From: Cordell Hindler
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comments- Open Forum
Date: Thursday, December 1, 2022 4:34:57 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Good Evening Mayor Butt, Council and Staff,
I have some comments for the Record
1. for a Future Agenda, the Council Should Consider Inviting Danny Wan to provide a Presentation on how the Port of Oakland is recovering from the Pandemic
2. also to have DR Hurst to provide an Update on the plans that the district is working on Sincerely
Cordell
From: Cordell Hindler
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comments- Y.2 Budget Session
Date: Thursday, December 1, 2022 5:25:28 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Good Evening Mayor Butt, Council Members and Staff,
I am requesting that the Council to adopt the Resolution as presented by staff Sincerely
Cordell
From: ANNA DESENBERG
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Agenda Item Z2 Latitude Residential Project
Date: Monday, December 5, 2022 2:25:08 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Hello City Council,
I have lived in Pt Richmond for about 13 years. While I understand the Terminal One and PGE properties will be developed at some point in time, I respectfully ask you to please give some time to consider how these developments will affect the lives of the existing residents and taxpayers in this area. Below is what I please ask you to consider when making your decisions and casting your votes for these projects.
1) Not long ago there was a fire on the hill above Miller Know park. It was nighttime and there was not much traffic that evening. The fire department responded quickly and were able to contain the fire before it came over the hill towards Brickyard Landing. If it had been windy, the outcome may have been different. During that time a section of Dornin Drive was closed to traffic. All the traffic was routed over Brickyard Cove Road to Canal Blvd. Please imagine many hundreds of people in Brickyard Landing, Seacliff, Brickyard Cove HOA 1 & 2, Waterline, Richmond Yacht Club having to evacuate.
What if there was a damaging
earthquake? Egress/Ingress issues in this part of Richmond are seriously inadequate. Please address this safety concern for the residents in this area.
2) it is joyous to see the amount of local families enjoying Miller Knox Park. Whether it is daily walks, jogs, birthday parties or other events, this park is often crowded and parking is limited. It appears you are not asking the developers of Latitude to provide adequate parking for this project suggesting the answer is parking at Ferry Point, on Dornin Drive or Brickyard Cove Road. Latitude should have enough parking for all
their residents including the JADUs,
as well as reasonable guest parking.
3) Please, please for the safety of the existing residents in this area, please do not overlook all the required remediation of the contaminated soil, and all health and safety issues for existing residents such as fugitive dust and VOCs. Instead of thousand of trucks of soil tying up traffic, blocking road access, slowing down emergency vehicles, and destroying the roads, soil should be required to be delivered by a barge to Latitude.
4) Lastly please consider you live in one of the neighboring developments here in Brickyard Cove area (like Councilman Bates) and what life would be like during construction and after the new developments are completed. Do you think you will find a parking place in Point Richmond? Would you be confident when you call the RPD they will come in a reasonable amount of time? Or, the Fire Department? I’m worried.
Respectfully,
Anna Desenberg
From: Barbara Smith
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Agenda Item Z2 Latitude Residential Project
Date: Tuesday, December 6, 2022 9:20:01 AM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
City Council Members
I write as a long time member of the Richmond Yacht Club, and as someone with long and strong ties to the City of Richmond.
I urge the city council to
remand
the project back to the Planning Commission to
consider
refinements to
improve the project to reduce the impacts on neighbors, including Richmond Yacht Club.
Thank you
Barbara Smith
[email protected]
From: Brian Lewis
To: City Clerk Dept User
Cc: Tom Butt - external; Eduardo Martinez; Gayle McLaughlin; Melvin Willis; Nat Bates; Claudia Jimenez; Demnlus Johnson; Jeff Shukis
Subject: 1) Public Comments-Agenda Item Z.2.
Date: Tuesday, December 6, 2022 9:32:35 AM
Attachments: Public Comments Agenda Item #Z.2 Latitude Residential Subdivision aka Terminal One to December 6, 2022 CC final signed.pdf
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Attached are our public comments for tonight's City Council Meeting. Here are a few of the reasons the project is not ready to be approved: CEQA, Vesting Tentative
Map, etc are
delinquent in substantive information, analysis, and mitigation .
Thank you.
Brian Lewis,
Brickyard Cove Alliance for Responsible Development.
Mayor Butt and Members of the City Council, 12/5/2022 Below are our comments regarding the Latitude Project, formerly known as the Terminal One project.
We are concerned with the public review process being curtailed on this project. We hope that you send the project back to the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission to evaluate and change the project. As proposed, the current project cannot be considered sufficiently ready for a meaningful and informed decision by the City Council. Potentially significant impacts have not been disclosed, analyzed or mitigated.
Sincerely,
Brian Lewis, Brickyard Alliance for Responsible Development 1300 Mallard Drive, Richmond, CA 94801
Jeff Shukis
1413 Sandpiper Spit
Richmond, CA 94801
Public Comments regarding the City Council December 6, 2022 meeting Agenda Item Z.2 - Latitude Residential Subdivision (formally Terminal One Residential Project) Comment Supporting information
1. Brown Act and Due Process
violations by City Council (CC) failing
to provide timely public access to
resolution proposed to be adopted
at the CC meeting on 11/22/22
regarding that meeting’s agenda
item Q.3 Terminal One Disposition:
Notice to California Department of
Housing and Community
Development (HCD) and of
Community Benefits, thereby
preventing timely public review,
evaluation and comment on same.
Date/time stamp of City Council attachments shows
that the Q3 item was not uploaded until after the
vote at 9:22 PM.
2. Brown Act and Due Process
violations by City Council in failing
to provide public access to the
documents (sometimes referenced
as the “pro forma”) of the developer
of Latitude Residential Subdivision
At the November 22nd City Council Meeting, the City
Attorney mentioned that the Land Econ Group (LEG)
had prepared a report and Pro Forma that was not
available to the public. The City Council voted, in a
split vote, to keep this document confidential.
[LRS] (formally Terminal One
Residential Project (LRS) and the
documents reflecting the analysis of
same by the consultant retained by
the City of Richmond on the pivotal
issue of whether the original TORP
project was not economically
feasible, and the present LRS project
is. The decision of the City Council
preventing timely public review,
evaluation and comment on the
validity of the conclusion that the
original TORP project “was not
financially feasible” and on whether
there were revisions to it that could
make it feasible while preserving
other aspects of its design preferable
to that of LRS.
11/21/22 Planning Commission asked to see the
information in the City report, expressing concerns
about the fiscal impact of this proposal on the City of Richmond and neighboring HOAs.
12/6/22 Agenda recognizes this request, and
Planning Commission concerns about fiscal impacts.
3. The Addendum to the 2016
Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
should not be certified with respect
to the issues of traffic concerns,
emergency egress and ingress
concerns, dust and noise concerns,
etc, including due to the
unaddressed and significant
difference from the original project
regarding the necessity of thousands
of heavy truck trips to transport
thousands of yards of fill to the site
over Brickyard Cove Road, the
release of toxic gas and vapors over
neighboring communities from the
planned excavation to the surface of
contaminated soils for evaporation
of toxic materials, etc.
Per CEQA, an Addendum is NOT
ALLOWED in this situation/context,
including because “substantial
changes are proposed to the
project” or “occur with respect to
the circumstances” of the project,
“requiring major revision of the EIR”
or alternatively, because “new
information” has become available.
(PRC sec 21166, CEQA Guidelines sec
15162 (a), 15163 (a))
Remedial soil excavation has been planned for
the site with elevated Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons (TPH) as well for other areas of
the site. Areas of elevated concentrations of
TPH will be stockpiled in open areas of the site
to expose the hydrocarbons to atmospheric
oxygen. No time is specified how long this
material will be stockpiled, exposing residents to
dust, odor, and potentially health hazardous
vapors from the off gassing of the hydrocarbons.
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/esi/upload
s/geo_report/4204201757/T0601300697.PDF
Appendix I, Pg 397 of the above link.
There is a large area in the Northeastern Tank
Farm Area where free product is present in the
upper 12 feet. The free product is not fully
delineated. These data gaps and the impact of
the dust, odor, and off gassing is not covered in
the EIR. This information is covered in letters to
the City and Developer
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/view_docu
ments?global_id=T0601300697&document_id=6
008856 The EIR Addendum does not address
the proposed remedy of stockpiling of
contaminated material on the site. Impacts
include dust and contamination spread to boats
and homes in the area. Mitigating provisions
need to include boat washing and even house
painting plus additional measures as deemed
necessary. The Planning Commission can not
Further, the Addendum fails to
explain why the City decided to
prepare an addendum rather than a
supplemental EIR, nor was any such
explanation supported by substantial
evidence (CEQA Guidelines sec
15164(e); Mani Brothers Real Estate
Group V. City of Los Angeles (2007)
153 Cal.App4th 1385, 1397.)
recommend approval of the EIR without these
data gaps and mitigating measures addressed.
4. The Addendum to the 2016 EIR
should not be certified since, in
violation of CEQA, it has not
addressed the cumulative impacts
on the neighboring communities of
the combined projects of LRS, the
PG&E property project, and the
Quarry project on pollution, noise,
traffic, parking, etc.
Per CEQA, an Addendum is NOT
ALLOWED in this situation/context,
including because “substantial
changes are proposed to the
project” or “occur with respect to
the circumstances” of the project,
“requiring major revision of the EIR”
or alternatively, because “new
information” has become available.
(PRC sec 21166, CEQA Guidelines sec
15162 (a), 15163 (a))
Further, the Addendum fails to
explain why the City decided to
prepare an addendum rather than a
supplemental EIR, nor was any such
explanation supported by substantial
evidence (CEQA Guidelines sec
15164(e); Mani Brothers Real Estate
Group V. City of Los Angeles (2007)
153 Cal.App4th 1385, 1397.)
Elimination of Shoreline Road has changed the traffic
flow during construction and long term in ways that
have not been adequately analyzed per CEQA.
Site grading changes are major (43,500 cubic yards),
and need to be addressed per CEQA. Eliminating
CHG-1 (Balanced Cut and Fill Grading), combined
with elimination of Shoreline Road may cause
significant environmental effects and a traffic study
needs to evaluate construction and longer term
effects.
Will single-load or double-load trucks be used during
fill hauling? Trucks hauling fill through residential
roads (Seacliff/Brickyard Cove or
Canal/Waterline/Brickyard Cove) may destabilize
roads used by both residents and visitors to the
Brickyard Cove area. There are limited exits serving
the Brickyard Cove area in an emergency, and road
damage may have public safety impacts if damaged
or needing to be rebuilt..
The Seacliff/Canal intersection is not built to
Engineering standards. Seacliff also has a history of
destabilization and sloughing, and Richmond has had
to repair that lower portion of the road. The capacity
of Seacliff to withstand heavy load traffic during
construction needs to be analyzed, identifying the
risks of further sloughing. Trucks descending Seacliff
towards Canal are likely to flip at the sharp turn.
Clearing a flipped truck in the Seacliff/Canal area
would not be an easy task.
Public safety issues need to be analyzed regarding
heavily loaded trucks driving through a residential
area of limited visibility (Seacliff). What distance is needed for a fully loaded truck to stop if a deer or
child are crossing the road? Pedestrians crossing
Seacliff currently struggle with safe crossings (ex:
taking kids to tot lot) due to limited visibility of cars cresting the hill prior to descent. There is also limited pedestrian visibility of cars heading uphill on Seacliff because of a curve in the Waterline/Sanderling area.
Additional potentially significant environmental
impacts of the changed 2022 design also include air
quality with the cumulative fill during construction of both LRS and PGE developments.
11/21/22 Planning Commission Discussion
While CEQA consultant claimed EIR info was
adequate, Planning Commission and public
disagreed.
5. Damage to and assumption by the
City and developers of LRS of the
cost of complete repair of the
surface and infrastructure of the
damage to BCR from thousands of
trips to and from the site by heavy
trucks carrying fill, construction
materials and equipment to the site,
and removing contaminated soil, etc.
9/14/2022 Planned Area Plan Addendum Exhibit B
pg. 15 “LRS circulation plan assumes the continued
operation of Brickyard Cove Road as a two-lane
collector roadway….”. Revised 2022 plan has
removed Shoreline Road of 2016 design, which
concentrates long-term and short-term traffic and
impacts on Brickyard Cove Road.
The Quarry and PGE properties may also use Canal/
Seacliff during this time, and the cumulative impact
needs to be addressed in EIR. Since construction road
damage seems inevitable, the share of road repair
costs borne by the developer, City and the public
should be revealed for the entire Brickyard Cove road
network (Dornan, Brickyard Cove, Seacliff, Canal, and
Waterline).
Imported fill increase in 2022 plan is significant. In
DRB, Planning and City Council meeting potential
roadway damage has been discussed by the public,
Richmond Staff and developer - yet remains
unresolved. These changes in circumstances, fiscal
impact, public safety, etc. have not been adequately
disclosed, analyzed, or feasibly mitigated.
6. Assumption of ownership of BCR by
City of Richmond
Ownership by the City was supposed to happen after
Sea Cliff Road was connected to Canal, making the
road a connector over the hill to Canal.
7. The Major Amendment of the
Planned Area Plan should not be
approved as it is not a superior
15.04.810.030 Planned Area Procedures D.e
“Detailed engineering site plans, including proposed
finished grades and all public improvements as well
design compared to underlying
zoning or prior design. It does not
provide adequate transportation
facilities and public services; it will
have a substantial adverse effect on
the surrounding land uses, both in
the neighboring communities and in
downtown Point Richmond including
because of the need for additional
parking not provided within the
project, by the additional vehicular
traffic generated by the project
combined with the absence of
reasonable public transportation,
etc. The proposed development is
inferior to the development that
could occur under the standards
applicable to the underlying base
district or in fact even to the design
or the original TORP project as
previously approved by the City
(inadequate view corridors and open
spaces in the LRS, structures –
interior and perimeter – densely
packed together, perimeter
structures higher than interior
structures, failure to provide
infrastructure and public services
that will not exceed existing and
planned services, proximity and
height of buildings along perimeter
(from NE corner of project, south
along RYC property line and west to
Dornan Drive extension) more
massive and obstructive of view
corridors vs. those of original project
.
as estimates of grading volume (cut and fill), with
accompanying grading sections or other technical
drawings acceptable to the Director of Engineering
and Capital Improvement Projects and City Engineer.”
At initial DRB review, grading information was not
available, and only inquiries by Chairman Livingston
revealed the notable fill importation.
15.04.810.040 Required Findings
A. General Plan consistency
B. Site is physically suitable for land use being
proposed
C. Adequate transportation facilities and public
services
D. No substantial adverse effect on surrounding
use/compatible with land use character of
surrounding area
E. Complies with design guidelines
F. Demonstratively superior to underlying base
district and will achieve superior community
design, environmental preservation or public
benefit
09/17/22 DRB review discussion notes that this is
not a superior development, is incoherent, and has
possible negative impacts on neighboring properties.
11/21/22 Planning Commission - project denied
noting that it is not superior to underlying zoning or
when compared with 2016 design.
8. Public Due Process issues: The
Public and the DRB were prevented
by the city from properly reviewing
the project as required by the
Planned Area Plan review
procedures.
DRB was prevented from performing
a complete and proper review of the
Major Amendment of the Planned
Area Plan as required by
Planned Area Plan 15.04.810.030 (B) (2) and (4)( D
1-6 and a-m) and then the required findings
18.04.810.040 (A-F and 1-9) And 15.04.810.050 (A)
as it relates to the non-compliance with the
Shoreline Overlay district.
The Board was erroneously/improperly directed to
only apply the less restrictive section of the code:
15.04.805.040 Design Review Criteria
15.04.810.030(B)(2) DRB’s review
scope was improperly restricted by
City Attorney on the LRS project. to
use only the narrow and less
restrictive normal DRB review
process ( 15.04.805.040) The
restriction was inconsistent with and
contrary to the DRB’s usual P .A.
review scope on other, similar
current projects (e.g., Point Molate,
The Quarry, and the 2016 TORP plan)
We have copies of City planning staff reports that
show other similar PA projects , similarly situated,
using the Planned Area criteria as a basis of DRB
review, and the LRS staff report showing a different,
incorrect, and less restrictive basis of review.
11/21/22 3:34 major design elements remain
incomplete, yet DRB asked to approve PA
Amendment (inconsistent with above) and PA
Required Findings.
9. Failure to analyze impacts on public
safety, due to inadequate means of
emergency egress and emergency
vehicle ingress.
Removal of Shoreline Boulevard from 2016 design
concentrates traffic from development, adjacent
properties (EBRPD, HOA’s, proposed PGE
development, etc).
Additional parking along Brickyard Cove may further
interfere with smooth traffic flow as cars are parallel parking.
During construction, heavy equipment traveling over
Seacliff Road or through Waterline may create unsafe
conditions, and damage a major access road used by
hundreds of households.
Despite Honda and Port requirements that rail traffic
not block Canal, traffic is blocked for 20 minutes or
more on most days. This is a public safety issue as
emergency vehicles are restricted to the Port and
Brickyard Cove residences during railroad blockages.
10. Inadequate guest parking causing
overflow to neighboring
communities, RYC, Knox Miller Park,
etc.
A total of 426 parking spaces for guests and residents
will be provided, 366 specific to the subdivision and
60 public spaces along Dornan Drive, Brickyard Cove
Road and Wharf Parking Lot.
Miller Knox Park and Richmond Yacht club are
immediate neighbors to this property, and already
have parking shortage issues. This development will
cause potentially significant parking impacts.
11. Neighboring community must be
assured that it will not be taxed to
maintain any aspect of the project,
city services, or the Wharf Park.
Should be left to the City. State
11/21/22 3:37 Menzies says that Richmond City
Attorney and Laconia have been discussing options
for long term maintenance, yet nothing has been
made public (CEQA, public documents). In 2016
approved development, TORP HOA covered
Lands Commission trust stipulates
that the City is responsible for the
maintenance of the pier
maintenance. Planning Commissioners questioned
this.
12. The project should not impose any
additional tax burden on Richmond
taxpayers.
11/21/22 Menzies says that Richmond City Attorney
and Laconia have been discussing options for long
term maintenance of park, Wharf, etc, yet nothing
has been made public (CEQA, public documents). In
2016 approved development, TORP HOA covered
maintenance. Planning Commissioners questioned
this.
State lands trust governs.
13. Inadequacy/absence of retention
ponds
The RWQCB’s Requirement for Revised
Remedial Design Report (“Action Plan”) includes
the following measures. For example, the
measure related to the slurry wall and storm
water collection and discharge:
Slurry wall construction to mitigate potential
petroleum discharges to the Bay Collection,
onsite treatment, and offsite discharge of
most stormwater runoff (emphasis added)
14. Inadequacy of slurry walls to
address/mitigate discharge of toxics
from contaminated soil into the Bay.
GEI consultant report.
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/regulators/del
iverable_documents/7630456089/BCARD%20RDR%2
0Comments%20%28GEI%20Consultants%29.pdf
15. Contamination of Bay water not
addressed in the amended EIR
There are six years of data not discussed in the EIR
addendum that identifies discharges to the Bay.
16. Potentially significant impacts due
to changes in Building elevations –
vertical massing
From Staff Report RM-1 vs proposed:
maximum height 35’ vs 46’ proposed;
lot size 5,000 min vs 2,068-3,081;
allowed lot coverage 65% vs proposed 70-80%,
3rd floor should taper to 80% vs 100% width
proposed.
In addition, the site will be filled (elevated) to an average of 15.5’, which will increase the relative
height of these buildings when viewed from Brickyard
Cove, Miller Knox or RYC. The resulting potentially
significant impacts are not disclosed, analyzed, or
mitigated under CEQA.
17. We hereby incorporate by reference
all items set forth in the 10/26/22
letter from Richmond Yacht Clubto
Roberta Feliciano, City of Richmond,
Community Development, regarding
15.04.805.040 Design Review Criteria B. “The project
design evidences a sense of place; does not
overwhelm or adversely impact adjoining properties;
and respects prevailing setbacks and the scale of
neighboring buildings….” Project is non compliant.
DRB Agenda Item 2 PLN22-171
TERMINAL 1 RESIDENTIAL REDESIGN
15.04.805.060 Conditions of Approval C: “Ensure that
the design of proposed project will be compatible
with the surrounding area where it will be located.”
Developer is required to work with both RYC and
EBRPD, which are adjoining neighbors, but it has
failed to timely or meaningfully do so.
18. We hereby incorporate by reference
all items set forth in the 11/15/22
letter from Richmond Yacht Clubto
Planning Commision, regarding
Agenda Item 3 PLN22-171 TERMINAL
1 RESIDENTIAL REDESIGN.
15.04.810.030 Planned Area Procedures D.e
“Detailed engineering site plans, including proposed
finished grades and all public improvements as well
as estimates of grading volume (cut and fill), with
accompanying grading sections or other technical
drawings acceptable to the Director of Engineering
and Capital Improvement Projects and City Engineer.”
RYC raised grading and drainage questions, but the
developer was slow to provide responses, and the
responses have been incomplete. To date, the
Vesting Tentative Map and grading plan do not
address west PL drainage issues that would impact
RYC. DRB asked for but never received a drainage
mitigation plan.
15.04.810.040 Required Findings
No substantial adverse effect on surrounding
use/compatible with land use character of
surrounding area. This project does not
comply.
19. Potential significant impacts at
Traffic control at NE corner of LRS
(Stop sign, pedestrian crossing signal
at Bay Trail and BCR) (RYC –
11/15/22 letter to PC)
Four crossings will occur in a very short distance,
which will be unsafe on weekends and during special
events:
1) secondary access road to development
2) Bay Trail crossing
3) RYC West Lot gate
4) RYC main gate
20. The height limit exemption (for the
units along the project perimeter
from the northeast corner south and
then west to the Dornan Drive
extension to allow for optional roof
decks) should be denied (RYC)
Height of proposed development is 46’ vs underlying
RM-1 zoning. Buildings will be closer to the Bay, Bay
Trail, and RYC than the 2016 plan which had only 25’
buildings in this area. Potentially significant impacts are not disclosed, analyzed, or mitigated.
Shoreline Overlay may allow lower heights than
underlying zoning.
21. Developer to install 6’ solid wooden
fence on top of a retaining wall
along the property boundary with
the RYC West Lot Dry Slip Facility
(RYC)
Conditional Use Permit from City of Richmond to
Richmond Yacht Club included 6’ solid wooden fence.
22. Property boundary issues remain
(RYC)
Laconia has surveyed the site/LRS/RYC boundaries
but not marked them.
Concerns over possible property encroachment have
been voiced in multiple RYC communications to DRB,
Planning Commission, and City Council. In addition to
public testimony, this has been conveyed in letters
from RYC Board 9/22 to DRB, 11/21 for PC, 11/22 for
City Council.
In a 12/3/22 meeting with RYC and Laconia, property
boundary concerns were again discussed, and it was
clear that Laconia had not read any of the prior RYC
public communications on this topic. Laconia
tentatively agreed to mark boundaries in a visible
manner, which would enable RYC to accurately assess
impact on locker maintenance, fence installation and
evaluation of security.
23. All stormwater generated by
proposed development be treated
within the project and not be
discharged to RYC property (RYC)
Since the storm water may be contaminated, the
RWQCB is directing LRS to collect, treat, and
discharge off site the storm water. It will be going to a sewer. Among other things, the receiving sewer
capacity has not been analyzed.
24. Assure access by RYC to lockerson
RYC property boundary where
retaining wall is to be built (RYC)
Laconia has surveyed LRS/RYC boundaries but has not
publicly marked them. Concerns have been voiced in
multiple RYC communications to DRB, Planning
Commission, and City Council.
25. Developer to be responsible for
prompt cleaning all fugitive dust
and and dirt during construction
from neighboring residences,
vehicles and boats, within 48 hours
of notice to hotline which will be set
up by developer for this purpose.
(RYC) The toxic lead paint dust is a
huge issue as the exiting building is
being torn down. How the toxics will
be contained on site is a potentially
significant environmental impact.
This needs to be a best management practice since
the construction site is surrounded by boats and cars.
On site and off site monitoring of toxic dust has not
been discussed.
26. Unjustified invasion of the Shoreline
Overlay District (SOD) by the
location of non-water related
structures (14-18 two story and
three story residences) withing 100
feet of the shoreline, when no such
structures are permitted outright.
15.04.306.020
Failure to make 15.04.810.050 (A) as it relates to
15.04.306.020 clear in the staff report to the City
council and Public before meeting.
15.04.306.040 D Structural Design
These structures are in direct conflict
with the purposes of the SOD of
shoreline protection and public
access and enjoyment. SOD’s
provision combine with the base
zoning and in case of conflicts, the
more restrictive provision apply. The
Conditional Use Permit which has
been proposed speaks to the general
conditions for the issuance of a CUP
and fails to address the specific SOD
regulations pertaining to Structure
Design and location.
“Through design review, building heights may be
limited to maintain a low profile” “reduced from the
maximum set in the base zoning district if the
Planning Commission determines that a different
maximum height will protect public views…”
27. Process leading to approval and
entitlements rushed and not in
proper sequence, leading to reviews
by DRB and PC without full
information and/or sufficient time
for review and evaluation before
being demanded or required to
make decisions.
Developer has been slow to respond to basic plan
information resulting in a decoupling of land sale and
project approval. This is not in the public or
Richmond’s best interest, and adds financial and legal
risk to disposition of public land. The City Council
now has the awkward situation of either approving
sale of the property without an entitled plan, or
declaring the property as surplus (and losing control
over its development).
15.04.810.040 Application Content:
1) Complete detailed engineering and grading
plans were not included, and only made
partially available part way through the
review process. DRB and the public have
consistently asked for these materials.
2) The Development Schedule has not been
made public in DRB, PC or CC meetings.
3) Ownership Declaration has not been made -
will site be subdivided for development?
4) If City Council approves the sale of public
property, they must also direct the applicant
back to the DRB once the land sale has
transpired, in order to fulfill PA criteria and
obtain entitlements. It is unclear what time
frame the developer will be given to gain
entitlements.
28. Stormwater discharge/runoff Since the storm water may be contaminated, the RWQCB is directing LRS to collect, treat, and
discharge off site the storm water. It will be going to a sewer. The impacts to the sewer have not been
evaluated.
29. Full compliance with ALL conditions
DRB placed on project.
The Condition of Approval (COA) from the DRB on the
PA plan were placed there to try to make the project
as good as it could be given the rush by the
developer, The lack of time to work with the
architects to help fix the monumental design
problems, the incomplete nature of the plans at all
levels. A reduction of the DRB COA is unwarranted.
30. Incomplete Vesting tentative Map
The VTM that includes all of the
required application content as
stipulated in 15.045.810.030 (D) is
incomplete and according to the
code, must be submitted in order to
have a complete application. While
many of these drawings have been
submitted , there were many
omissions and errors in the VTM.
Staff hired an outside consultant to
make sure all issues were covered,
but as of the PC meeting the
application was still incomplete.
Applicant has said it will get the
proper easements and approvals
after entitlement, but that process
violates the nondelegation doctrine
whereby the city delegates its
approval of required easements to
another entity. Again , in its rush to
approve, an incomplete VTM needs
to be completed. All easements and
agreements must be recorded and
shown on the VTM.
15.045.810.030 (D)
Letter from Robert stevens CE
issues such as, but not limited to:
1. inclusion of the new steet pump station
2. signed easements from EBRPD on parking
and bay trail encroachments
3. proper drainage plans to conform to the
water boards issues
4. revised drainage calculations that take into
account the water boards off-site storm
water discharge. ( suppose the storm drains
on BCR are inadequate?)
5. 8 foot high retaining wall on top of rip rap
6. BCR improvement plan and details showing
new road sections and specifications and
storm drain design.
7. RYC drainage mitigations
8. Dornan drive off site improvements and
agreements
non delegation:
A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United
States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935),
From: Bruce Beyaert
To: Nat Bates; Tom Butt - external; Claudia Jimenez; Demnlus Johnson; Eduardo Martinez; Gayle McLaughlin; Melvin Willis; City Clerk Dept User
Cc: Lina Velasco; Dave Aleshire; Roberta Feliciano; James Atencio Subject: Public Comments - City Council Agenda Item #Z2 Latiiude Residential Subdivision Date: Saturday, December 3, 2022 11:28:41 AM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Mayor Butt and City Councilors,
If you decide upon the option of approving the Latitude Residential Subdivision, rather than deny or send it back to the Planning Commission, TRAC, Trails for Richmond Action Committee, requests that you adopt additional conditions of approval as described below in order to ensure that:
1. the new Bay Trail around the project’s perimeter and public parks are opened for public use as part of the project’s first phase and are maintained either by the Latitude HOA or by a Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District funded equitably by Latitude homeowners and the City as at Marina Bay and
2. The existing Bay Trail along Brickyard Cove Road is not closed during construction of the project.
Project Phasing and
Maintenance of Bay Trail:: The following important conditions of approval were adopted by the DRB, but are missing from Exhibit F of the agenda report:
"Developer shall include in the initial phase of the Project all the Offsite Improvements.”
"The Bay Trail improvements constructed by the applicant shall be maintained by the Homeowners Association or by another City-approved funding mechanism, such as contributing funds to a Lighting and Landscaping District." These are standard conditions which have been adopted for all projects involving the Bay Trail. The agenda report includes Condition 57.a stating “All streets, sidewalks, BayTrail, open space areas, storm drains, sanitary sewers, and related appurtenances shown within the development shall be the responsibility of the applicant to maintain”.
However, the Bay Trail and open space areas would not be “within the development”, because the Bay Trail and parks are defined to be "Offsite improvements" in Section
4.1.2 of the LDA and would be on separate parcels of land. Please adopt the above conditions as endorsed by the DRB and delete Condition 57 as proposed in the agenda report.
Avoiding Closure of the Existing Bay Trail Along Brickyard Cove Road: The proposed project realigns the western end of the existing Class I Bay Trail along Brickyard Cove Road and should not close the section of trail along the southern side of Brickyard Cove Road until after the new, realigned trail has been constructed and opened on the northern side of Brickyard Cove Road. Proposed Condition 47 makes no sense in stating:
“The applicant shall apply for an easement for the bay trail portion along the north side of Brickyard Cove Road prior to approval of the subdivision plans and issuance of the first certificate of occupancy.”
Condition 47 should be revised to state:
"The Bay Trail along the southern side of Brickyard Cove Road east of Dornan Drive shall not be closed to public use until after the realigned trail on the northern side of Brickyard Cove Road has been constructed and open for public use with safe crossings of Brickyard Cove Road and Dornan Drive to link with the Ferry Point area of Miller/Knox Regional Shoreline."
Condition 61.e. Debris Catchmen
t: This condition added by the City’s Engineering
consultant Robert Stevens states:
“The applicant shall provide a debris catchment fence along the Bay Trail along Brickyard Cove Road to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.” Mr, Stevens explains that the intent was to install a barrier to ensure that rock eroding from the steep bluff wouldn’t reach the trail. This is very important because a short section of this realigned Bay Trail requires clearing a large talus slope of small rocks which have crumbled from the bluff above, and
it is necessary to keep rock from ongoing erosion
off the trail. Clarification of Condition 61.e is needed as recommended under item d below.
IN CONCLUSION
, TRAC asks that you adopt the following additional conditions as part of any action to approve the Latitude project:
a. Developer shall include in the initial phase of the Project all the Offsite Improvements.
b. The Bay Trail improvements constructed by the applicant shall be maintained by the Homeowners Association or by another City-approved funding mechanism, such as contributing funds to a Lighting and Landscaping District. c. The Bay Trail along the southern side of Brickyard Cove Road east of Dornan Drive shall not be closed to public use until after the realigned trail on the northern side of Brickyard Cove Road has been constructed and open for public use with safe crossings of Brickyard Cove Road and Dornan Drive to link with the Ferry Point area of Miller/Knox Regional Shoreline
d. Condition 61.e. shall be revised to read as follows: “The applicant shall provide a wall or sturdy fence designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer to protect the paved Bay Trail and shoulder from rock eroding from the bluff above Brickyard Cove Road and facilitate periodic removal of accumulated rock." Thank you very much.
Bruce
_______________________
Bruce Beyaert, TRAC Chair
[email protected]
tel. 510-235-2835
http://www.pointrichmond.com/baytrail/
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/109/TRAC
Photos: https://sfbaytrailinrichmond.shutterfly.com/pictures/5 .
From: Carol Hoffman
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comments - Agenda Item # Z.2, Latitude Residential Subdivision (Formerly Terminal One) Date: Tuesday, December 6, 2022 12:08:56 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Dear City Council,
I am writing as a resident of Brickyard Landing in Point Richmond regarding the Terminal 1 project that has been voted down by the planning commission. I concur with the Planning Commission and have the following strong concerns about the project. My impression is that this project is being pushed through, without the proper order of process, and without all of the concerns addressed to satisfaction.
My concerns include:
The heights of the new buildings- they should not be higher than two stories and the ground should not be raised significantly to build upon it and if it must be raised, the buildings should be shortened.
There should be no short term rentals less than 30 days to preclude air bnb and other short term rentals that only increase traffic, need for parking, noise, plus keep housing prices too high for Richmond residents.
There is insufficient guest and resident parking proposed. The regional park has parking lots however the one closest to the development is often filled or close to it currently. There should not be a decrease in available parking for the park due to a new development of private homes.
There are too few affordable housing units and their parking is restricted. As there is no public transportation available close by, it is vital to provide sufficient parking for all residents and their guests on the development site.
The street leading to and from the development requires much improvement prior to any use by construction vehicles, or residents' vehicles' use, once the site is developed. The cost of maintaining the road should be assumed by the developer, not the city or the Housing Associations close to the development site.
Construction trucks require much supervision for not idling, and require roads that can support them and the proper handling of potentially toxic substances that they will be transporting.
The description, with time frames, of how the toxic cleanup of the site will be handled needs to be clearly spelled out. It needs to include prevention of any potential spills or airborne spread of toxic substances. It does not sound like there is a sufficient plan.
There should be no short or long term expenses put onto the city of Richmond to assume as a result of this project. If anything, it should generate income for the city and for the maintenance of the Miller Knox regional park.
There should be no short or long term expenses put onto the city of Richmond to assume as a result of this project. If anything, it should generate income for the city and for the maintenance of the Miller Knox regional park.
I am not alone in my concerns and feel strongly that this project should be shelved or re- opened for bid to other developers unless it can be built environmentally soundly with proper attention to the roads and toxic cleanup. In addition, the resulting project should have ample parking, keep to low height requirements, provide affordable housing, and the design should not be cookie cutter and ruin the beautiful site upon which it will be built.
Thank you in advance for reconsidering your approval of this project as it is proposed today. It is best left as an undeveloped site vs doing damage to the health, aesthetics, and environment of local residents of the City of Richmond.
Best, Carol Hoffman
From: Christian Kramer
To: City Clerk Dept User
Cc: Denise Kramer
Subject: Agenda Item Z2 Latitude Residential Project
Date: Monday, December 5, 2022 7:23:13 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Dear Sir or Madam:
My wife, Denise and I, are
residents of Brickyard Landing and members of
Richmond YC.
We have many concerns regarding the Latitude Residential Project and hope the City of Richmond will
REMAND the project back to the
Planning Commission to review the financial feasibility of the previous project and consider if conditions or refinements can be made to the Revised Project to make the project superior for all concerned and to diminish the significant impact
to the local Point Richmond community.
Sincerely,
Chris & Denise Kramer
1201 Brickyard Way Apt. 301
Richmond, CA 94801
--
Chris Kramer
Email:
[email protected]
Cell: +1 203-837-7792
From: Greg Mitchell
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Agenda Item Z2 Latitude Residential Project
Date: Tuesday, December 6, 2022 9:20:02 AM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Hello,
Just a quick note that, while I fully support ongoing development in the city of Richmond, this development seems to have some issues that need to be addressed before it can move forward.
My biggest concern is the contaminated soil on site. I don't think there is a good understanding of the true nature of contamination or of resolution.
Secondary concerns are the impact on parking (6 spots of guest parking? Not sufficient. Also, I'm concerned the road from the tunnel to the project will be heavily damaged by the 5,000 truckloads of fill and the city will be on the hook for remediation.
Best Regards,
Greg Mitchell - 25 year RYC member.
From: Isabella Silverman
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Fwd: Public Comment Item Z.2: Terminal One Latitude Residential Subdivision Date: Tuesday, December 6, 2022 8:33:38 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Hello,
Can you please include my comments below into the formal city council meeting minutes? I am sending correctly this time.
Sincerely,
I. Silverman
Begin forwarded message:
From: Isabella Silverman <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment Item Z.2: Terminal One Latitude Residential Subdivision
Date: December 6, 2022 at 8:16:54 PM PST
To: Tom Butt <[email protected]>, Nat Bates
<[email protected]>, Eduardo Martinez
<[email protected]>, Eduardo Martinez
<[email protected]>, Melvin Willis
<[email protected]>, Melvin Willis
<[email protected]>,
"[email protected]"
<[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, [email protected] Cc: Dave Aleshire <[email protected]>
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
I urge you to please vote for Option 4, which was proposed by residents of the Brickyard Cove Community, and is an option that was not provided by staff for City Council consideration.
Option 4. New Option:
a. Table any further City Council action on approving any aspect of this project;
b. Direct that all critical information for an informed review and evaluation of the project be made available to the public, the DRB and the PC;
c. Remand the project back to the DRB for a full review and recommendation of the Planned Area Plan Amendment using Planned Area criteria set forth in RMC 15.04.810.040, and to the PC for a full unrestricted re-review and recommendation, including but not limited to the financial feasibility of the previous project and whether revisions can be made to the revised project to bring it to the level of a “superior” design;
d. Return the project to the City Council for further action when, and only when, the fully informed reviews and recommendations by the DRB and the PC (with public participation) have been made to the Council and the public.
Serious Concerns:
A. The EIR Addendum and the Vesting Tentative Map are delinquent in substantive information, analysis and mitigation. Moreover, the City has failed to protect the public health and safety of the Brickyard Cove community and even considered let alone analyzed the cumulative EIR impacts from this project, the Urban Republic development at the PG&E site and even the Quarry Project.
B. When it came to another public site, Point Molate, a majority of this council was adamant that:
1. They didn’t want any housing, let alone high-end housing, there.
2. All financial analyses were publicly available for a project on public land and, in fact, were instrumental in voting against the project.
3. That Richmond taxpayers should not have to pay for the infrastructure or its long-term maintenance.
4. A primary argument against housing at Point Molate is the concerns regarding a lack of safe ingress and egress routes.
C. Yet on this public land, the Council is considering rushing this project, based on Staff’s recommendations, which has many of the exact same features & concerns.
1. Higher-end housing on public land.
2. The City has not provided any financial analyses to the public for this project on public land. One must ask if this a Brown Act Violation.
3. We learned at the Planning Commission meeting on November 21st that the council, staff and developer have been discussing behind closed doors taxing Brickyard Cove residents to maintain the public park and wharf.
Are we not considered Richmond taxpayers?
To be clear, none of us were asked or voted on whether we wanted yet another public park (or wharf) in this area, and we certainly were never asked if we thought we should be held responsible to pay to maintain it.
We don’t want to pay for it. And we don’t want a district tax. Many of us can no longer afford our property taxes and will likely have to sell.
Are we not worthy of the same protections that this council said they were providing Richmond taxpayers regarding Point Molate? If the City can’t afford to maintain a public park that will be predominantly used by the countless number of Richmond residents from across the City (and other cities) that use Miller Knox Park and the Ferry Point pier, then the City should not require the developer to repair the wharf and build the park.
4. Significant deficiencies in emergency vehicle access and safe public egress when a disaster occurs.
The community has been raising serious concerns regarding timely and effective emergency vehicle access and evacuation of Brickyard Cove residents and workers in the event of a disaster. A mandatory evacuation nearly happened a few months ago when there was a fire in Miller Knox Park that closed the Dornan tunnel leaving only one egress route out of BYC along Canal Blvd.
These concerns are exacerbated when you have a planned 20 dump trucks per hour, 8 hours per day, 5 days per week for more than 3+ consecutive months traveling up and down an 11% grade hill and along Canal Blvd in combination with trains blocking egress routes along Canal Blvd, Garrard Blvd and W. Richmond Ave, often for 20-30 minutes at a time, multiple times a week.
These concerns have only grown due to the bike lanes that were recently installed on Cutting Boulevard, without proper public input, leaving us in grid lock during school drop off and pick up times as well as commute hours when trains are blocking most or all of the four rail crossings.
None of this is adequately included, analyzed or mitigated in the EIR addendum.
You cannot analyze this project in isolation when there are two more projects that are likely to occur in the same time frame that have cumulative EIR significant impacts.
You have a chance to please hear our genuine concerns. I hope you do and will support Option 4.
Thank you for your time and attention to this important matter.
Sincerely,
I. Silverman
From: James Fouche
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Recommendations re. Item Z.2 in Public Hearings of Today"s Meeting Date: Tuesday, December 6, 2022 1:07:46 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
In light of the incomplete review of the "Latitude" project, the City Council should:
Table any further City Council action on approving this project; Direct that all critical information for an informed review and evaluation of the project be made available to the public, the DRB and the PC; Return the project back to the Design Review Board for a full review and recommendation of the Planned Area Plan Amendment using Planned Area criteria set forth in RMC 15.04.810.040, and to the Planning Commision for a full unrestricted updated review and recommendation, and whether revisions can be made to the revised project to bring it to the level of a “superior” design, and; Thereafter return the project to the City Council for further action after the fully- informed reviews and recommendations by the DRB and the PC (with public participation) have been made to the Council and the public.
Thank you for your consideration.
James Fouche, owner
1312 Pelican Way
Richmond, CA 94801
From: Patricia Tostenson
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public comments - Agenda Item #Z.2.
Date: Tuesday, December 6, 2022 11:45:00 AM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Dear City Council Members,
I am hoping that the council members can find a good solution for developing the property at TERMINAL 1.
As an owner at Brickyard Cove #1, your decisions will have a huge impact on the residents of our community and neighboring HOA's as well.
I believe the addendum to the EIR, Major Design Review, and Vesting Tentative Map are incomplete and cannot be approved by the City Council as proposed.
Who will pay to repair the roads damaged by this project and neighboring projects currently being planned? I do not see any discussion of this.
How about the contamination at the site. I assume as water rises they will be discharged into the Bay unless they are totally removed. Also I do not see plans to keep storm drainage from going into Richmond Yacht Club property, which by this design, will be much lower than the Terminal One property.
Is it fair to allow a project to be built without adequate parking? There is no parking available for the small units. The condos will have 2 car garages. We all know people store stuff in their garages and park on the street. Also you are removing parking that has always been available to Richmond Yacht Club for major events. Where will these people park?? The Miller/Knox park is a very popular park and often on a nice summer day the parking takes up both sides of the street on Dornan drive.
How can you approve a project that will be built on a 6' higher landfill base, with a 6' fence and just behind that 45' homes that will place shading on RYC property and affect many communities. HOA 1 homes were not allowed to be built 45' high.
I believe that the City Council should table action on this property until the public, DRB and other involved agencies can comment and make recommendations.
Thank you, Jerry and Patricia Tostenson, 1305 Sanderling Island, Pt. Richmond.
From: John Gullett
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Agenda Item Z2 Latitude Residential Project, written comments to City Council members Date: Tuesday, December 6, 2022 9:51:38 AM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Re: Agenda Item Z2 Latitude Residential Project
Dear City Council Members:
Thank you for the privilege of commenting on the proposed development. I am a resident of Brickyard Cove and taxpayer, thus directly impacted by the proposed project.
Please consider my concerns about the goals, scale and scope of the proposal. Point Richmond has severely restricted ingress and egress. Additional traffic will certainly aggravate the current traffic situation as it is, and worsen it further whenever a train is being made up when there are multiple intermittent road blockages. In the event of a natural or man-made disaster one or more accesses could be impacted and create severe complications for access to fire and emergency services as well as access to health care. I feel that the projects as proposed do not remediate in any satisfactory way these environmental impacts.
The property of concern is beautiful Bay Waterfront adjoining a Park. The property is an asset to all the citizens of Richmond, not solely those of the Point Richmond community. The park sees intensive use on holidays by people who have little or no other access to the natural beauty of this area. To me it seems that the “highest and best use” of this property would be to enlarge the Park and the waterfront and improve the now scarce recreational facilities it affords to everyone in Richmond. I hope the City Council would reflect that the proposed development serves only to bring in more people to an area of restricted natural resource and does not improve access to the majority of Richmond.
I think it could go without saying but feel it necessary to reiterate the need to avoid being seduced by the myth of affordable housing when there are such a lack of education and health care facilities that need our attention in Richmond and many alternate ways to provide truly affordable housing.
Further, unaddressed are the increased demands for scarce water supply. How will water get here and where will this water come from ?
The proposed project will certainly benefit the proposed developers and increase the tax base but I ask at what cost and in the absence of what alternative uses to better enhance the quality of life in Richmond for everyone ? Very truly yours,
John and Marilyn Gullett
1201 Brickyard Way
Point Richmond 94801
From: John Stafford
To: Claudia Jimenez; City Clerk Dept User; Demnlus Johnson; Melvin Willis Subject: Fwd: Public Comments Agenda Item Z.2. Latitude Project (Formerly Terminal One) December 6th Date: Monday, December 5, 2022 10:20:52 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Begin forwarded message:
From: John Stafford <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comments Agenda Item Z.2. Latitude Project (Formerly Terminal One) December 6th
Date: December 5, 2022 at 5:48:05 PM PST
To: "Butt, Tom" <[email protected]
>, Nathaniel Bates
<[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
12-5-22
Re: Latitude Residential Subdivision (formerly known as Terminal One Residential Project Project No:
PLN22-171
To: Richmond City Council
From: John Stafford
Tele: (352) 476-6074
I am a 30 year resident of Brickyard Cove and a I I’m retired architect.
I have spent several years
serving on our HOA design review committee, and currently a member of our board of directors.
My comments presented below are my personal comments and do not reflect that of our board or HOA.
I spoke at the planning commission meeting on 11-21-22 and listened to the city council meeting on 11-22-22.
I will refer to the Modified Concept Plan (Figure 3-4) as well as the Dornan Drive Alternate (Figure 3-5) both submitted on 11-17-22.
Both documents indicate the source as Laconia Development but are undated.
They are referenced as “City of Richmond Terminal One Project EIR Addendum. 140325.01”.
The 3-story Duets with Ground Floor Live/Work Option are too tightly spaced, and, being opposite the large hill on the north side of the street, will create a canyon on Brickyard Cove Road. These building should be articulated in both setback and height to soften the visual impact when traveling along Brickyard Cove Road.
The proposed land fill envisioned necessary for the site grading will have significant impact on our community.
Bringing the fill in by barge would help reduce the impact.
Damage to roadways as
well as adjoining properties would be lessened by this approach.
Brickyard Cove Road needs to become a public road before any work begins on this site, or any other project which needs access along Brickyard Cove Road.
The Wharf Park is unnecessary given the proximity to Knox Regional Park.
It is an enormous cost
to retrofit the wharf.
The developer has shown no interest in maintaining the Wharf Park after construction.
The Wharf Park will be on City owned property, yet the City doesn’t appear ready to accept maintenance responsibility either.
It is unrealistic to assume any neighboring HOA’s will
participate in the maintenance costs, particularly because it is redundant to the regional park (literally next door).
I suggest the wharf be demolished along with the warehouse building.
Without the Wharf Park, the
developers preferred Dornan Drive Alternative (Figure 3-5) would suffice for emergency vehicle access to the Bay Trail, and provide for greater separation between the residences and the Bay Trail on both the west and east ends of the property.
I find the significant lack of open space lost from the previously approved design and the proposed modifications unfortunate.
The previous plan benefited from parking podiums and taller buildings which improved greatly the amount of open space throughout the development.
Perhaps the compactness of the modified plan makes the Wharf Park necessary for the use of the residences of the development.
If so, the Terminal One HOA should pay all the maintenance costs for the Wharf Park after construction.
Thanks to the city staff as well as all of you for your thoughtful consideration of this project.
From: Feney Matthews
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: comments on agenda item Z.2 december 6 Latitude/Terminal 1 Date: Tuesday, December 6, 2022 9:20:26 AM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
The Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Planned Area Plan, Major Design Review, and Vesting Tentative Map are incomplete and can not be approved by the City Council. For example:
The Addendum to EIR does not yet address the effect of and mitigation needed for the large amount of fill (43,500 cubic yards) brought onto the site, including the dust, dirt and noise generated
The Addendum does not yet address the effect of and mitigation needed for the number of heavy truck trips to bring fill to the site, the damage to Brickyard Cove that will result, who, and in what proportions, will be responsible for cost of rebuilding/repairing the road. Nor does it yet address the cumulative effects of having two additional concurrent projects (PG&E and Quarry site), including, among other things, the fill needed for each and transport of same to each site.
As neighbors in Brickyard Cove, we strongly urge that you:
Remand the project back to the DRB for a full review and recommendation of the Planned Area Plan Amendment using Planned Area criteria set forth in RMC
15.04.810.040, and to the PC for a full unrestricted re-review and recommendation, including but not limited to the financial feasibility of the previous project and whether revisions can be made to the revised project to bring it to the level of a “superior” design;
Return the project to the City Council for further action when, and only when, the fully informed reviews and recommendations by the DRB and the PC (with public participation) have been made to the Council and the public.
Thank you,
Kathleen Matthews and Robin Baker
1300 Quarry Ct #415
Richmond 94801
From: Mary Kat
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Agenda Item Z2 Latitude Residential Project
Date: Tuesday, December 6, 2022 9:19:43 AM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Hello,
I am a resident of El Cerrito but spend much quality time in Point Richmond. I love to swim at Keller Cove and both of my kids sail at the Richmond Yacht Club. The shoreline near the yacht club is a beautiful and precious resource. The current project proposal is short sighted and would not enhance or do justice to the area. Building so many units squished in together would cause traffic problems considering the limited access on a small and poorly maintained road.
It would be better to have lower density housing and a cafe, restaurant, bakery - retail to enhance the already existing housing and could let residents walk rather than drive to get food. Or maybe a community center or a library?
Thanks for your consideration,
Mary K Johansson
Sent from my iPad
From: Mike Borgerding
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Agenda Item Z2 Latitude Residential Project
Date: Tuesday, December 6, 2022 10:12:47 AM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
As a member of the Richmond yacht Club, I am concerned that the guest parking spaces in the Latitude Residential Project are inadequate. If the guest parking is not increased, safety issues will occur.
Currently there are many weekends where the yacht club parking lot is full, and cars are parked on the street. With the addition of the new homes, the visitor level will increase on weekends, as this is an attractive location for recreation. More cars will be parked on the streets, and with the added traffic flow, will increase the risk of accidents, as well as vandalism.
I urge the City Council to require the developer to add additional guest parking spaces before approving the development plan.
Sincerely,
Michael Borgerding
459 Sunhill Lane
Martinez, CA 94553
From: Michael Josselyn
To: City Clerk Dept User
Cc: Nat Bates; Andrew Butt
Subject: Public Comment_Agenda Item Z2 Latitude Residential Project (Terminal One) Date: Tuesday, December 6, 2022 11:48:39 AM
Attachments: Public Comment Agenda Item Z2 Latitude Residential Project (Terminal One).pdf This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Please find attached the Richmond Yacht Club's public comment on the proposed project.
351 Brickyard Cove Road Pt Richmond, CA 94807
December 6, 2022
City Council
City of Richmond
450 Civic Center Plaza, 2nd Floor,
Richmond, CA 94804
Via email [email protected]
RE: Agenda Item Z2 Latitude Residential Project
Dear Mayor Butt and City Council Members
The Richmond Yacht Club shares the longest property boundary with the proposed project and has a direct interest in the impact of the project on the Club’s facilities and the quality of the experience of its members while at the Club. With over 600 family memberships (many of whom are Richmond residents), the Club has served its membership and the greater Richmond community at its current location since 1966 through its programs that promote safe and inclusive sailing on San Francisco Bay. The Club has submitted three previous letters with detailed comments to the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission. In addition, representatives for the project have met with the Club to discuss areas of mutual interest.
The Club believes that the project can be improved in ways that will benefit both parties . The Club does not support an increase in the density of the project as suggested by the P lanning Commission as we believe that will have greater impacts on parking, project massing along our property boundary, and reduced public access on the waterfront.
Should the Council decide to adopt the first resolution recommended by Staff, we request the following conditions:
• Modify Condition 44 to allow a single six foot tall solid wood fence between the Richmond Yacht Club’s West Lot and the Latitude Residential Project on a shared retaining wall. There is currently an inconsistency with the City approved CUP for the West Lot that allows for a solid six foot wood fence for security but Condition 44 requires the Latitude Residential project to construct a shortened four foot fence with open structure on the top. The result of this Condition as currently written is that along the property boundary, two different fences will face one another three feet apart, at the same elevation, separated by a drainage ditch. The City has already determined that the type of fence to be installed by the Club is consistent with the neighborhood and would provide the security desired by the Club. There are no views of the Bay along this portion of the proposed Bay Trail—just the future dry boat storage and the existing Club’s parking lot. The two parties agree that a mutual solution would be beneficial. The Club has no objection to the open fencing along the rest of the Bay Trail.
• Modify Condition 72 to allow flexibility in the width of the Bay trail to a ssure that access is provided to maintain the lockers on the property boundary where a retai ning wall is to be built.
2 The entire distance of this boundary is 500 ft. The applicant has stated that they oppose the three foot distance as required by the Design Review Board. They have stated that the added width of the Bay Trail in this location makes this very difficult. We believe that the expanded width of the Bay Trail in this location can be reduced slightly to allow for the access to be provided if it is determined to be needed.
• Add a condition to install a stop sign at the northeast exit or pedestrian crossing signal for the Bay Trail at BCR. Many of the club members walk the Bay Trail and we have requested that there be a stop sign at the northeastern exit to BCR or a pedestrian crossing signal so that cars exiting the development will take time to observe traffic carefully and protect pedestrians who are crossing the Bay Trail at this location. In addition, our entrance is very close to this intersection and it is difficult to see traffic exiting from the proposed project intersection.
• Add a condition to not provide an height exemption for an optional covered staircase and roof top balcony on the southern-most three story units bordering the Club property. The project will bring homes closer to the property boundary, increase the density of buildings adjacent to the property, and in waterfront portion will raise the height of the residential buildings from the permitted 35 ft elevation to up to 42 feet on top of a 5- 6 foot fill for sea level rise mitigation .
These changes will have adverse impacts to the Club that wer e not occurring with the previous design. The Board is particularly concerned with those residences that border the Club boundary adjoining the existing lockers along the southeastern edge . The massing of these buildings is substantially different than the original proposed development of lower single family homes in that would have been buffered by a perimeter road.
• Add a condition to require the project to install signs along the portion of the BCR that fronts the Club to state no overnight parking allowed. The Club is concerned that the project will not provide sufficient parking within its property and overflow long term parking will occur along numerous portions of BCR including in front of and within the Club property. Roadside parking is important to the Club for large events open to members and the public.
Fill will be used to raise the elevation of the project site and it is proposed that the fill will be brought to the site by truck . This has the potential to significantly damage BCR which is used as access to the Richmond Yacht Club as well as increase construction traffic. We believe that the applicant should study other options to deliver fill to the site, including by barge, and to provide an analysis of these alternatives to the City. Should it be determined that the only feasible method is by truck, the Club supports Condition 56 that the applicant be responsible for any reconstruction, repairs, and repainting of Brickyard Cove Road or its underlying infrastructure along its entire length that results from its use for bringing fill to the site.
Finally, the Board strongly suppor ts the requirement that the clean -up of the property be completed in accordance with the requirements of the responsible federal and state agencies and that such clean-up will assure that any soil contamination not be spread by fugitive dust and VOC emissi ons during construction and that any groundwater contamination not be direct ed towards the Bay or the Club property.
Sincerely yours,
Rich Deveau
Commodore
cc. Nate Bates, Council District 2; Andrew Butt, Council Member Elect From: Tim Knowles
To: City Clerk Dept User
Cc: Tom Butt - external; [email protected]; Nat Bates; Claudia Jimenez; Eduardo Martinez; Melvin Willis; [email protected]; Lina Velasco Subject: Public Comment re Agenda Item #Z.2 - Richmond City Council 12-6-12 meeting Date: Tuesday, December 6, 2022 11:10:13 AM
Attachments: Public Comment re Richmond City Council 12-6-12 meeting Agenda Item Z.2 - TCK.pdf This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Dear City Clerk,
Attached herewith, and copied in this message below, is my Public Comment for consideration by the City Council on Agenda Item #Z.2 at its meeting tonight. Thank you for providing it to the Council in a timely fashion for their review.
Thomas C. Knowles
Thomas C. Knowles
625 Western Drive
Point Richmond, CA 94801
December 6, 2022
Office of the City Clerk
City of Richmond
450 Civic Center Plaza, 3
rd Floor
Richmond, CA 94804
Via email to [email protected]
Re: Public Comment re Richmond City Council December 6, 2022 meeting Agenda Item Z.2 - Latitude Residential Subdivision (formally Terminal One Residential Project)
Dear City Council,
Summary: Because of the absence of critical information for consideration by the Design Review Board, the Planning Commission, the City Council, and the public, and the prevention of a significant component of the process of the DRB to evaluate the Latitude Residential Subdivision, this project cannot be considered sufficiently ready for a meaningful and informed decision using any of the options for City Council resolution proposed by City Staff.
None of those optional choices for City Council action on this item are appropriate.
Proposed action: The City Council should instead adopt an Option 4, to wit:
· Table any further City Council action on approving any aspect of this project; · Direct that all critical information for an informed review and evaluation of the project be made available to the public, the DRB and the PC; · Remand the project back to the DRB for a full review and recommendation of the Planned Area Plan Amendment using Planned Area criteria set forth in RMC
15.04.810.040, and to the PC for a full unrestricted re-review and recommendation, including but not limited to the financial feasibility of the previous project and whether revisions can be made to the revised project to bring it to the level of a “superior” design;
· Return the project to the City Council for further action when, and only when, the fully informed reviews and recommendations by the DRB and the PC (with public participation) have been made to the Council and the public.
Discussion:
Information critical to the process of evaluating LRS project by the DRB, the PC, the City and the public is still unavailable, including but not limited to the following examples:
· The Addendum to EIR does not yet address the effect of and mitigation needed for the large amount of fill (43,500 cubic yards) brought onto the site, including the dust, dirt and noise generated
· The Addendum does not yet address the effect of and mitigation needed for the number of heavy truck trips to bring fill to the site, the damage to Brickyard Cove that will result, who, and in what proportions, will be responsible for cost of rebuilding/repairing the road. Nor does it yet address the cumulative effects of having two additional concurrent projects (PG&E and Quarry site), including, among other things, the fill needed for each and transport of same to each site. (Note: The Staff Report of the 11/22 City Council meeting on the then Agenda Item Q.3 stated that “The Terminal 1 Project along with other development projects in the area will bring construction traffic, and truck traffic related to the import/export of soils. That is being analyzed and addressed through the development and CEQA process.” In other words, it is not complete.)
· The Addendum does not a contain a discussion of the contaminants discharging to the Bay or the ongoing groundwater sampling data, nor any discussion of the Water Board’s requirement that most of the storm water must be collected and treated offsite. · There are no maps showing the Shoreline Overlay District border on the current plan to specifically identify the encroaching structures, nor is there any detail as to why almost half of the conditions of approval are only “conditionally” satisfied. · According to the discussion of Agenda Item Q.3 at the City Council meeting on November 22, 2022, the economic analysis that led to the conclusion that the original project (Terminal One Residential Project) is not economically feasible whereas the revised LRS project is, has not been made available to the DRB, the PC, or the public, thereby excluding each from themselves a) evaluating the information leading to this pivotal decision and b) having it available to consider revisions to the LRS project that might make the design better for all of its purposes while still preserving its economic viability for the developer.
· Various Vesting Tentative Map and infrastructure questions are still unanswered or incompletely answered including but not limited to drainage calculations and maps, calculations taking into account the Water Board requirements noted above, how runoff to the adjacent Richmond Yacht Club property is prevented/mitigated, the location for the new street pump station, and any easements for this and the Bay Trail over EBRP property.
The foregoing is not an all-inclusive list but should be sufficient to show that this project as a whole, the Addendum to the EIR, the Vesting Tentative Map (VTM), and the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) seeking to justify the encroachment into the Shoreline Overlay District have not reached the state of completion or detail the City Council should have to make an informed decision.
At its meeting on November 21, 2022, the PC unanimously voted to recommend denial of approval of the Major Amendment to the Planned Area Plan (PAP) and VTM. Although the discussion was more broadly disapproving of the project, upon a request by Staff to select certain findings with which the Commission could not agree, the Commission found that with respect to the VTM, the site was not physically suitable for the type of development and the proposed density of the development. With respect to a finding concerning the Major Amendment to the PAP, the Commission could not accept the finding, required for approval, that “The proposed development is demonstrably superior to the development that could occur under the standards applicable to the underlying base district.…”
During its discussion of this project at its meeting on November 22, 2022, it was noted several times that no one, no Council member, no Staff member, not the City Attorney, (and no member of the public making comments on the project as a whole) stated that he or she felt the project was a good design, one that the City and the community could be proud of. Instead, there was general acknowledgement that the were many issues, mostly raised by the public, that needed to be addressed. This need for further review and response to those issues is acknowledged by the existence of both the second and third proposed choices for a resolution for Council adoption, but as will be discussed below, neither option 1 nor 2 should be utilized.
Option 1 should not be utilized because not only will it certify the Addendum to EIR which is incomplete and not ready for such action, it would, by approving the Major Amendment to the PAP, the VTM, and the CUP, eliminate further review, discussion and remediation of the acknowledged issues and problems with the design of the project.
Option 2 should not be utilized because it would still have the Council approving the Addendum to EIR which is presently incomplete in its omission of address to certain key issues, some of which are referenced above. While this option acknowledges the Commission’s recommendation concerning the Major Amendment to the PAP and on the VTM by denying approval of them, albeit without prejudice, it proposes no action to address the concerns that led to the Commission’s recommendation.
While Option 3 would REMAND the project back to the PC, it does so in a manner that suggests that the review be narrowly focused to the questions of financial feasibility and superiority of design. As such, it prevents what should be done, namely a full review by the PC and
the DRB, and the public by its participation at all levels of the process.
Option 4, proposed above, is the proper choice. The review by the PC should encompass everything that was within its original scope, but with complete information available to it, such as a proper, complete Amended EIR which addresses not only the as yet unaddressed issues with the LRS project, but also the cumulative effect of the other two concurrent projects. It should have all questions raised by the VTM answered. It should, as is suggested by option 3, have access to the full financial analysis by the City’s economic consultant, and all foundational documents, including those suppled by the developer, so that it can, among other things, evaluate whether such revisions to the design that it finds advisable can be done without impairing the economic feasibility of the project. (The public should have these documents as well in order to be able to participate in the process as contemplated by the Brown Act.)
A PAP, and likewise a Major Amendment to same, “…is subject to Major Design Review under Article 15.04.805 (Design Review), which shall occur prior to PC action on a Planned Area Plan.) (RMC 15.810.030). The DRB has consistently been conducting such reviews on other projects, including the present Quarry Project, utilizing the listing of Required Findings set forth in RMC 15.04.810.040 as the guiding criteria. In fact, the DRB was requested and did analyze the design of the previous iteration of this same project, i.e., the Terminal One Residential Project using those criteria, with focus on, among other things, the need for the PAP to result in a “superior” design in comparison with a development under the base zoning district regulations that would apply if the PAP were not approved. However, such a review by the DRB was prevented by the City Attorney for the DRB evaluation of this revised LRS project. The inconsistency in practice should not be allowed. The DRB should be permitted to do a full review of the Major Amendment to the PAP for this project, and it should be done with full access to the same information as that which the PC should have for its own re- evaluation.
The considered, fully informed re-review by the DRB, the PC, and ultimately the City Council when the project is brought back for Council action should not, according to the presentation may by the City Attorney at the November 22, 2022, Council meeting, in any way jeopardize the amendment and execution of the Land Disposition Agreement. In his initial presentation, and in direct response to a question from Council Member McLaughlin (meeting transcript:
20:12: 16 to 20:13:50), the City Attorney assured the Council that by authorizing him and staff to proceed with negotiating amendments to the LDA and getting it executed, the provisions of the agreement would preserve the Council’s right not only to ultimately approve, disapprove, or modify the project, but also to send it back for further review by the PC (and thus also the public) should that be desired by the Council, even if the process took some months. There is no reason not to proceed in accordance with option 4, and abundant reasons to do so.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Thomas C. Knowles
Thomas C. Knowles
CC (via email):
Thomas K Butt, Mayor
Demnius Johnson III, Councilmember at Large
Nathaniel Bates, Councilmember at Large
Claudia Jimenez, Councilmember District 6
Eduardo Martinez, Vice Mayor at Large
Melvin Willis, Councilmember District 1
Gayle McLaughlin, Councilmember District 5
Lina Velasco, Director of Community Development
From: Yvonne McHugh
To: City Clerk Dept User
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: 1) Public comments - Agenda Item #Z.2 Richmond City Council Meeting December 6, 2022 Date: Tuesday, December 6, 2022 11:53:01 AM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
To: The Richmond City Council
From: Yvonne McHugh and Anthony Brake, 12-year residents of Brickyard Landing, Pt.
Richmond/Richmond CA
Dear Council Members,
The Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Planned Area Plan, Major Design Review, and Vesting Tentative Map are incomplete and therefore cannot be approved by the City Council.
The following are just some of the issues facing this project.
The Addendum to EIR does not yet address the effect of and mitigation needed for the large amount of fill (43,500 cubic yards) brought onto the site, including the dust, dirt and noise generated.
The Addendum does not yet address the effect of, and mitigation needed for the number of heavy truck trips to bring fill to the site, the damage to Brickyard Cove that will result, who, and in what proportions, will be responsible for cost of rebuilding/repairing the road. Nor does it yet address the cumulative effects of having two additional concurrent projects (PG&E and Quarry site), including, among other things, the fill needed for each and transport of same to each site. (Note: The Staff Report of the 11/22 City Council meeting on the then Agenda Item Q.3 stated that “The Terminal 1 Project along with other development projects in the area will bring construction traffic, and truck traffic related to the import/export of soils. That is being analyzed and addressed through the development and CEQA process.” In other words, it is not complete.) The Addendum does not a contain a discussion of the contaminants discharging to the Bay or the ongoing groundwater sampling data, nor any discussion of the Water Board’s requirement that most of the storm water must be collected and treated offsite.
There are no maps showing the Shoreline Overlay District border on the current plan to specifically identify the encroaching structures, nor is there any detail as to why almost half of the conditions of approval are only “conditionally” satisfied.
According to the discussion of Agenda Item Q.3 at the City Council meeting on November 22, 2022, the economic analysis that led to the conclusion that the original project (Terminal One Residential Project) is not economically feasible whereas the revised Latitude Residential Subdivision (LRS) project is, has not been made available to the DRB, the PC, or the public, thereby excluding each from themselves a) evaluating the information leading to this pivotal decision ; and b) having it available to consider revisions to the LRS project that might make the design better for all of its purposes while still preserving its economic viability for the developer.
Various Vesting Tentative Map and infrastructure questions are still unanswered or incompletely answered including but not limited to drainage calculations and maps, calculations taking into account the Water Board requirements noted above, how runoff to the adjacent Richmond Yacht Club property is prevented/mitigated, the location for the new street pump station, and any easements for this and the Bay Trail over EBRP property.
Below are the actions we request for the City Council to take:
Table any further City Council action on approving any aspect of this project; Direct that all critical information for an informed review and evaluation of the project be made available to the public, the DRB and the PC;
Remand the project back to the DRB for a full review and recommendation of the Planned Area Plan Amendment using Planned Area criteria set forth in RMC
15.04.810.040, and to the PC for a full unrestricted re-review and recommendation, including but not limited to the financial feasibility of the previous project and whether revisions can be made to the revised project to bring it to the level of a “superior” design;
Return the project to the City Council for further action when, and only when, the fully informed reviews and recommendations by the DRB and the PC (with public participation) have been made to the Council and the public.
Sincerely yours,
Yvonne McHugh, Ph.D.
Anthony Brake, Ph.D.
Brickyard Landing
Pt. Richmond/Richmond CA