Figures
CITY OF RICHMOND
UNITY PARK PROJECT CITY OF RICHMOND
UNITY PARK PROJECT APP D-15 APPENDIX D
CITY OF RICHMOND
UNITY PARK PROJECT
CITY OF RICHMOND
UNITY PARK PROJECT APP D-16 APPENDIX D
CITY OF RICHMOND
UNITY PARK PROJECT
CITY OF RICHMOND
UNITY PARK PROJECT APP D-17 APPENDIX D
CITY OF RICHMOND
UNITY PARK PROJECT
CITY OF RICHMOND
UNITY PARK PROJECT APP D-18 APPENDIX D
CITY OF RICHMOND
UNITY PARK PROJECT
CITY OF RICHMONDUNITY PARK PROJECT APP D-19 APPENDIX D Page 622 of 780
CITY OF RICHMOND
UNITY PARK PROJECT
CITY OF RICHMOND
UNITY PARK PROJECT APP D-20 APPENDIX D Page 623 of 780
CITY OF RICHMOND
UNITY PARK PROJECT
CITY OF RICHMONDUNITY PARK PROJECT APP D-21 APPENDIX D Page 624 of 780
CITY OF RICHMOND
UNITY PARK PROJECT
CITY OF RICHMONDUNITY PARK PROJECT APP D-22 APPENDIX D Page 625 of 780 City of Richmond
UNITY PARK- ILLEGAL DUMPING CLEAN UP AND PREVENTION ENCLOSURE E-1 Appendix
APPENDIX E
STORMWATER PROTECTION FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
G-2
STORMWATER PROTECTION FOR
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
The goal of these requirements is to prevent the pollution of storm water runoff from construction projects by keeping pollutants out of storm drains, reducing the exposure and discharge of materials and wastes to storm water, and by reducing erosion and sedimentation.
Storm drains discharge runoff directly to creeks and the Bay without treatment. City of Richmond is required under its stormwater discharge NPDES permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff from construction sites to the maximum extent practicable.
A. General Requirements
The following requirements shall be met on all projects for City of Richmond. 1) Employee and Subcontractor Training and Awareness
a. The CONTRACTOR shall train all employees/subcontractors on the storm water pollution prevention requirements contained in these Specifications.
b. The CONTRACTOR shall inform subcontractors of the storm water pollution prevention contract requirements and include appropriate subcontract provisions to ensure that these requirements are met.
c. The CONTRACTOR shall label new storm drain inlets,
constructed as part of the project, with the “No Dumping” message (to obtain a stencil or marker, contact your local public works department or water quality agency).
2) Nonhazardous Material / Waste Management
a. Designated Area
The CONTRACTOR shall propose designated areas of the
project site, for approval by the ENGINEER, suitable for material delivery, storage, and waste collection that are near construction entrances and away from storm drain inlets, gutters, drainage courses, and creeks.
b. Granular Material
i) The CONTRACTOR shall store granular material at
least ten feet away from storm drain inlet and curb
returns.
ii) The CONTRACTOR shall not allow granular material
to enter the storm drains or creeks.
iii) When rain is forecast within 24 hours or during wet weather, the ENGINEER may require the
CONTRACTOR to cover granular material with a
tarpaulin and to surround the material with sand bags.
c. Dust Control
i) The CONTRACTOR shall use reclaimed water to
control dust on a daily basis or as directed by the
ENGINEER.
d. Street Sweeping
F-2
G-3
i. At the end of each working day or as directed by the ENGINEER, the CONTRACTOR shall clean and
sweep roadways and on-site paved areas to remove all
materials attributed to or involved in the work. The
CONTRACTOR shall not use water to flush down
streets in place of street sweeping.
b. Recycling
i) The CONTRACTOR shall recycle aggregate base material, asphalt concrete, and Portland cement concrete.
ii) In addition, to the maximum extent practicable, the CONTRACTOR shall reuse or recycle any useful construction materials generated during the project.
c. Disposal
i) At the end of each working day, the CONTRACTOR shall collect all scrap, debris, and waste material, and dispose of such materials properly
ii) The CONTRACTOR shall inspect dumpsters for leaks and contact trash hauling contractors to replace or repair dumpsters that leak.
iii) The CONTRACTOR shall not discharge water on-site from cleaning dumpsters.
iv) The CONTRACTOR shall arrange for regular waste collection before dumpsters overflow.
3) Hazardous Material / Waste Management
a. Storage
i) The CONTRACTOR shall label and store all hazardous
materials, such as pesticides, paints, thinners, solvents, and fuels; and all hazardous wastes, such as waste oil, antifreeze and mercury-containing devices such as thermostats and fluorescent light bulbs in accordance all applicable local, State and Federal regulations.
ii) The CONTRACTOR shall store all hazardous materials and all hazardous wastes in accordance with secondary containment regulations, and it is recommended that these materials and wastes be covered, as needed, to avoid potential management of collected rainwater as a hazardous waste.
iii) The CONTRACTOR shall keep an accurate, up-to-date
inventory, including Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs), of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes stored on-site, to assist emergency response personnel in the event of a hazardous materials incident.
b. Usage
i) When rain is forecast within 24 hours or during wet weather, the ENGINEER may prevent the CONTRACTOR from applying
chemicals in outside areas.
ii) The CONTRACTOR shall not over-apply pesticides or fertilizers and shall follow material manufacturers’ instructions regarding uses, protective equipment, ventilation, flammability, and mixing F-3
G-4
of chemicals. Over-application of a pesticide constitutes a “label violation” subject to an enforcement action by your local Agricultural Commissioner.
c. Disposal
i) The CONTRACTOR shall arrange for regular hazardous waste collection to comply with time limits on storage of hazardous wastes.
ii) The CONTRACTOR shall dispose of hazardous waste only at authorized and permitted Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities, and use only licensed hazardous waste haulers to remove the waste off-site, unless quantities to be transported are below applicable threshold limits for transportation specified in State and Federal regulations.
iii) If the CONTRACTOR qualifies as a “Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator” as defined under State and Federal regulations then the CONTRACTOR may be able to dispose of this waste through a local sponsored small quantity generator program. Contact your local hazardous waste management
agency for information on these programs.
iv)
4) Spill Prevention and Control
a. The CONTRACTOR shall keep a stockpile of spill cleanup materials, such as rags or absorbents, readily accessible on-site, and ensure that all employees know where these materials are and how to use them.
b. The CONTRACTOR shall immediately contain and prevent leaks and spills from entering storm drains, and properly clean up and dispose of the waste and cleanup materials. If the waste is hazardous, the CONTRACTOR shall handle the waste as described in section A.3.c above.
c. The CONTRACTOR shall not wash any spilled material into streets, gutters, storm drains, or creeks and shall not bury spilled hazardous materials. d. The CONTRACTOR shall report any hazardous materials spill to the local fire department.
B. Activity-Specific Requirements
The following requirements shall be met on all projects for City of Richmond that include the listed activities.
Dewatering Operations
Sediment Control
The CONTRACTOR shall route water through a control
measure, such as a sediment trap, sediment basin, or Baker tank, to remove settleable solids prior to discharge to the storm drain system.
Approval of the control measure shall be obtained in advance from the ENGINEER.
Filtration of the water following the control measure may be required on a case-by-case basis.
If the ENGINEER determines that the dewatering operation would not generate an appreciable amount of settleable solids, F-4
G-5
the control measure requirement in i) above may be waived.
The CONTRACTOR shall reuse water for other needs, such as dust control or irrigation, to the maximum extent practicable.
Contaminated Groundwater
If the project is within an area of known groundwater
contamination, then water from dewatering operations shall be tested prior to discharge. If the water quality meets Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) standards, then it may be discharged to the storm drain. If the water quality meets local sanitary sewer pretreatment regulations, then it may be discharged to the sanitary sewer with prior approval from the local wastewater management authority. Otherwise, the water shall be treated or hauled off-site for proper disposal.
If the project is not within an area of known groundwater contamination, then monitoring shall only be required if directed by the ENGINEER. The CONTRACTOR shall follow section
B.1.b.i above, if contamination is found.
If the project is found to be within an area of groundwater contamination not identified in the project specifications, a change order shall be negotiated to cover additional work performed by the CONTRACTOR.
Paving Operations
Project Site Management
When rain is forecast within 24 hours or during wet weather, the ENGINEER may prevent the CONTRACTOR from paving.
The ENGINEER may direct the CONTRACTOR to protect
drainage courses by using control measures, such as earth dike, and sand bag, to divert runoff or trap and filter sediment.
The CONTRACTOR shall place drip pans or absorbent material under paving equipment when not in use.
The CONTRACTOR shall cover storm drain inlets and manholes when paving or applying seal coat, tack coat, slurry seal, or fog seal.
If the paving operation includes an on-site mixing plant, the CONTRACTOR shall comply with General Industrial Activities Storm Water Permit requirements.
Paving Waste Management
The CONTRACTOR shall not sweep or wash down excess sand (placed as part of a sand seal or to absorb excess oil) into gutters, storm drains, or creeks. Instead, the CONTRACTOR shall either collect the sand and return it to the stockpile, or dispose of it in a trash container.
The CONTRACTOR shall not use water to wash down asphalt or concrete pavement.
Marking paint shall be removed from paving using dry methods such as a wire brush and vacuum. If water is used, all wastewater shall be collected and disposed of to a dirt area or to the sanitary sewer.
F-5
G-6
Saw Cutting
During saw cutting, the CONTRACTOR shall cover or barricade storm drain inlets using control measures, such as filter fabric, straw bales, sand bags, and fine gravel dams, to keep slurry out of the storm drain system. When protecting a storm drain inlet, the CONTRACTOR shall ensure that the entire opening is covered.
The CONTRACTOR shall shovel, absorb, or vacuum saw cut slurry and pick up the waste prior to moving to the next location or at the end of each working day, whichever is sooner.
If saw cut slurry enters storm drain inlets, the CONTRACTOR shall remove the slurry from the storm drain system immediately.
Contaminated Soil Management
On all projects involving grading or excavation, the CONTRACTOR shall look for contaminated soil as evidenced by site history, discoloration, odor, differences in soil properties, abandoned underground tanks or pipes, or buried debris. If the project is not within an area of known soil contamination and no evidence of soil contamination is found, then testing of the soil shall only be required if directed by the ENGINEER. The CONTRACTOR shall follow section B.4.b below, if contamination is found.
If the project is within an area of known soil contamination or evidence of soil contamination is found, then soil from grading or excavation operations shall be tested. The soil shall be managed as required by the local hazardous waste management agency.
If the project is found to be within an area of soil contamination not identified in the project specifications, a change order shall be negotiated to cover additional work performed by the CONTRACTOR.
Concrete, Grout, and Mortar Waste Management
The CONTRACTOR shall store concrete, grout, and mortar away from drainage areas and ensure that these materials do not enter the storm drain system.
Concrete Truck/Equipment Wash Out
The CONTRACTOR shall not wash out concrete trucks or equipment into streets, gutters, storm drains, or creeks.
The CONTRACTOR shall perform washout of concrete trucks or equipment off-site or in a designated area on-site where the water will flow onto dirt or into a temporary pit in a dirt area. The CONTRACTOR shall let the water percolate into the soil and dispose of the hardened concrete in a trash container. If a suitable dirt area is not available, then the CONTRACTOR shall collect the wash water and remove it off-site.
Exposed Aggregate Concrete Wash Water
The CONTRACTOR shall avoid creating runoff by draining water from washing of exposed aggregate concrete to a dirt area to percolate and evaporate. If a suitable dirt area is not available, then the CONTRACTOR shall filter the wash water or allow solids to settle out and pump the water to a sanitary sewer (first check with your local wastewater authority).
The CONTRACTOR shall collect and return sweepings from exposed aggregate concrete to a stockpile or dispose of the waste in a trash container.
F-6
G-7
Painting
Painting Cleanup
Designated Area
The CONTRACTOR shall conduct cleaning of painting
equipment and tools in a designated area that will not
allow run-on of storm water or runoff of spills.
The CONTRACTOR shall not allow wash water from
cleaning of painting equipment and tools to drain into
streets, gutters, storm drains, or creeks.
Water-based Paint
The CONTRACTOR shall remove as much excess paint
as possible from brushes, rollers, and equipment before starting cleanup.
To the maximum extent practicable, the
CONTRACTOR shall dispose of wash water from
aqueous cleaning of equipment and tools to the sanitary sewer.
Otherwise, the CONTRACTOR shall direct wash water
onto dirt area and spade in.
Oil-based Paint
The CONTRACTOR shall remove as much excess paint
as possible from brushes, rollers, and equipment before starting cleanup.
To the maximum extent practicable, the
CONTRACTOR shall filter paint thinner and solvents
for reuse.
The CONTRACTOR shall dispose of waste thinner and
solvent, and sludge from cleaning of equipment and
tools as hazardous waste, as described in section A.3.c above.
Painting Materials and Waste Management
The CONTRACTOR shall store paint, solvents, chemicals, and waste materials in compliance with all applicable local, State and Federal regulations. The CONTRACTOR shall store these materials in a designated area that will not allow run-on of storm water or runoff of spills.
The CONTRACTOR shall dispose of excess thinners, solvents, oil- and water-based paint as hazardous waste.
The CONTRACTOR shall dispose of dry, empty paint cans/buckets, old brushes, rollers, rags, and drop cloths in the trash.
Earthwork
The CONTRACTOR shall maximize the control of erosion and sediment by using the BMPs for erosion and sedimentation in the RWQCB’s Erosion and Sediment Control Field Manual.
Vehicle / Equipment Cleaning
The CONTRACTOR shall not perform vehicle or equipment cleaning onsite or in the street using soaps, solvents, degreasers, steam cleaning equipment, or equivalent methods.
F-7
G-8
The CONTRACTOR shall perform vehicle or equipment cleaning offsite, or onsite with water only, in a designated, bermed area that will not allow rinse water to run off-site or into streets, gutters, storm drains, or creeks.
Vehicle / Equipment Maintenance and Fueling
The CONTRACTOR shall perform maintenance and fueling of vehicles or equipment in a designated, bermed area or over a drip pan that will not allow run-on of storm water or runoff of spills.
The CONTRACTOR shall use secondary containment, such as a drip pan, to catch leaks or spills any time that vehicle or equipment fluids are dispensed, changed, or poured.
The CONTRACTOR shall keep a stockpile of spill cleanup materials, such as rags or absorbents, readily accessible on-site.
The CONTRACTOR shall clean up leaks and spills of vehicle or equipment fluids immediately and dispose of the waste and cleanup materials as hazardous waste, as described in section A.3.c above.
The CONTRACTOR shall not wash any spilled material into streets, gutters, storm drains, or creeks and shall not bury spilled hazardous materials.
The CONTRACTOR shall report any spill of vehicle fluids to City of Richmond.
The CONTRACTOR shall inspect vehicles and equipment arriving on-site for leaking fluids and shall promptly repair leaking vehicles and equipment. Drip pans shall be used to catch leaks until repairs are made.
The CONTRACTOR shall recycle waste oil and antifreeze.
The CONTRACTOR shall comply with local, State and Federal requirements for aboveground storage tanks.
F-8
F-9
G-9
F-10
G-10
F-11
G-11
G
F-12 -12
F-13
G-13
F-14
G-14
F-15
G-15
F-16
G-16
G
F-17 -17
F-18
G-18
F-19
G-19
[Type here]
F-20
G-20
CITY OF RICHMOND
UNITY PARK PROJECT
CITY OF RICHMOND
UNITY PARK PROJECT APP F-1 APPENDIX F
APPENDIX F
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS AND PLANS
This appendix consists of the following documents:
- ‘Richmond Greenway Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration’, May 2004 - ‘Addendum, CEQA Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, Richmond Unity Park’, March 2013
- ‘Resolution No. 13-07, Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Richmond, Adopting an Addendum to the Richmond Greenway Master Plan Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Acquisition of 1605 Ohio Avenue to Implement the New Design of Unity Park’, April 4, 2013
- ‘Request for Verification of CWA Wetland Delineation, Richmond Greenway - Unity and Harbor to 8th Parks, City of Richmond, Contra Costa County, California’ October 14, 2013 - Table A: Potential Waters of the United States
- Figure 1: Regional Location
- Figure 2: Project Location
- Figure 3: Potential Waters of the United States
- Data Sheets 1 through 3
- Correspondence from the Department of the Army, San Francisco District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the ‘Request for Verification of CWA Wetland Delineation, Richmond Greenway – Unity and Harbor to 8th Parks, City of Richmond, Contra Costa County, California’ File No.: 2013-00380S, February 10, 2014
DRAFT
ADDENDUM
CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
RICHMOND UNITY PARK
RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA
Submitted to:
City of Richmond
Planning & Building Services Department
450 Civic Center Plaza, 2nd Floor
Richmond, CA 94804
Prepared by:
LSA Associates, Inc.
157 Park Place
Point Richmond, CA 94801
(510) 236-6810
LSA Project No.CIR1201
March 2013
P:\CIR1201\Unity Park_Final Draft Addendum.doc (03/27/13) i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1 A. DETERMINATION ............................................................................................................... 1 B. BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................... 1 C. PURPOSE OF THIS ADDENDUM ...................................................................................... 2 D. CEQA FRAMEWORK FOR ADDENDUM ......................................................................... 2 II. PROJECT INFORMATION .............................................................................................................. 4 A. SUMMARY OF ORIGINAL PROJECT ................................................................................ 4 B. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECT ............................................................................... 5 C. COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL AND PROPOSED PROJECT ............................................ 7 III. ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS .................................................. 12 A. KEY TOPICS ANALYZED WITH MODIFIED PROJECT ............................................... 12 B. OTHER TOPICS EVALUATED IN THE 2004 IS/MND .................................................... 23 C. MITIGATION MEASURES ................................................................................................. 30 IV. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................. 34 V. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................ 35
FIGURES
Figure 1: Regional Location ................................................................................................................. 36 Figure 2: Project Location .................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 3: Proposed Project ................................................................................................................... 38 Figure 4: Revised Wetland Mapping .................................................................................................... 39
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ADDENDUM CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2013 RICHMOND UNITY PARK
RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA
P:\CIR1201\UnityPark_Final Draft Addendum.doc (03/27/13) 1 I. INTRODUCTION
A. DETERMINATION
This document constitutes an Addendum to the May 2004 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (2004 IS/MND) (LSA Associates, 2004) originally prepared for the Richmond Greenway Project (hereafter referred to as the Original Project). This Addendum evaluates whether modifications/refinements to the proposed park design (hereafter referred to as the Proposed Project) would result in any new or substantially more adverse significant effects or require any new mitigation measures not identified in the 2004 IS/MND.
Similar to the Original Project, the Proposed Project would consist of the development of a community park along a portion of the Richmond Greenway. The Proposed Project differs from the Original Project because it includes details on the proposed design for the park. The Proposed Project also includes the acquisition and development of an adjacent parcel that was not evaluated in the 2004 IS/MND.
As verified in this Addendum, the analyses and the conclusions in the 2004 IS/MND remain current and valid. The proposed revisions to the Original Project, in the form of development of additional park facilities, would not cause new significant effects not identified in the MND nor increase the level of environmental effect to substantial or significant, and, hence, no new mitigation measures would be necessary to reduce significant effects. No change has occurred with respect to circumstances surrounding the proposed project that would cause new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects than were identified in the 2004 IS/MND. In addition, no new information has become available that shows that the project would cause new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects which have not already been analyzed in the 2004 IS/MND.
Therefore, no further environmental review is required beyond this Addendum.
This Addendum incorporates most of the mitigation measures detailed in the 2004 MND, clarifies selected mitigation measures and removes those mitigation measures that are no longer applicable to the Proposed Project. With this Addendum, the Proposed Project would still be within the framework of the evaluation for the Original Project as documented in the 2004 IS/MND.
B. BACKGROUND
The Original Project was formally evaluated in a 2004 IS/MND for the Richmond Greenway Project.
The 2004 IS/MND was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and adopted by the City of Richmond (City).
During the development of the Richmond Greenway Master Plan, residents expressed a desire for a park facility between Marina Way and 20th Street and the potential development of the park, designated Unity Park, was included as part of the proposed project evaluated in the 2004 IS/MND.
Following the adoption of the 2004 IS/MND, the City undertook an intensive and extensive
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ADDENDUM CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2013 RICHMOND UNITY PARK
RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA
P:\CIR1201\UnityPark_Final Draft Addendum.doc (03/27/13) 2 community planning process to solicit input from local residents on the community’s desires for the proposed park and to refine the park design. As described in detail in Section II.B, Project Description, the Proposed Project would include the following improvements: a plaza, a gazebo, a children’s play area, community gardens, a turf area, bicycle and walking paths and four gateway entrances.
Refinements to the park design constitute modifications to the Original Project that were not evaluated in the 2004 IS/MND, which necessitates subsequent environmental review/documentation under CEQA. Section 15164(b) of the CEQA Guidelines states that an Addendum to an adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 (further described below under Section I.C) apply.
The City of Richmond is the Lead Agency under CEQA and has prepared this Addendum to address the potential environmental impacts of implementing the Proposed Project on the project site.
C. PURPOSE OF THIS ADDENDUM
The purpose of this Addendum is to evaluate whether the Proposed Project as currently proposed would result in any new or substantially greater significant effects or require any new mitigation measures not identified in the 2004 IS/MND for the Original Project. This Addendum, together with the 2004 IS/MND will be used by the City when considering approval of the Proposed Project.
D. CEQA FRAMEWORK FOR ADDENDUM
For a proposed modified project, State CEQA Guidelines (Sections 15162 and 15164) provide that an Addendum to an adopted MND may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the following conditions calling for the preparation of a subsequent MND have occurred:
Substantial changes in the project which require major revisions to the MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
Substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which require major revisions to the MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of MND adoption, shows any of the following:
i) the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the MND, ii) the project will result in impacts substantially more severe than those disclosed in the MND,
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ADDENDUM CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2013 RICHMOND UNITY PARK
RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA
P:\CIR1201\UnityPark_Final Draft Addendum.doc (03/27/13) 3 iii) 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 proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative, or iv) mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the MND would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
The purpose of this Addendum is to evaluate the proposed park improvements as a modification to the 2004 IS/MND for the Original Project and to demonstrate that the Proposed Project does not trigger any of the conditions described above. Based on the analysis provided below, an Addendum to the 2004 IS/MND is the appropriate CEQA document.
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ADDENDUM CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2013 RICHMOND UNITY PARK
RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA
P:\CIR1201\UnityPark_Final Draft Addendum.doc (03/27/13) 4 II. PROJECT INFORMATION
A. SUMMARY OF ORIGINAL PROJECT
Project Location
The 2004 IS/MND assessed the proposed Richmond Greenway, a three-mile bike and pedestrian trail oriented largely along an abandoned railroad right-of-way. The study area analyzed in the 2004 IS/MND extended along Ohio Avenue from Garrard Boulevard to 2nd Street, then jogged north on 2nd Street to the abandoned Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe railroad right-of-way. It then followed the railroad right-of-way east to the west edge of Interstate Highway 80 near 47th Street, turned north along Interstate 80 within the Caltrans right-of-way to Macdonald Avenue, traveled east on Madonald Avenue, then turned south on Key Boulevard and terminated at the City of El Cerrito border.
The Greenway is located entirely within an urban area. Adjacent land uses include residential, light industrial, and commercial.
Project Details
The City Council, by resolution, approved the IS/MND for the Original Project. The IS/MND evaluated the environmental impacts associated with development of the Richmond Greenway, a three-mile bike and pedestrian route extending along a west/east linear alignment from Garrard Boulevard to Interstate 80 (I-80). The Richmond Greenway provides a link between the San Francisco Bay Trail and the Ohlone Greenway in the City of El Cerrito.
During the development of the Richmond Greenway Master Plan, a series of community design workshops and charettes were held to solicit community input on the planning process and the design of the proposed trail. As part of this process, residents expressed a desire for a park facility between Marina Way and 20th Street, which was subsequently designated as Unity Park (the “Proposed Project”). Proposed amenities for Unity Park identified and evaluated in the 2004 IS/MND included:
educational exhibits, exercise equipment, sports courts, an enclosed tot lot, adolescent play area, picnic and barbecue area, seating, trash receptacles, and board game areas. The 2004 IS/MND also identified existing and proposed community garden sites within the Richmond Greenway at Marina Way and 20th Street.
Landscaping and signage were to be installed in the right-of-way adjacent to the proposed trail and on roadway segments that were part of the Original Project. Traditional trail design elements such as bollards, curb cuts, striping, fencing, drainage outlets, and lighting were to be incorporated into the Original Project. However, proposed lighting was to be minimal and installed only where necessitated by the need to protect public safety.
According to the 2004 IS/MND, minimal grading or import of soil would be required to develop the park. Ground disturbance to install light poles, lighting pull boxes, kiosk poles, neighborhood sign foundations, direct sign foundations, and utilities would extend to approximately 3 feet below the surface in select areas. Ground disturbance to a maximum depth of approximately 3 feet would occur
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ADDENDUM CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2013 RICHMOND UNITY PARK
RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA
P:\CIR1201\UnityPark_Final Draft Addendum.doc (03/27/13) 5 to install landscaping and an irrigation system. Irrigation planned for the Richmond Greenway would also serve the park.
The 2030 General Plan land use designation for the Richmond Greenway is Parks and Recreation.
Adjacent General Plan land use designations include Public, Cultural and Institutional; Low Density Residential; Medium Density Residential; Business/Light Industrial; Medium Intensity Mixed Use (Commercial Emphasis); Medium Intensity Mixed-Use (Gateway/Community Node) and Medium Density Mixed Use (Residential Emphasis).
B. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECT
Project Location
The Unity Park project site is located along a portion of the Richmond Greenway between Marina Way and 20th Street and 2nd and 8th Streets in the Iron Triangle neighborhood of Richmond, Contra Costa County, California (Figures 1 and 2). The project site encompasses approximately 8.77 acres of vacant land known as the Richmond Greenway and consists of a portion of the study area analyzed in the 2004 IS/MND. The only part of the Unity Park project site that was not addressed in the 2004 IS/MND consists of the parcel at 1605 Ohio Avenue, which would be acquired as part of the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project site is split into two sections separated by six city blocks; the western section follows the Richmond Greenway from 2nd Street to 8th Street, and the eastern section follows the Richmond Greenway from Marina Way to 20th Street, including the property located at 1605 Ohio Avenue.
The project site is located in an area of residential, industrial and public land uses. The project site is bounded on all sides by residential neighborhoods and light industrial buildings, including warehouses and storage facilities. Nearby public structures include Lincoln Elementary School and Gompers High School, with associated athletic fields and open space, and several churches.
Project Details
Consistent with the Original Project, the Proposed Project would develop a new community park within the Richmond Greenway, subsequently designated as Unity Park. Unity Park would be constructed on two “nodes”: the Community Plaza node between Marina Way and 20th Street and the Community Garden Node, between 2nd and 8th Streets (see Figure 3).
The Community Node would be Unity Park’s central hub and would include: a Community Plaza that would connect the park to surrounding streets and transportation corridors; an open-air, multi-purpose gazebo; and a restroom building. A nature-themed children’s play area would also be located adjacent to the Community Plaza, away from Ohio Avenue. A turf area for passive (such as picnicking) and active (such as pickup soccer) recreation uses would be located on a long stretch of undeveloped land east of the Community Plaza. The Proposed Project would include acquisition of a 0.46 acre property at 1605 Ohio Street to create the Community Plaza. Acquisition of this property was not included in the Original Project.
The Community Garden Node, located at 6th Street, is adjacent to Lincoln Elementary School and near Gompers High School, both of which have developing community garden projects at this location. As part of the Proposed Project, these current projects would be expanded into a large
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ADDENDUM CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2013 RICHMOND UNITY PARK
RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA
P:\CIR1201\UnityPark_Final Draft Addendum.doc (03/27/13) 6 Community Garden with raised beds.
Four artistic gateways would be constructed to provide Unity Park with a “sense of place.” In addition, public art would be incorporated into the overall park design to promote stewardship of the park. Colorful native and ornamental landscaping would also be installed. As part of the proposed project, existing lighting (vandalized) along the Richmond Greenway would be replaced. Other safety features that might be installed as part of the Proposed Project include security cameras and call-in telephones, which would be located at various points throughout the park.
The design and construction of the Proposed Project would incorporate several sustainable features including:
Water Efficient Irrigation – The irrigation system would include a rain sensor and soil moisture meter.
Pervious Surfaces – The Proposed Project would include pervious concrete, decomposed granite, turf, planting areas, and a bioswale. Surfaces would be graded to drain into plantings to capture and infiltrate stormwater and irrigation.
Recycled Materials – Recycled materials would be used when possible. Landscaping – Landscaping would include drought-tolerant plant species appropriate to the City.
Maintenance would include Integrated Pest Management, and use of biological soil analysis and organic soil amendments and fertilizers approved by OMRI (Organic Materials Review Institute). Energy Efficient Lighting – The Proposed Project would include energy-efficient lighting that activates in low light, with LED/solar fixtures that minimize electrical usage and are Dark Sky compliant.
Reduce Urban Heat Island Effect – Trees would be added to the site to provide shade. All paved surfaces would be rated at a Solar Reflectance Index (SRI) of 29 or greater, the threshold for LEED certification in order to reduce heat absorption.
Low-flow Water Fixtures – Sand and water play in the Children’s Play area would use a low-flow activator for controlled flow. Restrooms would utilize low-flow fixtures. Utility Upgrades – The Proposed Project would include upgrades to the local existing water, electrical, and sanitary sewer lines improving efficiency and reducing waste. Wildlife Habitat – The Proposed Project would includes areas of native plantings specifically designed to provide food and shelter for local wildlife species and migratory bird species.
Consistent with the results of soil sampling conducted in 2012-20131 , the following elements would
also be included as part of the Proposed Project to protect potential park users from soil contaminants:
• The City of Richmond will hire a qualified contractor to prepare a site-specific Soil Management Plan with a Health and Safety Plan (SMP/HSP). The SMP/HSP would establish soil management and control specifications for excavation, grading, and construction activities, including procedures for evaluation of soil disposal options, and health and safety provisions for monitoring 1 Weston, 2013, Phase I/II Investigation, Targeted Brownsfield Assessment, Final Report, Unity Park Community Garden Site, Richmond, Contra Costa County, California, February.
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ADDENDUM CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2013 RICHMOND UNITY PARK
RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA
P:\CIR1201\UnityPark_Final Draft Addendum.doc (03/27/13) 7 the exposure of construction workers to contaminants. The Plan shall be submitted to the City of Richmond for review and approval. The City would review and approve the Plan and implement the recommended soil management and control specifications. • All edible plants would be planted in raised beds filled with clean, imported soil. The soil would be obtained from a commercial source of residential garden soil. • Trees would be planted in clean, imported soil that extends to the expected width and depth of the mature tree roots. The soil would be obtained from a commercial source of residential garden soil.
• All children’s play areas would be covered with clean, imported soil, or a geotextile and playground materials such as bark, to prevent direct contact with soil. Imported soil would be selected and screened in accordance with DTSC guidelines for clean, imported fill material.2
C. COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL AND PROPOSED PROJECT
The 2004 IS/MND evaluated the Original Project, a proposal to construct an approximately 3-mile bicycle and pedestrian route extending along a west/east linear alignment from Garrard Boulevard to I-80 using primarily Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe (AT&SF) and Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) rights-of-way. The Original Project also included development of a community park between Marina Way and 20th Street. As originally proposed, the park was to include educational exhibits, exercise equipment, sports courts, an enclosed tot lot, adolescent play area, picnic and barbecue area, seating, trash receptacles, and board game areas. The Proposed Project would develop a community park on two nodes within the Richmond Greenway: the Community Plaza node between Marina Way and 20th Street and the Community Garden Node, between 2nd and 8th Streets.
The Proposed Project would differ from the Original Project in that more detailed information about the proposed park design has been generated through an extensive public outreach process. As described above, the Proposed Project would include a Community Plaza, gazebo, restroom, children’s play area, turf area for recreation uses, and community garden. In addition, the park area has been expanded to include the second “node” between 2nd and 8th Streets as well as acquisition and development of an additional parcel along Ohio Street for the Community Plaza. These modifications to the Original Project are discussed below.
Aesthetics
The Proposed Project, unlike the Original Project, now includes more detail on proposed park improvements. The proposed park design is a result of an extensive public outreach process, which solicited input from adjacent neighbors and others throughout the community. The Proposed Project includes a number of features to enhance the visual character of the project site, including native landscaping, artistic gateways and the incorporation of other public art throughout the site, which were not included in the Original Project.
2 California Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”), 2001, Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material, October.
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ADDENDUM CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2013 RICHMOND UNITY PARK
RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA
P:\CIR1201\UnityPark_Final Draft Addendum.doc (03/27/13) 8 Biological Resources
Reconnaissance level wetlands, botanical and wildlife habitat surveys have been conducted to verify that site conditions within the bounds of the Proposed Project have not changed since the 2004 IS/MND was completed. The additional parcel at 1605 Ohio Avenue that was not assessed in the 2004 IS/MND was also surveyed to identify any biological resources issues present on the site. The more detailed park planning that has taken place would not result in any increase in potential impacts to biological resources. Botanical and wildlife habitat resources are limited to those areas that have been planted with native species as part of previous improvements along the Richmond Greenway.
A jurisdictional delineation that included both the western “Community Garden Node” section of Unity Park (between 2nd Street and 8th Street) and the “Community Plaza Node” section of Unity Park (between Marina Way and 20th Street) was conducted for the original project site in 2003, but was not verified by the Corps. Potential wetland areas were remapped by LSA in February 2013 because the 2003 delineation was 10 years old and site conditions may have changed. The revised wetland mapping (see Figure 4) identified potential waters of the United States within the project site, including ditch segments and a bioswale. Like the Original Project, installation of landscaping, paving, structures and staging areas associated with implementation of the Proposed Project could affect jurisdictional features. In compliance with Mitigation Measure BIO-2, identified in the 2004 IS/MND, the Proposed Project would avoid wetlands and watercourses within the site or obtain appropriate permits for fill of jurisdictional areas from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Hazardous Materials
Section VII of the 2004 IS/MND evaluated effects associated with hazards and hazardous materials as a result of implementation of the Original Project, which included construction of a bicycle and pedestrian path, community park and accessory structures along surface streets and the abandoned railroad right-of-way. The governmental records search conducted for the 2004 IS/MND indicated that groundwater underlying the project site and site soils could be contaminated. Based on the results of the 1998 sampling study and the 2003 Initial Site Assessment discussed in Section III.A.1 below, the 2004 IS/MND concluded that the Original Project would not result in significant effects related to a release of hazardous materials, and no mitigation measures were required.
Subsequent refinements to the proposed design for Richmond Unity Park have been made as a result of the public outreach process described in Section II.B above. The Proposed Project now includes the proposed use of portions of the project site for edible gardening and children’s play areas. Further soil sampling was conducted to identify any potential environmental effects associated with the use of site soils for these proposed improvements (e.g., edible gardening, children’s play areas). Consistent with the results of soil sampling conducted in 2012-20133 , the following elements would be included
as part of the Proposed Project:
• The City of Richmond will hire a qualified contractor to prepare a site-specific Soil Management Plan with a Health and Safety Plan (SMP/HSP). The SMP/HSP would establish soil management and control specifications for excavation, grading, and construction activities, including 3 Weston, 2013, Phase I/II Investigation, Targeted Brownsfield Assessment, Final Report, Unity Park Community Garden Site, Richmond, Contra Costa County, California, February.
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ADDENDUM CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2013 RICHMOND UNITY PARK
RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA
P:\CIR1201\UnityPark_Final Draft Addendum.doc (03/27/13) 9 procedures for evaluation of soil disposal options, and health and safety provisions for monitoring the exposure of construction workers to contaminants. The Plan shall be submitted to the City of Richmond for review and approval. The City would review and approve the Plan and implement the recommended soil management and control specifications. • All edible plants would be planted in raised beds filled with clean, imported soil. The soil would be obtained from a commercial source of residential garden soil. • Trees would be planted in clean, imported soil that extends to the expected width and depth of the mature tree roots. The soil would be obtained from a commercial source of residential garden soil.
• All children’s play areas would be covered with clean, imported soil, or a geotextile and playground materials such as bark, to prevent direct contact with soil. Imported soil would be selected and screened in accordance with DTSC guidelines for clean, imported fill material.4
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The 2004 IS/MND did not include a section evaluating greenhouse gas emissions. The 2013 CEQA Guidelines (Appendix G) require that this topic be addressed in environmental documentation.
Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are present in the atmosphere naturally, are released by natural sources, or are formed from secondary reactions taking place in the atmosphere. The gases that are widely seen as the principal contributors to human-induced global climate change are: carbon dioxide (CO2) methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).5
Over the last 200 years, human activities have caused substantial quantities of GHGs to be released into the atmosphere. These extra emissions are increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere, and enhancing the natural greenhouse effect, which is believed to be causing global warming. While GHGs produced by human activities include naturally-occurring GHGs such as CO2, methane, and N2O, some gases, like HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 are completely new to the atmosphere. Certain other gases, such as water vapor, are short-lived in the atmosphere as compared to these GHGs that remain in the atmosphere for significant periods of time, contributing to climate change in the long term.
Water vapor is generally excluded from the list of GHGs because it is short-lived in the atmosphere and its atmospheric concentrations are largely determined by natural processes, such as oceanic evaporation.
The California Air Resources Board (ARB) is the lead agency for implementing climate change regulations in the State. Since its formation, the ARB has worked with the public, the business sector, and local governments to find solutions to California’s air pollution problems. Important regulatory actions related to GHG emissions include:
4 California Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”), 2001, Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material, October.
5 The greenhouse gases listed are consistent with the definition in Assembly Bill (AB) 32 (Government Code 38505), as discussed later in this section.
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ADDENDUM CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2013 RICHMOND UNITY PARK
RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA
P:\CIR1201\UnityPark_Final Draft Addendum.doc (03/27/13) 10 • Assembly Bill 1493 (2002) requires the ARB to set GHG emission standards for passenger vehicles and light duty trucks (and other vehicles whose primary use is noncommercial personal transportation in the State) manufactured in 2009 and all subsequent model years. • Executive Order S-3-05 (2005) established California’s GHG emissions reduction targets: GHG emissions should be reduced to 2000 levels by 2010; GHG emissions should be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020; and GHG emissions should be reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
The executive order also directed the secretary of the California EPA to coordinate a multiagency effort to reduce GHG emissions to the target levels.
• Assembly Bill 32 (2006), California Global Warming Solutions Act aims at reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The ARB has established the level of GHG emissions in 1990 at 427 MMT of CO2eq. The emissions target of 427 MMT requires the reduction of 169 MMT from the State’s projected business-as-usual 2020 emissions of 596 MMT. In addition, AB 32 directed the ARB and the newly created Climate Action Team (CAT) 6 to identify a list of
“discrete early action GHG reduction measures” that can be adopted and made enforceable by January 1, 2010.
• Senate Bill 375 (2008). SB 375, signed into law on October 1, 2008, enhances the ARB’s ability to reach AB 32 goals by developing regional GHG emissions reduction targets for the automobile and light truck sectors. The ARB will work with California's 18 metropolitan planning organizations to align their regional transportation, housing, and land use plans and prepare a “Sustainable Communities Strategy” to reduce the number of vehicle miles and demonstrate the region’s ability to attain its greenhouse gas reduction targets. • Office of Planning and Research. To assist public agencies in analyzing the effects of GHGs under CEQA, Senate Bill 97 (Chapter 185, 2007) requires the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop CEQA guidelines on how to minimize and mitigate a project’s GHG emissions. The Natural Resources Agency adopted CEQA Guidelines amendments related to climate change that became effective March 18, 2010.
Revisions to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines require that unlike the Original Project, the Proposed Project be evaluated for the following impacts:
Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Section III.A.5 of this document provides a discussion of the potential impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions that could result from implementation of the Proposed Project.
Land Use and Planning
Since 2004, several land use policies and regulations have been adopted or initiated including the Richmond General Plan (2012), the Bicycle Master Plan (2011), the Pedestrian Plan (2011), and the
6 CAT is a consortium of representatives from State agencies who have been charged with coordinating and implementing GHG emission reduction programs that fall outside of ARB’s jurisdiction.
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ADDENDUM CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2013 RICHMOND UNITY PARK
RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA
P:\CIR1201\UnityPark_Final Draft Addendum.doc (03/27/13) 11 ongoing Urban Greening Master Plan. Section III.4 of this Addendum provides a discussion of the Proposed Project’s consistency with these plans and policies that have been adopted since 2004.
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ADDENDUM CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2013 RICHMOND UNITY PARK
RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA
P:\CIR1201\UnityPark_Final Draft Addendum.doc (03/27/13) 12 III. ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The following discussion begins with the key topics and related environmental effects for the Original Project and the Proposed Project: the extent of hazardous materials onsite, impacts to existing wetlands, potential visual resources impacts, consistency with adopted land use and planning documents, and greenhouse gas emissions. The Addendum summarizes the remaining topic areas in the sequence that they are addressed in the 2004 IS/MND and compares the Original Project and the Proposed Project. This section concludes by acknowledging that a majority of the mitigation measures from the 2004 IS/MND remain intact, presenting clarifications to specific mitigation measures and describing those mitigation measures that are no longer applicable to the Proposed Project.
A. KEY TOPICS ANALYZED WITH MODIFIED PROJECT
1. Hazards/Hazardous Materials
Soil Analysis Completed in Support of 2004 IS/MND
In June 1998, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 9 collected soil samples along the proposed Richmond Greenway bicycle and pedestrian path to assist the City of Richmond in evaluating the environmental condition of the Richmond Greenway.7 The site was a railroad
corridor between 1904 and 1979. No records of hazardous materials releases were identified. A total of 28 surface soil samples were collected from 0 to 0.5 feet below ground surface (bgs), and were analyzed for contaminants that could persist in former railroad environments; metals, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and semi-volatile compounds. Results from testing were screened against EPA Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) for industrial sites. Arsenic was reported at elevated concentrations (up to 27.8 milligrams per kilogram) that were attributed to natural background concentrations, and PAHs were reportedly elevated in some soil samples.
However, no soil collected from the Richmond Greenway was found to contain a listed chemical contaminant that exceeded the range of PRG screening levels8 or background concentrations.
In September 2003, a Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessment (ISA) was conducted by LSA Associates, Inc. to determine whether the Original Project could be affected by a recorded or visible hazardous waste. 9 This report provided results similar to the previous 1998 EPA study, concluding that implementation of the Original Project would not result in substantial risk to human health resulting from the presence of hazardous materials on or near the site during the operational period of the Original Project.
7 The Denali Group, 2002, Summary of USEPA Region 9 Soil Screening, Richmond Greenway, City of Richmond, California, 9 May.
8 The PRG screening levels included both the 10-4 and 10-6 carcinogenic risk levels. 9 LSA, 2003, Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessment, Richmond Greenway, September.
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ADDENDUM CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2013 RICHMOND UNITY PARK
RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA
P:\CIR1201\UnityPark_Final Draft Addendum.doc (03/27/13) 13 Section VII of the 2004 IS/MND evaluated effects associated with hazards and hazardous materials as a result of implementation of the Original Project. Based on the results of the 1998 sampling study and the 2003 ISA discussed above, the 2004 IS/MND concluded that the Original Project would not result in significant effects related to a release of hazardous materials, and no mitigation measures were required.
Soil Analysis Completed After 2004 IS/MND
The Proposed Project site consists of a portion of the study area analyzed in the 2004 IS/MND, as well as an additional parcel located at 1605 Ohio Avenue that was not previously analyzed. Since the adoption of the 2004 IS/MND, the Proposed Project design has been further refined to include a nature-themed children’s play area, turf area for recreational uses and a community garden, resulting in greater exposure of park users to the soils on the site. As a result, further testing was conducted, as described below.
In February 2013, an EPA Region 9 Targeted Brownfields Assessment (TBA) was conducted to evaluate environmental concerns at the Site and to identify the potential impact on future development for recreational purposes.10 The TBA was initiated to support redevelopment under the EPA Brownfields program. The TBA was implemented on behalf of the EPA and under EPA oversight, and consisted of: 1) a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment conducted in accordance with ASTM Standard E-1527-05, and 2) a Phase II assessment consisting of soil sampling in accordance with a Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) that was approved by the EPA in 2012.
The SAP was developed to evaluate environmental concerns from former site activities, including previous use as a railroad corridor. Surface soil samples (0 to 0.5 feet bgs) were collected from 40 locations, and six subsurface soil samples were collected from six borings from a depth of 3.0 to 4.0 feet bgs. Soil samples were analyzed for polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), organochlorine pesticides, chlorinated herbicides, California Assessment Manual (CAM) 17 metals, pH, and total petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel and motor oil (TPH-d and TPHmo).
Sample results were compared to screening levels established in the SAP to determine the risk to human health and the environment. Soil results for all compounds except total petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel and motor oil (TPHd and TPHmo) were screened against the EPA Region 9 Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) for residential and industrial soil. Soil results for TPHd and TPHmo were compared to San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs).
Analytical results were similar to those reported from the 1998 soil sampling event. Herbicide, pesticide, TPHd, and TPHmo concentrations were below RSLs for residential soils in all soil samples.
The TBA concluded that low levels of PAHs were present in the soil samples. Most of the samples were reported with at least one PAH compound above the respective RSL screening level for residential soils, and four surface soil samples (UP-1-12A, UP-1-17A, UP-2-29A, UP-1-32A) were reported with at least one PAH compound above the respective RSL for industrial soils.11 The TBA 10 Weston Solutions, Inc., 2013, op cit.
11 The 2013 PAH testing was completed using EPA Method 8270C SIM, which provided a much lower reporting limit than the 1998 analytical test method. The results were similar, in that PAHs were reported at low levels both in 1998 and in 2013.
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ADDENDUM CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2013 RICHMOND UNITY PARK
RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA
P:\CIR1201\UnityPark_Final Draft Addendum.doc (03/27/13) 14 also concluded that elevated concentrations of arsenic in the soil samples may be attributable to naturally-occurring concentrations in the Bay Area.
Recommendations for redevelopment of the project site for recreational purposes were provided by the TBA as follows: 1) redevelopment of the site for recreational uses may require an additional layer of clean fill and/or topsoil to avoid unnecessary contact with contaminated soils; and 2) utilize raised planter beds with clean, imported topsoil for community gardening activities. These recommendations have been incorporated into the Proposed Project description. The TBA also noted that subsequent confirmation and delineation sampling of the impacted areas may be required. The Proposed Project description includes covering the existing soil with clean topsoil or playground bark in children’s play areas where potential contact with contaminated soil exists. This approach would eliminate the need to further investigate the extent of chemicals in soil, No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur and no additional mitigation measures are required.
2. Biological Resources
Section IV of the 2004 IS/MND described biological resources and analyzed effects associated with implementation of the Original Project. The IS/MND identified areas of potentially significant effects, including adverse effects on special-status species, sensitive natural communities, and existing wetlands. The 2004 IS/MND included mitigation measures for those effects identified as potentially significant and concluded that with incorporation of these mitigation measures, the Original Project would not result in significant effects.
In evaluating the Proposed Project and the site conditions in 2013, LSA Associates reviewed the previously prepared reports, made an additional site visit in February 2013, and remapped the wetland features.
This section provides updated assessments of three categories of biological resources at the project site: 1) special status species; 2) character and composition of the vegetative cover; and 3) project site wetlands and watercourses. The discussion below provides information on how, if at all, these aspects of the Proposed Project site are different than when they were evaluated for the Original Project. As described above, the Proposed Project site consists of a portion of the Original Project site (e.g., between Marina Way and 20th Street and between 2nd and 8th Streets), along with an additional parcel at 1605 Ohio Avenue, which had not been evaluated previously.
Special Status Species
Special status species were evaluated by LSA in 2003 in a Botanical Resources Assessment and Wildlife Resources Assessment. These reports included a California Natural Diversity Data Base records search based on the Original Project site. The 2003 evaluation concluded that no specialstatus species were likely to occur on the project site.
In February 2013, LSA conducted an updated CNDDB records search within a 1-mile radius of the proposed Richmond Unity Park project sites. No additional occurrences of special status species had
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ADDENDUM CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2013 RICHMOND UNITY PARK
RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA
P:\CIR1201\UnityPark_Final Draft Addendum.doc (03/27/13) 15 been recorded in that radius during the intervening years that would raise the likelihood of specialstatus species occurring on the site.
LSA also conducted a reconnaissance survey of the Proposed Project site and did not note any special-status species or any change in the character of the habitat.
Although no special status species were identified within the project site, the 2004 IS/MND determined that other species of birds subject to the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act could nest within the project site. Like the Original Project, construction activities associated with the Proposed Project could disturb these species. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, described in the 2004 IS/MND, which requires a pre-construction survey for nesting raptors and shrikes and implementation of buffer areas if nests are identified, would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
Vegetation Cover
The vegetation cover at Community Garden Node project site has not appreciably changed from 2003, except for 1) the addition of predominantly native landscape plantings along the north and south sides of the bicycle trail both west and east of 6th Street, 2) the installation of raised garden beds along the south side of the trail west of 6th Street near the Lincoln Elementary School, and 3) planting of native wetland plants and riparian trees and shrubs along a wetland bioswale constructed along the south edge of the project site between 6th and 8th Streets. Most of the native trees and shrubs are still rather small, but will begin to provide increased quality wildlife habitat as they grow. The vegetation cover at Community Plaza Node project site has not appreciably changed from 2003, except for the planting of nine landscape trees planted south of the bicycle trail between 17th and 18th Streets. Other than these changes, the vegetation community remains predominantly ruderal grassland as it was in 2003.
Wetlands
A delineation of waters subject to Clean Water Act jurisdiction was completed in both the western section of Unity Park between 2nd Street and 8th Streets (Community Garden Node) and the eastern section of Unity Park between Marina Way and 20th Street (Community Plaza Node) in 2003, but was not verified by the Corps. These waters were remapped by LSA in 2013 because the original delineation was 10 years old and site conditions may have changed (see Figure 4).
The area proposed for the Community Garden Node contains two ditches that were designated Ditch C and Ditch D in the 2003 analysis. These ditches contain both wetland and non-wetland segments.
The ditches are largely unchanged since the 2003 delineation. Since the 2003 delineation was prepared, however, a bioswale has been constructed along the southern edge of the right-of-way between 6th and 8th Streets. Construction of this bioswale has extended the upstream segment of Ditch D. Ditch D previously extended east from 6th Street for an approximate length of 145 feet, but now extends east from 6th Street for an approximate length of 410 feet. In addition, the bottom of the ditch has more wetland plant cover. The bioswale has educational signing describing its biological and water quality enhancement functions. LSA determined that the new length of bioswale meets Clean Water Act wetland criteria.
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ADDENDUM CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2013 RICHMOND UNITY PARK
RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA
P:\CIR1201\UnityPark_Final Draft Addendum.doc (03/27/13) 16 The area proposed for the Community Plaza Node contains two ditches designated as Ditch J and Ditch K in the 2003 analysis. These features appear unchanged since 2003. The 2003 delineation of this portion of the project site also contained a potentially jurisdictional shallow seasonal wetland, designated as Seasonal Wetland A, located on the southern half of the right-of-way; south of 18th Street. This feature did not support a wetland plant community in 2013, either due to variation in precipitation or to altered surface flow patterns in the surrounding terrain.
Installation of landscaping, paving, structures, and staging areas could potentially adversely affect jurisdictional features within the Proposed Project site. The Proposed Project design specifically commits to avoidance of such impacts, however. Proposed Project plans do not indicate any improvements that would require fill or de-watering of the mapped waters.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 of the 2004 IS/MND would ensure that the Proposed Project would either avoid impacts to wetlands and watercourses within the project site or obtain appropriate permits for fill of jurisdictional features from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur and no additional mitigation measures are required.
3. Aesthetics
Section I of the 2004 IS/MND analyzed the visual conditions of the project area and evaluated whether the Original Project would have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, substantially damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway, substantially degrade the visual character or quality of the site, or create a substantial new source of light or glare.
As described in the 2004 IS/MND, views from the project site extend to Mount Tamalpais to the west and the East Bay Hills to the east. Due to lack of tall trees and substantial topographical variation, and the low number of surrounding tall buildings, east/west views along the project site are virtually unimpeded. The principal north/south views from the project site are primarily of residential and industrial development, the existing bicycle/pedestrian trail and Ohio Street. Implementation of the Proposed Project would result in development of a community park, including a gazebo, plaza, artistic gateways, children’s play area, and community gardens and landscaping within the project site. Most of these proposed improvements would be at-grade. Proposed structures (e.g., gazebo, gateways) would be no taller than the adjacent residential structures and would not impede scenic vistas to the west or east.
The project site does not include any portions of a State Scenic Highway and is not located in the vicinity of a State Scenic Highway. Like the Original Project, the Proposed Project would not substantially damage scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway.
The setting for the Proposed Project is identical to that described for the Original Project. The project site is located on an abandoned railroad right-of-way and on an undeveloped parcel. These areas are characterized by ruderal vegetation, the presence of illegally-dumped garbage, and the Richmond Greenway, a paved, Class I bicycle and pedestrian trail with associated landscaping and lighting.
Development of the Proposed Project would result in a visual change to the project site, both through
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ADDENDUM CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2013 RICHMOND UNITY PARK
RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA
P:\CIR1201\UnityPark_Final Draft Addendum.doc (03/27/13) 17 construction activities including grading and vegetation removal and the development of an urban park in place of an abandoned railroad right-of-way. However, proposed park improvements would be in keeping with the character of the Richmond Greenway and would promote a “sense of place” for the neighborhood. Implementation of the Proposed Project would enhance the visual quality of the project site, by developing recreation facilities, removing in the area, and creating a more formal, park setting. Construction activities associated would be visible from adjacent uses (industrial, recreational, and residential). However, the equipment (e.g., trucks, excavator, and loader) required for construction would only be visible temporarily during construction activities. Overall, the Proposed Project is anticipated to have a beneficial effect on the visual quality of the project area.
Similar to the Original Project, implementation of the Proposed Project would result in the installation of lights or the replacement/upgrade of existing lights associated with the Richmond Greenway. Lights would be installed where needed for the protection of public safety and would not create new or substantial light or glare. Because the project site is surrounded by fully urbanized neighborhoods of residential, industrial and public uses, project lighting would not substantially degrade nighttime views.
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur and no additional mitigation measures are required.
4. Land Use and Planning
Section IX of the 2004 IS/MND analyzed effects to land use and planning associated with implementation of the Original Project. The Proposed Project would be constructed in the same location and would be subject to the same land uses and plans discussed in the 2004 IS/MND. Similar to the Original Project, the Proposed Project would change the land use on the site from vacant land to a community park use. Similarly, the Proposed Project would not reduce north/south access across the railroad rights-of-way; therefore, the Proposed Project would not divide an established community.
Since the adoption of the 2004 IS/MND, a number of planning documents have been adopted or initiated, including the Richmond General Plan, the City of Richmond Bicycle Master Plan, the City of Richmond Pedestrian Plan and the ongoing Urban Greening Master Plan. This section provides a discussion of the Proposed Project’s consistency with these applicable land use policies and regulations.
Richmond General Plan
On April 25, 2012, the Richmond City Council adopted a new General Plan to guide the City’s sustainable growth and development. The General Plan, entitled “Shaping the New 100 Years” is comprised of 15 elements addressing land use, economic development, housing, transportation, climate change, public safety, arts and culture, and open space conservation strategies.
According to the General Plan (2012), the project site has a land use designation of Park and Open Space. The project site is zoned for CRR (Community and Regional Recreation District) and is located within the designated Ohio Avenue Corridor, which is “envisioned as a mixed-use street with unique built and open space assets.” In this area, the General Plan promotes the integration of a
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ADDENDUM CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2013 RICHMOND UNITY PARK
RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA
P:\CIR1201\UnityPark_Final Draft Addendum.doc (03/27/13) 18 variety of public spaces between the street and the Richmond Greenway such as linear plazas, landscaped areas, widened sidewalks, and mid-block crossings to strengthen the character of the area and encourage new development.
Most of the information and policy statements related to the Proposed Project are located in the Parks and Recreation Element (Element 10). The five goals of the element are to develop an integrated system of parks, green streets and trails (PR1); provide safe and high-quality parks and recreation facilities (PR2); use sustainable design and maintenance practices (PR3); promote stewardship of the natural environment (PR4); and provide a range of high quality recreation programs and services (PR5). Specific policies related to the Proposed Project include:
Policy PR1.1 Diverse Range of Park Types and Functions
Continue to provide a diverse range of park types, functions and recreational opportunities to meet the physical and social needs of the community. Regularly review the design and programming of all City parks to expand and diversify uses.
Policy PR1.2 Multimodal Connections to Parks, Open Space and Recreational Facilities Improve connections to parks, open space and recreational facilities through an interconnected network of pedestrian-friendly green streets, multimodal corridors and trails. Enhance trails and greenways to provide recreational opportunities for residents, connect neighborhoods and community uses, improve access to natural resources and the shoreline and promote walking and bicycling. On street connections should be pedestrian and bicycle-friendly and incorporate green infrastructure where possible. Transit links along key corridors will allow residents and visitors to access parks, recreation facilities and open space areas. Developing open space and recreational resources hand-inhand with pedestrian, bicycle and transit improvements will better link neighborhoods together physically, connecting the community to open space resources, community facilities and key destinations throughout the City.
Policy PR1.3 Equitable Distribution of Park and Recreation Facilities Expand park and recreation opportunities in all neighborhoods and ensure that they are offered within comfortable walking distance of homes, schools and businesses in order to encourage more physically and socially active lifestyles. Continue to implement the parkland development standard of three acres of community or neighborhood parkland per 1,000 population in each neighborhood planning area. This represents a minimum provision which should be exceeded whenever possible. In established neighborhoods where land availability for new large parks is limited, prioritize improvement and maintenance of compact parks, play lots and plazas to increase access to recreation opportunities for residents. Encourage developers to meet the City’s park development standard within their proposed development projects.
As described in Section II.B, the Proposed Project would entail construction of a community park adjacent to the Richmond Greenway between 2nd and 8th Streets and between 20th Street and Marina Way, including the parcel located at 1605 Ohio Avenue. The community park would be constructed within the abandoned railroad right-of-way and on an undeveloped parcel between the Richmond Greenway and Ohio Avenue. Consistent with the General Plan, the Proposed Project would provide a recreational facility in an area of the City that is lacking such facilities. In addition, the Proposed Project would be located in close proximity to the Richmond Greenway, would incorporate sustainable design features, provide a variety of recreational activities (i.e., active and passive
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ADDENDUM CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2013 RICHMOND UNITY PARK
RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA
P:\CIR1201\UnityPark_Final Draft Addendum.doc (03/27/13) 19 recreation facilities, children’s play facilities) as well as amenities for the community (i.e., plaza, community garden, public art).
Bicycle Master Plan
In 2011, the City of Richmond adopted the City of Richmond Bicycle Master Plan. The intent of the Bicycle Master Plan is to provide a “roadmap” for developing bicycle infrastructure in the City, focusing on a number of projects to build the bicycle network and encourage bicycling for recreational and commuter trips. The Richmond Bicycle Master Plan has four primary goals and a set of objectives by which to measure them:
Goal: Expand the City’s bicycle routes and parking facilities into an extensive, well-connected and well-designed network and improve and maintain these facilities over time.
Objective: Increase the number of bikeway miles by75 percent, complete all gaps in the Bay Trail and double the number of bicycle parking spaces.
Goal: Increase the number of people of all ages and backgrounds.
Objective: Double the number of trips made by bicycle.
Goal: Make the streets safer for bicyclists, not only during the day, but also at night.
Objective: Reduce the number of reported bicycle fatalities and injuries by 25 percent (event as the number of bicyclists increases).
Goal: Incorporate the needs and concerns of cyclists in all transportation and development projects.
Objective: Adopt and implement a “Complete Streets” and “Routine Accommodation” policies and bicycle-friendly design standards and guidelines for streets and developments.
The Richmond Greenway is a major component of the City’s Bicycle Master Plan, providing a critical east/west Class I pathway connection across the center of the City. At present, two portions of the Richmond Greenway have been completed, including the path between 2nd and 23rd Streets and from Carlson Boulevard to San Pablo Avenue. When completed, the Richmond Greenway will provide a seamless connection between the Ohlone Greenway in El Cerrito and the San Francisco Bay Trail.
According to the Bicycle Master Plan, the proposed bicycle network should provide a connection to the waterfront, parks and open space so that residents are able to bike from home to both local and regional recreation. Implementation of the Proposed Project would support the goals, objectives and criteria of the Bicycle Master Plan by providing a community park in close proximity to an existing Class I bike and pedestrian path (Richmond Greenway). In addition, the Proposed Project could promote use of the Richmond Greenway by providing a recreation destination for path users.
Pedestrian Plan
In October 2011, the City adopted the Richmond Pedestrian Plan to improve the safety and convenience of walking throughout the City. “The focus of the plan is on establishing measures to create streets, sidewalks, and surroundings that calm traffic, invite people to walk, and provide positive places for associated and community pride.”
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ADDENDUM CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2013 RICHMOND UNITY PARK
RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA
P:\CIR1201\UnityPark_Final Draft Addendum.doc (03/27/13) 20 The Pedestrian Plan identifies design principles and recommendations in the Central Richmond area (also known as the Central Core Area) that are intended to improve pedestrian (and bicycle) safety and mobility. The following goals form the basis for the recommendations in the Pedestrian Plan:
• Increased Safety. Streets will be developed and retrofitted to accommodate all types of users.
Designs and devices will produce speed moderation, visibility, awareness and communication for motorists and non-motorists alike.
• Improved Security. Streets, trails and other public spaces will be designed and improved to create active places that are watched over, maintained and that project a sense of control and community ownership.
• Improved Connectivity. A range of strategies and solutions will address physical barriers to walking, such as dead-end streets, railroad right of ways, wide roadways, and wide, complex intersections.
• Increased Equity. Walking, the cheapest form of transportation will be a safe, viable and convenient choice for those who cannot afford, are unable, or choose not to drive a car. • Improved Health. Walking and bicycling, the healthiest forms of transportation will become desirable alternatives for trips to daily destinations. • Increased Sustainability. Walking and bicycling in the city will reduce the number of vehicle miles Richmond residents and visitors travel, and will reduce associated climate change, air and water quality impacts from vehicle emissions. Opportunities will be identified to convert excess paved rights of way to lower impact spaces with trees and landscaping. • Neighborhood and Downtown Revitalization. Improvements to the streets and pedestrian realm will set the stage for new investment in private property that can help fund improvements and attract development that supports walking, bicycling and the use of transit.
Implementation of the Proposed Project would support the goals of the Pedestrian Master Plan by providing a community park in close proximity to an existing Class I bike and pedestrian path (Richmond Greenway). Improvements proposed as part of the Proposed Project would improve site safety and security, support the use of alternative transportation modes, and provide a benefit to the neighborhood that might spur new development.
Urban Greening Master Plan
In 2011, the City received a Strategic Growth Council Urban Greening Planning Grant to develop a citywide Urban Greening Master Plan to guide and coordinate greening projects within the City. As a part of the project, the City will develop an inventory of existing trees, and identify opportunities to expand and enhance green spaces in the City. Implementation of the Proposed Project would support the goals of the Urban Greening Master Plan by creating a formal park setting within the Richmond Greenway that includes landscaping, trees, and community gardens.
Similar to the Original Project, the Proposed Project would be consistent with the City of Richmond General Plan and other applicable planning documents, including those adopted/initiated since the 2004 IS/MND was prepared.
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ADDENDUM CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2013 RICHMOND UNITY PARK
RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA
P:\CIR1201\UnityPark_Final Draft Addendum.doc (03/27/13) 21 As described above, the City of Richmond General Plan (adopted April 2012), the City of Richmond Bicycle Master Plan, the City of Richmond Pedestrian Plan, and the Urban Greening Master Plan outline relevant policies and regulations applicable to the Proposed Project, including policies to preserve visual, cultural, and natural resources, and to protect the health and safety of the citizens of Richmond. Consistent with the goals and policies of these relevant planning documents, the Proposed Project has been designed to minimize impacts to site resources, while providing a new recreation amenity for the community, promoting alternative modes of transportation, and enhancing the character of the neighborhood. Therefore, the Proposed Project is determined to be consistent with applicable land use plans, policies and regulations.
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur and no additional mitigation measures are required.
5. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Since adoption of the 2004 IS/MND, the CEQA Checklist has been updated to include a discussion of potential project impacts on greenhouse gas emissions. As greenhouse gas emissions were not evaluated in the 2004 IS/MND, the Proposed Project’s potential to generate greenhouse gas emissions and/or conflict with an applicable plan or policy adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions is described below.
A general scientific consensus exists that global climate change is occurring caused in whole or in part by increased emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) that keep the Earth’s surface warm by trapping heat in the Earth’s atmosphere. While many studies show evidence of warming over the last century and predict future global warming, the causes of such warming and its potential effects are far less certain. In its “natural” condition, the greenhouse effect is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate on Earth, but human activity has caused increased concentrations of these gases in the atmosphere, thereby contributing to an increase in global temperatures.
GHGs are present in the atmosphere naturally, are released by natural sources, or formed from secondary reactions taking place in the atmosphere. The six gases that are widely seen as the principal contributors to global climate change are: Carbon dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), Nitrous oxide (N2O), Hydroflourocarbons (HFCs), Perflourocarbons (PFCs), and Sulfur Hexaflouride (SF6). The primary existing sources of human-caused GHGs in the project area are vehicle emissions.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA Guidelines include thresholds of significance for operational GHG emissions to provide lead agencies with a conservative indication of whether a proposed project could result in potentially significant GHG emissions. If all of the screening criteria are met by a proposed project, then the lead agency would not need to perform a detailed air quality assessment of the project’s air pollutant emissions, including GHG emissions. The BAAQMD has established a 1,100 metric tons of CO2e/year GHG threshold of significance.
According to the BAAQMD the screening level size for a City Park is 600 acres.
The BAAQMD does not have an adopted Threshold of Significance for construction-related GHG emissions. However, BAAQMD recommends that the Lead Agency quantify and disclose GHG emissions that would occur during construction, and make a determination on the significance of these construction generated GHG emission impacts in relation to meeting AB 32 GHG reduction
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ADDENDUM CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2013 RICHMOND UNITY PARK
RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA
P:\CIR1201\UnityPark_Final Draft Addendum.doc (03/27/13) 22 goals. The Lead Agency is encouraged to incorporate best management practices, such as recycling at least 50 percent of construction waste or demolition materials, to reduce GHG emissions during construction, as applicable.
The primary existing sources of human-caused GHGs in the project area are vehicle emissions.
As described in Section III of the 2004 IS/MND, implementation of the Original Project would not result in a significant increase in traffic on area roadways nor would the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project, once completed, would not result in increased GHG emissions because the project would not increase regional vehicle trips or vehicle miles traveled (VMT) above current levels and would not introduce any other new sources of GHG emissions. Construction of the proposed park along the existing Richmond Greenway would create an opportunity for residents to use alternative modes of travel (i.e., bicycle, pedestrian) to access park amenities thereby reducing vehicle miles traveled on local roads and reducing GHG emissions. The focus of the Proposed Project is to address the park and recreation needs of the local neighborhood—those people within walking/biking distance of the project site. Therefore, the number of trips to and from the park would not generate a substantial number of peak AM and PM vehicle trips and would not significantly affect the existing or future traffic load and capacity of local roadways. Because the Proposed Project would not create significant new regional vehicle miles traveled or other long-term GHG emissions, it would not conflict with any plan or policy intended to reduce long-term GHG emissions.
Construction would produce combustion emissions from various sources. During site preparation and construction of the Proposed Project, GHGs would be emitted through the operation of construction equipment and from worker and builder supply vendor vehicles, each of which typically use fossilbased fuels to operate. The combustion of fossil-based fuels creates GHGs such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). Furthermore, CH4 is emitted during the fueling of heavy equipment. Exhaust emissions from on-site construction activities would vary daily as construction activity levels change. As described in Section III of the 2004 IS/MND, due to the limited extent of development proposed, the projected short-term emissions associated with construction are expected to be below emissions thresholds established by the BAAQMD. Therefore, impacts associated with GHG emissions would be less than significant.
Furthermore, global warming is not “new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known” at the time of the 2004 IS/MND because global warming has been known since the 1970s. Because this impact is not significant and global warming is not “new information” within the meaning of Public Resources Code Section 2116 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, none of the triggers under those sections requiring the preparation of a subsequent IS/MND are fulfilled with regard to this issue.
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur and no mitigation measures are required.
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ADDENDUM CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2013 RICHMOND UNITY PARK
RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA
P:\CIR1201\UnityPark_Final Draft Addendum.doc (03/27/13) 23 B. OTHER TOPICS EVALUATED IN THE 2004 IS/MND
1. Agricultural Resources
Section II of the 2004 IS/MND analyzed effects to agricultural resources. No effects were identified.
Construction of the Proposed Project would take place within the abandoned railroad right-of-way and an undeveloped parcel adjacent to the Richmond Greenway. These lands are not used for agricultural or forest uses nor are they zoned for those purposes. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in the conversion of agricultural or forest land, nor would it conflict with existing zoning for these purposes or Williamson Act contract.
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur and no additional mitigation measures are required.
2. Air Quality
Section III of the 2004 IS/MND analyzed effects to air quality. The 2004 IS/MND identified temporary short-term, construction-related effects to air quality. No long-term operational effects were identified.
Background
Ambient air quality has basically remained unchanged since the approval of the 2004 IS/MND. In recent years, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has made two regulatory changes. Revised BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines were adopted in May 2012 that provides new and updated CEQA thresholds for analyzing air quality impacts. In general, the new BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines have lowered the emissions thresholds for identifying project impacts. The 2010 Clean Air Plan12 (CAP) was adopted in September 2010. The Bay Area CAP is the latest Clean Air Plan which contains district-wide control measures to reduce ozone precursor emissions (i.e., ROG and NOx) and particulate matter.
Clean Air Plan Consistency
An air quality plan describes air pollution control strategies to be implemented by a city, county, or region classified as a non-attainment area. The main purpose of an air quality plan is to bring an area into compliance with the requirements of federal and State air quality standards.
The BAAQMD uses the assumptions and projections of local planning agencies to determine control strategies for regional compliance status. Since the CAP is based on the emissions calculations for certain land uses contained in local General Plans, projects that are deemed consistent with the applicable General Plan are usually found to be consistent with the applicable air quality plan. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and would therefore not conflict with any of the control measures designed to bring the region into attainment; therefore the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of CAP.
12 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2010. Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. September 15.
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ADDENDUM CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2013 RICHMOND UNITY PARK
RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA
P:\CIR1201\UnityPark_Final Draft Addendum.doc (03/27/13) 24 Regional and Local Air Quality Impacts
Similar to the Original Project, the Proposed Project would not generate new car trips that would increase ozone precursor emissions, such that the proposed project would result in significant regional and local air quality impacts.
Construction-Related Impacts
Construction activities would temporarily affect local air quality. Construction activities such as earthmoving, construction vehicle traffic and wind blowing over exposed earth would generate exhaust emissions and fugitive particulate matter emissions that affect local and regional air quality.
The development of the proposed project would contribute to the significant construction-related, short-term air quality effects identified in the 2004 IS/MND. The proposed project would not, however, result in any new or substantially more severe construction-related air quality effects than were described in the 2004 IS/MND.
Construction of the Proposed Project would utilize similar construction techniques as identified in the 2004 IS/MND. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1, identified in the 2004 IS/MND would ensure that impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels.
Since the time of preparation of the 2004 IS/MND, the BAAQMD has revised their recommended construction emissions control measures. Therefore, given that the regulations have been updated, the control measures included in Mitigation Measure AIR-1 shall be updated to include the following construction best management practices consistent with the latest BAAQMD recommendations:
All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. 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. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. 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.
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, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
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. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the City of Richmond regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ADDENDUM CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2013 RICHMOND UNITY PARK
RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA
P:\CIR1201\UnityPark_Final Draft Addendum.doc (03/27/13) 25 No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur and no additional mitigation measures are required.
3. Cultural Resources
Section V of the 2004 IS/MND analyzed impacts to cultural resources associated with implementation of the Original Project. The IS/MND identified potential impacts to previously unidentified archaeological deposits, paleontological resources (fossils), and human remains as a result of ground-disturbing activities.
The Proposed Project is located in the same study area evaluated in the 2004 IS/MND. For this Addendum in 2013, LSA conducted a records search update for the project at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC)13 at Sonoma State University, and completed a field review by qualified cultural resources staff. The purpose of the NWIC records search update and the field review was to identify changes to the baseline conditions for cultural resources and determine if new impacts may occur as a result of the new project.
The records search at the NWIC indicated that the project site includes two cultural resources: the Oakland Local Branch of the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe (AT&SF) Railroad Right-of-Way (CACCO-757H/P-07-002599) and the “I-Beam Site” (CA-CCO-759H/P-07-002601). As recorded by LSA in 2003, CA-CCO-757H/P-07-002599 consists of the rail bed and associated infrastructure (e.g., telephone poles in the railroad right-of-way and former station locations). CA-CCO-759H/P-07- 002601 possibly represents the remains of the “Pate Station” and (when recorded by LSA in 2003) consisted of an earthen berm, steel I-beams, and structural debris. As noted in the 2004 IS/MND, neither of these cultural resources qualifies as a “historical resource” under CEQA (California Public Resources Code Section 21084.1), based on the results of an evaluation LSA conducted of these resources in 2004.
The field review indicates that most of the railroad-associated cultural resources recorded in 2003 have since been removed or otherwise modified. It does not appear that any of the cultural resources in the project area have acquired significance for purposes of CEQA during the decade since being recorded and evaluated, and they do not qualify as historical resources.
LSA identified no new impacts to historical resources associated with the current project, and potential unanticipated impacts to cultural resources are adequately described—and appropriate mitigation measures provided—in the 2004 IS/MND. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CULT1 through CULT-3 identified in the 2004 IS/MND would ensure that impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels.
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur and no additional mitigation measures are required.
13 The NWIC is the official State repository for cultural resources site record and report information for Contra Costa County.
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ADDENDUM CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2013 RICHMOND UNITY PARK
RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA
P:\CIR1201\UnityPark_Final Draft Addendum.doc (03/27/13) 26
4. Geology and Soils
Section VI of the 2004 IS/MND analyzed the geological, seismic, and soil conditions within the project area. The 2004 IS/MND identified areas of potential impact, including damage due to seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure (liquefaction), lurching, and expansive soils.
Construction of the Proposed Project would occur within the same study area evaluated in the 2004 IS/MND and would be subject to similar geological, seismic and soil conditions. Similar to the Original Project, the Proposed Project would be constructed in compliance with applicable construction codes and requirements intended to mitigate any adverse impacts resulting from ground sharking, ground failure, liquefaction, and expansive soils. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in significant impacts to human safety associated with any of these geologic hazards.
Like the Original Project, the Proposed Project could result in soil erosion and loss of topsoil during earthwork activities associated with construction. Implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1a and GEO-1b, identified in the 2004 IS/MND would reduce potential erosion impacts to a less than significant level.
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur and no additional mitigation measures are required.
5. Hydrology and Water Quality
Section VIII of the 2004 IS/MND analyzed effects to hydrology and water quality associated with implementation of the Original Project. The 2004 IS/MND determined that the Original Project would have a less than significant effect on water quality standards and waste discharge requirements.
The Proposed Project would result in an increase in impervious surface on the project site. However, the majority of the project site would be covered with pervious surfaces, including pervious concrete, decomposed granite, turf, planting areas, and a bioswale. Similar to the Original Project, the Proposed Project would not substantially increase runoff from the project site during storm events as stormwater would percolate into the unpaved portions of the project site. Further, the installation of pervious surfaces proposed as part of the Proposed Project would allow for the infiltration of precipitation and recharge of groundwater supplies. Like the Original Project, the Proposed Project would not require the use or extraction of groundwater.
Similar to the Original Project, the Proposed Project would not alter the course of a stream or river within the project site, or involve extensive earth-shaping operations or other activities that would alter the existing drainage or flooding pattern of the site. The Proposed Project is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area; therefore, the Proposed Project would not place housing or other structures within a 100-year flood hazard area. Like the Original Project, localized flooding within the project site would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death.
The 2004 IS/MND determined that construction activities associated with the Original Project could result in soil erosion that could adversely affect water quality. The Proposed Project would occur in the same vicinity as the Original Project using largely similar construction techniques and would be subject to the same hydrological conditions. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1, as identified in the 2004 IS/MND, which requires implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1a and
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ADDENDUM CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2013 RICHMOND UNITY PARK
RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA
P:\CIR1201\UnityPark_Final Draft Addendum.doc (03/27/13) 27 GEO-1b (preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan [SWPPP] and erosion control plan) would reduce potential erosion impacts to a less than significant level.
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur and no additional mitigation measures are required.
6. Mineral Resources
Section X of the 2004 IS/MND analyzed impacts to mineral resources. No impacts were identified.
The Proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource.
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur and no additional mitigation measures are required.
7. Noise
Section XI of the 2004 IS/MND analyzed noise effects related to implementation of the Original Project. The 2004 IS/MND identified no potentially significant noise impacts. Like the Original Project, the Proposed Project would result in the development of recreational land uses in the project site, which would encourage pedestrian and bicycle access, and non-programmed sport and playground activities, and would not result in the generation of high noise levels.
As described in the 2004 IS/MND, construction would require minor excavation and earthwork activities that could result in infrequent periods of high noise. However, this noise would not be sustained and would occur only during the temporary construction period, resulting in a less than significant noise impact. Construction of the Proposed Project would occur in the same vicinity using similar construction techniques.
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur and no additional mitigation measures are required.
8. Population and Housing
Section XII of the 2004 IS/MND analyzed effects to population and housing associated with implementation of the Original Project. The IS/MND identified no areas of potential effect. Similar to the Original Project, the Proposed Project would not induce substantial growth, displace any existing housing units or people and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur and no additional mitigation measures are required.
9. Public Services
Section XIII of the 2004 IS/MND analyzed effects to public services associated with implementation of the Original Project. The 2004 IS/MND identified no areas of potential effect. The Proposed Project would be located in the same project area evaluated in the 2004 IS/MND and, like the Original Project, would not result in the need for increased public services. The Proposed Project
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ADDENDUM CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2013 RICHMOND UNITY PARK
RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA
P:\CIR1201\UnityPark_Final Draft Addendum.doc (03/27/13) 28 would include safety features, such as upgrades to existing lighting and amenities that would promote use of the site for recreational, rather than illicit activities. The Proposed Project would not result in any local or regional population increase. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not require construction of new schools, or result in schools exceeding their capacities.
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur and no additional mitigation measures are required.
10. Recreation
Section XIV of the 2004 IS/MND analyzed effects to recreation. Similar to the Original Project, the Proposed Project consists of a recreational facility, resulting in a net increase of recreational space in the City. The Proposed Project would provide additional community park space and satisfy the need for recreation that is currently provided by other City parks, and could reduce the use of facilities that are currently overused. Because the Proposed Project does not include any new residences or employment-generating uses, it would not increase the use of other parks such that parks would undergo physical deterioration. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the 2004 IS/MND and clarified in this Addendum would ensure that the community park that would be developed as part of the Proposed Project would not have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur and no additional mitigation measures are required.
11. Transportation/Traffic
Section XV of the 2004 IS/MND analyzed effects to transportation/traffic. The IS/MND determined that the Original Project would ultimately allow for increased bike and pedestrian access from the Ohlone Greenway in El Cerrito to the San Francisco Bay Trail in Richmond, offering a transportation alternative to driving and potentially reducing regional car trips. Similar to the Original Project, the Proposed Project is anticipated to be used primarily by neighborhood residents and is not expected to substantially increase car visitation. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system or would exceed a level of service standard established by the Contra Costa Congestion Management Agency.
The Original Project included several at-grade crossings of local streets. In general, these streets contain low levels of traffic and would not pose safety hazards to trail users. As part of the Original Project, crosswalks and pedestrian crossing signs were to be installed at all at-grade crossings and an illuminated crosswalk provided at the Harbor Way crossing. However, the 2004 IS/MND determined that without proper directional signage, confusion could occur at the termini of the trail (Richmond Greenway), and bus/pedestrian/bicyclist conflicts could occur at the intersection of the trail and Harbor Way. Implementation of Mitigation Measures TRAF-1a and TRAF-1b, as identified in the 2004 IS/MND, would reduce these potential design hazards associated with the Original Project to a less than significant level. As the Proposed Project would not be located at the termini of the Richmond Greenway or at the Harbor Way crossing, these mitigation measures would no longer be
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ADDENDUM CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2013 RICHMOND UNITY PARK
RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA
P:\CIR1201\UnityPark_Final Draft Addendum.doc (03/27/13) 29 required. The Proposed Project would include several at-grade crossings at 4th and 6th Streets; however, these streets contain low levels of traffic and would not pose safety hazards to park users.
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur and no additional mitigation measures are required.
12. Utilities and Service Systems
Section XVI of the 2004 IS/MND analyzed impacts to utilities and service systems associated with implementation of the Original Project. The 2004 IS/MND determined that the Original Project had a less than significant effect on wastewater service systems. Although the Proposed Project would include construction of a restroom as part of the Community Plaza Node, the slight increase in wastewater generated by the proposed restroom would be minimal and would not result in a violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
The 2004 IS/MND determined that the Original Project would not generate substantial quantities of wastewater or require the use of substantial quantities of water. Similar to the Original Project, minimal water would be used for landscape irrigation and maintenance of the Proposed Project. As described in Section II.B, the Proposed Project includes sustainable design features, including water efficient irrigation, drought-tolerant plant species, low-flow water fixtures and utility upgrades to improve efficiency and limit water use. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not require the construction of new wastewater or water facilities or the expansion of existing facilities.
The 2004 IS/MND determined that the Original Project would have a less than significant effect on existing storm water facilities. The Proposed Project would incorporate pervious surfaces to limit the increase in impervious surface on site. In addition, a bioswale and planting areas would bs used to capture and infiltrate stormwater and irrigation.
The 2004 IS/MND determined that the Original Project would result in the generation of relatively small quantities of solid waste associated with recreational uses, which could be accommodated by existing landfills. Similar to the Original Project, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to generate a significant amount of solid waste and receptacles for recyclable waste would be provided as part of proposed improvements in accordance with all statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur and no additional mitigation measures are required.
13. Mandatory Findings of Significance
Section XVII of the 2004 IS/MND addressed mandatory findings of significance associated with the Original Project. The IS/MND identified biological resource impacts with possible effects on nesting raptors. Mitigation measures were recommended for the Original Project in Section IV-Biological Resources to reduce these effects to less than significant. The project site contains wetlands ditches, but none of these water sources contain fish, and thus no fish populations would be affected. A mitigation measure was recommended to avoid and/or protect identified wetlands habitats and, like the Original Project, the Proposed Project would be required to comply with this measure.
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ADDENDUM CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2013 RICHMOND UNITY PARK
RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA
P:\CIR1201\UnityPark_Final Draft Addendum.doc (03/27/13) 30 The Proposed Project, similar to the Original Project would not affect any historical or prehistorical sites. The Proposed Project would be located on the same site as the Original Project and would be subject to similar environmental conditions. No new resources would be impacted and no increase in effects would occur. Implementation of mitigation measures discussed in the 2004 IS/MND would ensure that effects associated with the Proposed Project would be less than significant.
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur and no additional mitigation measures are required.
C. MITIGATION MEASURES
The 2004 MND identified mitigation measures that would reduce or eliminate potential environmental effects of the Original Project. Most of the mitigation measures approved for the Original Project would also apply to the Proposed Project, and are indicated as such below (with applicable modifications made to the wording to reflect timing of surveys or required regulatory review). Mitigation measures for those topics determined to have no change with the Proposed Project would remain the same and are noted as such below. Finally, those mitigation measures for the Original Project that are no longer applicable to the Proposed Project are also summarized with a brief explanation as to why they are no longer applicable.
I. Aesthetics
No mitigation measures needed for either the Original or the Proposed Project.
II. Agriculture
No mitigation measures needed for either the Original or the Proposed Project.
III. Air Quality
Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would be updated to reflect the current BAAQMD control measures for fugitive dust, as noted in underlined text below:
Mitigation Measure AIR-1: During excavation, earthmoving, and grading phases of the proposed project, the construction contractor shall implement the following measures at the project site:
1) Water all active construction sites at least twice daily; 2) Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand or other loose materials, or require all trucks to maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard;
3) Apply water three times daily, or apply nontoxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access routes, parking areas, staging areas at inactive construction sites, or inactive construction sites; and
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ADDENDUM CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2013 RICHMOND UNITY PARK
RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA
P:\CIR1201\UnityPark_Final Draft Addendum.doc (03/27/13) 31 4) Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply nontoxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles and unvegetated areas (until vegetation is established).
5) All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. 6) All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. 7) 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.
8) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. 9) 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.
10) 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, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]).
Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. 11) 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. 12) Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the City of Richmond regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
IV. Biology
Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 would remain the same for the Proposed Project.
V. Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measures CULT-1 through CULT-3 would remain the same for the Proposed Project.
VI. Geology
Mitigation Measures GEO-1a and GEO-1b would remain the same for the Proposed Project.
VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
No mitigation measures needed for either the Original or the Proposed Project.
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ADDENDUM CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2013 RICHMOND UNITY PARK
RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA
P:\CIR1201\UnityPark_Final Draft Addendum.doc (03/27/13) 32 VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality
Mitigation Measure HYD-1 would remain the same for the Proposed Project.
IX. Land Use and Planning
No mitigation measures needed for either the Original or the Proposed Project.
X. Mineral Resources
No mitigation measures needed for either the Original or the Proposed Project.
XI. Noise
No mitigation measures needed for either the Original or the Proposed Project.
XII. Population and Housing
No mitigation measures needed for either the Original or the Proposed Project.
XIII. Public Services
No mitigation measures needed for either the Original or the Proposed Project.
XIV. Recreation
No mitigation measures needed for either the Original or the Proposed Project.
XV. Transportation
Mitigation Measure TRAF-1a: The City shall install signage to direct trail users from the end for the San Francisco Bay Trail and the Ohlone Greenway to the beginning of the proposed bike and pedestrian route.
Remove Mitigation Measure TRAF-1a because it does not apply to the Proposed Project.
Mitigation Measure TRAF-1b: The City shall work with AC Transit to relocate the existing bus stop on the west side of Harbor Way to the south to provide greater visibility for pedestrian and bicyclists crossing the street. In addition, signage shall be installed that alerts pedestrians and bicyclists to the fact that cross-traffic on Harbor Way may not stop even when the crosswalk is illuminated.
Remove Mitigation Measure TRAF-1b because it does not apply to the Proposed Project.
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ADDENDUM CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2013 RICHMOND UNITY PARK
RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA
P:\CIR1201\UnityPark_Final Draft Addendum.doc (03/27/13) 33 XVI. Utilities and Service Systems
No mitigation measures needed for either the Original or the Proposed Project.
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ADDENDUM CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2013 RICHMOND UNITY PARK
RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA
P:\CIR1201\UnityPark_Final Draft Addendum.doc (03/27/13) 34 IV. CONCLUSION
On the basis of the evaluation presented in Section III, the changes within the Proposed Project would not trigger any of the conditions listed in Section I.D of this Addendum, requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report or negative declaration. Thus, this Addendum satisfies the requirements of CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15164. The Proposed Project does not introduce new significant environmental effects, substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant environmental effects, or show that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible.
Overall, the Proposed Project would result in similar effects to those of the Original Project with similar operations as those which were originally proposed and would therefore generate comparable effects. The Proposed Project would not result in new significant effects or effects that would be substantially more severe than those identified in the 2004 IS/MND. The mitigation measures included in the 2004 IS/MND that specifically apply to the Proposed Project would remain applicable, those that should be clarified are noted with an explanation for the rationale, and those that should now be removed include an explanation of why the mitigation measure is no longer needed.
The analyses and conclusions in the 2004 IS/MND remain current and valid. The proposed revisions to the project, as described for the Proposed Project, would not cause new or substantially more severe significant effects than identified in the 2004 IS/MND, and thus no new mitigation measures would be required. No change has occurred with respect to circumstances surrounding the proposed project that would cause new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects than identified in the 2004 IS/MND, and no new information has become available that shows that the project would cause significant environmental effects not already analyzed in the 2004 IS/MND.
Therefore, no further environmental review is required beyond this Addendum to the 2004 IS/MND.
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ADDENDUM CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2013 RICHMOND UNITY PARK
RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA
P:\CIR1201\UnityPark_Final Draft Addendum.doc (03/27/13) 35 V. REFERENCES
Richmond Greenway IS/MND (LSA Associates, Inc., May 2004) Richmond’s Unity Park Grant Application (City of Richmond, June 2011 Concept Level Site Plan
Draft Unity Park Community Garden Targeted Brownfields Assessment Phase I/II Investigation Sampling and Analysis Plan (Weston Solutions, Inc., October 2012) Phase I/II Investigation Targeted Brownfields Assessment Final Report (Weston Solutions, Inc., February 2013)
Richmond General Plan 2030 Final Public Review Draft (City of Richmond, August 2011) City of Richmond Bicycle Master Plan (Fehr & Peers, October 2011) City of Richmond Pedestrian Plan (Local Government Commission, October 2011) City of Richmond Urban Greening Master Plan website:
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/index.aspx?nid=2563 (Accessed February 12, 2013) BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (BAAQMD, May 2012)
Project Location
Sonoma
Rohnert Park
Yountville
Saint Helena
Winters
Windsor
Dixon
Novato
T
Sunnyvale
Fremont
101
San Jose
San
Mateo
101
101
Palo Alto
Redwood
City
San
Leandro
580
Union City
280
92 380 238
1 82
85 84
35 Livermore
Hayward
80 580
680
880
780
238
980
280
580
580
80 101
101
101
101
1 128
4 116
113
121
12 4
29 San Francisco Oakland
Vallejo
Concord
Santa Rosa
Berkeley
Richmond
Fairfield
Napa
Antioch
Vacaville
Alameda
San Rafael
Pittsburg
Walnut Creek
Santa Clara
Castro
Valley
Pleasanton
Daly City
Davis
South San Francisco
SOLANO
MARIN
ALAMEDA
SONOMA
CONTRA COSTA
NAPA
SANTA CLARA
SAN MATEO
Y O
SACRAME N
SAN FRANCISCO
SAN JO
SOURCE: StreetMap North America (2009)
I:\CIR1201\GIS\Maps\Cultural\Figure 1_Project Location and Vicinity.mxd (1/22/2013) FIGURE 1
Richmond Greenway Richmond Unity Park,
Richmond, Contra Costa County, California
Project Location and Vicinity
0 5 10
MILES
SOURCE: USGS 7.5’ Quads: San Quentin (1980) and Richmond (1980) i:\cir1201\gis\maps\cultural\figure 2_project area.mxd (1/22/2013) FIGURE 2
Richmond Greenway Richmond Unity Park,
Richmond, Contra Costa County, California
Project Area
0 1000 2000
FEET
LEGEND
Project Location
P:\CIR1201\Delineation 2013\g\Figure 3_Proposed Project.cdr (3/5/2013) FIGURE 3
Proposed Project
Richmond Greenway - Richmond Unity Park
Richmond, Contra Costa County, California
D3
W -3’
L -33’
C15
W -6’
L -34’
C5
W -4’
L -34’
D12
W -1’
L -34’
C3
W -4’
L -37’
C2
W -3’
L -36’ C4
W -6’
L -38’ C13
W -6’
L -41’
C11
W -4’
L -42’
D6
W -3’
L -48’
E1
W -3’
L -49’
C1
W -2’
L -47’
D4
W -3’
L -54’
C9
W -2’
L -55’
D1
W -2’
L -55’
D2
W -4’
L -61’
D5
W -4’
L -62’
D10
W -2’
L -64’
C16
W -2’
L -6’
D8
W -4’
L -69’
D7
W -5’
L -74’
C6
W -6’
L -84’
D9
W -5’
L -88’
C12
W -8’
L -96’
C10
W -6’
L -110’
C8
W -8’
L -168’
C14
W -6’
L -193’
C17
2586 sq ft
Community Garden Node
O H I O A V E
2 N D S T
4 T H S T
6 T H S T
8 T H S T
SOURCE: Microsoft Bing (2012).
I:\CIR1201\GIS\Maps\Delineation\Figure 4_Wetlands and Watercourses.mxd (3/4/2013) FIGURE 4
Richmond Greenway - Richmond Unity Park
Richmond, Contra Costa County, California
Wetlands and Watercourses
LEGEND
Project Boundary Swale or Ditch
Culvert
Seasonal Wetland Swale
0 60 120
FEET
Community Plaza Node
O H I O A V E
W A Y
M A R I N A
2 0 T H S T
J3
W -2’
L -45’
J2
W -3’
L -130’
K1
W -3’
L -191’
POTENTIAL JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES
W-1’
L-10’
Width
Length
10/14/13 (P:\CIR1302\CIR Corps delineation.doc)
L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .
157 PARK PLACE
PT. RICHMOND, C A 9 4 8 0 1
5 1 0 . 2 3 6 . 6 8 1 0 T E L
5 1 0 . 2 3 6 . 3 4 8 0 F A X
B E R K E L E Y
C A R L S B A D
F T . C O L L I N S
F R E S N O
I R V I N E
P A L M S P R I N G S
R I V E R S I D E
R O C K L I N
S A N L U I S O B I S P O
P L A N N I N G | E N V I R O N M E N T A L S C I E N C E S | D E S I G N October 14, 2013
Acting South Branch Chief
Regulatory Branch
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
1455 Market Street, 16th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94103-1398
Subject: Request for Verification of CWA Wetland Delineation, Richmond Greenway - Unity and Harbor to 8th Parks,
City of Richmond, Contra Costa County, California
Dear Acting South Branch Chief:
On behalf of the City of Richmond Planning and Building Services Department, LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) is requesting verification of the extent of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for the above-referenced project sites. This letter presents the results of a delineation performed by LSA of the potential extent of waters of the United States, including wetlands, on these project sites.
LSA previously conducted a preliminary jurisdictional delineation of the entire Richmond Greenway corridor in 2003, which included the study sites referenced above. This previous delineation was completed in support of a CEQA analysis and was not submitted to the Corps for verification.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The two project sites are located on the Richmond Greenway right-of-way, an east to west oriented former railroad right-of-way located approximately one-third block north of and parallel to Ohio Avenue in the City of Richmond. The Unity Park site includes two “nodes”, the first of which stretches from 2nd Street to 8th Street and is known as the Community Garden Node; the second node reaches from Marina Way to 20th Street and is known as the Community Plaza Node. Together these two nodes comprise Unity Park. The second park site extends from Harbour Way to 8th Street and is simply referred to as Harbour to 8th Park.
All of these sites are approximately 90 to 100 feet wide and have total lengths of 3,800 feet. An approximately 240-foot length of the Community Plaza Node extends southward to Ohio Avenue.
An existing Class 1 bicycle pathway traverses the full length of both project sites, with paved connections extending north to 3rd, 7th, 9th and 15th through 19th Street. The parks are partially developed, with existing bicycle paths, native and non-native landscape plantings, seating and gathering areas, and raised garden beds and gardens in several locations.
10/14/13 (P:\CIR1302\CIR Corps delineation.doc) 2
L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .
The two park sites are situated within an un-sectioned portion of Township 1 North, Range 4 West on the Richmond, California 7.5-minute USGS quadrangle, and extend along 37.9313° North Latitude from 122.3676° West Longitude at 2nd Street to 122.3505° West Longitude at 20th Street. Figures 1 and 2 (attached) depict the regional location and project site location.
Project site elevations range from approximately 15 feet above mean sea level at 2nd Street to 35 feet above mean sea level at 20th Street. The sites are relatively flat, except for drainage ditches of varying depth that run along either the northern or southern edges of the right-of-way at several locations.
The project sites are bordered by residential neighborhoods, light industrial and commercial buildings, and fenced materials storage yards.
Vegetation
Site vegetation in undeveloped areas is ruderal, non-native annual grassland. Dominant grasses include Italian rye (Festuca perennis), soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), wall barley (Hordeum murinum), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), wild oats (Avena fatua), prickly ox-tongue (Helminthotheca echioides), Spanish clover (Lotus pursheanus), bird’s-foot trefoil (L. corniculatus), English plantain (Plantago lanceolata), fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), fluvellin (Kickxia elantine), black mustard (Brassica nigra), curly dock (Rumex crispus), sheep sorrel (R. acetocella), yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), stinkwort (Dittrichia graveolens), rough cat’s-ear (Hypochaeris radicata), Hooker’s evening primrose (Oenothera elata ssp. hookeri), California poppy (Eschscholzia californica), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), nut sedge (Cyperus eragrostis), wild radish (Raphanus sativa), common mallow (Malva neglecta), and filaree (Erodium cicutarium). A few trees, consisting of naturalized ornamental species such as eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus), black acacia (Acacia sp.), and poplar (Populus spp.) are scattered through these non-native grassland areas.
Soils. The soil on both park sites is mapped by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as Clear Lake clay (Map Unit Symbol Cc) (Web Soil Survey,
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx, accessed 20 September 2013). Clear Lake clay can be hydric in basin floors, depressions, and strand plains.
Hydrology. The drainage on both park sites is entirely artificial in nature, consisting mostly of unmaintained, remnant railroad ditches draining to city storm drains that intersect the Greenway on north to south oriented cross streets. No natural streams are present on the study site and none of the ditches are directly tributary to natural streams. The site drains to City of Richmond municipal storm drains that in turn empty into San Francisco Bay, a tidal, traditional navigable water of the United States. The bay shoreline lies approximately 3,000 feet south of the project area.
METHODS
The field investigations of potentially jurisdictional wetlands were conducted using the routine determination method provided in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the revised procedures in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0) (Arid West Supplement; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2008). This methodology entails examination of potential waterbodies for evidence of flow or standing water, and examination of specific sample
10/14/13 (P:\CIR1302\CIR Corps delineation.doc) 3
L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . points within potential wetlands for hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. By the federal definition, all three parameters must be present for an area to be considered a wetland.
Hydrophytic plant species are listed by the 2013 National Wetland Plant List (Lichvar, R.W. 2013.
The National Wetland Plant List: 2013 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2013-49: 1-241.). The National List identifies five categories of plants according to their frequency of occurrence in wetlands. The categories are:
Obligate wetland plants (OBL) Plants that occur almost always in wetlands Facultative wetland plants (FACW) Plants that usually occur in wetlands Facultative plants (FAC) Plants that are equally likely to occur in wetlands or non-wetlands
Facultative upland plants (FACU) Plants that usually occur in uplands Obligate upland plants (UPL) Plants that occur almost always in non-wetlands An area is generally considered to have hydrophytic vegetation when more than 50 percent of the dominant species in each stratum (tree, shrub, and herb) are in the obligate wetland, facultative wetland, or facultative categories.
Hydric soils are defined by criteria set forth by the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (NTCHS). These criteria are given in the Wetland Delineation Manual Supplement and are based on depth and duration of soil saturation. Hydric soils are commonly identified in the field by using indirect indicators of saturated soil, technically known as redoximorphic features. These features are caused by anaerobic, reduced soil conditions that are brought about by prolonged soil saturation. The most common redoximorphic features are distinguished by soil color, which is strongly influenced by the frequency and duration of soil saturation. Hydric soils tend to have dark (low chroma) colors that are often accompanied by reddish mottles (iron mottles), reddish stains on root channels (oxidized rhizospheres), or gray colors (gleying). The Arid West Supplement contains descriptions of numerous federally-recognized hydric soil indicators.
Under natural conditions, development of hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soils are dependent on a third characteristic, wetland hydrology. This criterion is met if the area experiences inundation or soil saturation to the surface for a period equal to at least five (5) percent of the growing season (about 14 days in the region of the project site) in a year of median rainfall. In most cases, this criterion can only be measured directly by monitoring the site through an entire wet season. In practice, the hydrological status of a particular area is usually evaluated using indirect indicators. Some of the indicators that are commonly used to identify wetland hydrology include biotic crusts and oxidized rhizospheres around roots. The Arid West Supplement gives thorough descriptions of numerous federally-recognized indicators of wetland hydrology.
FIELD METHODS
LSA soil scientist Chip Bouril investigated the project sites on 25 January (during the rainy season) and on 23 September and 10 October 2013.
Potential wetland boundaries and sample point locations were mapped using a global positioning system (GPS) receiver with sub-meter accuracy. Wetland boundaries were determined by following a
10/14/13 (P:\CIR1302\CIR Corps delineation.doc) 4
L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . combination of the limits of hydrophytic vegetation, the limits of observed surface evidence of flow or ponding, topographic breaks, and interpretation of aerial photography.
LSA established 3 sample points on the project sites. Their locations are shown on Figure 3 (attached).
OBSERVATIONS
Potential jurisdictional features identified by LSA are mapped on Figure 3 and include one seasonally saturated constructed bioswale and several ditch channels. The designations applied to these potential jurisdictional features below and on the attached map (Figure 3) follow those originally applied in the 2003 CEQA wetland assessment.
Other Waters
Potentially jurisdictional Ditches C and D are located between 2nd Street and 8th Street. These features were observed in 2003 and are relatively unchanged from the 2003 assessment. The single exception is the subsequent construction of a bio-swale on the eastern end of Ditch C. This bio-swale is discussed below under seasonal wetlands.
None of the ditch segments, including Ditches D, J, and K as well as the remainder of Ditch C, shows distinct evidence of active scour, but all of them do have a generally trapezoidal shape, subtle evidence of debris and sediment movement, and bed and bank morphology. Because of their linear shape and drainage function, these ditch segments are delineated as other waters of the United States, even though some may also have hydrophytic (wetland) plant cover. Please see Table A (attached) for a listing of ditch segments with wetland plant cover. In most cases the plant cover in these segments is composed of facultative (FAC) ruderal species.
Culvert D-10 at 6th Street appears to drain potentially jurisdictional Ditch D into the municipal storm drain system under 6th Street and is therefore itself potentially jurisdictional.
Seasonal Wetlands
Bio-swale construction since 2003 has deepened and extended the eastern segment of Ditch D and converted it into a bio-swale with seasonal wetland characteristics. The bio-swale extends east from 6 th Street for an approximate length of 410 feet. The bio-swale has educational signage describing its biological and water quality enhancement functions. The bio-swale meets jurisdictional wetland criteria (see data sheet for Sample Point 1, attached) and has a wide, meandering swale shape instead of the trapezoidal ditch shape typical of other ditch features. The swale is therefore better represented as a seasonal wetland rather than as a non-wetland channel feature.
Other Areas Investigated
A culvert under 4th Street that drains into Ditch D Segment D-2 has no apparent surface source and is determined to be non-jurisdictional. Two culverts drain non-jurisdictional areas at 7th Street southward into bio-swale Ditch C segment C-17. Both are determined to be non-jurisdictional.
10/14/13 (P:\CIR1302\CIR Corps delineation.doc) 5
L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .
Two short 8-inch diameter corrugated steel culverts drain underneath paved walkways connecting 9 th Street to the paved Richmond Greenway Class 1 pathway. Both culverts drain into a 2-foot-square storm drain inlet located between the walkways. The storm drain inlet connects to underground municipal storm drain piping leading east and west from the inlet. Short ditches at each end of both culverts do not have any jurisdictional stream or wetland characteristics, so, along with the culverts and storm drain inlet, are determined to be non-jurisdictional.
The portion of the “Community Plaza Node” project site opposite 16th Street, which extends from the edge of the original study area south to Ohio Street, was not included in the 2003 delineation. This new portion of the project site was inspected in the 2013 investigations and has no potential jurisdictional features.
Sample Points 2 and 3 were placed at different ends of a remnant of a former ditch that runs along the south edge of the Community Plaza Node from 16th Street to 18th Street. The remnant does not have a clear drainage flowline connecting it to any drop inlets or culverts, does not have an ordinary high water mark, and does not have jurisdictional wetland characteristics. This remnant ditch is not a likely water of the United States.
Other locations on the site are vegetated with non-hydrophytic species and did not display any wetland characteristics.
No other evidence of potential waters of the United States was observed on the sites.
CONCLUSIONS
Potential Clean Water Act Section 404 jurisdictional features identified on the Richmond Greenway Unity and Harbour to 8th Park sites consist of 0.059 acre of seasonal wetland and 0.265 acre of nonwetland waters of the United States, for a total potential jurisdictional area of 0.324 acre.
Potential jurisdictional features, project site boundaries, and sample point locations are mapped on Figure 3, which is attached.
The findings and conclusions presented in this report, including the location and extent of other waters subject to regulatory jurisdiction, represent the professional opinion of LSA. These conclusions should be considered preliminary until verified by the Corps.
10/14/13 (P:\CIR1302\CIR Corps delineation.doc) 6
L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .
Please contact me or Sean Lohmann at (510) 236-6810 to schedule a verification visit.
Sincerely,
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
Chip Bouril
Wetland Scientist
Attachments: Table A: Potential Waters of the United States Figure 1: Regional Location
Figure 2: Project Location
Figure 3: Potential Waters of the United States
Data Sheets 1 through 3
cc: Chris Chamberlain, Parks and Landscape Superintendent City of Richmond, Planning & Building Services Department 450 Civic Center Plaza, 2nd Floor, Richmond, CA 94804
10/14/13 (P:\CIR1302\CIR Corps delineation.doc) 7
L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .
Table A: Potential Waters of the United States
Type
Wetland
Characteristics
Width
(ft.)
Length
(ft.)
Area
(sq. ft.)
Area
(acres)
WETLANDS
C17 Swale Yes - 410 2,585 0.059
OTHER WATERS
C1 Culvert No 2 50 100 0.002
C2 Ditch Yes 3 35 105 0.002
C3 Ditch Yes 4 35 140 0.003
C4 Ditch Yes 6 40 240 0.006
C5 Ditch Yes 4 35 140 0.003
C6 Ditch Yes 6 85 510 0.012
C8 Ditch Yes 8 165 1,320 0.030
C9 Culvert No 2 55 110 0.003
C10 Ditch Yes 6 110 660 0.015
C11 Ditch No 4 40 160 0.004
C12 Ditch Yes 8 95 760 0.017
C13 Ditch No 6 40 240 0.006
C14 Ditch Yes 6 195 1,170 0.027
C15 Ditch Yes 6 35 210 0.005
C16 Culvert No 2 70 140 0.003
D2 Ditch Yes 4 60 240 0.006
D3 Ditch Yes 3 30 90 0.002
D4 Ditch Yes 3 55 165 0.004
D5 Ditch Yes 4 65 260 0.006
D6 Ditch No 3 45 135 0.003
D7 Ditch No 5 75 375 0.009
D8 Ditch Yes 4 70 280 0.006
D9 Ditch Yes 5 90 450 0.010
D10 Culvert No 2 30 60 0.001
J2 Ditch No 3 130 390 0.009
J3 Ditch No 2 45 90 0.002
K1 Ditch No 3 135 405 0.009
OTHER WATERS TOTAL 1,915 8,945 0.265
TOTAL POTENTIAL
WATERS 11,530 0.324
10/14/13 (P:\CIR1302\CIR Corps delineation.doc)
L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .
157 PARK PLACE
PT. RICHMOND, C A 9 4 8 0 1
5 1 0 . 2 3 6 . 6 8 1 0 T E L
5 1 0 . 2 3 6 . 3 4 8 0 F A X
B E R K E L E Y
C A R L S B A D
F T . C O L L I N S
F R E S N O
I R V I N E
P A L M S P R I N G S
R I V E R S I D E
R O C K L I N
S A N L U I S O B I S P O
P L A N N I N G | E N V I R O N M E N T A L S C I E N C E S | D E S I G N October 14, 2013
Acting South Branch Chief
Regulatory Branch
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
1455 Market Street, 16th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94103-1398
Subject: Request for Verification of CWA Wetland Delineation, Richmond Greenway - Unity and Harbor to 8th Parks,
City of Richmond, Contra Costa County, California
Dear Acting South Branch Chief:
On behalf of the City of Richmond Planning and Building Services Department, LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) is requesting verification of the extent of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for the above-referenced project sites. This letter presents the results of a delineation performed by LSA of the potential extent of waters of the United States, including wetlands, on these project sites.
LSA previously conducted a preliminary jurisdictional delineation of the entire Richmond Greenway corridor in 2003, which included the study sites referenced above. This previous delineation was completed in support of a CEQA analysis and was not submitted to the Corps for verification.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The two project sites are located on the Richmond Greenway right-of-way, an east to west oriented former railroad right-of-way located approximately one-third block north of and parallel to Ohio Avenue in the City of Richmond. The Unity Park site includes two “nodes”, the first of which stretches from 2nd Street to 8th Street and is known as the Community Garden Node; the second node reaches from Marina Way to 20th Street and is known as the Community Plaza Node. Together these two nodes comprise Unity Park. The second park site extends from Harbour Way to 8th Street and is simply referred to as Harbour to 8th Park.
All of these sites are approximately 90 to 100 feet wide and have total lengths of 3,800 feet. An approximately 240-foot length of the Community Plaza Node extends southward to Ohio Avenue.
An existing Class 1 bicycle pathway traverses the full length of both project sites, with paved connections extending north to 3rd, 7th, 9th and 15th through 19th Street. The parks are partially developed, with existing bicycle paths, native and non-native landscape plantings, seating and gathering areas, and raised garden beds and gardens in several locations.
10/14/13 (P:\CIR1302\CIR Corps delineation.doc) 2
L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .
The two park sites are situated within an un-sectioned portion of Township 1 North, Range 4 West on the Richmond, California 7.5-minute USGS quadrangle, and extend along 37.9313° North Latitude from 122.3676° West Longitude at 2nd Street to 122.3505° West Longitude at 20th Street. Figures 1 and 2 (attached) depict the regional location and project site location.
Project site elevations range from approximately 15 feet above mean sea level at 2nd Street to 35 feet above mean sea level at 20th Street. The sites are relatively flat, except for drainage ditches of varying depth that run along either the northern or southern edges of the right-of-way at several locations.
The project sites are bordered by residential neighborhoods, light industrial and commercial buildings, and fenced materials storage yards.
Vegetation
Site vegetation in undeveloped areas is ruderal, non-native annual grassland. Dominant grasses include Italian rye (Festuca perennis), soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), wall barley (Hordeum murinum), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), wild oats (Avena fatua), prickly ox-tongue (Helminthotheca echioides), Spanish clover (Lotus pursheanus), bird’s-foot trefoil (L. corniculatus), English plantain (Plantago lanceolata), fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), fluvellin (Kickxia elantine), black mustard (Brassica nigra), curly dock (Rumex crispus), sheep sorrel (R. acetocella), yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), stinkwort (Dittrichia graveolens), rough cat’s-ear (Hypochaeris radicata), Hooker’s evening primrose (Oenothera elata ssp. hookeri), California poppy (Eschscholzia californica), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), nut sedge (Cyperus eragrostis), wild radish (Raphanus sativa), common mallow (Malva neglecta), and filaree (Erodium cicutarium). A few trees, consisting of naturalized ornamental species such as eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus), black acacia (Acacia sp.), and poplar (Populus spp.) are scattered through these non-native grassland areas.
Soils. The soil on both park sites is mapped by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as Clear Lake clay (Map Unit Symbol Cc) (Web Soil Survey,
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx, accessed 20 September 2013). Clear Lake clay can be hydric in basin floors, depressions, and strand plains.
Hydrology. The drainage on both park sites is entirely artificial in nature, consisting mostly of unmaintained, remnant railroad ditches draining to city storm drains that intersect the Greenway on north to south oriented cross streets. No natural streams are present on the study site and none of the ditches are directly tributary to natural streams. The site drains to City of Richmond municipal storm drains that in turn empty into San Francisco Bay, a tidal, traditional navigable water of the United States. The bay shoreline lies approximately 3,000 feet south of the project area.
METHODS
The field investigations of potentially jurisdictional wetlands were conducted using the routine determination method provided in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the revised procedures in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0) (Arid West Supplement; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2008). This methodology entails examination of potential waterbodies for evidence of flow or standing water, and examination of specific sample
10/14/13 (P:\CIR1302\CIR Corps delineation.doc) 3
L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . points within potential wetlands for hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. By the federal definition, all three parameters must be present for an area to be considered a wetland.
Hydrophytic plant species are listed by the 2013 National Wetland Plant List (Lichvar, R.W. 2013.
The National Wetland Plant List: 2013 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2013-49: 1-241.). The National List identifies five categories of plants according to their frequency of occurrence in wetlands. The categories are:
Obligate wetland plants (OBL) Plants that occur almost always in wetlands Facultative wetland plants (FACW) Plants that usually occur in wetlands Facultative plants (FAC) Plants that are equally likely to occur in wetlands or non-wetlands
Facultative upland plants (FACU) Plants that usually occur in uplands Obligate upland plants (UPL) Plants that occur almost always in non-wetlands An area is generally considered to have hydrophytic vegetation when more than 50 percent of the dominant species in each stratum (tree, shrub, and herb) are in the obligate wetland, facultative wetland, or facultative categories.
Hydric soils are defined by criteria set forth by the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (NTCHS). These criteria are given in the Wetland Delineation Manual Supplement and are based on depth and duration of soil saturation. Hydric soils are commonly identified in the field by using indirect indicators of saturated soil, technically known as redoximorphic features. These features are caused by anaerobic, reduced soil conditions that are brought about by prolonged soil saturation. The most common redoximorphic features are distinguished by soil color, which is strongly influenced by the frequency and duration of soil saturation. Hydric soils tend to have dark (low chroma) colors that are often accompanied by reddish mottles (iron mottles), reddish stains on root channels (oxidized rhizospheres), or gray colors (gleying). The Arid West Supplement contains descriptions of numerous federally-recognized hydric soil indicators.
Under natural conditions, development of hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soils are dependent on a third characteristic, wetland hydrology. This criterion is met if the area experiences inundation or soil saturation to the surface for a period equal to at least five (5) percent of the growing season (about 14 days in the region of the project site) in a year of median rainfall. In most cases, this criterion can only be measured directly by monitoring the site through an entire wet season. In practice, the hydrological status of a particular area is usually evaluated using indirect indicators. Some of the indicators that are commonly used to identify wetland hydrology include biotic crusts and oxidized rhizospheres around roots. The Arid West Supplement gives thorough descriptions of numerous federally-recognized indicators of wetland hydrology.
FIELD METHODS
LSA soil scientist Chip Bouril investigated the project sites on 25 January (during the rainy season) and on 23 September and 10 October 2013.
Potential wetland boundaries and sample point locations were mapped using a global positioning system (GPS) receiver with sub-meter accuracy. Wetland boundaries were determined by following a
10/14/13 (P:\CIR1302\CIR Corps delineation.doc) 4
L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . combination of the limits of hydrophytic vegetation, the limits of observed surface evidence of flow or ponding, topographic breaks, and interpretation of aerial photography.
LSA established 3 sample points on the project sites. Their locations are shown on Figure 3 (attached).
OBSERVATIONS
Potential jurisdictional features identified by LSA are mapped on Figure 3 and include one seasonally saturated constructed bioswale and several ditch channels. The designations applied to these potential jurisdictional features below and on the attached map (Figure 3) follow those originally applied in the 2003 CEQA wetland assessment.
Other Waters
Potentially jurisdictional Ditches C and D are located between 2nd Street and 8th Street. These features were observed in 2003 and are relatively unchanged from the 2003 assessment. The single exception is the subsequent construction of a bio-swale on the eastern end of Ditch C. This bio-swale is discussed below under seasonal wetlands.
None of the ditch segments, including Ditches D, J, and K as well as the remainder of Ditch C, shows distinct evidence of active scour, but all of them do have a generally trapezoidal shape, subtle evidence of debris and sediment movement, and bed and bank morphology. Because of their linear shape and drainage function, these ditch segments are delineated as other waters of the United States, even though some may also have hydrophytic (wetland) plant cover. Please see Table A (attached) for a listing of ditch segments with wetland plant cover. In most cases the plant cover in these segments is composed of facultative (FAC) ruderal species.
Culvert D-10 at 6th Street appears to drain potentially jurisdictional Ditch D into the municipal storm drain system under 6th Street and is therefore itself potentially jurisdictional.
Seasonal Wetlands
Bio-swale construction since 2003 has deepened and extended the eastern segment of Ditch D and converted it into a bio-swale with seasonal wetland characteristics. The bio-swale extends east from 6 th Street for an approximate length of 410 feet. The bio-swale has educational signage describing its biological and water quality enhancement functions. The bio-swale meets jurisdictional wetland criteria (see data sheet for Sample Point 1, attached) and has a wide, meandering swale shape instead of the trapezoidal ditch shape typical of other ditch features. The swale is therefore better represented as a seasonal wetland rather than as a non-wetland channel feature.
Other Areas Investigated
A culvert under 4th Street that drains into Ditch D Segment D-2 has no apparent surface source and is determined to be non-jurisdictional. Two culverts drain non-jurisdictional areas at 7th Street southward into bio-swale Ditch C segment C-17. Both are determined to be non-jurisdictional.
10/14/13 (P:\CIR1302\CIR Corps delineation.doc) 5
L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .
Two short 8-inch diameter corrugated steel culverts drain underneath paved walkways connecting 9 th Street to the paved Richmond Greenway Class 1 pathway. Both culverts drain into a 2-foot-square storm drain inlet located between the walkways. The storm drain inlet connects to underground municipal storm drain piping leading east and west from the inlet. Short ditches at each end of both culverts do not have any jurisdictional stream or wetland characteristics, so, along with the culverts and storm drain inlet, are determined to be non-jurisdictional.
The portion of the “Community Plaza Node” project site opposite 16th Street, which extends from the edge of the original study area south to Ohio Street, was not included in the 2003 delineation. This new portion of the project site was inspected in the 2013 investigations and has no potential jurisdictional features.
Sample Points 2 and 3 were placed at different ends of a remnant of a former ditch that runs along the south edge of the Community Plaza Node from 16th Street to 18th Street. The remnant does not have a clear drainage flowline connecting it to any drop inlets or culverts, does not have an ordinary high water mark, and does not have jurisdictional wetland characteristics. This remnant ditch is not a likely water of the United States.
Other locations on the site are vegetated with non-hydrophytic species and did not display any wetland characteristics.
No other evidence of potential waters of the United States was observed on the sites.
CONCLUSIONS
Potential Clean Water Act Section 404 jurisdictional features identified on the Richmond Greenway Unity and Harbour to 8th Park sites consist of 0.059 acre of seasonal wetland and 0.265 acre of nonwetland waters of the United States, for a total potential jurisdictional area of 0.324 acre.
Potential jurisdictional features, project site boundaries, and sample point locations are mapped on Figure 3, which is attached.
The findings and conclusions presented in this report, including the location and extent of other waters subject to regulatory jurisdiction, represent the professional opinion of LSA. These conclusions should be considered preliminary until verified by the Corps.
10/14/13 (P:\CIR1302\CIR Corps delineation.doc) 6
L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .
Please contact me or Sean Lohmann at (510) 236-6810 to schedule a verification visit.
Sincerely,
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
Chip Bouril
Wetland Scientist
Attachments: Table A: Potential Waters of the United States Figure 1: Regional Location
Figure 2: Project Location
Figure 3: Potential Waters of the United States
Data Sheets 1 through 3
cc: Chris Chamberlain, Parks and Landscape Superintendent City of Richmond, Planning & Building Services Department 450 Civic Center Plaza, 2nd Floor, Richmond, CA 94804
10/14/13 (P:\CIR1302\CIR Corps delineation.doc) 7
L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .
Table A: Potential Waters of the United States
Type
Wetland
Characteristics
Width
(ft.)
Length
(ft.)
Area
(sq. ft.)
Area
(acres)
WETLANDS
C17 Swale Yes - 410 2,585 0.059
OTHER WATERS
C1 Culvert No 2 50 100 0.002
C2 Ditch Yes 3 35 105 0.002
C3 Ditch Yes 4 35 140 0.003
C4 Ditch Yes 6 40 240 0.006
C5 Ditch Yes 4 35 140 0.003
C6 Ditch Yes 6 85 510 0.012
C8 Ditch Yes 8 165 1,320 0.030
C9 Culvert No 2 55 110 0.003
C10 Ditch Yes 6 110 660 0.015
C11 Ditch No 4 40 160 0.004
C12 Ditch Yes 8 95 760 0.017
C13 Ditch No 6 40 240 0.006
C14 Ditch Yes 6 195 1,170 0.027
C15 Ditch Yes 6 35 210 0.005
C16 Culvert No 2 70 140 0.003
D2 Ditch Yes 4 60 240 0.006
D3 Ditch Yes 3 30 90 0.002
D4 Ditch Yes 3 55 165 0.004
D5 Ditch Yes 4 65 260 0.006
D6 Ditch No 3 45 135 0.003
D7 Ditch No 5 75 375 0.009
D8 Ditch Yes 4 70 280 0.006
D9 Ditch Yes 5 90 450 0.010
D10 Culvert No 2 30 60 0.001
J2 Ditch No 3 130 390 0.009
J3 Ditch No 2 45 90 0.002
K1 Ditch No 3 135 405 0.009
OTHER WATERS TOTAL 1,915 8,945 0.265
TOTAL POTENTIAL
WATERS 11,530 0.324
¨¦§580
2Nd St
Carlson Blvd
S 23Rd St
14Th St
Garrard
Blvd
S
37T
h
St
W Ohio Ave Marina Way
Rumrill
Blv
d
W Barrett
Ave
Harbour Way
S
Castro
St
3 7
T
h
St
Macdonald Ave
Marina
Way
S
S
Garrard
Blvd
S 2Nd St
Kearney St
Sanford Ave
23R
d
St
W Cutting Blvd
Harbour Way
Richmond
Pky
23Rd St
29Th St
S 39Th St
Roosevelt Ave
13Th St
Cutting Blvd
Macdonald Ave
Esmond
Ave
22Nd St
34 T
h
St
3 0
T
h
St
Garvin Ave
Maricopa Ave
Mcbryde Ave
Castro
St
18Th St
Roosevelt
Ave
Downer Ave
34Th St
24Th St
Moran Ave
28Th St
24Th St
Grant
Ave
17Th St
20Th St
25Th St
32Nd St
26Th
St
Lincoln Ave
19Th St
22Nd St
21St St 21St St
33 Rd
St
32 N
d
St
31St St
Costa Ave
17Th St
Hellings
Ave
Lincoln Ave
Garvin
Ave
Coalinga
Ave
Clinton
Ave
30Th St
Visalia
Ave
Wilcox Ave
California Ave
H
ayes St
Clinton
Ave
2 6Th St
2 5Th St Gaynor
Ave
Tulare Ave
Lowell Ave
Humphrey Ave
Andrade Ave
Wendell
Ave
Rheem Ave
Richmond
Marina Bay
SOURCE: ESRI StreetMap North America (2012).
FIGURE 1
Richmond Greenway - Richmond Unity Park
Richmond, Contra Costa County, California
Regional Location and Project Areas
0 1000 2000
FEET
I:\CIR1302\GIS\Maps\Delineation\Figure 1_Project Location and Vicinity.mxd (10/14/2013) ¨¦§80
¨¦§580
AA ll aamm eedd aa
CC oouunn tt yy
WWaallnnuutt
CCrreeeekk
SSaann LLeeaannddrroo
NNoovvaattoo
VVaalllleejjoo
SSooll aa nnoo
CC oouunn tt yy
AAllaammeeddaa CCaassttrroo
VVaalllleeyy
DDaallyy CCiittyy
MMaarrttiinneezz
PPlleeaassaanntt
HHiillll
RRiicchhmmoonndd
SSaann LLoorreennzzoo
SSaann RRaaffaaeell
BBeerrkkeelleeyy
SSaann OOaakkllaanndd
FFrraanncciissccoo
¨¦§80
¨¦§580
¨¦§780
¨¦§280
¨¦§580
£¤101
£¤101
ST1
ST13
ST24
ST4
CC oonnttrr aa
CC ooss tt aa
CC oouunn tt yy
Maa rriinn
CC oouunn tt yy
Project Area
Project Areas
ðr
SOURCE: USGS 7.5' Quads: San Quentin (1980) and Richmond (1980) I:\CIR1302\GIS\Maps\DelineationFigure 2_Site Location.mxd (10/14/2013) FIGURE 2
Richmond Greenway - Richmond Unity Park
Richmond, Contra Costa County, California
Site Location
0 1000 2000
FEET
LEGEND
Project Location
Harbour to 8th Park 9 T H S T
Harbour Way
Community Garden Node
C17
2,585 sq ft
Community Garden Node
O H I O A V E
2 N D S T
4 T H S T
6 T H S T
8 T H S T
D10
W -2’
L -30’
D3
W -3’
L -30’
C15
W -6’
L -35’
C5
W -4’
L -35’
C2
W -3’
L -35’
C4
W -6’
L -40’
C11
W -4’
L -40’
D6
W -3’
L -45’
C1
W -2’
L -50’
D4
W -3’
L -55’
C9
W -2’
L -55’
D2
W -4’
L -60’
D5
W -4’
L -65’
C16
W -2’
L -70’
D8
W -4’
L -70’
D7
W -5’
L -75’
C6
W -6’
L -85’
D9
W -5’
L -90’
C12
W -8’
L -95’
C10
W -6’
L -110’
C8
W -8’
L -165’
C14
W -6’
L -195’
C13
W -6’
L -40’
C3
W -4’
L -35’
-122.367873
37.932005
-122.359988
37.930811
SP-1
MAP PREPARER: Pam van der Leeden, LSA Associates, Inc.
FIGURE 3
Richmond Greenway - Richmond Unity and Harbour to 8th Parks Richmond, Contra Costa County, California
Potential Waters of the United States
LEGEND
Delineation Study Area
Non-jurisdictional Ditch
Non-jurisdictional Culvert
Wetland Sample Point
Non-wetland Sample Point
Community Plaza Node
O H I O A V E
W A Y
M A R I N A
2 0 T H S T
J3
W -2’
L -45’
J2
W -3’
L -130’
K1
W -3’
L -135’
-122.356021
37.931997
-122.348136
37.930802
SP-2 SP-3
W-1’
L-10’
Width
Length 0 75 150
FEET
OTHER WATERS
Ditch
Culvert
I:\CIR1302\GIS\Maps\Delineation\Figure 3_Potential Waters of the US.mxd (10/14/2013) SOURCE: Aerial Imagery from Contra Costa County (2008). Field Work Conducted on 25 January, 23 September and 10 October 2013. 1 Inch = 150 Feet
POTENTIAL JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES
WETLANDS
Wetland Swale
Type
Wetland
Characteristics
Width
(ft.)
Length
(ft.)
Area
(sq. ft.)
Area
(acres)
WETLANDS
C17 Swale Yes - 410 2,585 0.059
OTHER WATERS
C1 Culvert No 2 50 100 0.002
C2 Ditch Yes 3 35 105 0.002
C3 Ditch Yes 4 35 140 0.003
C4 Ditch Yes 6 40 240 0.006
C5 Ditch Yes 4 35 140 0.003
C6 Ditch Yes 6 85 510 0.012
C8 Ditch Yes 8 165 1,320 0.030
C9 Culvert No 2 55 110 0.003
C10 Ditch Yes 6 110 660 0.015
C11 Ditch No 4 40 160 0.004
C12 Ditch Yes 8 95 760 0.017
C13 Ditch No 6 40 240 0.006
C14 Ditch Yes 6 195 1,170 0.027
C15 Ditch Yes 6 35 210 0.005
C16 Culvert No 2 70 140 0.003
D2 Ditch Yes 4 60 240 0.006
D3 Ditch Yes 3 30 90 0.002
D4 Ditch Yes 3 55 165 0.004
D5 Ditch Yes 4 65 260 0.006
D6 Ditch No 3 45 135 0.003
D7 Ditch No 5 75 375 0.009
D8 Ditch Yes 4 70 280 0.006
D9 Ditch Yes 5 90 450 0.010
D10 Culvert No 2 30 60 0.001
J2 Ditch No 3 130 390 0.009
J3 Ditch No 2 45 90 0.002
K1 Ditch No 3 135 405 0.009
OTHER WATERS TOTAL 1,915 11,530 0.265
TOTAL POTENTIAL WATERS 14,115 0.324
Table A: Potential Waters of the United States
September 13, 2022
Mayor's Office
DATE: September 13, 2022
TO: Members of the City Council
FROM: Mayor Tom Butt
Subject: Maintenance and Security at Point Molate
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Unknown
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
N/A
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
The City of Richmond is responsible for maintenance and security at Point Molate but is doing a poor job of both.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: DIRECT the city manager, or designee, to prepare, execute, and fund a plan to provide effective
maintenance and security at Point Molate – Office of the Mayor (Mayor Tom Butt 510-620-6502).
DISCUSSION:
The Judgment on Claims Between Plaintiffs Guidiville Rancheria of California and Upstream Point Molate, LLC, and Defendant City of Richmond states in paragraph 24:
City shall bear all expenses of maintaining and securing the Property, until the Development Areas are sold to a third party.
AGENDA
REPORT
September 13, 2022
The City of Richmond is not in compliance with the Judgement because it is neither maintaining nor securing Point Molate.
Maintenance
The buildings constituting the Winehaven Historic District, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, are over 100 years old and have not had the benefit of any significant maintenance at least since the Navy left over 27 years ago.
The wood frame dwelling units are exhibiting severe exterior deterioration due to water damage and wood decay. The roofs are significantly past their expected useful life, with many leaking and causing damage to structure and interiors.
The roofs of other buildings, significantly Buildings 1, 2 and 6 are also leaking. There is ongoing masonry damage to Building 6. Parts of Buildings 1, 2 and 6 have long since fallen in due to neglect and water damage.
Sump pumps in Buildings 1, 2, and 6 are either not working or are at risk due to deterioration, vandalism, theft and neglect.
These buildings are invaluable and irreplaceable.
Security
Security at Point Molate is ineffective at best and non-existent at worse. There is no active contract for Point Molate Security. Allied Universal previously had a contract with the City, but it was transferred to Winehaven LLC (SunCal) when they assumed responsibility as a provision of the DDA when their entitlements were granted. Even then, the contract was only for 1600 to 0800 hours. There has been no security during the day. According to Allied Universal, they have not been paid in seven months and are owed about $80,000.
On August 19, 2022, I was able to enter and walk freely through the residential area and access cottages.
The fences enclosing areas off limits to the public are damaged and breached at multiple locations, and gates are often left open for extended periods. Even with fences intact and gates closed. Point Molate is not secure without at least one 24/7 security guard. Electronic surveillance could help but does not exist. An individual who so desires can easily enter the fenced areas of Point Molate and roam at will.
Theft and vandalism occur on a regular basis.
On July 13, 2022, Craig Murray wrote:
September 13, 2022
RPD arrested two individuals that apparently cut through fencing on the north end of the Beach Park and accessed this Drum Lot 1 location at the base of the Pt Molate Pier. Image is of building 69 and point to entry.
Pt Molate Caretaker assisted RPD in observing and reporting two individuals that were subsequently caught and placed under arrest by RPD.
On July 14, 2022, Craig Murray reported:
Perps are burning wires, materials in this vacant building (Pump House Building 69)…This building experienced another break-in, vandalism Figure 1 - Vandalism and theft at Building 69
September 13, 2022
Figure 2 - Damaged gate
September 13, 2022
Figure 3 - Damaged fence
Figure 4 – Permanently open gate at north end of Point Molate
September 13, 2022
Figure 5 - Main gate open three days in a row
September 13, 2022
Figure 6 - Opening in fence provides access to housing area Demolition by Neglect
The Richmond Municipal Code includes prohibition of Demolition by Neglect (15.04.303.140.E), and the lack of maintenance at Point Molate constitutes Demolition by Neglect.
Prevention of Demolition by Neglect. 1. General Obligation. The owner, lessees and any other person in actual charge or possession of an historical resource shall prevent demolition by neglect.
There are consequences (15.04.303.150):
A. Any person who violates a requirement of this article or fails to obey an order or permit issued pursuant thereto shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
B. Any person who constructs, alters, removes or demolishes a historic resource or Landmark in violation of this article shall be required to restore the building, object, site or structure to its appearance or setting prior to the violation to the extent such restoration is physically possible. Any
September 13, 2022
action to enforce this provision may be brought by the City or any other interested party. This civil remedy shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal prosecution and the penalty or other remedy provided by law.
There is also a requirement for the Zoning Administrator to take a proactive role (15.04.303.140.D):
C. Notice to Comply. If the Zoning Administrator determines that a historic resource or any other property in an -H District or any designated Landmark is being neglected and subject to damage from weather or vandalism, the Zoning Administrator shall meet with the owner or other person having legal custody and control of the historic resource or Landmark to discuss with them ways to improve the condition of the property. If no attempt or insufficient effort is made to correct any noted conditions thereafter, the Zoning Administrator may issue a Notice to Comply requiring the owner or other person having legal custody and control of the historic resource or Landmark to take action to require corrections of defects in the subject property in order that such historic resource or Landmark may be preserved in accordance with this section, except if the property owner can present clear and convincing evidence to the Zoning Administrator that his/her ability to improve the condition of the property is constrained by limited financial resources of other immediate and substantial hardship. If a financial or other hardship is found to exist, the Zoning Administrator shall make a written finding to that effect which specifies the facts relied upon in making such a finding and withdraw the order to comply until such time that the work needed can be accomplished.
Figure 7 - Windows broken out at Winemaker's Cottage
September 13, 2022
Figure 8 - Windows broken out and front door open at Winemakers's Cottage
September 13, 2022
Figure 9 - Water damage to interior of Winemaker's Cottage
September 13, 2022
Figure 10 - Roof caved in at cottage, extensive interior water damage
September 13, 2022
Figure 11 - Roof breached at cottage, extensive interior damage
September 13, 2022
Figure 12 - Front porch collapsed at cottage
September 13, 2022
Figure 13 - Column damaged at cottage
September 13, 2022
Figure 14 - Siding missing at cottage
Vegetation
In addition to building maintenance, there is an issue with vegetation maintenance.
There at least four invasive exotic species that dominate the landscape at Point Molate and are continuing to proliferate, outcompete and supplant native species:
Andean pampas grass, jubatagrass (Cortaderia jubata)
French broom (Genista monspessulana C (=Cytisus monspessulanus; G. racemose))
Fennel (Foeniculum vulgare)
Tasmanium blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus)
All are considered a public nuisance under RMC Chapter 9.50
9.50.090 - Nuisances specified.
It is declared unlawful and a public nuisance for any person owning, leasing, occupying or having charge or possession of any premises in this City to maintain such premises or to permit such premises to be maintained in such a manner that any one or more of the conditions or activities described in the following subsections are found to exist:
(a) The keeping, storage, depositing, or accumulation on the premises of rubbish which poses a risk of harm to the public or constitutes visual blight or reduces the aesthetic appearance of the neighborhood or is offensive to the senses or is detrimental to the use and enjoyment of nearby properties or reduces nearby property values;
(b) Property on which weeds exist outside of a managed landscape or garden area where such plants are purposefully cultivated, propagated, and
September 13, 2022
controlled; or where weeds or other vegetation pose a risk of harm to the public, or constitute visual blight, or reduce the aesthetic appearance of the neighborhood, or are offensive to the sense, or are detrimental to the use and enjoyment of nearby properties, or which reduce nearby property values.
Figure 15 - Andean pampas grass, jubatagrass (Cortaderia jubata)
September 13, 2022
Figure 16 - French broom (Genista monspessulana C (=Cytisus monspessulanus; G. racemose)) Figure 17 - French broom (Genista monspessulana C (=Cytisus monspessulanus; G. racemose))
September 13, 2022
Figure 18 - Fennel (Foeniculum vulgare)
September 13, 2022
Figure 19 - Tasmanium blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus)