporting
Action
Monitoring
Schedule
Verification of
Compliance
specific species encountered. No vegetation removal or
ground
-
disturbing activities shall occur within the no
-
work
buffer zone until young have fledged or the nest
is otherwise
abandoned as determined by the qualified biologist. If work during the nesting season stops for 14 days or more and then resumes, then nesting bird surveys shall be repeated, to ensure that no new birds have begun nesting in the area.
4.3 Biological Resources (cont.)
Typically
, the size of individual “no
-
work” buffers ranges from a
minimum of 250 feet for raptors to a minimum of 50 feet for other
birds but can be adjusted based on an evaluation of the site by a
qualified biologist in cooperation with the USFWS and/
or CDFW as
necessary (i.e., in the case of protected species). Buffer distances
may also be modified if obstacles such as buildings or trees obscure
the construction area from active bird nests, or existing disturbances
create an ambient background
d
isturbance similar to the proposed
disturbance.
d)
Birds that establish nests after construction starts are assumed to be habituated to and tolerant of the indirect impacts resulting from construction noise and human
activity. However, direct take of nests,
eggs, and nestlings is
still prohibited and a buffer must be established to avoid nest destruction.
e)
Results of the surveys shall be forwarded to CDFW (if
required by state law based on the species observed) and avoidance procedures shall be adopted, if
necessary, on a
case
-
by
-
case basis. These may include construction buffer
areas (up to several hundred feet in the case of raptors) or seasonal avoidance
.
4.4 Cultural and Paleontological Resources
Mitigation Measure CUL
-
1: Preconstruction
Training, Cultural
Resources Monitoring
, and Inadvertent Discovery of Cultural
Resources
.
a.
Archeological Site CA
-
CCO
-
400: Preconstruction Training and
Cultural Resources Monitoring.
Prior to authorization to proceed, a
Secretary of the Interior
-
qualified a
rchaeologist shall prepare a
cultural resources monitoring plan. The City of Richmond shall review and approve the plan. The plan shall include a requirement for monitoring of construction activities
within 200 feet of
archeological site CA
-
CCO
-
400 by both
a qualified archeologist
and, if reasonably available, a Native American representative .
The City shall conduct good faith outreach (phone calls and emails) to tribal representatives identified by the Native American Heritage Commission in their February
6, 2016 letter
as having
potential interest in the Project site
(see Appendix D of the Draft
Project
Applicant /
Project
Contractor
City of
Richmond
Building
Division
City of
Richmond
Building
Division
Building
Division
to r
eview and
approv
e
of archaeologist
,
of
cultural resources monitoring
plan
and of the construction
plan that
includes
archaeological mitigation.
If resources are encountered,
Contractor to verify work is
suspended as required, review
and approve paleontologist and
paleontologist’s
recommendations.
If resources
encountered are
found to be
qualifying as
Prior to issuance of
building
permit
for,
or commencement
of, any ground
-
disturbing activities
.
Field inspections
during construction.
Verified by:
Date:
M
itigation
Monitoring and Repor
ting Program
Quarry
Residential Project
A
-
4 ESA /
D161035
EIR Addendum
March 2022
Project Mitigation Measures
Implement
ed
By
Monitored By
Monitoring and Reporting
Action
Monitoring
Schedule
Verification of
Compliance
EIR).
The
plan shall include (but not be limited to) the following components:
A training program for all construction and field workers involved in site
disturbance
that would be completed prior to
the commencement of construction activities and that would train site workers in the identification of potential cultural resources, and actions to be undertaken in the event that potential cultural resources ar
e discovered
;
described i
n the measure, the
City to ensure preservation
measures are implemented or
that the
ARDTP
is completed
and submitted to NWIC.
City to
i
nspect site during
construction
to ensure
compliance with project
construction plans.
4.4 Cultural and Paleontological Resources
(cont.)
The identification of person(s) responsible for conducting monitoring
activities, including Native American monitors;
The identification of person(s) responsible for overseeing and directing the monitors;
Monitoring
protocols and procedures
and the required format
and content of monitoring reports;
The schedule for submittal
of monitoring reports and
identification of
person(s) responsible for review and approval
of monitoring reports;
A protocol for notifications in the event cultural resources are encountered, as well as methods of dealing with the
encountered resources (e.
g., collection, identification,
curation);
Methods to ensure
the
security of cultural resources sites;
and
A protocol for notifying local authorities (i.e. Sheriff, Police) should site looting and other illegal activities occur during construction.
During
the course of the construction monitoring, the archaeologist may adjust the frequency, from continuous to intermittent, of the monitoring based on the conditions and professional judgment regarding the potential to impact resources.
b.
Project Site
-
Wide (
Including Archeological Site CA
-
CCO
-
400):
Inadvertent Discovery of Cultural Resources.
If archaeological
resources are encountered
during Project construction, including in
the vicinity of archeological site CA
-
CCO
-
400
, the following steps
shall be underta
ken:
All soil disturbing activities within 100 feet in all directions of the find shall cease until the resource is evaluated
;
The monitor shall immediately notify the City of Richmond of the encountered archaeological resource;
The monitor shall, after
making a reasonable effort to assess
the identity, integrity, and significance of the encountered
Miti
gation Monitoring
and Reporting Program
Quarry Residential Project
A
-
5 ESA /
D
161035
EIR Addendum
March 2022
Project Mitigation Measures
Implement
ed
By
Monitored By
Monitoring and Reporting
Action
Monitoring
Schedule
Verification of
Compliance
archaeological resource, present the findings of this
assessment to the City;
and
A Secretary of the Interior
-
qualified archaeologist shall
inspect the find w
ithin 24 hours of discover
y
.
Prehistoric archaeological materials might include obsidian and chert flaked
-
stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil (“midden”) containing heat
-
affected rocks, arti
facts, or shellfish remains; and stone milling
equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabs); and battered stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones.
Historic
-
period materials might include stone, concrete, or adobe footings an
d walls; filled wells or privies; and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse.
4.4 Cultural and Paleontological Resources (cont.)
I
n the event archaeological resources qualifying as either histor ical
resources
pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines
Section15064.5 or as
unique archaeological resources as defined by Public Resources Code 21083.2 are encountered, mitigation shall be implemented in accordance with PRC Section 21083.2 and Section
15126.4 of the
CEQA Guidelines, with a preferenc
e for preservation in place.
The
archaeologist, in consultation with the City of Richmond and the culturally
-
affiliated Native American group(s) shall determine whether to pursue
preservation in place
. Consistent with CEQA
Guidelines
Section 15126.4(b)(3),
this may be accomplished through planning
construction to avoid the resource; incorporating the resource within open space; capping and covering the resource; or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement.
If prese
rvation in place is not purs
ued
, the City of Richmond shall
ensure implementation of a detailed Archaeological Research Design and Treatment Plan (ARDTP)
,
in consultation with the
affiliated Native American tribe(s), if applicable. A qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the
City of Richmond, shall
prepare and implement the ARDTP
, which shall include a data
recovery program
. The Project archaeologist, the applicant, and the
City of Richmond shall meet to determine the scope of the ARDTP.
Treatment of unique archaeological reso
urces shall follow the
applicable requirements of PRC Section 21083.2. The ARDTP shall identify how the proposed data recovery program would preserve the significant information the archaeological resource contains, and shall include
and/or require
the fol
lowing:
Identification
of
the scientific/historic research questions
applicable to the expected resource, the data classes the resource is expected to possess, and how the expected data classes would address the applicable research questions;
M
itigation
Monitoring and Repor
ting Program
Quarry
Residential Project
A
-
6 ESA /
D161035
EIR Addendum
March 2022
Project Mitigation Measures
Implement
ed
By
Monitored By
Monitoring and Reporting
Action
Monitoring
Schedule
Verification of
Compliance
Documentation
of the results of the investigation
in a timely
manner, in
a technical report that provides a full artifact catalog, analysis of items collected, results of any special studies conducted, and interpretations of the resource within a regional and local con
text;
Details regarding
treatment
, which
for most resources would
consist of (but would not be not limited to) sample excavation, artifact collection, site documentation, and historical research, with the aim to target the recovery of important scientific data
contained in the portion(s) of the significant resource to be impacted by the Project;
D
issemination of report
/
s to local and state repositories,
libraries, and interested professionals
; and
Curation of artifacts and data at an approved facility
.
4.4 Cultural and Paleontological Resources (cont.)
The City of Richmond shall submit all technical documents to the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System.
Mitigation Measure CUL
-
2: Inadvertent
Discovery of Human
Remains.
Prior to the commencement of Project construction, the
applicant shall ensure that Project construction personnel receive training regarding the possibility of encountering human remains during construction, and apprised of appr
opriate procedures to undertake in
the event of such a discovery. Pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, and Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code of the State of California, in the event of discovery or recognition of any human r
emains during construction activities, such activities
within 100 feet of the find shall cease until the Contra Costa County Coroner has been contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required. The Native American Heritage Commi ssion
(NAH
C) will be contacted within 24
hours if it is determined that the
remains are Native American. The NAHC will then identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendant from the deceased Native American, who in turn would mak
e recommendations
to the City of Richmond for the appropriate means of treating the human remains and any grave goods.
Project
Applicant /
Project
Contractor
City of
Richmond
Building
Division
Verify mitigation meas
ure on
construction plans
.
Inspect site
during construction
to ensure compliance with
project construction plans.
Prior to issuance of
a building permit
for, or
commencement of,
any ground
-
disturbing activities
.
Field inspections
during construction
.
Verified by:
Date:
Mitigation Measure CUL
-
3 : Preconstruction Training
,
Paleontological Monitoring,
and
Accidental Discovery of
Paleontological Resources.
Prior to construction,
a qualified
paleontologist with expertise in California paleontology
will develop a
paleontological resources t
raining program for all construction and field
workers involved in
ground
-
disturbing activities that details the
recognition and importance of paleontological resources, and Project
Applicant /
Project
Contractor
Project
Applicant /
Project
Contractor
City of
Richmond
Building
Division
If resources are encountered,
Contractor to
verify work is
suspended as required, review
and approve paleontologist and
paleontologist’s
recommendations.
City to i
nspect site during
construction to ensure
Prior to issuance of
a building permit
for, or
commencement of,
any ground
-
disturbing activities
.
Field inspections
during construction
.
Verified by:
Date:
Miti
gation Monitoring
and Reporting Program
Quarry Residential Project
A
-
7 ESA /
D
161035
EIR Addendum
March 2022
Project Mitigation Measures
Implement
ed
By
Monitored By
Monitoring and Reporting
Action
Monitoring
Schedule
Verification of
Compliance
establishes accidental discovery procedures should paleontological resources be en
countered during construction.
Paleontological monitoring is necessary when ground
-
disturbing
activities occur in previously undisturbed sediments mapped as Franciscan sandstone or greywacke (see Engeo Inc., 2017 for detailed geologic mapping of the Projec
t site). Monitoring is not necessary in
other sediments
on the Project site, including artificial fill, colluvium, or landslide deposits, or in areas that have been previously disturbed. Monitoring should be conducted by a qualified paleontological monitor
that meets the standards of the
Society of
Vertebrate Paleontology
(SVP; 2010).
If paleontological resources, such as fossilized bone, teeth, shell, tracks, trails, casts, molds, or impressions are discovered during ground
-
disturbing activities, work shal
l stop in that area and within
100 feet of the find until a qualified paleontologist can assess the nature and importance of the find and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures in conformance with SVP
standards, and in consultation with the
City of Richmond.
compliance with
P
roject
construction plans.
4.5 Energy Resources
None required.
4.6 Geology, Soils, and Minerals
None required
.
4.7 Climate Change and
Greenhouse Ga
ses
None required.
4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
None required.
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
None required.
4.10 Land Use and Planning
None required
.
M
itigation
Monitoring and Repor
ting Program
Quarry
Residential Project
A
-
8 ESA /
D161035
EIR Addendum
March 2022
Project Mitigation Measures
Implement
ed
By
Monitored By
Monitoring and Reporting
Action
Monitoring
Schedule
Verification of
Compliance
4.11 Noise
Mitigation Measure C
-
NOI
-
1:
Construction Noise Control
Measures and Noise Control Plan.
For any Project construction
activities that would take place simultaneously with construction activities that would take place in Miller/Knox Regional Shoreline park (as part of activities associ
ated with the Land Use Plan Amendment)
and within 500 feet of the Project site, the applicant shall employ site -
specific noise attenuation measures during project construction to reduce the generation of construction noise. These measures shall be included
in a Noise Control Plan that shall be submitted for review and approval by the City of Richmond Planning and Building Services Department to ensure that construction noise meets the standards set forth in the City’s Noise ordinance. Measures specified in the Noise
Contr
ol Plan and implemented during P
roject construction may include
the following noise control strategies:
Equipment and trucks used for construction shall use the best available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment rede
sign, use of intake silencers, ducts,
engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds);
Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills) used for construction shall be hydraulically or electrically
Project
Applican
t /
Project
Contractor
City of
Richmond
Building
Division and
Engineering
Services
Department
Engineering
Services
Department to r
eview and
approve P
roject specifications
and grading and construction
plans for inclusion
of this
measure into specifications
.
Building Division to i
nspect site
during construc
tion to ensure
compliance with P
roject
construction plans.
Prior to issuance of
building
permit.
Field inspections
during construction
.
Verified by:
Date:
4.11 N
oise
(cont.)
powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools.
Where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used; this muffler can lower noise
l
eve
ls from the exhaust by up to
approximately 10
dBA. External jackets on the tools
themselves or similar devices shall be used; this
could
achieve a reduction of 5
dBA. Quieter procedures, such as
use of drills rather than impact tools, shall be used; and
S
tationary noise sources on site shall be located as far from adjacent receptors as may physically be accommodated,
and they shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds incorporate insulation barriers, or include similar measures to reduce noise.
4 .12
Population and Housing
None required
.