Richmond City Council
April 19, 2022

^City of Richmond
Sole Source Justification

THIS FORM MUST BE COMPLETED AND APPROVED PMOR TO ANY PURCHASE Contact the Purchasing Division and discuss your rationale before completing this form. If Purchasing can help you make this a competitive purchase, th en this form will not be required.

Attach this completed/approved form to requisitions when competitive quotes/bids/proposals are not solicited. (Required for requisitions > $3,000)
Requested Sole Source Supplier:

Company Name: COWI North America, Inc. _ Contact Name: Ted Trenkwalder, PE, SE Address: 555 12th Street, Suite 1700
City: Oaklamj _ State: ^A_Zip Code: 94607
Phone Number f 51 ° ) 839-8972 E-Mail twt@cowi .corn
Duration of Contract: April 2022 - December 2023
Estimated Cost: $ $251,160 _ Funding Source (Account String) scc Grant <see attachsd) Is the product/service IT related? Yes_No x _ If Yes, please attach the approved IT Authorization Form For Product: Is the recommended company the manufacturer of the product? Yes_ No x For Product: Does the manufacturer sell the item(s) through distributors? Yes_ No Description ofProdyct pr Service:

Describe the full scope of work or service contemplated including installation if required; items should include brand, model and part number if applicable; (if additional space is needed, include them in a separate page) COWI, licensed engineers, will assist the City in preparing final plans, and technical specifications for the proposed wharf removal and shoreline improvement activities shown on the 60% plans. The scope includes a Bathymetric survey at the project, per project limits shown on the existing 60% plans, and a Topographic survey of the site using drone-based LiDAR point acquisition method to update visual information (photos, ortho-photo, etc.) in the Construction Documents. COWI will also prepare the technical specifications and schedule for the construction bid documents and provide support during the bid.

Sole Source Rationale: PLEASE ANSWER ALL THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: Explain why the recommended company is the only company that can meet the requirement. Address the following: Are there any other companies who can do this job? Wliat condition (e.g. technological superiority, or performance risks, etc.) exists so that the recommended company has a significant advantage over any other company who can do this job? It is important to sufficiently address the'key reason for awarding an order/contract without soliciting competitive bids. The rational must be clear and convincing, avoiding generalities and unsupported conclusions.

COWI is the licensed engineers that prepared the current 60% design drawings, which the various .agency permits obtained to do work in the Bay, were issued on. In order to carry out the project, the city needs to complete final construction documents for bidding. COWI was part of the team selected via a competitive bklding process by the State Coastal Conservancy back in 2017. The scope of work is to complete the construction/bid documents for the project for competitive bidding .

Therefore, since this is a continuation of work COWI started, it is necessary for COWI to complete. ft f additional space is needed, include them in a separate page) Page | 1 Sole Source Form - Rev. May 12, 2016
Complete the following checklist
A specific contractor is the only source of the required item because (check all that apply):

The required items are proprietary to the Contractor, and contractor solely transacts (sells) direct to the customer. (There are no dealers or distributors for contractor).

The required items are proprietary to the Contractor, and contractor does not sell direct to the customer. Contractor solely distributes the item or service through only one dealer or distributor in the United States. (There are no dealers or distributors for contractor).

Note: If item or service is available from more than one source, the item or service may be treated as proprietary, but must be competitively solicited from multiple (two or more) sources, A specific item is needed:

To be compatible or interchangeable with existing hardware As spare or replacement hardware I_I For the repair or modification of existing hardware Federal or state grant names vendor as condition of funding. (Attach copy of grant that names vendor)
There is a substantial risk in contracting with any other contractor, (e.g., only one contractor has been successful to date in implementing a difficult manufacturing process or the services sought). In a brief explanation, provide supporting evidence of why other contractors are considered to be unable to overcome the substantial risk.

COWI is the licensed engineering firm that prepared the current 60% design drawings, which the various agency permits obtained to do work in the Bay, were issued on. In order to carry out the project, the city needs to complete final construction documents for bidding. Many engineers will not complete the work began by other engineers due to the risk they run on their licenses; therefore, since this is a continuation of work COWI started, it is necessary for COWI to complete.

The city has already obtained various grant for this project and runs the risk of not being able to carry out the work within the project period without the engineered drawings to bid.

Continuation of prior Work - Additional item, service or work required, But not known to have been needed when the original order was placed with vendor, and it is not feasible or practicable to contract separately for the additional need. Provide brief explanation and supporting evidence.

COWI was engineers that developed the current 60% design documents under contract with the State Coastal Conservancy, who issues. a Request for Services in August 2017. COWI was retained as the engineer of record for the project as part of the ESA team that was selected via a competitive procurement process. Five proposals (Ducks Unlimited, Dudek, Ten-aphase, TRC, and ESA) were received, reviewed and ranked based on their experience and skills related to the project. SCC staff interviewed the "three top ranked proposal teams- Ducks Unlimited, Terraphase, and ESA. The ESA team was ranked as the top candidate for selection after the interviews. ESA and their sub-consultant COWI had all of the required experience, including past similar work on creating design plans and specs for creosote wharf demolition, developing habitat protection and enhancement plans for intertidal and subtidal habitats, and preparing CEQA and permit application materials. The required CEQA document for the project was adopted by the SCC in November 2020 and by the City in March 2021. Under ESA's-eontract, COWI completed the 60% design and specs in June 2019, and staff is seeking proposing to continue the engineer drawings COWI started to complete for the final construction and bid specifications for this project. (if additional space is needed, include them in a separate page) 2 I Page
I acknowledge the City's requirements for soliciting competitive quotes/bids for purchases over $3,000.00 and the criteria for justification for Sole Source purchases. I have gathered the required information, have mad& a concerted effort to review comparable/equal equipment/services (e.g., market research), and further affirm that there is no conflict of interest involved in the selection made.

Department: Public Works
Requester Name and Title: Joe Leach
Note: Requester must be able to defend this justification.

Date: 04/07/2022 Phone: 510-620-5478
Department Director (Print) Director of public worksDigitally af^fim-^Wf^ n». „,- I^ArA'A'lhirh nd-ih.'rfBlrhm,
1VTteacti35iEZemaif=joeJeach@>ci.richmond.ca.us,c=U:=joejeach@>ci.rict Date: 2022.04.07 11:07:11 -07'GO'
Submit completed form to the Purchasing Division (Prior to submission to City Manager) Finance Director:

APPROVED: - . . DATE: / /
NOT APPROVED: COMMENTS:

City Manager City Clerk Attesting to Council Approval-
(Under $ 10,0-00.00) (Over $ 10,000.00) (Copy of Minutes may be substituted) Note: Richmond Municipal Code Section 2.52.326 Sole Source Procurement requires final approval by the City Manager and/or City Council. Sole Soarce mustbe approved by Finance Director, PRIOR to Council Approval.

PROCEDURE
Sole Source purchase/service are exceptions to the normal bidding process and require a detailed justification. In processing Sole Source requests for supplies, services apid/or equipment, the Purchasing Division adheres to and is governed by the principles set forth in City of Richmond Municipal Code Section 2.52.326'Sole Source Procurement.

If you are requesting a particular vendor, brand or product, you must make this fact clear on your Sole Source form.

Your request will then be restrictive and non-competitive, and will fall into a sole source category. If the sole source justification is approved, the requisition can be expedited without the normal bidding requirements.

Such a request should not be made unless you are confident that your request is reasonable and appropriately justified-to meet the City's requirements and withstand any possible audit. The City's requirements and the format for submitting such requests are contained herein. Sole Source form must be signed by authorized department representative(s). The certification will remain on file for audit purposes.

The following factors DO NOT apply to sole source requests and should not be included in your sole source justification. They will not be considered and only tend to confuse the evaluation process.

1. Personal preference for product or vendor.

2. Cost, vendor performance, and local service (these are generally considered award factors in competitive bidding).

3. Features which exceed the minimum department requirements. 3 I Page
RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA, March 16,2021
The Richmond City Council Evening Open Session was
called to order at 4:30 p.m. by Mayor Thomas K. Butt via teleconference.

Due to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, Contra
Cosla County and Governor Gavin Newsom issued multiple orders requiring sheltering in place, social distancing, and reduction of person-to-person contact. Accordingly, Governor Gavin Newsom issued executive orders thai allowed cities to hold public meetings via teieconferencing (Executive Order N-29-20).

DUE TO THE SHELTER IN PLACE ORDERS, attendance
at the City of Richmond City Council meeting was limited to Councilmembers, essential City of Richmond staff, and members of the news media. Public comment was confined to items appearing on the agenda and was limited to the methods provided below.

Consistent with Executive Order N-29-20, this meeting utilized teleconferencing only. The following provides information on how the public participated in the meeting.

The public was able to view rhe meeting from home on KCRT Comcast Channel 28 or AT&T Uverse Channel 99 and liveslream online at http: //www. ci. richmond. eg. us/3178/KCRT-Live.

Written public comments were received via email to
cify'clerkdept(a),ci. richmond. ca. us. Comments received by 1:00 p.m. on March 16, 2021, were summarized at the meeting, put into the record, and considered. before Council action. Comments received via email after 1:00 p.m. and up until 1 he public comment period on the relevant agenda item closed, were put info the record. Public comments were also received via teleconference during the meeting. Attached herewith all written public comments received.

ROLL CALL

Present: Councilmembers Nathaniel Bates, Eduardo Martinez, Gayle McLaughlin, Vice Mayor Demnlus Johnson III, and Mayor Thomas K. Butt. Absent: Councilmember Claudia Jimenez, and Melvin Willis arrived after the roll was called.

PUBLIC COMMENT
The city clerk announced the public comment procedures
and that the .purpose of the Open Session was for the City Council to hear public comments on the following items to be discussed m Closed Session:

CITY COUNCIL

CONFERENCE WTTH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING
LITIGATION (paragraph (1) of Subdivision [d] of Government Code Section 54956.9): '
SPRAWDEF et al. vs. City of Richmond
Point Molate Alliance et al. vs. City of Richmond
North Coast Rivers Alliance et al. vs. City of Richmond Michael Wang vs. the City of Richmond
ccl6Mar2021

ud/prc

CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
(Government Code Section 54957.6):

Agency Representatives: Jack Hughes
Employee organizations:

1. SEIU Local 1021 Full-Time Unit

2. SEIU Local 1021 Part-Time Unit

3. IFPTE Local 21 Mid-Level Management Unit

4. IFPTE Local 21 Executive Management Unit

5. Richmond Police Officers Association RPOA

6. Richmond Police Management Association RPMA

7.IAFFLocall88

8. RichmondTire Management Association RFMA
The following individuals-gave comments via
teleconference:

Pam Stello stated that the proposed Point Molate project should be stopped because it would put the city m financial risk and destroy plants and wildlife on the site.

Deborah Bayer urged the city council not to fight the
lawsuit against the Shopoff development, and to work with the community to reassess the-safety of the site.

Jeanne Kortz stated the city should not move forward with either the Astra Zeneca or the Point Molate projects due to the detrimental impacts to health and safety.

The Open Session adjourned to Closed Session at 4:49 p.m.

Closed Session adjourned at 7:10 p.m.

The Regular Meeting of the Richmond City Council was
called to order at 7:18 p.m. by Mayor Butt via teleconference.

ROLL CALL

Present: Councilmembers Bates, Jimenez, Martinez, McLaughlin, Willis, Vice Mayor Johnson III, and Mayor Butt. Absent:. None.

STATEMENT OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
City Clerk Pamela Christian and City Attorney Teresa
Stricker, stated conflict of interest on Item 1-1 and recused themselves from discussion on the item.

AGENDA REVIEW
Item G-5 was removed from the Consent Calendar for
discussion at the end of the agenda. Item 1-4 was continued to the March 23, 2021, City Council meeting. A motion by
Counciknember Bates, seconded by Councilmember Martinez to, place an emergency item on the agenda regarding a Disc Golf Program at Hilltop Lake Park, to be heard directly after approval of the Consent Calendar, passed by the following vote: Ayes:

Councilmembers Bates, Jimenez, Martinez, McLaughlin, Willis, and Vice Mayor Johnson III. Noes: Mayor Butt. Absent: None.

Abstain: None.

The city clerk announced the public comment procedures
published on the agenda.
ccl6Mar2021

ud/prc

REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY ON FINAL

DECISIONS MADE DURING CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney Theresa Stricker stated there were no final actions to report.

REPORT FROM THE CITY MANAGER
City Manager Laura Snideman introduced Congressman
Mark DeSaulnier, who provided an update on several matters pertinent to Richmond, which highlighted the following: CO VID-19 Rescue bill; Richmond would receive approximately $21 million; Fossil Fuel footprint transition to renewable energy; and the Infrastructure bill. City Manager Snideman stated the City of Richmond would receive approximately $20.8 million as part of the COVID-19 Rescue Bill. The first half was anticipated to be received approximately July 2021. Ms. Snideman reported that the Nevin Plaza building had no hot water over a weekend and Facilities Supervisor Jose Urquilla drove to Patterson to pick up the part so the residents were not without water over the weekend. Ms.

Snideman also reported that Richmond fire personnel Captain Kennedy and Firefighters Shawn McComb and Chris Silvas assisted in the deliv-ery of a breached baby.

OPEN FORUM FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
The following mdividuals gave comments-via teleconference:

Deborah Bayer and Tamel Abbott gave comments against
development at the Astra Zeneca site due to hazardous materials at the site.

Andres Soto reported that the Bay Area Air Quality District approved a stronger emissions standard for catalytic cracker units at bay area refineries.

Everth Fuentes gave comments regarding tfae lack of outreach regarding the proposed Recreational Vehicle Park at Civic Center.

Leisa Johnson gave comments regarding Measure U and the possibility that the measure may need to be reviewed and revised.

Doria Bueller thanked Counciknember McLaughlin and
KCRT for the ability to view Zoom Panelists and Attendees on the Zoom screen. Ms. Bueller also stated that the planned project at the Zeneca site should be reversed.

Ben Therriault gave comments regarding issues with current Contra Costa County SherriffLivingston and announced that he would run as County Sheriff in 2022.

Rob Smith expressed concern over a move to usage of
renewable fuels and how the city plans to replace funds currently provided by Chevron to the city.
ccl6Mar2021

ud/prc

CITY COUNCIL CONSENT CALENDAR
On motion of Vice Mayor Johnson III, seconded by
Councilmember Willis, the items marked with an (*) were approved by the unanimous vote of the City Council.
*G-1. Approved (1) a first amendment to an existing legal service agreement with Atohison, Barisone & Condotti for $255,000, for a total contract amount of $265,000, for interim assistant city attorney services and (2) an additional appropriation of $125,000 from the general fund to pay a portion of this first amendment for interim assistant city attorney legal services.

G-2. Adopted Resolution No. 26-21, for the appointment of three standby officers for each member of the City Council in the event of an enemy attack, state of emergency or local emergency.
*G-3. Approved the minutes of the February 16, 2021, Regular Meeting of the City Council.
*G-4. Approved an appointment to the Commission on
Aging: appointed Rina Baker, new appointment, seat # 1, filling an unexpired terrrLwith an expiration date May 19, 2023.

G-5. Continued the matter te approve appointments for
the Mayor and Councilmembers to Regional Committees, Ad-Hoc Committees and Liaison Positions for the year of 2021 to March 23, 2021.
*G-6. Received the Veolia Monthly Operating Report for
the month of January 2021.
*G-7. Adopted Resolution No. 27-21, to adopt the Final
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; authorized the city manager or their designee to execute the necessary agreements with the State Coastal Conservancy to accept the $1,000,000 Priority Conservation Area grant for the constmction of a 1.25-mile segment of the San Francisco Bay Trail connecting Point-Molate Beach Park to the Winehaven Historic District; and appropriated the PCA grant, once awarded and funding agreement is executed.
*G-8. Approved a contract with Postmaster Services, Inc. to mitigate rodent infestation and cleaning of bird droppings to increase the appearance and safety at City-owned facilities in an amount not exceed $100,000 over a three year period.
*G-9. Approved a three-year contract in the amount of
$32,250 with an additional two-year extension option of $22,500 with SCI Consulting Group in an amount not to exceed $54,750 to prepare the Hilltop Assessment Districts Annual Engineer's Report necessary to levy assessments for the 2021-2024 fiscal years. The contract term for three years will be from March 21, 2021 to March-22, 2024.
*G-10. Approved a three-year contract in the amount of
$23,250 with an additional two-year extension option of $15,500 with Willdan Financial Services and Associates in an amount not to exceed $38,750 to prepare the Marina Assessment Districts Annual Engineer's Report necessary to levy assessments for the 2021-2024 fiscal years. The contract term for three years will be firom March 21, 2021, to March 22. 2024.
ccl6Mar2021

ud/prc
*G-11. Approved payment of three invoices that are past due to Sunbelt Rentals in an amount not to exceed $ 11,487.45 for rental of leader landscaper 4WD tractor.
*G-12. Adopted Resolution No. 28-21, approving Veolia
Water to manage and award contracts for the rehabilitation project of the Grit and Aeration Basin at the Richmond Wastewater Treatment Plant to Shimmick Construction Company, Inc.
(construction) in the amount of $42,106,488 (contractor cost of $33,773,000 plus a 16.5% Veolia mark-up $5,572,545), plus a

7.5% contingency of $2,760,943 ($2,532,975 plus a 9% Veolia mark-up of $227,968).
*G-13. Adopted Resolution No. 29-21, accepting the SRF
loan in the amount of $50,000,000 from the State Water Board, and appropriated $50,000,000 of the SRF loan revenues and associated expenditures by amending the FY 2020-21 Water Resource Recovery Division Budget.
*G-14. Approved a first amendment to a grant funded
contract between the City of Richmond and Greater Richmond Interfaith Program to enhance and increase food rescue and food waste prevention initiatives increasing the contract by $81,250 for a total amount not to exceed $291,250 with funding sourced from CalRecycle grant and extending the contract term to June 30, 2021. *G-15. Adopted Resolution No. 30-21, adopt the Final
MitigatecLNegative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Terminal 4 Wharf Removal Project; authorized the city manager or their designee to execute the necessary agreements with the State Coastal Conservancy to accept the total $4,150,000 in grant funds; and appropriated the grant funds, once awarded and funding agreement is executed.
*G-16. Approved a contract with Ralph Andersen &
Asseciates for $80,000 for executive recruitment services for a three-year period from March 16, 2021 to March 15, 2024. *G-17. Proclamation declaring March 2021 as Red Cross
Month in the City of Richmond.

EMERGENCY FTEM
Councilmembers Bates and Martinez gave an overview of the matter regarding the Disc Golf Program at Hilltop Lake Park. City Manager Snideman stated that the Hilltop neighborhood council approved the program and use of the park. All work had been stopped and-the matter would be considered at a Recreation and Parks Committee meeting on April 7, 2021, to be reviewed and determine a recommendation to the City Council. The following individuals gave comments via teleconference: Jack Hamm, Janet Hanwick, Jonathan Braidman, Leisa Johnson, Marlen, Scott Riley, Rose last name unknown, Rob Smith, Geofflast name unknown, Marisa Marquez, Alpha last name unknown, and Floy Andrews. The matter will return to the City Council at a future date after review by the Recreation and Parks Commission discussed it to determine if the disc park use would be allowed. A-process for any future park use approvals would also be developed.
ccl6Mar2021

ud/prc

PUBLIC HEARINGS
H-l. The matter to hold a public hearing to: (1) adopt a resolution repealing and replacing City Council Resolution 125-03 with revised City Guidelines and Procedures for the
Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and adopting the CCTA VMT Methodology for
application within Richmond to comply with California Senate Bill 743; and (2) introduce an ordinance (first reading) amending Article 15.04.612 Transportation Demand Management of the Richmond Municipal Code to align with the VMT methodology, to reflect current best practices, new-State law requirements, and emerging TDM options as encompassed in the new CCTA VMT methodology was presented by Planning Director Lina Velasco and Charlie Knox from Placeworks. Mayor Butt declared the public hearing open. Lori Lober gave comments via
teleconference. Mayor Butt closed the public hearing. A motion by Councilmember Willis, seconded by Vice Mayor Johnson III, adopted Resolution No. 31-21, and introduced first reading of the ordinance, by the unanimous vote of the City Council.

COUNCIL AS A WHOLE
1-1. The matter to approve a salary adjustment to the City Clerk effective March 2, 2021, from $11,092/month to
$12,201.20/month (a-10% increase) was presented by Human Resources Director, Anil Comelo. A motion by Councilmember Willis, secondad by Vice Mayor Johnson III, approved the item by the unanimous vote of the City Council.
(Items 1-2,1-3, and 1-4 were discussed together)
A motion made by Councilmember Jimenez, seconded by
Councilmember Martinez, to suspend the Council Rules of Procedure and Order, .and to hear Items 1-2,1-3, and 1-4 together, passed by the unanimous vote of the City Ceuncil.
1-2. Reconsider, after a two-thirds vote to suspend the Council Rules of Procedure and Order, the direction the City Council-gave on February 23, 2021, and direct the city manager to:
(1) authorize use of the $260,000 funding from the County before its June 30, 2021, expiration date and $300,000 ifrom the City Affordable Housing fund to contract with Housing Consortium of East Bay (HCBE); and (2) authorize the creation of an emergency ad hoc committee consisting of three City Council members. The ad hoc committee, with the support of City staff, and County Supervisor John Gioia and County staff would develop a long- term, sustainable, and well-funded plan for assisting unhoused residents of Richmond with County and City funds beyond the $560,000 obtained from the County and the Affordable Housing in lieu fund.
1-3. Discuss and provide direction to staff regarding the Safe Parking Program at the Civic Center parking lot on 25th Street and Barrett Avenue.
1-4. Revisit the Council's February 23,2021, action on
the Safe Parking Pilot Program as described in this report, rescind that action and take action as appropriate including, but not limited to, site selection from any of the sites from the February 2 or 23, 2021, Council meetings, use of funds, direction to staff to implement the Safe Parking Pilot Program, authorization for sole ccl6Mar2021

ud/prc
source contracts and execution of any contracts. Note that Council's action on other agenda items at this meeting may essentially have the same effect.

Councilmembers Jimenez and Martinez gave an overview
of the matter. Supervisor John Gioia and Contra Costa County Housing & Homeless Services Director Lavonna Martin provided a report regarding the matter. The report highlighted the following: The Civic Center location would be too small to accommodate the RV's located on Rydin Road and Castro Street; the proposal would be to use the approximately $500,000 in funding and provide more intense services to persons located on Rydin Road to address health, sanitation, and safety issues; the plan was to work with a housing navigator to manage the site and worfrwith the residents to identify more long-term, stable housing; the County shelters in North Richmond and the Bay Area Rescue Mission would reopen early this Summer; the lease with the Courtyard by Marriot was extended through June 30, 2022, and would accommodate 30 to 50 people each month; Contra Costa County also leased the hotel on Cutting and Canal Boulevard-for homeless individuals who tested positive for COVD3-19; and it was recommended to set up a working group with the City and County to develop a long-term strategy for housing.
(11:00 p.m. -A motion by Councilmember Jimenez,
seconded by Councilmember Martinez, extended the meeting until 11:30 p.m., by the following voterAyes: Councilmembers Bates, Jimenez, Martinez, McLaughlin, Willis, and Vice Mayor Johnson HI. Noes: Mayor Butt. Absent: None. Abstain: None).

The following individuals gave comments via
teleconference: Leisa Johnson, Ekongkar Singh, Alpa last name unknown, Venise Wagner, Tamel Abbott, Rob Smith, Cesar
Zepeda, Alyssa Smith, and Loma Murdock. A motion by
Councilmember Jimenez, seconded by Cbuncilmember Willis to approve the item, authorize 1he use of the $260,000 funding from the County and $300,000 from the City Affordable Housing fund to contract with Housing Consortium of East Bay; authorize the creation of an emergency ad hoc committee consisting of three City Council members. The ad hoc committee, with the supportof City staff, and County Supervisor John Gioia and County staff would develop a long-term, sustainable, and well-funded plan for assisting unhoused residents of Richmond with County and City funds beyond the $560,000 obtained from the County and the Affordable Housing in lieu fund. The ad hoc committee was directed to work directly with the Homeless Task Force and engage the community in the process in determinmg long term solutions. A friendly amendment was offered by -Councilmember McLaughlin to include the option to explore a safe parking program in a non-residential area. The friendly amendment was accepted. This motion cured and corrected the dispute regarding the action taken by the City Council at the February 23,2021, meeting. The motion passed by the following vote: Ayes:

Cduncilmembers Bates, Jimenez, Martinez, McLaughlm, Willis, and Vice Mayor Johnson III. Noes: Mayor Butt. Absent: None.

Abstain: None.
(At approximately 11:30 p.m., a motion by Vice Mayor
Johnson III, seconded by Councilmember Bates, to suspend the rules and extend the meeting to discuss item G-5 failed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Bates, McLaughlin, and ccl6Mar202I

ud/prc
Vice Mayor Johnson III. Noes: Councilmembers Jimenez,
Martinez, and Mayor Butt. Abstained: Councilmember Willis.

Absent: None.

REPORTS OF OFFICERS: REFERRALS TO STAFF, AND
GENERAL REPORTS (INCLUDING AB 1234 REPORTS)
None.

ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:32 p.m., to meet again on Tuesday, March 23, 2021, at 6:30 p.m.

Clerk of the City of Richmond
(SEAL)
Approved:

Mayor
ccl6Mar2021

ud/pre
RESOLUTION NO. 30-21

A RESOLUTION OF THE CYTV COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND,

CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE FINAL METIGATED NEGATFVE DECLARATION AND MTTIGATION MONFTORING AND REPORTmG PROGRAM, APPROVING

THE GRANT OF FUNDS FROM THE STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY, AND AUTHOMZmG THE CTTV MANAGER TO EXECUTE GRANT AGREEMENTS
WFTH THE STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCT FOR THE TERMINAL 4 WHARF

REMOVAL PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of California has established the State Coastal Conservancy ("Conservancy" or "SCC") under Division 21 of the California Public Resources Code, and has authorized the Conser/ancy to award grants to public agencies and nonprofit organizations to implement the provisions of Division 21,-and WHEREAS, the Conservancy awards grants for projects that it detemiines are consistent with Division 21 of the Public Resources Code and with the Conservancy's Strategic Plan and that best achieve the Conservancy's statutory objectives, in light of limited funding; and WHEREAS, City of Richmond ("applicant") has applied for or intends to apply for Conservancy grant funding for the Terminal 4 WharfRemoval Project (tfae "Project"); and WHEREAS, the Conservancy encourages applicants for grant funding to certify through, a resolution the applicant's acceptance of the grant awards and of certain listed assurances at the time of submission of an application to the Conservancy for an award of-grant funds, and to designate a named officer or employee to act as representative of the applicant; and WHEREAS, in March 2000, the SCC, as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), has prepared a mitigated negative declaration for tfae project titled the Tenminal pour Wharf, Warehouse, and Piling Removal Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND")^ The MND describes the proposed project and provides an assessment of the project's potendal sigaificant adverse impacts on the enviroament- The MND concludes that the proposed project will not have any significant effects on the environment after implementation of project design features, conservation measures, avoidance and miniraization and mitigation measures, and best management practices; and" WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 1 5085 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the State Coastal Conservancy submitted a Notice of Completion (NOC) for tfre proposed IS/MND to the California State Clearinghouse (SCH) on March 9, 2020. In accordance with Section 15105(b) CEQA Guidelines, the public review and comment period began on March 9, 2020 and ended on April 7, 2020;and
WHEREAS, on November 19, 2020, the SCC Board subsequently adopted the Final IS/MND (Exhibit A) and approved $3,000,000 in funding to the City of Richmond for the proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, the IS/MND included a Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program ("MMRP")(Exhibit B) which addresses the potential impacts of the proposed project. The IS/MND identified potential impacts in the areas of Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Noise, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Mandatory Findings of Significance, Mitigation measures were adopted to assure that these potential impacts are avoided or reduced to less-than-significant levels; and WHEREAS, on March 16, 2021, the Richmond City Council held a public meeting to consider adoption of the Final MND and acceptance of $4,150,000 of grant funds from the SCC for the proposed project.

Rero. No. 30-21

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, after hearing all interested persons and considering all relevant evidence, the Council finds and determines as follows:

1. The Project Final MND, consisting of the Final MND (Exhibit A), and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit B), have been completed in accordance witii the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs Section 15000et.seq);

2. The Final MND for the project was prepared, published, circulated and reviewed in accordance with tfae requirements ofCEQA, and the State CEQA Guidelines, and constitutes an adequate, accurate, objective, and complete MND in accordance with the requirement ofCEQA statues and the State CEQA Guidelines;

3. The Final MND for the project has been reviewed and found adequate by the City Council prior to authorizing the initiation of the bidding process for the work, and the Final MND reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City; and

4. The Initial Study for the Project identifies potentially significant effects on the environment; however, revisions to the Project and incorporation of the mitigation measures in the Project will reduce any and all significant adverse environmental impacts to a less-than-significant level. Tliere is no substantial evidence in the record that the resulting Project, in light of the whole record before the Council, will have a significant effect on the environment.

5. Authorizes any person holding any of the following positions with the applicant to act as a representative of the applicant and to negotiate and execute on behalf of the. grantee all agreements and instruments necessary to comply with the Conservancy s grant requirements, including, without limitation, the grant agreement: City Manager or their designee.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby adopt the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration, which consists of the Final MND and MMRP dated May 1, 2018; hereby accepts and appropriates the State Coastal Conser/aacy grant funds for the Project; and authorizes the City Manager, or their designee, to enter into the necessary funding agreements with the SCC or amendments thereto for the Project.

Exhibit A: Mitigated Negative Declaration
Exhibit B: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
It********************
Reso. No. 30-21

I certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting thereof held March 16, 2021, by the following vote:

AYES:

Approved:

THOMAS K. BUTT
Mayor
Approved as to form:

TERESA STRICKER
City Attoroey
Councilmembers Bates, Jimenez, Martinez, Mc.Laughlin,
Willis, Vice Mayor Johnson III, and Mayor Butt.

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT;
None.

None.

None.

PAMELA CBRISTIAN

CLERK OF THE CITY OP RICHMOND
(SEAL)
State of California
County of Contra Costa
City of Richmond
: ss.

I certify that the foregoing is a tme copy of Resolution No. 30-21, finally passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting held on March 16, 2021.
^UA<A_ G^5^—-~
Pamela Christian, Clerk of the City of Richmond
Reso. No. 30-21

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
State Coastal Conservancy

GRANT AGREEMENT
Grant - Rev 11/20
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this August day of
State of California, by and between:

AGREEMENT NUMBER
21-016
AM. NO.

TAXPAYERS FEDERAL EMPLOYER
IDENTIFICATION NO.
94-6000403
26_, 2021 in the
State Coastal Conservancy

GRANTEE'S NAME
City of Richmond
and
I. SCOPE OF AGREEMENT
Pursuant to Chapter 4.5 of Division 21 of the California Public Resources Code, the State Coastal Conservancy ("the Conservancy") hereby grants to the City of Richmond ("the grantee") a sum not to exceed $3,252,273 (three million two hundred fifty-two thousand two hundred seventy-three dollars) ("funds"), subject to this agreement. (Continued on the following pages)
The provisions on the following pages constitute a part of this agreement.

This agreement has been executed by the parties as shown below.

STATE OF CALIFORNIAGRANTEE
AGENCY
State Coastal Conservancy
GRANTEE (It other than an individual, state whethera corporation, partnership, etc.) City of Richmond
BY. (Authorized Signature)BY (Authorized Signature)
^I^Uyti ^WM^L

PRINTED NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON SIGNING
Mary Small, Interim Executive Officer

PRINTED'RAMEAND TITLE OF PERSON SIGNING
Joe Leach, Public Works Director

ADDRESS & PHONE NUMBER
1515 Clay Street, 10th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612

ADDRESS & PHONE NUMBER
450 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
Phone: (510)286-1015Phone: (5-10) 620-6530

AMOUNT ENCUMBERED BY

THIS DOCUMENT
$3,252,273.00

PRIOR AMOUNT

ENCUMBERED FOR THIS

AGREEMENT
$-0-

TOTAL AMOUNT

ENCUMBERED TO DATE
$3,252,273.00

PROGRAM/CATEGORY
Other Capital Outlay
FUNDTITLBPROPNO.

BCDC Permit Fees/ SF Bay Area
Conser/ancy - Coastal Trust Fund
3760-801-802900013(H)
3760-801-802900001(K)
3760-801-802900001(M)
= $229,574.00
$1,950,293.00
$1,072,406.00
224
224
224

STATUTE
2004
2004
2004

FISCALYEAR
04/05
04/05
04/05

PROJECT NAME
Terminal Four Wharf Removal Project
IJiereby certify upon my own personal-knowledge that budgeted funds are available for the period and purpose of the expenditure stated above. "NAMEANDSiGNATORE OF ACCOUNTING OFFICER
Aun^d AWfll
"D"
DATE
9/2/2021
I certify that this
agreement is exempt
from Department of
General Services'
approval.

Erlinda Corpuz
Procurement and
Contracts Manager
City of Richmond
Grant Agreement No. 21 -016

The grantee shall use the funds to complete the following project ("the project") at Terminal Four Warehouse at Point San Pablo, City of Richmond, Contra Costa County, as shown on Exhibit 1, which is incorporated by reference and attached.

The project consists of final design, including cost estimate confirmation; obtaining regulatory permits; and implementing the Terminal Four Wharf Removal Project, which includes demolishing derelict pilings, decking, and two buildings; sorting and safe disposal of the material; constructing enhanced rock slope protection that incorporates "living" habitat elements; post-project monitoring of the eelgrass bed and enhanced rock slope protection; and reporting.

The Terminal Four site is owned by the grantee and is managed by the City's Port Operations Department (Port of Richmond). The site is located on the western shore of Richmond, California, about 2.5 miles northwest of the eastern end of the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge, and just south of the tip of Point San Pablo.

The grantee shall carry out the-project in accordance with this'agreement. The grantee shall provide any funds beyond those granted under this agreement that are needed to complete the project.

II. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO CONSTRUCTION AND DISBURSEMENT The grantee shall not begin construction of the project and the Conserv-ancy s'hall not be obligated to disburse any funds unless and until the following conditions precedent have been met:

1. The City Council of the grantee has adopted a resolution designating positions whose incumbents are authorized to negotiate and execute this agreement and amendments to it on behalf of the grantee.

2. The Executive Officer of the Conservancy ("the Executive Officer") has approved in writing:
a. A work program for the project, as provided in section "VI. WORK PROGRAM." b. A plan for installation of signs and acknowledgment of Conservancy support, as provided in section "VII. SIGNS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT."
c. All contractors that the grantee intends to retain in connection with the project. The grantee must provide written evidence to the Conservancy that each contractor has complied with the bonding requirements described m section "VIII. BONDING." City of Richmond
Grant Agreement No. 21 -016

3. The grantee has provided written evidence to the Conservancy that:
a. All permits and approvals necessary to the completion of the project under applicable local, state and federal laws and regulations have been obtained. b. The grantee has provided for required insurance coverage, including additional insured endorsement, as described in section "XVII. INSURANCE." Notwithstanding-the above, the grantee may begin to prepare plans and specifications, and conduct engineering work upon meeting conditions precedent no. 2 and no. 3, and upon the Executive Officer's review and approval of a separate work program for preparation of the plans, specifications, and engineering work (tasks, budget and timeline) and approval of any contractors that the grantee will retain to perform such work.

III.ADDITIONAL GRANT CONDITIONS
None.

IV. TERM OF AGREEMENT
This agreement shall take effect when signed by both parties and received in the offices of the Conservancy together with the resolution described in section "II. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO CONSTRUCTION AND DISBURSEMENT." This agreement may be signed electronically using a process specified by the Conservancy.

This agreement shall run from its effective date through August 30, 2048 ("the termination date") unless otherwise terminated or amended as provided in this agreement. However, all work shall be completed by August 30, 2028 ("the completion date").

The grantee shall deliver a final Request for Disbursement to the Conservancy no later than September 30, 2028.

V. AUTHORIZATION
The signature of the Executive Officer of the Conservancy on this agreement certifies that at its November 19, 2020 and March 25, 2021 meetings, the Conservancy adopted the resolution included in the staff recommendation attached as Exhibit 2 aad 3. This agreement is executed under that authorization.

City of Richmond
Grant Agreement No. 21 -016

Standard Provisions
VI. WORK PROGRAM
Before beginning construction, the grantee shalFsubmit a detailed work program to the Executive Officer for review and written approval of its consistency with the purposes of this grant agreement. The work program shall include:

1. Construction plans and specifications that have been certified by a licensed architect or registered engineer, or approved by the grantee's Public Works Director.

2. A schedule of completion for the project specifically listing the completion date for each project component and a final project completion date.

3. A detailed project budget. The project budget shall describe all labor and materials costs of completing each component of the project, including the grantee's labor and materials costs and costs to be incurred under a contract with any third party retained by the grantee for work under this agreement. For each project component, the project budget shall list all intended funding sources, including the Conservancy's grant, and all other sources of monies, materials, or labor. The grantee shall review the plans with Conservancy staff, on-site if feasible.

4. A list of best management practices that will be implemented to reduce the project's greenhouse gas emissions.

If all or any part of the project to be funded under this agreement will be performed by third parties ("contractors") under contract with the grantee, the grantee shall submit to the Executive Officer for review and approval the names and qualifications of the contractors.

The work program shall have the same effect as if included in the text of this agreement.

However, the work program may be modified without amendment of this agreement upon the grantee's submission of a modified work program and the Executive Officer's written approval of it. If this agreement and the work program are inconsistent, the agreement shall control.

The grantee shall construct the project in accordance with the approved work program.

VII. SIGNS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Prior to beginning the project, the grantee shall submit, for review and written approval by the Executive Officer, a plan for the installation of signs and acknowledgment of Conservancy City of Richmond
Grant Agreement No. 21-016

support. Except as the Executive Officer agrees otherwise, the plan shall commit the grantee to mention the Conservancy's support in its prqject-related press releases, contacts with the media, and social media postings, and on its website.

The plan shall commit the grantee to install and maintain a sign or signs visible from the nearest public roadway identifying the project, acknowledging Conservancy assistance and displaying the Conservancy's logo. The Conservancy shall provide to-the grantee specifications for the signs.

VIII. BONDING
If the grantee intends to use any contractors on any portion of the project to be funded under this agreement, construction shall not begin until each contractor has furnished a perfonnance bond in favor of the grantee in the followmg amounts: for faithful performance, one hundred percent (100%) of the contract value; and for labor and materials, one hundred percent (100%) of the contract value. This requirement shall not apply to any contract for less than $20,000.

Any bond furnished under this section shall be executed by an admitted corporate surety insurer licensed in the State of California.

DC. COSTS AND DISBURSEMENTS
When the Conservancy determines that all conditions in section "II. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO CONSTRUCTION AND DISBURSEMENT" have been fully met, the Conservancy shall disburse to the grantee a total amount not to exceed the amount of this grant, in accordance with the approved project budget and this section.

The witKholding for this agreement is five percent. The Conservancy shall disburse funds for costs incurred to date, less five percent, upon the grantee's satisfactory progress under the approved work program, and-upon the grantee's submission of a "Request for Disbursement" form, which shall be submitted no more frequently than monthly but no less frequently than quarterly. The Conservancy shall disburse the five percent withheld upon the grantee's satisfactory completion of construction and compliance with section "XI. PROJECT COMPLETION," and upon the Conservancy's acceptance of the project.

Upon the completion of any project task identified in the work program to the satisfaction of the Conservancy, the Conservancy may disburse the funds withheld for that task, provided that the grantee has complied with the "PROJECT COMPLETION" section, below, with respect to the project task. The final disbursement, together with amounts earlier withheld and not subsequently disbursed, shall be made upon the grantee's satisfactory completion of construction City of Richmond
Grant Agreement No. 21 -016

and monitoring of the project and compliance with the "PROJECT COMPLETION" section of this agreement, and upon the Conservancy's acceptance of the project.

Hourly rates billed to the Conservancy shall be equal to the actual compensation paid by grantee to employees, which may include employee benefits. The grantee shall requu'e its employees to keep records of their time spent on the project for purposes of documenting the employee time billed to the Conservancy. The Conservancy will reimburse the grantee for expenses necessary to the project when documented by appropriate receipts. The Conservancy will reimburse travel and related expenses at actual costs not to exceed the state employee rates as identified on the California Department of Human Resources (CalHR) website under travel reimbursements for state employees. Except for rates for operating a private vehicle, the Conservancy may reimburse in excess of the state employee rates upon documentation that these rates are not reasonably available to the grantee. The Conservancy wffl reimburse the grantee for other necessary expenses if those expenses are reasonable in nature and amount taking into account the nature of the project, its location, and. other relevant factors.

The grantee shall request disbursements by filing with the Conservancy a fully executed "Request for Disbursement" form (available from the Conservancy). The grantee shall include in the form its name and address, the number of this agreement, the date of the submission, the amount of the invoice, the period during which the work was actually done, and an itemized description, including tkne, materials, and expenses incurred of all work done for which disbursement is requested. The form shall also indicate cumulative expenditures to date, expenditures during the reporting period, and the unexpended balance of funds under the grant agreement.

An authorized representative of the grantee shall sign the forms. Each form shall be accompanied by:

1. All receipts and any other source documents for direct expenditures and costs that the grantee has incurred.

2. Invoices from contractors that the grantee engaged to complete any portion of the work funded under this agreement and any receipts and any other source documents for costs incurred and expenditures by any such contractor, unless the Executive Officer makes a specific exemption in writing.

3. A progress report summarizing the-current status of the project and the work for which the grantee is requesting disbursement.

4. Written substantiation of completion of the portion of the project for which disbursement is requested.

City of Richmond
Grant Agreement No. 21-016

The grantee's failure to fully execute and submit a Request for Disbursement form, including attachment of supporting documents, will relieve the Conservancy of its obligation to disburse funds to the grantee until the grantee corrects all deficiencies.

X. EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS AND ALLOCATION OF FUNDING AMONG BUDGET ITEMS
No increase in the total amount of this grant will be valid unless set forth in a written amendment to this agreement. The grantee shall expend funds consistent with the approved project budget.

Expenditure on items contained in the approved project budget, other than overheard and indirect costs, may vary by as much as ten percent without prior approval by the Executive Officer, provided that the grantee first submits a revised budget to the Conservancy and requests disbursement based on the revised budget. Any deviation greater than ten percent, and any deviation that shifts funds from approved budget items into an overhead or indirect costs category, must be identified in a revised budget approved m advance and in writing by the Executive Officer. The Conservancy may withhold payment for items which exceed the amount allocated in the project budget by more than ten percent and which have not received the approval required above. Any increase in the funding for any particular budget item shall mean a decrease in the funding for one or more other budget items unless there is a written amendment to this agreement.

XI. PROJECT COMPLETION
Upon completion of the project, the grantee shall supply the Conservancy with evidence of completion by submitting a final report by the final Request for Disbursement date set forth in section "IV. TERM OF AGREEMENT" that includes:

1. A report certifying completion of the project according to the approved work program, including photographs documenting project completion.

2. Documentation that signs are installed as required by section "VII. SIGNS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT."

3. A fully executed final "Request for Disbursement." A "final Request for Disbursement" means a Request for Disbursement that includes the withheld amounts and all-remaininj amounts for which grantee is entitled to seek payment, if any, pursuant to this agreement.

4. A final inspection report by a licensed architect or registered engineer or the grantee's Public Works Director, and a copy of "as built" drawings of the completed project.

City of Richmond
Grant Agreement No. 21-016

The Conservancy shall determine whether the grantee has satisfactorily completed the project. If so, the Conservancy shall issue to the grantee a letter of acceptance of the project and release the withhold amount pursuant to section "DC. COSTS AND DISBURSEMENTS." The project shall be deemed complete as of the date of the letter.

XII. EARLY TERMINATION, SUSPENSION AND FAILURE TO PERFORM Before the project has commenced, either party may terminate this agreement for any reason by providing the other party with seven days notice in writing.

Before the project is complete, the Conservancy may terminate or suspend-this agreement for any reason by providing-the grantee with seven days notice in writing. In either case, the grantee shall immediately stop work under the agreement and take all reasonable measures to prevent further costs to the Conservancy. The Conservancy shall be responsible for any reasonable and non-cancelable obligations incurred by fhe grantee in the performance of this agreement prior to the date of the notice to terminate or suspend, but only up to the undisbursed balance of funding authorized in this agreement. Any notice suspending work under this agreement shall remain in effect until farther written notice from the Conservancy authorizes work to resume.

If the grantee fails to complete the project as requu-ed, or fails to fulfill any other obligations of this agreement prior to the termination date, the grantee shall be liable for immediate repayment to the Conservancy of all amounts disbursed by the Conservancy under this agreement. The Conservancy may, at its sole discretion, consider extenuating cu-cumstances and not require repayment for work partially completed. This paragraph shall not be deemed to-limit any other remedies the Conservancy may havje for breach of this agreement.

Before the project is complete, the grantee may terminate this agreement for any reason by providing the Conservancy with seven days notice in writing and repaying to the Conservancy all amounts disbursed by the Conservancy under this agreement. The Conservancy may, at its sole discretion, consider extenuating circumstances and allow early termination without repayment for work partially completed.

The parties expressly agree to waive, release and relinquish the recovery of any consequential damages that may arise out of the termination or suspension of this agreement under this section.

The grantee shall include in any agreement with any contractor retained for work under this agreement a provision that entitles the grantee to suspend or terminate the agreement with the contractor for any reason on written notice and on the same terms and conditions specified in this section.

City of Richmond
Grant Agreement No. 21 -016

XIII. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
The grantee shall use, manage, maintain and operate the project throughout the term of this agreement consistent with the purposes for which the Conservancy's grant was made. The grantee assumes all operation and maintenance costs of these facilities and structures; the Conservancy shall not be liable for any cost ofmamtenance, management, or operation. The grantee may be excused from its obligations for operation and maintenance during the term of this agreement only upon the written approval of the Executive Officer.

For purposes of this agreement, "operation costs" include direct costs incurred for material and labor needed for operations, utilities, insurance, and similar expenses. "Maintenance costs" include ordinary repairs and replacements of a recurring nature necessary to prolong the life of capital assets and basic structures, and the expenditure of funds necessary to replace or reconstruct capital assets or basic structures.

XIV. MITIGATION
Without the written permission of the Executive Officer, the grantee shall not use or allow the use for mitigation (in other words, to compensate for adverse-changes to the environment elsewhere) of any portion of real property on which the Conservancy has funded construction. In providing permission, the Executive Officer may require that all funds generated in connection with any authorized or allowable mitigation on the real property shall be remitted promptly to the Conservancy. As used in this section, mitigation includes, but is not limited to, any use ofthe property in cormection with the sale, trade, transfer or other transaction mvolving carbon sequestration credit or carbon mitigation.

XV. INSPECTIQN
Throughout the term of this agreement, the Conservancy shall have the right to inspect the project area to ascertain compliance with this agreement.

XVI. INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS
The grantee shall be responsible for, indemnify and hold harmless the Conservancy, its officers, agents, and employees from any and all liabilities,-claims, demands, damages, or costs, including, without limitation, litigation costs and attorneys fees, resulting from or arising out of the willful or negligent acts or omissions of the grantee, its officers, agents, contractors, subcontractors, and employees, or in any way connected with or incident to this agreement, except for the active negligence of the Conservancy, its officers, agents, or employees. The duty of the grantee to indemnify and hold harmless includes the duty to defend as provided in Civil City of Richmond
Grant Agreement No. 21 -016

Code section 2778. This agreement supersedes any right the grantee may have as a public entity to indemnity and contribution as provided in Gov. Code Sections 895 et seq.

The grantee waives any and all-rights to any type of express or implied indemnity or right of contribution from the State, its officers, agents, or employees, for any liability resulting from, growing out of, or in any way connected with or incident to this agreement.

Nothing in this agreement is intended to create in the public or in any member of it rights as a third-party beneficiary under this agreement.

The obligations in this section "XVI. INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS" will survive termination of this agreement.

XVII. mSURANCE
The grantee shall procure and maintain insurance, as specified in this section, against claims for injuries to persons and damage to property that may arise from or in connection with any activities of the grantee or its agents, representatives, employees, or contractors associated with the-project undertaken pursuant to this agreement.

As an alternative, with the written approval of the Executive Officer, the grantee may satisfy the coverage requu-ement in whole or in part through: (a) its contractors' procurement and maintenance of_insurance for work under this agreement, if the coverage otherwise fully satisfies the requirements of this section; or (b) the grantee's.participationin a "risk management" plan, self insurance program or insurance pooling arrangement, or any combination of these, if consistent with the coverage required by this section.

The grantee shall maintain property insurance, if required below, throughout the term of this agreement. Any required errors and omissions liability insurance shall be maintamed from the effective date through two calendar years after the completion date. The grantee shall maintain all other required insurance from the effective date through the completion date.

1. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
a. Insurance Services Office ("ISO") Commercial General Liability coverage, occurrence basis (Form CG 00 01) or comparable.
b. Automobile Liability coverage: ISO Form Number CA 0001, Code 1 (any auto). c. Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the Labor Code of the State of California, and Employer's Liability insurance.

City of Richmond
Grant Agreement No. 21-016

d. Watercraft Liability: If the project will utilize private watercraft, endorsement to Commercial General Liability policy or Protection and Indemnity Insurance. Such insurance shall cover liability arising out of the maintenance and use of any watercraft covering owned, hired and non-owned vessels. e. Course-of-construction (also known as "Builder's Risk") insurance covering all risks of loss. (Any proceeds of loss payable under this coverage shall be used to replace, rebuild or repair the damaged portions of the facilities and structures constructed under this agreement.)
f. Property insurance covering the loss, damage, or destruction of the facilities or structures constructed under this agreement against fire and extended coverage perils. (Any proceeds of loss payable under this coverage shall-be used to replace, rebuild and/or repair the damaged portions of the facilities and structures constructed under this agreement.)

2. Minimum Limits of Insurance. The-grantee shall maintain coverage limits no less than:
a. General Liability:
(Including operations,
products and completed
operations, as applicable)
b. Automobile Liability:
c. Worker's'Compensation
and Employer's Liability:
d. Watercraft Liability (for
private vessel) coverage, if
required under l.d., above:
$2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury,
personal injury and property damage. If
Commercial General Liability Insurance or other
form with a general aggregate limit is used, either
the general aggregate limit shall apply separately
to-the activities under this agreement, or the
general aggregate limit shall be twice the required
oscurrence limit.
$1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and
property damage.

Worker's compensation as required by law and
Employer's Liability of no less than $1,000,000
per accident for bodily injury or disease.

In the following amounts:
a. Vessels under 30 ft.: $1,000,000 combined
single limit.
b. Vessels over 30 ft. or vessel involved in
research: $2,000,000 combined single limit.

City of Richmond
Grant Agreement No. 21 -016

e. Course of Construction: "All Risk" (Special Perils) coverage form, with limits equal to the completed value of the project
with no comsurance penalty provisions.
f. Property Insurance 90 percent of full replacement cost of the facilities or structures.

3. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the Executive Officer.

4. Required Provisions Concerning the Conservancy and the State of California. a. Each insurance policy required by this section shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be canceled by either party, except after thirty days' prior written notice by first class mail has been given to the Conservancy; or in the event of cancellation of coverage due to nonpayment, after ten days prior-written notice to the Conservancy.

The grantee shall notify the Conservancy within two days of receipt of notice that any required insurance policy will lapse or be cancelled. At least ten days before an insurance policy held by the grantee lapses or is cancelled, the grantee shall provide the Conservancy with evidence of renewal or replacement of the policy. b. The grantee hereby grants to the State of California, its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers, a waiver of any right to subrogation which any insurer of the grantee may acquire against the State of California, its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers, by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. Grantee agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to effect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not-the grantee has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.
c. The general-liafcility and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
i. The State of California, its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds with respect to liability arising out of automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by or on behalf of the grantee; and with respect to liability arising out of work or operations, including completed operations, performed by or on behalf of the grantee including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with the work or operations.
ii. For any clauns related to this agreement, the grantee's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the State of California, its officers, City of Richmond
Grant Agreement No. 21 -016

agents and employees, and not excess to any insurance or self-insurance of the State of California.
iii. The limits of the additional insured coverage shall equal the limits of the named insured coverage regardless of whether the limits of the named insurance coverage exceed those limits required by this agreement.

5. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance shall be placed with insurers admitted to transact business in the State of California and having a current Best's rating of "B+: VII" or better or, in the alternative, acceptable to the Conservancy and approved in writing by the Executive Officer.

6. Verification of Coverage. The grantee shall furnish the Conservancy with original certificates and amendatory endorsements, or copies of the applicable policy language, effecting coverage required by this clause. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the Executive Officer before work commences. The Conservancy may require, at any time, complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements affecting the coverage.

7. Contractors. The grantee shall include all contractors as insureds under its policies or shall require each contractor to provide and maintain coverage consistent with the requirements of this section. To the extent generally available, grantee shall also require each professional contractor to provide-and maintain Errors and Omissions Liability insurance appropriate to the contractor's profession and in a reasonable amount m light of the nature of the project with a minimum limit of liability of $1,000,000.

8. Premiums and Assessments. The Conservancy is not responsible for premiums and assessments on any insurance policy.

XVIII. AUDITS/ACCOUNTING/RECORDS
The grantee shall maintain financial accounts, documents, and records (collectively, "required records") relating to this agreement, in accordance with the guidelines of "Generally Accepted Accounting Principles" ("GAAP") published by fe American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The required records include, without limitation, evidence sufficient to reflect properly the amount, receipt, deposit, and disbursement of all funds related to the implementation of the project, and the use, management, operation and maintenance of the real property, time and effort reports, and supporting documents that permit tracing from the request for disbursement forms to the accounting records and to the supporting documentation.

The Conservancy or its agents may review, obtain, and copy all required records. The grantee shall provide the Conservancy or its agents with any relevant information requested and shall City of Richmond
Grant Agreement No. 21 -016

permit the Conservancy or its agents access to the grantee's premises upon reasonable notice, during normal business hours, to interview employees and inspect and copy books, records, accounts, and other material that may be relevant to a matter under investigation for the purpose ofdeterminmg compliance with this agreement and any applicable laws and regulations.

The grantee shall retain the required records for a minimum of three years following the later of final disbursement by the Conservancy, and the final year to which the particular records pertain.

The records shall be subject to examination and audit by the Conservancy and the California State Auditor during the retention periods.

If the grantee retains any contractors to accomplish any of the work of this agreement, the grantee shall first enter into an agreement with each contractorj-equiring the contractor to meet the terms of this section and to make the terms applicable to all subcontractors.

The Conservancy may disallow all or part of the cost of any activity or action that it determines to be not in compliance with the requirements of this agreement.

After completing the project, the grantee shall promptly conduct a final financial and compliance audit of revenue and expenditures. An independent Certified Public Accountant shall conduct the audit and prepare a report in compliance with GAAP. In place of performing a separate audit, the grantee may submit to the Conservancy, within a time that-the Conservancy specifies, a copy of the grantee's federal "single audit."
The grantee shall conduct an audit in accordance with Title 2, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 200 (2 CFR 200). The audit shall be conducted at least every two years, completed within twelve months after the end of the grantee's fiscal year, and submitted to the Conservancy within thirty days after the completion of the audit. The Conservancy shall provide tectmical assistance to the grantee, at the grantee's request, for meeting the requirements of 2 CFR 200.

XIX. COMPUTER SOFTWARE
The grantee certifies that it has instituted and will employ systems and controls appropriate to ensure that, in the performance of this agreement, state funds will not be used for the acquisition, operation or maintenance of computer software in violation of copyright laws.

XX. NONDISCRIMINATION
During the performance of this agreement, the grantee and its contractors shall not deny the agreement's benefits to any person on the basis of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital stalls, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and City of Richmond
Grant Agreement No. 21-016

veteran status, nor shall they discriminate unlawfully against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status. The grantee shall insure that the evaluation and treatment of employees and applicants for employment are free of such discrimination. The grantee and contractors shall comply with the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code §12900-et seq.), the regulations promulgated thereunder (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, §11000 et seq.), the provisions of Article 9.5, Chapter 1, Part 1, Division 3, Title 2 of the Government Code (Gov. Code §§11135-11139.5), and the regulations or standards adopted by the Conservancy to implement such article. The grantee shall permit access by representatives of the Department of Fair Employment and Housing and the Conservancy upon reasonable notice at any time during the normal business hours, but in no case-:less-than 24 hours' notice, to such of its books, records, accounts, and all other sources of information and its facilities as said Department or the Conservancy shall require to ascertain compliance with this clause. The grantee and its contractors shall give written notice of their obligations under this clause to labor organizations with which they have a collective bargaining or other agreement. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, §11105.) The grantee shall include the nondiscrimination^nd compliance provisions of this clause in all contracts to perform work under this agreement.

XXI. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
By signmg this agreement, grantee certifies that it is in-compliance with tKe Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, (42 U.S.C., 12101 et seq.), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability, as well as all applicable regulations and guidelines issued pursuant to the ADA.

XXII. PREVAILING WAGE
Work done under this grant agreement may be subject to the prevailing wage and other related requirements of the California Labor Code, Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, sections 1720-1861.

If required by law to do so, the grantee shall pay prevailing wage to all persons employed in the -performance of any part of the project and othenvise comply with all associated requirements .and obligations.

The grantee is responsible for determining whether the project is subject to prevailing wage-laws, and for complying with all labor laws applicable to the project.. The grantee may also review the Conservancy publication. Information on Current Status of Prevailing Wage Laws for State Coastal Conservancy Grantees (May 2018), available from the Conservancy on request; provided, that this publication is for grantee's informational purposes only, and shall not be City of Richmond
Grant Agreement No. 21-016

construed as legal advice to the grantee on whether the grantee's project is subject to prevailing wage laws.

XXIII. UNION ORGANIZING
By signing this agreement, grantee hereby acknowledges the applicability of Government Code Sections 16645 through 16649 to this agreement, and certifies that no state funds disbursed by this agreement will be used to assist,-promote or deter union organizing. If grantee makes expenditures to assist, promote or deter union organizing, grantee agrees to maintain records sufficient to show that no state funds, including the funds provided under this agreement, have been used for these purposes, and shall provide these records to the Attorney General upon request.

XXIV. DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE
The grantee's signature on this agreement constitutes the certification required by Government Code Section 8355 (Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1990), which requires that all state grantees provide a drug-free workplace by doing all of the following:

1. Publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensation, possession, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in the person's or organization's workplace and specifying actions that will be taken against employees for violations of the prohibition.

2. Establishing a drug-free awareness program to inform employees about all of the following:
a. The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace.
b. The person's or organization's policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace. c. Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and employee assistance programs. d. The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations.

3. Requiring that each employee engaged in the performance of the grant be given a copy of the dmg-free workplace statement and that, as a condition of employment on the grant, the employee agrees to abide by the terms of the statement.

XXV. INDEPENDENT CAPACITY
The grantee, and the-agents and employees of grantee, in the performance of this agreement, shall act in an independent capacity and not as officers or employees or agents of the State of California.

City of Richmond
Grant Agreement No. 21-016

XXVI. ASSIGNMENT
Without the written consent of the Executive Officer, the grantee may not assign this agreement in whole or in part.

XXVII. TIMELINESS
Time is of the_ essence in this agreement.

XXVIII. EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S DESIGNEE
The Executive Officer shall designate a Conservancy project manager who shall have authority to act on behalf of the Executive Officer with respect to this agreement. The Executive Officer shall notify the grantee-ofthe designation in writing.

XXIX. AMENDMENT
Except as expressly provided in this agreement, no changes in this agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the parties to the agreement. No oral understanding or agreement not incorporated in this agreement shall be binding on any of the parties.

Exhibit 1
Exhibit 1: Regional Map
;^?aU:
'SSf,
f^s^'.(
^ —:i;
.-""•--'-.-.. -. I .. \
J~^~
••':•}
-U^^^A-
•WiBSl- ! r^
"Sa^ , ^
l-ftpt?u'K,.^ Aw-'
h'•^<h:' :;:

UWiliiv.
-a
—.;• •./.
v^
I ^,:
i'. -"
-\
'"-^
x .-•'-"""
\^-.
'&-^^d&s
/ ' . sy;i<®&:
.-'-y:
•yts^' ^.':^ p.-"*.:^<" -.'• '^^V)ys"^"'h. :'"../
:?£&g,n?:l 1!- —,'! ; .-.'^^.u.^'l.'^A, :i^VW^f'''i'f,f.^S-l''t^^~^''l.- .- V ~ ! ;.y-"yjr:i '^ isjy ^
W-'': ''vi^^\, w ^
Wiip^ffi
I 'Y \ "^"s;. ?'' ~'i"":K'^ ^-''. ...^^i: ..:.

I \ ^-!te""'"° ,^' i.^..JSi:-.c:;';...^ 'SSS^vw^
^••" ''''- f^'^. IS:,.,."''..^''i-.S1' -^•^s''?:-=^7
WiA ! • ! ! ~^'-LJ^ '^,S£S!B.'i!^^;|'y~if;" " /•^I^K ,;-'Y SM'S£\ """'^K: i^"y""~f^i''»-^i.fy-'%.i: .^.^.,^^' "••
•t. •— :ii^ ^ ^ ^...Kw^-^-1^'1
JV-;.'-':< . -..-^^M^'^^
'i^sw^a '.'•'."•-..'i. :.1-:;:;;'... ' ^:" '^y%^'?^s^';^' '.Sutea. :-.i:'< l'<, ?:.:..-. -l"f.!^-a»'gaiSeB;afc-
:f.syss y fsa"!w:/ a
^•;. ' Y-:^friinSt4a*i.<!';'-?"'<'
y.:"- .^•^"^^%^^ ""•-.'.•• ^ '^.'';. ..%^;;i^sy
^ii|||^^^j^\'l\'^l,;
^••^_/'
Terminal Four Wharf
Removal Project &
SF Bay Creosote Removal
and Pacific Herring
Restoration Project
,^^f- T^^i^^^-jST':
sy©g%,l^s^"-i"@^'
s-
'B.'St'ifw®^
. ^^^ S^'^'^Jr^'ws'^v'y'
•"",3;?T*tt~*%,.;i>C»uiEfc'" ' 'SwSvasd
•E^KS^^^ ^^^•:^?'^.v~''y^WS^r''
%.;;.. ^'•V'MQS-^'-' >Si:g _^S-^:..--
i:iiS§S^!fi8;F'ii^^^,'SSWSSK'S- ~i:vy j'vwo£o
£ciie713'y»—4-
.^^TS^^W'^^';•.'. uJ^^X^;.^€^-.'-'^'it;;^:^
•t'w^S®S8gi%»»';. :H°w<"'f'prf@B'fe/^
^sf'-i-' \ 't'-- • "•'
";£!&•%•
^f.^^;- ^;x&^,,,' :.,> ^WS^-K^: ' •^.
"iBis(-K'l/;^y'
'•sses.^-
::3SI?®;&.-^ .i^y
\^.^&, ^
•^•&{«P&K'SsS
^^^"^•&:^"';.^^-^.
'^^^•?^^FdS-ftteJI%IB ^
"\ '.-'" -'~.'';;M':^/''''^^l:^^%^^^i?^l^^;<^^
Vsbtfi'.::',
^^M;.^^^^^ •^-•^^-sp^^iipsagtl.-^ %, '•:
^^.^j&^,^,3'^^A'"|XQ^^
^^. -^::-';'^ ^^.^JA^^^,^ ^^^^^i^:iA^ A
•W^sSS^ " ^SS'?tssS'^
:&»;»il>»ifr*l-V ^., it-i; W'.iS^,^--.^ i";;:;'
£^£^ V7'r: 5>^-.'; :i^f'7-' :^^^'s^^ '<
-<V^: ^ri.^?-,.,' ^':"'Yh .l.^<;"' •" ^ '"::.. •-,. .-
'SssSS^'SS.,11 , 'M.
^s^^-"'-; :^s^sf:\ '. / """"':_,
r '.' '., . t!:H.:!>V;vA \_
Exhibit 2

COASTAL CONSERVANCY
Staff Recommendation
November 19, 2020

TERMINAL FOUR WHARF REMOVAL PROJECT
Project No.14-025-01
Project Manager: Marilyn Latta
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorization to disburse up to $3,000,000 to the City of Richmond for final design and implementation of the Terminal Four Wharf Removal Project near Point San Pablo, Contra Costa County; and adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.

LOCATION: Point San Pablo, Richmond (Contra Costa County) PROGRAM CATEGORY: San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy

EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1-: Regional Map
Exhibit 2: Map ofthe Terminal Four Wharf
Exhibit 3: Photographs of the Terminal Four Wharf
Exhibit 4: Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Terminal Four Wharf, Warehouse, and Piling Removal Project
Exhibit 5: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Termmal Four Wharf, Warehouse, and.Pilmg^
Exhibit 6: Proiect Letters
RESOLUTION AND FINDINGS:

Staff recommends that the State Coastal Conservancy adopt the following resolution pursuant to Sections 31160-31165 of the Public Resources Code:
"The State Coastal Conservancy hereby authorizes the disbursement of up to $3,000,000 to the City of Richmond for final design and implementation of the-Tenninal Four Wharf Removal Project near Point San Pablo, Contra Costa County; and adopts the "Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Terminal Four Wharf, Warehouse, and Piling Removal Project" ("M ND") and the "Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Terminal Four Wharf, Exhibit 2

RICHMOND TERMINAL FOUR WHARF REMOVAL PROJECT
Warehouse, and Piling Removal Project," attached as Exhibits 4 and 5 to the accompanying staff recommendation.

Prior to the disbursement of any funds, the City of Richmond shall submit for the review and written approval of the Conservancy's Executive Officer:
a. A work program, budget, schedule, and the names of any contractors to be employed in carrying out the work.
b. Evidence that all required permits and approvals have been obtained for the proposed project.

In carrying out the proposed project, the City of Richmond shall comply with all applicable mitigation and monitoring measures that are required by any permit or approval and with all measures that are identified in the MND adopted by the Conservancy." Staff further recommends that the Conservancy adopt the following findings:
"Based on the accompanying staff report and attached exhibits, the State Coastal Conservancy hereby finds that:

1. The proposed authorization is consistent with Chapter 4.5 of Division 21 of the Public Resources-Code, regarding the resource goals of the San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy Program.

2. The proposed project is consistent with the current Conservancy Project Selection Criteria and Guidelines.

3. The Conservancy has considered the "Terminal Four Wharf, Warehouse, and Piling Removal Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration" (MND), attached to the accompanying staff recommendation as Exhibit 5, and any comments received, and finds that, on the basis of the whole record, the proposed project avoids, reduces or mitigates any possible -significant environmental effect of the proposed project and there is no substantial evidence that the proposed project, as mitigated, will have a significant effect on the environment, as defined in 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15382. The MND represents the Conservancy's independent judgment and analysis."

PROJECT SUMMARY
Staff recommends that the Conservancy authorize disbursement of up to $3,000,000 to the City of Richmond for final design and implementation of the Terminal Four Wliarf Removal project, which consists of demolition of derelict pilings, decking, and two buildings, construction of enhanced rock slope protection, and monitoring at Terminal Four near Point San Pablo in Contra Costa County.

The Terminal-Four site is owned by the City of Richmond (the City) and is managed by the Crty's
Port Operations Department (Port of Richmond). The site is located on the western shore of Richmond, California, about 2.5 miles northwest of the eastern end of the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge, and just south of the tip of Point San Pablo (Exhibits 1 and 2).

Exhibit 2

RICHMOND TERMINAL FOUR WHARF REMOVAL PROJECT
The City has been planning the removal of the creosote-treated piles and deteriorated decking at the Terminal Four site for a number of years, and removal of these structures will achieve the following goals:

1. Increase the ecological health of San Francisco Bay by removing derelict pilings, including those containing creosote-treated wood, and large amounts of artificial fill and solid debris from the Bay floor and waters;

2. Improve spawning and development success of Pacific herring through removal of the creosote-treated piles, which have been shown to have detrimental -effects on early life history stages of Pacific herring;

3. Maintain the existing degree of shoreline protection while avoiding activities that would increase the current degree of erosion potential along that portion or adjacent portions of the coastline; and

4. Protect and enhance the existing eelgrass beds and other biological'resources.

In addition, the pr-oject will help to increase climate resiliency by cleaning up this area of the shoreline and strengthening the natural eelgrass and oyster habitats, which act as green infrastrueture that provides nature-based adaptation to climate change impacts such as sea level rise and shoreline erosion.

The Conservancy has been supporting this project since 2017, primarily through facilitating funding and takmg the lead on design and environmental review. Previous authorizations by the Board and-the Executive Officer have enabled habitat restoration and coastal processes assessments, upon which preparation of environmental documentation, 60% designs, and permit -applications (submitted September 2020) have been based.

Th project proposed for this funding authorization consists of completing designs; demolishing the decking, warehouse and dockmasters office, and all pilings; sorting and safe disposal of the material; eonstmction ofa350-foot portion of rock slope protection that incorporates "living" habitat elements such as native plantings at the crown, cobbles with native seaweeds embedded into the face of the rock, and oyster reef elements incorporated into the toe of the rock slope;and post-project monitoring of the eelgrass bed and the enhanced rock slope protection. Removal designs take into account that there is a range of estimates of current number of pilings and volume of debris, as described in the "Site Description" section, below.

Site Description: The Richmond Terminal Four Wharf Removal site is near the northwestern tip of Point San Pablo (see Exhibit 1) and extends along a mbble-armored shoreline at the north and central portions of the pier and in front of a small cove at-the southern end of the pier (see Exhibit 2). Based on a review of historic bay charts, the Terminal Four structures were built sometime between 1850 and 1915. However, other sources list them as being built in the 1930's and being initially used for handling and processing fish. The site was used primarily over the years for storage, distribution and processing of vegetable and animal oils, petroleum fuels and additives, and other chemicals. Storage tanks on the shore were used to supply ships docked at the wharf. Two companies, Vopak and United Molasses, each leased portions of the property from the City. Photos from 1938 (Exhibit 3) shows ships secured to the south end of the wharf.

Exhibits 2 and 3 show the key site features of the Terminal Four Wharf Removal site which include:

Exhibit 2

RICHMOND TERMINAL FOUR WHARF REMOVAL PROJECT
Approximately 2,150 standing piles, of three types described below, A 1,000 foot long wharf area of deteriorated wood creosote decking, • An 1,100 square foot office building,
A deteriorated wooden warehouse located over the water with a footprint of about 12,800 square feet, and,
• Up to 2,700 tons of debris on the bay bottom with material that has already sunken into the bay.

According to a survey conducted by the San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) in 2009 of the entire San Francisco Bay region (Subtidal Goals 2010), there were approximately 2,500 pilings at the Terminal 4 Wharf site. More recently, as part of the design process, Merkel & Associates (2014) conducted a survey largely by interferometric sidescan sonar, which resulted in slightly lower estimates of piles ranging from 2,127 to 2,347 total piles within the structure. In 2019 C&W Divers were hired to assess the structure a third time, and they noted 2,150 pilings still standing and up to 2,700 tons of concrete, wood, and other debris on the bay-floor. This data shows the substantial deterioration over a short period of time, and the struetures have degraded further since 2019. However, since the collapsed beams and decking material can block sidescan sonar, and visibility is limited due to the structures and due to high turbidity (suspended sediment) in the bay, there remains substantial uncertainty regarding the piling count, which has been taken into consideration during design.

Three types of pilings are primarily present at-the site: creosote-treated woodpiles, creosotetreated woodpiles later encased in concrete and precast concrete piles. There are also a small number of steel-encased pilings as well as rubber fenders on the side of the wharf facing the bay. Merkel & Associates estimated that up to 90% of the piles at Terminal Four are either wood encased in concrete or made of solid concrete. The concrete encasem&nt design suggests these piles were wrapped at the time of initial construction rather than a later repair retrofit. The majority of the unwrapped wooden piles on the structure are either fender piles along the western margin of the wharf, or batter piles within the framework of the pier itsel£ Project History: The proposed project is the result of numerous planning efforts in the Bay over the last two decades to address the growing recognition that creosote, a by-product of the coal and coke industry used to protect marine structures from decay, is toxic to fish and other marine organisms. Resource managers have been particularly concerned about the potential to the herring fishery m the Bay since herring lay eggs on pilings and creosote can cause impacts such as mutations in developing herring eggs.

In 2010, the Conservancy, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration CNOAA), and the San Francisco
Estuary Partnership led development of the San Francisco Subtidal Habitat Goals Report (Subtidal Goals Report), a 50-year conservation plan for how to move forward with sciencebased research, protection, and restoration of subtidal habitats in the San Francisco Bay. The report included a study titled "Remov-a'-of Creosote-Treated Pilings and Structures from San Francisco Bay," which described the negative impacts of creosote-treated pilings on the marine environment, mapped a total of 33,000 derelict pilings and their locations around San Francisco Bay, and described methods for removal of these pilings. However, the study noted that abandoned pilings also provide benefits that need to be taken into account when considering Exhibit 2

RICHMOND TERMINAL FOUR WHARF REMOVAL PROJECT
removal actions. Old pilings may have historical significance. They also can serve as perches for sea birds, enhance sediment accumulation behind pilings, and increase protection from wave action, thus enhancing conditions to support for eelgrass habitat.

In 2013, the Conservancy used National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) funding to retain the professional services ofAECOM to design a related, but separate, creosote-treated piling removal project at the Red Rocks Warehouse, a site adjacent to Terminal Four. Demolition was completed in Fall 2016, and a living shoreline with oyster reef elements and eelgrass plantings was installed in 2018 and 2019. This effort also analyzed and prioritized the many abandoned piling sites in San Francisco Bay for removal and site restoration, and the Terminal Four site was found to be a high priority for creosote piling removal.

In July 2014, the Conservancy retained AECOM'to develop 30% design plans for the Terminal Four site, under the Executive Officer's delegated authority ($75,494). In April 2017, the Conservancy Board authorized $500,000 (later augmented by $57,841) for Environmental Science Associates (ESA) to complete 60% design, CEQA documentation, and preparation of permit applications.

Th& proposed project is part of a continumg effort by the Conservancy to promote long-term management and restoration of subtidal habitat in the San Francisco Bay. The piling removal projects complement the Subtidal Habitat Goals Project, which recommended using a pilot project approach to remove artificial structures and-creosote pilings at targeted sites in combination with active or passive restoration of natural habitats that provide environmental benefits with reduced engineering of hard structures (a "living shoreline").

PROJECT FINANCING
Coastal Conservancy
BCDC - Caltrans* $162,944
Chevron* $210,000
Water Emergency Transportation Authority* $ 1,230,000
Pacific Gas and Electric $ 1,680,000
City of Sausalito* $33,480
Port of San Francisco* $101,160
TransBay Cable LLC* (check pending) $ 19,602
Accumulated interest (estimate to-date) 162,814
San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority (unsecured) $3,000,000 Project Total $6,000,000
* mitigation funds - see specific descriptions below
Conservancy funds for this project will consist of mitigation funds paid to the Conservancy to satisfy conditions of regulatory permits, and settlement agreement funds, both of which have been placed in accounts within the Conservancy's Coastal Trust Fund that were established expressly for the Richmond Terminal Four Wharf Removal Project. The specific fund sources and purposes are as described below.

Exhibit 2

RICHMOND TERMINAL FOUR WHARF REMOVAL PROJECT
BCDC agreed to provide mitigation funds received from Caltrans in 2004 as permit condition for work on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge. The Conservancy is using these funds with input from the City, BCDC, and NOAA.

Chevron agreed to provide mitigation funds in 2015 as a BCDC permit condition for work on the Chevron Long Wharf in Richmond. The Conservancy is using these funds with input from the City, BCDC, and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB).

The Water Emergency Transportation Authority agreed to provide mitigation funds in 2015 as a BCDC permit condition for work on the San Francisco Ferry Terminal. The Conservancy is using these funds with input from the City, BCDC, and SWRCB.

Pacific Gas and Electric agreed to provide funds in 2018 as part of a legal settlement with the San Francisco Herring Association for federal Clean Water Act violations at former manufactured gas plants in San Francisco. The Conservancy is using these funds with input from the City, San Francisco Herring Association, and Pacific Gas and Electric.

The City of Sausalito agreed to provide mitigation funds in 20T9 as a SWRCB permit condition for public access improvements at Dunphy Park m Sausalito. The Conservancy is using these funds with input from the City and SWRCB.

The Port of San Francisco agreed to provide mitigation funds in 2019 as a BCDC permit condition for work on the Mission Bay Ferry Tenninal in San Francisco. The Conservancy is using these funds with input from the City, BCDC, and SWRCB.

TransBay Cable LLC agreed to provide mitigation funds in 2020 as a BCDC permit condition for work on the TransBay Cable in central San Francisco Bay. The Conservancy is using these funds with input from the City, BCDC, and SWRCB.

The City submitted an application for the remaining funding of approximately $2.5 million to the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority in October of 2020. If the City is not successful in obtaining the remaining funding from the Restoration Authority, Conservancy staff will assist the City in identifying other sources of funding.

Finally, as described in the "Project History" section above, prior funds ($364,782 ofBCDC Caltrans Mitigation Funds and $276,000 of the NOAA PSMFC grant funds) have ah-eady been expended on project design, permitting, and environmental review.

CONSISTENCY WITH CONSERVANCY'S ENABLING LEGISLATION:

The proposed project is consistent with the requirements to Chapter 4.5, Sections 311603 1165, of Division 21 of the Public Resources Code regarding resource goals in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Under Section 31162(b), the Conservancy may undertake projects and award grants in the ninecounty San Francisco Bay Area to achieve the goal of protecting, restoring and enhancing natural habitats. Consistent with this-section, the proposed project will demolish pilings-that are adversely impacting subtidal habitat, and conduct post-constmction monitoring. The project will protect, restore and enhance subtidal habitats in an estuary of regional importance within the Bay Area.

Under Section 31163(a), the Conservancy is required to cooperate with BCDC, other regional government bodies, and other interested parties in identifying and adopting long-term resource Exhibit 2

RICHMOND TERMINAL FOUR WHARF REMOVAL PROJECT
goals for San Francisco Bay area. This project is part of a program of activities that came about from the collaborative planning of four primary agencies that developed the San Francisco Bay Subtidal Habitat Goals: the Conservancy, BCDC, NOAA, and SFEP.

The proposed project is appropriate for prioritization under the selection criteria set forth in Section 31163(c) in that: (1) it is consistent with the San Francisco Bay Plan ("Bay Plan"), as described below, and the Subtidal Habitat Goals report; (2) it involves the coordination of environmental solutions across several different agencies and many different jurisdictions within the San Francisco Bay Area; (3) it will be implemented in a timely manner, as construction is anticipated to begin summer 2022 if possible; (4) the availability of grant and mitigation funds to restore subtidal habitat provides an opportunity for restoration activities that could be lost if the Project is not quickly implemented; and (5) includes matching funds.

In addition, under Section 31165, the Conservancy may undertake projects and award grants for activities that are compatible with the preservation, restoration, or enhancement of ocean, coastal and bay resources. Undertaking the proposed project is consistent with and helps to achieve these goals by providing design, planning, and restoration project implementation for habitat protection, restoration and enhancement projects involving subtidal habitats in the Bay.

CONSISTENCY WITH CONSERVANCY'S 2018-2022 STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL(S) & OBJECTIVE(S):

Consistent with the objectivesJ.isted below for the Conservancy's 2018-2022 Strategic Plan,the proposed project will further the enhancement of San Francisco Bay by removing derelict fill and marine debris, and promoting monitoring and management by landowners and other partners.

Consistent with Goal 8, Objective B, the proposed project will plan a debris removal and habitat enhancement project in San Francisco Bay, advancing the planning and design of adaptation projects to increase resilience to sea level rise and other climate change-impacts. Consistentwith Objective C, the project will implement these projects to increase resilience to sea level rise or other climate change impacts using nature-based solutions and other multi-benefit strategies.

Consistent with Goal 12; the project will contribute to "protect and enhance natural habitats and connecting corridors, watersheds, scenic areas, and-other open-space resources of regional importance in the Bay Area," and the project meets Objective 12D, "enhance tidal wetlands, managed wetlands, seasonal wetlands, upland habitat, and subtidal habitat." Consistent with GoallS, Objective C, the project involves working "with partner organizations to achieve conservation, climate adaptation, and public access objectives through project facilitation^ technical assistance, grant writing, workshops, webinars, and the development and sharing of scientific and management resources, including lessons learned from innovative, multi-objective projects/'
CONSISTENCY WITH CONSERVANCY'S PROJECT SELECTION CRITERIA & GUIDEUNES:

The proposed project is consistent with the Conservancy's Project Selection Criteria and Guidelines, last updated on October 2, 2014, in the following respects:

Exhibit 2

RICHMOND TERMINAL FOUR WHARF REMOVAL PROJECT
Required Criteria

1. Promotion of the Conservancy's statutory programs and purposes: See the "Consistency with Conservancy's Enabling Legislation" section above.

2. Consistency with purposes of the funding source: See the "Project Financing" section above.

3. Promotion and implementation of state plans and policies: The proposed Project will promote and implement the following state plans and policies:
a. Son Francisco Bay Subtidal Habitat Goals Report (2010, jointly authored by the State Coastal Conservancy, California Ocean Protection Council, NOAA NMFS and Restoration Center, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, and San Francisco Estuary Partnership), which is a 5 0-y ear Conservation Plan for submerged habitats in San Francisco Bay and which recommends the removal of derelict piling structures in San Francisco Bay.

4. Support of the public: The project is supported by NOAA, BCDC, and the City of Richmond. The Project also has broad public support from non-govemmental organizations such as Baykeeper and others.

5. Location: The project is located in Richmond, Contra Costa County within the San Francisco Bay Area, and will be carried out within known creosote hotspot locations and within Pacific herring spawning areas within the central portion of the Bay, consistent with Section 31162 of the Public Resources Code.

6. Need: The proposed project would not occur without Conservancy participation, including administration of the funding from BCDC, Chevron, WETA, PG&E, City ofSausalito, Port of San Francisco, and TransBay Cable LLC.

7. Greater-than-local interest: In creating the San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy Program, the legislature identified San Francisco Bay as the central featire in an interconnected open- space system of watersheds, natural habitats, scenic areas, agricultural lands and regional trails of statewide importance. This project will'help develop new approaches to removing creosote pilings from the Bay system and new techniques for restoration of shoreline and subtidal habitats in San Francisco Bay. The techniques and designs resulting from the project may have applicability at other sites in San Francisco Bay and m other estuarine systems on the Pacific Coast.

8. Sea level rise vulnerability: This project helps to improve resiliency of natural habitats, which is one of the overarching recommendations in climate change adaptation plamiing.

The Projectitself involves the removal ofvuhierable structures and will not result in increased vuhierability to sea level rise.

Exhibit 2

RICHMOND TERMINAL FOUR WHARF REMOVAL PROJECT
Additional Criteria

9. Urgency: Without Conservancy involvement, and funding from BCDC, Chevron, WETA, PG&E, City of Sausalito, Port of San Francisco, and TransBay Cable LLC, the project would not occur at this time in San Francisco Bay.

10. Resolution of more than one issue: The project will remove toxic pollutants from the Bay ecosystem, remove navigational hazards, implement subtidal habitat restoration designs, and will result in lessons learned that can be applied to additional sites.

11. Leverage: The funding from BCDC, Chevron, WETA, PG&E, City ofSausalito, Port of San Francisco, and TransBay Cable LLC will help cover Conservancy staff time, maximizing leverage of staff resources with minimal Conservancy fiscal outlay. Furthermore, no Conservancy funds are proposed in this authorization, which leverages funds provided by the Conservancy for earlier planning stages.

13. Innovation: The project will implement recommendations in the San Francisco Bay Subtidal Habitat Goals Report and continue to build on new, mnovative techniques used on earlier creosote piling removal and subtidal habitat restoration projects within San Francisco Bay.

15. Realization of prior Conservancy goats: See "Project History" section above.

16. Cooperation: The project is a collaborative project involving many agencies. The Conservancy is the lead agency,-and supporting partners include PSFMC, NOAA, City of Richmond, Department of Fish and Wildlife, BCDC, San Francisco-BayKeeper, The Watershed Project, Chevron, WETA, PG&E, City ofSausalito, Port of San Francisco, and TransBay Cable LLC and many others.

17. Minimization of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The proposed project will consider measures during the planning process and in the environmental analysis to minimize emissions throughout implementation of the project. These measures will be considered and applied as possible: a) work to be undertaken by local staff, contractors and grantees; b) use of recommended regional construction best management practices; and c) use of materials and equipment for the project that are purchased from local vendors, where feasible.

CONSISTENCY WITH SAN FRANCISCO BAY PLAN:

The San Francisco Bay Plan ("Bay Plan") was completed and adopted by BCDC in 1968 pursuant to the McAteer-Petris Act of 1965 and last amended in October 2011. The Bay Plan guides BCDC's management and permitting decisions in the Bay. The project is consistent with the following policies articulated in Part HI, Findings and Policy Section of the Bay Plan:

Subtidal Areas Policy 5 (adopted April 2002): "The [BCDC] shoul-d continue to support and encourage expansion of scientific-information on the Bay's subtidal areas, including:
(a) inventory and description of the Bay's subtidal areas; (b) the-relationship between the Bay's physical regime and biological populations; ...(e) where and how restoration should occur."
Exhibit 2

RICHMOND TERMINAL FOUR WHARF REMOVAL PROJECT
The proposed project will assist in implementation of this policy by providing additional data on best techniques for restoration at a specific site, describe the densities, locations, and species associated with subtidal habitats at that site, and conduct five years of monitoring on herring presence before and after construction.

Fish, Other Aquatic Organisms and Wildlife Policy 1 (amended April 2002); "To assure the benefits of fish, other aquatic organisms and wildlife for future generations, to the greatest extent feasible, the Bay's tidal marshes, tidal flats, and subtidal habitat should be conserved, restored and increased."
The project is consistent with this policy because it will restore and increase subtidal habitat in San Francisco Bay.

COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA:

The Conservancy, as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") has prepared an mitigated negative declaration for the project titled the Terminal Four Wharf, Warehouse, and^Pilin^Removal Prpiect Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND"). The MND describes the proposed project and provides an assessment of the project's potential significant adverse impacts on the environment. The MND concludes that the proposed project will not have any significant effects on the environment after implementation of project design features,-conservation measures, avoidance and minimization and mitigation measures, and best management practices.

The MND was prepared in accordance with CEQA (Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Title 14, section 15000 et seq.). The Conservancy released the proposed MND for public review on April 9,2020.

The MND indicates that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment with incorporation of certain mitigation measures. The only potential effects, for which mitigation is proposed, are in the areas of Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources,"Noise, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Mandatory Findings of Significance.

The Conservancy's grantee will be responsible for compliance with the mitigation measures.

The potential significant effects and the mitigation measures are described below.

Aesthetics
Portions of work in the tidal zone may require intermittent nighttime construction work (i.e., between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.), which would require lighting at the working face.

Constmction-related lighting would occur intermittently during the six-month construction period. There is no public access to the project site, and the intervenmg topography shields the site from publicly accessible views from the landward direction. The nearest receptor that could be adversely affected by construction lighting is the East Brother Light Station, a Victorian-era lighthouse-that also serves as a bed and breakfast inn, located approximately 1,000 feet to the west. To ensure that nighttime lighting does not adversely affect receptors at the East Brother Light Station, SCC would implement Mitigation Measure AES-1, Constmction Lighting.

After demolition and constmction activities are complete, there would be no operationsrelated lighting. For these reasons, the project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare Exhibit 2

RICHMOND TERMINAL FOUR WHARF REMOVAL PROJECT
that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area, and the impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure AES-1: Construction Lighting.

SCC will require the contractor to direct nighttime lighting used during construction toward the work face and away from the East Brother Light Station to the extent possible.

Air Quality
Demolition and construction activities would result in emissions of ozone precursors and criteria pollutants from the operation of off-road construction equipment (listed in Table 2-2 in the Project Description) and vehicle exhaust from vehicles transporting workers, construction materials and debris. In addition, water-based sources such as tugboats used to steer barges and work skiffs also produce air pollutants. Criteria pollutant emissions from off-road demolition and construction equipment as well as worker and truck trips were estimated using the most recent version of the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod version 2016.3.2) using data on construction schedule and phasing, types and number of construction equipment used in each phase, and truck trips generated based on material and-debris volumes estimated to be transported. Based on estimates of potential debris volumes that may need to be removed from the site, this analysis assumes that pile removal would require approximately 18 barge trips from the project site to the Port of Richmond's Terminal 3 sorting facility, the Port of San Francisco's Pier 96, or another facility determined by the contractor, and approximately 35-0 tmck trips from Terminal 3 or Pier 96 to one of the four planned disposal sites (assumed to be Potrero Hills Landfill iirSuisun City for this analysis). In addition,- approximately 230 haul tmck trips would be needed to transport spoils from the project site (again, the assumed disposal site is the Potrero Hills Landfill) and approximately 330 tmck trips to transport ESRP construction materials to the project site (-refer to Table 2-3 for average and peak daily tmck trips). The analysis assumes a one-way trip length of 39 miles from the Port of Richmond to the Potrero Landfill and 46 miles from the projeclrsite to the Potrero Landfill.

CalEEMod default trip lengths for Contra Costa County were assumed for other hauling trips.

Emissions from tugboats that would steer barges and work skiffs were estimated using marine diesel and gasoline engine emission factors, respectively, from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). Details of the calculations, including constmction schedule and phases, equipment types and numbers used in each construction phase, worker vehic-le and truck trips, number of working days, etc., are presented in Appendix B. The average daily emissions were calculated by adding the emissions from all the construction phases and dividing the total by the number of construction workdays (after taking into account any overlapping of phases).

Table 3-1 presents estimated project constmction emissions.

TABLE 3-1

DEBRIS REMOVAL ACTIVITIES EMISSIONS'
Source average Daily Emissions (pounds/day)
ROG NOx Exhaust PMio I Exhaust PMz-s
Exhibit 2

RICHMOND TERMINAL FOUR WHARF REMOVAL PROJECT

2.0 I 1.9

0.1 I 0.1

0.2 I 0.2

2.3 I 2.2
82 I 54
No ; I No

0.1 ! 0.1

0.1 I 0.1

0.2 I 0.2
X1.4 I 0.4
82 ! 54
No I No
NOTES:
a For purposes of modeling, emissions were assumed to occur over a total of 5 months from August 2020 to early January 2021 (110 workdays), although the constmction start date has not yet been detenmined.
b Emissions were calculated using CalEEMod assuming 8 hours per day of activity for each equipment listed under each phase.
c Assumes 8 hours of operation per day. Total hours were calculated as the total sum of the product of the number of work skiffs used in each construction phase and the number of workdays in that phase times 8 hours per day. d Emissions assume engines meeting Tier 4 Final standards.

Off-road Construction
Equipment -
Unmitigatedb
Work skiffs - Gasoline
enginesc
Tugboats - Tier 4F Diesel
Enginesd
Total Average Daily
Emissions
BAAQMD Average Daily
Significance Thresholds
Significant?
Off-road Construction
Equipment-Tier 4
Engines
Work skiffs - Gasoline
Engines
Tugboats - Diesel Tier 4F
Engines
Total Average Daily
Emissions"
BAAQMD Average Daily
Significance Thresholds
Significant?

6.1 0.8

11.7 54
No

1.2 6.1

0..8

8.1 54
No

10.1 7.7

64.3 54
Yes

12.2 10.1

7.7 30.0
54 No
Exhibit 2

RICHMOND TERMINAL FOUR WHARF REMOVAL PROJECT
ROG = reactive organic gases
NOx = oxides of nitrogen
PMio = particulate matter 10 micrometers in diameter or smaller PM2.5:= particulate matter 2.5 micrometers in diameter or smaller The project's emissions were evaluated against the thresholds of significance included in the BAAQMD's 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines.1 As shown in Table 3-1, average daily emissions from debris removal activities would exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds. This unmitigated scenario assumes no emission controls from off-road equipment (e.g., back hoes, excavators and cranes; see Table 2-2 in Chapter2). However, based on information that Tier 4 engines (i.e., engines meeting the U.S. EPA's Tier 4 Final standards) were already in use for tugboats, emission factors for tugboats reflect this standard. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would reduce emissions to a less-than-significant level by requiring that all offroad construction equipment also be equipped with engines meeting the U.S. EPA's Tier 4 Final standards. Table 3-1 shows these mitigated emissions.

BAAQMD has not developed quantitative mass emissions thresholds for fugitive dust emissions ofparticulate matter from earthmoving activities, but instead recommends implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs), such as those listed as Basic Construction Mitigation Measures Recommended for Ai! Proposed Projects in BAAQMD's 2017 CEQA Air Guidelines, to reduce fugitive dust emissions. Project activities would primarily occur along a portion of the San Franeisco Bay shoreline and would not involve intense earthmoving activities on dry land.

As such, fugitive dust emissions would be minimal. Nevertheless, all landside activities with the potential for ground disturbance will be subject to the best management practices for air quality described in Section 2.5.1 of-the Project Description, "which are based orrBAAQMD recommended dust control measures to ensure that significant impacts related to dust would be avoided.

With mitigation and implementation of the referenced best management practices, project emissions would not exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds and adequate fugitive dust reduction measures would be implemented consistent with BAAQMD's BMPs, and potential impacts related to the project's individual emissions would be reduced to less than significant. hi developing the thresholds of significance for air pollutants, the BAAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project's individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable.

If a project exceeds the identified significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts on the region's existing air quality conditions. Therefore, additional analysis to assess cumulative impacts is unnecessary. ' BAAQMD, California Environmental Quality Act: Air Quality Guidelines, 2017. Available online at http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en.

Accessed on September 4, 2018.

Exhibit 2

RICHMOND TERMINAL FOUR WHARF REMOVAL PROJECT
As described above, project construction emissions would not be anticipated to exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds with the implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 in addition to the best management practices for air quality described in Section 2.5.1. Therefore, the project would result in a less-than-significant cumulative impact with mitigation.

Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Construction Equipment Diesel Emissions Control. All heavy-duty off-road equipment used for construction activities shall be equipped with the most effective Verified Diesel Emissions Control Strategies (VDECS) available for the engme type. In this case, the best available VDECS would be implementation of Tier 4F engines as certified by California Air Resources Board and U.S. EPA. The equipment shall be properly maintained and tuned in accordance with manufacturers specifications.

Bioloeical Resources
Special-Status Wildlife
Western Bumble Bee
Although western bumble bee could be present in the project area based its association with the Asteraceae and Fabaceae. plant families, vegetation removal is not planned in the areas where coyote brush, Italian thistle, and French broom were observed. Furthermore, although coyote brush is a native plant, Italian thistle and French broom are non-native species. French broom is rated as highly invasive, and Italian thistle as moderately invasive, by the California Invasive Plant Council;1 therefore, while these plants may or may not provide resources to western bumble bee, the presence of these species is a detriment to the local vegetative community in general. In addition, the installation of the enhanced rock slope protection (ERSP) includes planting native plants of the Point San Pablo ecotone along the crown of the 350-foot long ERSP. Vegetation that is proposed for the living crown includes potential host plants for western bumble bee, including coastal (=Califomia) sage brush, marsh gumplant (Grmdelia stricta var. angustifolia), and marsh jaumea from the Asteraceae family, and silver bush lupine, from the Fabaceae family. Because potential host plants for western bumble bee are not planned for removal, but are planned for planting on the living crown of the ESRP, there would be no impact to western bumble bee.

Western Burrowing Owl
Construction-related impacts to western burrowing owls would primarily include crushing burrows in use by owls for either breedmg or wintering. In addition, noise, vibration, increased vehicular traffic and human presence during demolition activities, project staging and access could result in nest failure (dishirbance, avoidance, or abandonment that leads to unsuccessful reproduction), or cause flight behavior that exposes an adult or its young to predators during the breeding season. These activities could also cause wintering birds to flush, expending energy or interrupting foraging and roosting, and potentially exposing an owl to predators. These would be significant impacts. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, Avoidance 1 California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC), 2019. Cal-IPC Inventory of invasive plants. https://www.ca!ipc.orR/plants/Drofiles/. Accessed November 13, 2019.

Exhibit 2

RICHMOND TERMINAL FOUR WHARF REMOVAL PROJECT
and Minimization of Impacts to Western Burrowing Owl, would mitigate potential impacts to burrowing owls to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts to Western Burrowing Owl. Prior to commencement ofon-shore construction activities for the project, including materials staging and/or increased vehicular traffic, SCC will implement the following measures:
• Preconstruction Surveys. Preconstruction surveys for suitable burrowing owl habitat and/or burrowing owls will be conducted no fewer than 14 days prior to the initiation of project activities (including equipment and materials staging) within the project area.

Surveys will be conducted by a qualified biologist m conformance with the most recent requirements and guidelines of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).

The biologist will determine the number and time frame (prior to construction) of surveys to be conducted. If no burrowing owls are detected, no additional action is necessary.
• Monitoring. In areas positive for burrowing owl presence, the Lead Biologist or qualified biological monitor will 'be onsite during all construction activities in areas where burrowing owls are determined to be present.
• Passive Relocation. If burrowing owls cannot be avoided by the project, then additional measures, such as passive relocation during the nonbreeding season, would be implemented to reduce any potential impacts. Measures for successful relocation will be recommended by a qualified biologist and will be in conformance with CDFW. requirements and guidelines.
• Resumption of Construction Activities. When a qualified biologist is able to determine that burrowmg owls are no longer occupying the site^ancLpassive relocation is deemed suceessful, constructren activities may continue.

Special-Status Bats
Impacts to special-status bats could occur if building demolition were to occur during periods of winter torpor; any bats present would likely not survive the disturbance.2 Disturbance to maternity roosts could impact survival of young. These disturbances would be a significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2, Avoidance and Minknization of Impacts to Roosting Bats, would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Avoidance and Minimization-of Impacts to Roosting Bats. In advance of building removal, a pre-constmction survey for special-status bats will be conducted by a qualified biologist to characterize potential bat habitat and identify active roost sites within buildings to be removed. Should potential roosting habitat or active bat roosts be found in buildings to be removed under the project, the following measures will be implemented:
2 Tuttle, M., 1991. How North America Bats are at Their Most Vulnerable During Hibernation and Migration, BA TS Magazine, Volume 9, No. 3. Fall 1991. htto://vi'VtW.batcon.org/resources/media-education/bats-magazme/bat article/492. accessed January 5. 2018.

Exhibit 2

RICHMOND TERMINAL FOUR WHARF REMOVAL PROJECT
• Removal of buildings with active roosts will occur when bats are active, approximately between the periods of March 1-April 15 and August 15-October 15; outside of bat maternity roosting season (approximately April 15-August 15) and outside of months of winter torpor (approximately October 15-February 28), to the extent feasible. • If removal of buildings during the periods when bats are active is not feasible and active bat roosts being used for maternity or hibemation purposes are found on or in the immediate vicinity of the project area where building removal is planned, a nodisturbance buffer of 100 feet will be established around these roost sites until they are determined to be no longer active by the qualified biologist.

The qualified biologist will be present during building removal if active bat roosts, which are not being used for maternity or hibemation purposes, are present. Buildings with active roosts will be removed'only when no ram is occurring or is forecast to occur for 3 days and when daytime temperatures are at least 50°F.

Removal of buildings containing or suspected to contain active bat roosts, which are not being used for maternity or hibemation purposes, will be dismantled under the supervision of the qualified biologist. Buildings will be partially dismantled to significantly change the roost conditions, causing bats to abandon and not return to the roost.

Special-Status Plants
Suisun marsh aster has not been confinned in the project area, though potential habitat that could support this species occurs on-site. Construction-related impacts to Suisun marsh aster could occur due to: vegetation removal activities within and adjacent to rip-rap; damage during removal ofraikoad remnants, steel holding tank, concrete box or utilities and pipes, which are located in or on rip-rap; or direct crushing by materials or vehicles using the potential staging areas and roads adjacent to rip-rap. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3, Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts to Special-Status Plants, would reduce this impact to aless- thansignificant "level.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts to Suisun Marsh Aster.

Prior to conducting demolition, the SCC will unplement the following measures:
• Prior to the start of construction, a qualified biologist will conduct a special-status plant survey for Suisun marsh aster within the species' suitable habitat within the project work limits and during a time when the plant can be identified to species. The survey will follow the CDFW Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities. If special-status plant species occur within the project work limits, then the biologist will establish an adequate buffer area for each plant population to exclude activities that directly remove or alter the habitat of, or result in indirect adverse impacts on, the special-status plant species. A 3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2018. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities. Revised March 20, 2018.

Exhibit 2

RICHMOND TERMINAL FOUR WHARF REMOVAL PROJECT
qualified biologist will oversee installation of a temporary, plastic mesh-type construction fence (Tensor Polygrid or equivalent) at least 4 feet (1.2 meters) tall around any established buffer areas to prevent encroachment by construction vehicles and personnel. The qualified biologist will determine the exact location of the fencing. The fencing will be strung tightly on posts set at maximum intervals of 10 feet (3 meters) and will be checked and maintained weekly until all construction is complete. The buffer zone established by the fencing will be marked by a sigrr stating, "This is habitat of Suisun marsh aster, and must not be disturbed. No construction activity, mcluding grading, will be allowed."
If impacts to Suisun marsh aster cannot be avoided, plants within the construction impact area will be relocated to suitable habitat at similar tidal elevation as the source site, and outside of the construction impact area. Suisun marsh aster rhizomes will be transplanted immediately within the relocation site(s). Relocation site(s) will be identified by a botanist and transplant material will be replanted immediately after being removed.

Location of transplanted material will be recorded using a submeter accuracy GPS unit (e.g., Trimble GPS) to enable finding the relocation plantings for monitoring. Annual mitigation monitoring of relocated plants will be conducted during the flowering period for the Suisun marsh aster and will include information on the number of surviving plants and/or patch size, vigor dfplantings, plant associates, any observed population threats, and photographs of transplanted material. A monitoring period of at least three years or until the success criteria of 1:1 mitigation has been achieved will be required, up to a maxmium of five years.

IfSuisun marsh aster cannot be relocated, individual plants will be replaced at a 3:1 ratio within the project site, or as close to the project site as possible, in suitable habitat at similar elevation as the source site(s). The planting site(s) will be identified by a botanist.

Location of transplanted material will be recorded usinga submeter accuracy GPS unit (e.g., Trimble GPS) to enable finding the mitigation plantings for monitoring. Annual mitigation monitoring of relocated plants will be conducted during the flowering period for the Suisun marsh aster and will include information on the number of surviving plants and/or patch size, vigor ofplantmg-s, plant associates, any observed population threats, and photographs of transplanted material. A monitoring period of at least three years or until the success criteria of 3:1 mitigation has been achieved will be required, up to a maximum of five years.

If monitoring indicates the performance criteria are met or exceeded prior to the end of the five year monitoring period, then the SCC will have fulfilled its mitigation obligation for Suisun marsh aster, and will notify CDFW. If monitoring indicates the performance criteria is not being met (or is unlikely to be met), then the SCC will initiate consultation with CDFW to determine an alternative course of action, including possible additional transplants or seed collection for off-site propagation and outplanting, or donation to a seed conservation bank to preserve the population genes.

Exhibit 2

RICHMOND TERMINAL FOUR WHARF REMOVAL PROJECT
Marine IVIammals
Hydroacoustic Impacts
Vibratory hammers may be required to remove creosote-contaminated piles. Use of a vibratory hammer has the potential to generate increased underwater sound levels that are dangerous to aquatic species, marine mammals in particular.

Vibratory pile drivers work on a different principal than impact pile-driving hammers and therein produce a different sound profile. A vibratory driver works by inducting particle motion to the substrate immediately below and around the pile, causing liquefaction of the immediately adjacent sediment, allowing the pile to be removed.

While vibratory pile driving typically generates sound profiles 10-20 decibels (dB)4 lower in intensity, relative to impact hammers, noise generated from these activities can have deleterious effects on marine mammals. As such, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association enforces underwater noise thresholds to prevent such an impact.5
• Ifvibratory hammers are used to remove piles, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-4 would ensure hydroacoustic impacts on marine mammals occur at less- thansignificant levels.

Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Use ofVibratory Pile Hammers. If use ofavibratory hammer is required for-pile removal the followmg marine mammal protection criteria will be implemented:
• The contractor will monitor marine mammal presence when vibratory hammers are used.

Marine mammal monitoring will include, at a minimum, the following conditions:

A 50-meter marine mammal monitoring zone will be established around each pile removal location.

A qualified biological monitor(s) would be located at the best vantage point(s) in order to properly see as much of the monitoring zone as possible.

During all observation periods, the monitor(s) will use binoculars an-d the naked eye to search continuously for marine mammals.

If the monitoring zone is obscured by fog or poor lighting conditions, pile r&moval at that location will not be initiated until that zone is visible. Should such conditions arise while installation is underway, the activity would be paused. 4 Noise is unwanted sound. Sound, traveling in the form of waves from a source, exerts a pressure ievel (referred to as sound level) that is measured in decibels (dB), with zero dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of human hearing and 120 to 140 dB corresponding to the threshold of pain. 5 Vibratory hammer effects appear to be less impactful to fish, therefore thresholds have not been developed for fish at this time.

Exhibit 2

RICHMOND TERMINAL FOUR WHARF REMOVAL PROJECT
The monitoring zone around the pile will be monitored for the presence of marine mammals 30 minutes before, during, and 15 minutes after any pile driving activity.

Work activities would be halted when a marine mammal enters the monitoring zone and resume only after the animal has been gone from the area for a minimum of 15 minutes.

Airborne sound levels below 90 dB when harbor seals are present, 100 dB for other pinnipeds, wilt be maintained.
"Waters of the United States/' are defined in the Code of Federal Regulations (33 CFR 328.3[a]; 40 CFR 230.3[sJ) as rivers, streams, mud flats, sand flats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation, or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters. These waters fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Additionally, the Corp regulates navigable waters under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (R&HA). Navigable waters are defined as those waters that are subjiect to the ebb and flow of the tide or that are presently used, have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce. The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulates CWA Section 404 waters and R&HA Section 10 waters under Section 401 of the CWA. The RWQCB also regulates waters of the state under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Waters of the state are broadly defined as "any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state." A wetland delineation was conducted by Environmental Science Associates on August 14, 2019.

The delineation used the "Routine Determination-Method" as described in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual.6 The 1987 Manual was used in conjunction with the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: And West Region (Version 2.0)-.' For areas where the 1987 Manual and the Arid West Supplement differ, the Arid West Supplement was followed. Wetlands and waters were classified using commonly accepted habitat types. All areas identified in the Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. are preliminary and subject to review and verification-by ACOE.

Potentially jurisdictional features within the project study area .that could be affected by the project include a freshwater seep and tidal waters.9 The freshwater seep, (identified as FWS-1 on 6 Environmental Laboratory, Department of the Army, 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual- (Technical Report Y-87-1). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Waterways Experimental Station. Vicksburg, Mississippi. 7 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers W&tlancTDelineation Manual:

Arid West Region (Version 2.0) ed. J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/ELTR-06-16. Vicksburg, MS:

U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
8 Environmental Science Associates (ESA), 2017. San Jose-Santa Clara Regional Wast&water Facility Pond-AlS South Structure Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. July, 2017. 9 The seasonal wetland swale that was identified within the wetland delineation study area, shown in Table 3-2 and identified as SWS-1 in Figure BIO-3 in Appendix C, is outside of the project area and would not be adversely affected by the project.

Exhibit 2

RICHMOND TERMINAL FOUR WHARF REMOVAL PROJECT
Figure BIO-3 in Appendix C), which is located at the eastern edge of a potential staging area in the northern portion of the site, could be adversely affected by vehicles or placement of equipment or materials; however, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-5, Avoid Impacts to Terrestrial Wetlands, would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Tidal waters include all open tidal waters in the project area up to the high tide line (approximately 7.59 ft NAVD88) on the shoreline. The project would remove approximately 4,150 cubic yards of pilings, approximately 5,400 cubic yards of debris from the bay floor,10 and the ERSP would remove approximately 1,950 cubic yards of material (i.e., concrete headwall and soil) along 350 feet of shoreline, for a total of approximately 11,500 cubic yards of fill removed from tidal waters in the bay. The ERSP would include installation of approximately 2,400 cubic yards of reused rock fill, backing rock fill, quarter-ton to one-ton rock boulders, and oyster reef balls.

Overall, the project would result in a net removal of approximately 9,100 cubic yards of fill from tidal waters (Table 3-3). Therefore, there would be no loss ofjurisdictional waters and no negative impacts to tidal waters.

Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Avoid Impacts to Terrestrial Wetlands. The freshwater seep identified as FWS-1 will be clearly delineated and separated from the project Iknits (i.e., staging area) through the installation of environmentally sensitive area fencing to avoid accidental incursion. Fencmg will be installed under supervision of a qualified biologist.

Cultural Resources
As a result of archival review, field survey, distribution of nearby archaeological sites, and the geologic and environmental setting, the archaeological sensitivity of the project site is considered low. While unlikely, given the general sensitivity of the project vicinity, the inadvertent discovery of redeposited archaeological resources cannot be entirely discounted, including in areas of artificial fill. Impacts to archaeological resources would be potentially significant. In the event that archaeological resources are encountered during ^ground disturbing activities, Mitigation Measure CUL-1, Inadvertent Discovery of Archaeological Resource, would reduce impacts to a less-than-sfgnificant level.

Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Inadvertent Discovery of Archaeological Resources. If prehistoric or historic-era .archaeological resources are encountered by construction personnel during project implementation, all construction activities within 100 feet shall halt until a qualified archaeologist, defined as one meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology, can assess the significance of the find.

Prehistoric archaeological materrals might include obsidian and chert flaked-stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil ("midden") containing heat-affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; and stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, hand stones, or milling slabs); and/or battered stone tools, such as Hammer stones and pitted stones. Historic-era materials might include stone; concrete, or adobe footmgs and walls; filled wells or privies; and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse.
10 An estimated 2,700 tons of debris would be removed from the bay floor. This is equivalent to approximately 5,400 yd3 of debris.

Exhibit 2

RICHMOND TERMINAL FOUR WHARF REMOVAL PROJECT
The mitigation for archaeological resources shall include preservation in place, or, if preservation in place is not feasible, data recovery through excavation. If preservation in place is feasible, this may be accomplished through one of the following means: (1) modifying the construction plan to avoid the resource; (2) incorporating the resource within open space; (3) capping and covering the resource before building appropriate facilities on the resource site; or (4) deeding the resource site into a permanent conservation easement.

If preservation in place is not feasible, a qualified archaeologist shall prepare and implement a detailed treatment plan to recover the scientifically consequential information from and about the resource, prior to any excavation at the resource site. Treatment for most resources would consist of (but would not necessarily be not limited to) sample excavation, artifact collection, site documentation, and historical research, with the aim to target the recovery of important scientific data contained in the portion(s) of the significant resource to be affected by the project. The treatment plan shall include provisions for analysis of data in a regional context, reporting of results within a timely manner, curation of artifacts and data at an approved facility, and dissemination of reports to local and state repositories, libraries, and interested professionals.

There is no indication that the project site has been used-for burial purposes in the recent or distant past. While unlikely, the inadvertent discovery of redeposited human remains cannot be entirely discounted, including in areas of-artificial fill. Impacts to human remains would be potentially significant. In the event that human remains are encountered during ground disturbing activities, Mitigation Measure CUL-2, Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains, would reduce impacts-to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation IVIeasure CUL-2: Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains. If potential human remains are encountered, all work will halt within 100 feet of the find and the on-site construction crew will immediately contact the City. The City will contact the Contra Costa County coroner in accordance with PRC Section 5097.98 and Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. If the coroner-determines the remains are Native American, the coroner will contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). As provided in PRC Section 5097.98, the NAHC will identify the person or persons believed most likely to be descended from the deceased Native American. The most likely descendent will make recommendations for means of treating, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in PRC Section 5097.98.

Noise
Noise Reduction Techniques for Equipment Used in Nighttime Construction Activity, would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. With mitigation, project construction would not result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Therefore, construction-related impacts would be less than significant with mitigatiorL There would be no permanent project components added to the environment with the ability to produce noise. Therefore, no operational impact would occur.

Exhibit 2

RICHMOND TERMINAL FOUR WHARF REMOVAL PROJECT
Mitigation Measure N01-1: Noise Reduction Techniques for Equipment Used in Nighttime Construction Activity. One or a combination of the following noise reduction techniques shall be implemented to reduce noise from nighttime construction activities to below 50 dBA at the East Brother Light Station:
• Directionally position construction equipment such that the exhaust faces away from the receptors of the East Brother Light Station. This measure would be expected to reduce noise levels by 2 to 3 dBA.

Provide acoustically rated shielding around engines of construction equipment. This measure would be expected to reduce noise levels by 5 to 12 dBA depending on the proximity of shielding to the engines.

Cranes shall be operated in ECO silent mode12 during nighttime hours, as available. This measure would be expected to reduce noise levels by 3 to 5 dBA.

Tribal Cultural Resources
Tribal cultural resources are: 1) sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are listed, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register), or local register of historical resources, as defmed m Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5020. l(k); or, 2) a resource determined by the lead CEQA agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidenc-e, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in PRC Section 5024. l(c). For a cultural landscape to be considered a tribal cultural resource, it must be geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape (PRC Section 21074(b)).

An historical resource (as defined in PRC Section 21084.1), unique archaeological resource (as defined in PRC Section 21083.2(g)), or non-unique archaeological resource (as defined in PRC Section 21083.2(h)) may also be a tribal cultural resource.

On May 9, 2018, ESA contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to request a search of their Sacred Lands files and a list of local Native Americans who might have knowledge of cultural resources in the vicinity of the project site. In a letter response on May 15, 2018, the NAHC did not identify sacred lands within or near the project site and provided a list of six contacts who might have additional information about the project location. On June 28, 2018, on behalf of the SCC, ESA sent letters, via certified mail, to the six Native American representatives identified by the NAHC. The letters provided a brief description of the project and maps of the project site, and requested that the recipients share any information regarding potential project impacts to historical resources, if they so desired. Kathy Perez from the Northern Valley Yokuts tribe responded by telephone that she would like a Native American monitor during excavation in native, undisturbed areas, if applicable.

Exhibit 2

RICHMOND TERMINAL FOUR WHARF REMOVAL PROJECT
As described in the Cultural Resources section above, ESA completed a records search at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) on May 10, 2018 (File No. 17-2669)" and a pedestrian survey on May 10, 2018. As a result of archival review, field survey, distribution of nearby archaeological sites, and the geo logic and envu-onmental setting, the archaeological sensitivity of the project site is considered low.

Based on the results of correspondence with the NAHC and the NWIC records search, no known tribal cultural resources listed-or determined eligible for listing in the California Register, included in a local register of historical resources, or determined by the lead agency to be significant would be adversely affected-by the project. However, if any previously unrecorded- archaeological resources are identified during project implementation, particularly grounddisturbing constouction activities, and are found to qualify as a tribal cultural resource pursuant to PRC Section 21074(a)(2), any impacts to the resource resulting from the project could be potentially significant. Any such potential significant impacts would be reduced to a less-thansignificant level through implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1, Inadvertent Discovery of Archaeological Resources, and Mitigation Measure CUL-2, Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains.

Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Inadvertent Discovery of Archaeological Resources, (refer to Section 3.2.5, Cultural Resources)
Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains, (refer to Section

3. 2.5, Cultural Resources)
Mandatory Findings of Sisnificance
a) Less than Signifkant with Mitigation. As described in Section 3.2.4, Biological Resources, with implementation of best management practices described in Section 2.5 of Chapter 2, Project Description, and Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-5, the project would not adversely affect fish or wildlife habitat, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species. Through implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-5, in addition to the project designs and associated environmental protection measures, including construction BMPs, avoidance and minimization, seasonal avoidance, and biological monitoring during and after construction, the brief and localized potential impacts to special-status species and their habitats would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. In the longer term, the removal of derelict structures and enhancing the subtidal and intertidal habitat in the San Francisco Bay would improve conditions 11 Northwest Information Center (NWIC)^ California Historical Resources Information System at Sonoma State University, File No. 17-2669. On file at ESA, May 10, 2018 12 ESA, Terminal 4 Wharf, Warehouse, and Pile Removal Project Point San Pablo, City of Richmond, Contra Costa County, Cultural Resources Survey Report. Prepared on behalf of California State Coastal Conservancy. October 2019.

Exhibit 2

RICHMOND TERMINAL FOUR WHARF REMOVAL PROJECT
for a range of species using the subtidal and intertidal habitats within and around the project area.

The project's potential effects on historic and archaeological resources are described in Section

3.2.5, Cultural Resources; three cultural resources were identified and recorded in the project site (Point San Pablo Terminal Four Wharf, Unnamed Sunken Hulk, Richmond Belt Railroad Segment). Archival review determined that none of the three resources are recommended eligible for listing in the California Register, due to their lack of significant associations with events (criterion 1), individuals (criterion 2), architectural distinction (-criterion 3), or information potential (criterion 4). As such, none of these resources is considered a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. Additionally, as a result of archival review, field survey, distribution of nearby archaeological sites, and the geologic and environmental setting, the archaeological sensitivity of the project site is considered low, and there is no indication that the project site has been used for burial purposes. While unlikely, in the event that archaeological resources or human remains are encountered during ground disturbing activities, Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level, and the project would not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.

Mitigation Mleasures BIO-1: Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts to Western Burrowing Owl, BIO-2: Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts to Roosting Bats, BIO-3:

Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts to Suisun Marsh Aster, BIO-4: Use ofVibratory Pile Hammers, BIO-5: Avoid Impacts to Terrestrial Wetlands, (refer to Section 3.2.4, Biological Resources)
Mitigation Measures CUL-1: Inadvertent Discovery of Archaeological Resources, CUL-2:

Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains. (refer to Section 3.2.5, Cultural Resources) b) Less than Significant with Mitigation. As described in the preceding sections, the project has the potential to cause significant impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, tribal culhiral resources, and noise. Mitigation measures have been identified that would reduce these impacts to less-than-significant levels. Overall, the project has limited impacts on the physical environment and most of the impacts associated with implementation of the project would occur durmg construction, which is anticipated to take six months or less, and thus would be short-term.

The potential for project-generated impacts to contribute to a significant cumulative impact would arise if they occur within the same geographic area. In addition to the geographic scope, cumulative impacts can be determined by the timing of the other projects relative to the project.

Schedule is particularly important for construction-related impacts. For a group of projects to generate cumulative construction impacts, they must be temporally as well as spatialiy proximate.

The Point Molate Mixed-Use Development Project (Point Molate Project) is proposed by Winehaven LLC approximately one mile south of the project-site. The Point Molate Project consists of the mixed-use development of approximately 80 acres of the approximately 413 acre Point Molate Site (of which approximately 271 acres is above water and 142 acres are submerged in the Bay) that includes a variety of residential and commercial uses, as well as supporting road and utility infrastructure. The mixed-use community would include open space, adaptive re-use of historic cottages, adaptive re-use of the historic Winehaven buildings, and Exhibit 2

RICHMOND TERMINAL FOUR WHARF REMOVAL PROJECT
residential development. Approximately 180 acres of the Point Molate Project site would remain as open space that is enhanced with the incorporation of natural trails. Construction of the Point Molate Project is expected to take seven to nine years, starting in early 2021.13 The dates for construction of the Terminal Four Project are not yet known. Nonetheless, due to the Point Molate Project's long construction schedule, there is a potential that the construction phase for the two projects would overlap. An overlap in the construction schedule would not have significant effects on sensitive receptors related to traffic and air quality as there is a general lack of sensitive receptors present on Point San Pablo and the areas surrounding the project sites. Additionally, the project would have a relatively low number of vehicle trips (refer to Table 2-3) and a short construction schedule. The only sensitive receptor affected by noise from construction of the Terminal Four Project is the East Brother Light Station. That impact is associated with nighttime construction noise. It is unknown whether the Point Molate Project would involve nighttime construction; however, East Brother Light Station is over one mile away from the Point Molate Project site,-a distance that would attenuate construction noise impacts. Consequently, the likelihood that the two projects could create significant cumulative noise impacts is considered low. Mitigation Measure N01-1 would be implemented to reduce noise related to nighttime construction activities, further reducing the potential for cumulative noise impacts.

The project's potentially significant impacts on aesthetics, biological, cultural, and tribal cultural resources would not be exacerbated by the Point Molate Project as they do not spatially overlap. Any potentially cumulative impacts would oecur during construction as there are minimal operations and maintenance activities anticipated for the project.

Regarding cumulative air quality impacts, as stated in Section 3.2.3, Air Quality, in developing the thresholds of significance for air pollutants, the BAAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project's individual emission's would be cumulatively considerable. If a project exceeds the identified significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts on the region's existing air quality conditions. Project construction emissions would not be anticipated to exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds with the Implementation of air quality best management practices described in Section 2.5.1 and Mitigation Measure AQ-1. Therefore, the project would result in a less-thansignificant cumulative impact with mitigation.

Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Construction Equipment Diesel Emissions Control, (refer to Section 3.2.3, Air Quality)
Mitigation Measure N01-1: Noise Reduction Techniques for Equipment Used in Nighttime Construction Activity, (refer to Section 3.2.13, Noise) c) Less than significant with Mitigation. As described above, the project has the potential to cause signiflcant-impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, biological, cultural, tribal cultural resources. Mitigation measures have been identified to reduce these impacts to less- thansignificant levels. The project's potential to impact human beings is addressed in various sections of this Initial Study, including those that affect resources used or enjoyed by the public, 13 City of Richmond, Notice of Preparation of a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEFR) and Public Scoping Meeting for the Point Molate Mixed-Use Development Project, July 12,2019.

Exhibit 2

RICHMOND TERMINAL FOUR WHARF REMOVAL PROJECT
residents, and others in the project area (such as aesthetics, public services, and recreation); those that are protective of public safety and well-being (such as air quality, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology and water quality, and noise); and those that address community character and essential infrastructure (such as land use and planning, population and housing, transportation, and utilities). Although the project has the potential to have adverse effects on human beings related to a new source of substantial light or glare and a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants, these impacts could be avoided or minimized through project design features, compliance with standard regulatory requirements, and implementation of Mitigation Measures AES-1 and AQ-1. As such, project impacts to human beings would be less than significant with mitigation.

Mitigation Measure AES-1: Construction Lighting, (refer to Section 3.2.1, Aesthetics) Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Construction Equipment Diesel Emissions Control, (refer to Section 3.2.3, Air Quality)
All mitigation measures proposed by the MND are contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for theLProject (Exhibit 5).

Based on the foregoing. Conservancy staff recommends that the Conservancy: (1) find that the project, as mitigated, avoids, reduces, or mitigates the possible effects of the project to a level of insignificance; (2) find that there is no substantial evidence that the project, as mitigated, may have a significant effect on the environment; (3) find that the MND reflects the Conservancy's independent judgment and analysis; and (4) adopt the MND and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program pursuant to 14 Cal. Code of Regulations Section 15074(d).

If the MND is adopted and the proposed authorization approved, Conservancy staff will file a Notice of Determination.

Exhibit 3

COASTAL CONSERVANCY
Staff Recommendation March 25, 2021

TERMINAL FOUR WHARF REMOVAL PROJECT
Project No. 14-025-01 Project Manager: Marilyn Latta
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorization to disburse up to $1,434,400 to the City of Richmond to augment the Conservancy's November 19, 2020 grant of $3,000,000 for the final design and implementation of the Terminal Four Wharf Removal Project near Point San Pablo, Contra Costa County.

LOCATION: Point San Pablo, Richmond (Contra Costa County) PROGRAM CATEGORY: San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy

EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1: RegiQnal Map
Exhibit 2: November 19, 2021 Staff Recommendation
RESOLUTION AND FINDINGS:

Staff recommends that the State Coastal Conservancy adopt the following resolution and findings.

Resolution:

The State Coastal Conservancy hereby authorizes the disbursement of up to $1,434,400 to the City of Richmond to augment the Conservancy's November 19, 2020 grant of $3,000,000 for the final design and implementation of the Terminal Four Wharf Removal Project near Point San Pablo, Contra Costa County.

Prior to the disbursement of any funds, the City of Richmond shall submit for the review and written approval of the Conservancy's Executive Officer; a. A work program, budget, schedule, and the name? of any contractors to be employed in carrying out the work.
b. Evidence that all required permits and approvals have been obtained for the proposed project.

Exhibit 3

RICHMOND TERMINAL FOUR WHARF REMOVAL PROJECT

RICHMOND TERMINAL FOUR WHARF REMOVAL PROJECT
In carrying out the proposed project, the City of Richmond shall comply with all applicable mitigation and monitormg measures that are required by any permit or approval and with all measures that are identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Terminal 4 Wharf, Warehouse and Piling Removal Project adopted by the Conservancy November 19,2020." Findings:

Based on the accompanying staff report and attached exhibits, the State Coastal Conservancy hereby finds that:

1. The proposed authorization is consistent with Chapter 4.5 of Division 21 of the Public Resources Code, regarding the resource goals of the San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy Program.

2. The proposed project is consistent with the current Conservancy Project Selection Criteria and Guidelines.

PROIECT SUMMARY
At its November 19, 2020 meeting,-the Conservancy authorized disbursement of $3,000,000 in funds for the Termmal Four Wharf Removal Project and adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project (see Exhibit 2, "Staff Recommendation"). The "Project Financing" section of the November 19 staff recommendation noted that Conservancy staff would continue to assist the City in identifying the remaining funding needed to complete the project.

To this end, staff worked to secure a $1,200,000 Water Quality Improvement grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and $312,840 in mitigation funds from Koch Carbon forthe project. Staff recommends that the Conservancy authorize disbursement of up to $1,150,000 of the EPA grant and $284,400 from Koch Carbon to the City of Richmond for implementation of the Terminal Four Wharf Removal project, which consists of demolition of derelict pilings, decking, and two buildings, construction of enhanced rock slope protection, and monitoring at Terminal Four near Point San Pablo in Contra Costa County (see Exhibit 1). The remaining $50,000 ofEPA funding and $28,400 from Koch Carbon will be used to cover the Conservancy's staff costs in supporting the project. The "Project Financing" section, below, has been updated to reflect the most recent funding status and this new federal grant source. All other sections of this report remain consistent with the November 19 authorization.

PROJECT FINANCING
EPA (via a grant to the Conservancy) $1,150,000
Koch Carbon (via the Conservancy) $284,400
Coastal Conservancy previously authorized $3,000,000
San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority (unsecured) $2,300,000 Other unsecured funding $700,000
Exhibit 3

RICHMOND TERMINAL FOUR WHARF REMOVAL PROJECT

RICHMOND TERMINAL FOUR WHARF REMOVAL PROJECT
Project Total $7,434,400
Funds for the current authorization come from the EPA's San Francisco Bay Water Quality Improvement Fund. EPA notified the Conservancy of the award January 27, 2021, and mitigation funds provided by Koch Carbon related to .24 acres of shoreline impacts from their Pittsburg Bank Stabilization and Repair Project.

Funds previously authorized by the Conservancy include mitigation funds paid to the Conservancy to satisfy conditions of regulatory permits, and settlement agreement funds, both of which have been placed in accounts within the Conservancy's Coastal Trust Fund that were established expressly for the Richmond Terminal Four Wharf Removal Project. The specific fund sources and purposes are as described in Exhibit 2.

The City submitted an application for the remaining funding of approximately $3 million to the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority in October of 2020; preliminary feedback suggests a potential recommendation at the staff level of up to $2.3 million. The Conservancy and City will continue to endeavor to raise full funding for the project.

Finally, as described in the "Project History" section in Exhibit 2, prior funds ($364,782 of BCDC Caltrans Mitigation Funds and $276,000 of the NOAA PSMFC grant funds) have already been awarded and expended on project design, permitting, and environmental review.

COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA:

Since the Conservancy's adoption of the "Terminal Four Wharf, Warehouse, and Piling Removal Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration" on November 19, 2020, the project has not changed, nor is there new information or changed circumstances that would trigger the requirement fer additional review under CEQA. Therefore, no new CEQA documentation is needed (Exhibit 2).