Written Public Comments Received 2-7-2023 — Richmond City Council, February 7, 2023

2/8/23, 9:03 AM https://richmond.escribemeetings.com/Pages/ReportingPrintFriendly.aspx?reporting-reporttype=PublicComment https://richmond.escribemeetings.com/Pages/ReportingPrintFriendly.aspx?reporting-reporttype=PublicComment 1/1 Portal   Search... 
Meeting Date
Agenda Item
Name
Email
Comment
Position
Status
City Council
2/7/2023 4:30 PM Adoption of the
Richmond Bicycle
and Pedestrian
Action Plan (BPAP)
Jim Hanson [email protected]
t
There has been
insucient time
for public review of
this important
pedestrian and
bicycle plan, and
the public
comments that
were or were not
incorporated into
the plan. Please
bring this plant to
a February or
March Council
meeting. Thank
you.

No Position Appro
2/7/2023 4:30 PM Terminal One
Disposition
pursuant to
Amended Land
Disposition
Agreement
DONALD SMITH dsmith2dvm@gmai
l.com
Support Council
Member Zapeda's
amendments to
the ALDA for
Terminal One for
the City of
Richmond to
assume ownership
and responsibility
for Brick Yard Cove
Rd.

For Appro
From: Cordell Hindler
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comments- Open Forum
Date: Thursday, February 2, 2023 5:11:45 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Hello Mayor Martinez Council Members and Staff,
I Have some Comments for the Record

1. For the February 28th Meeting, The Council Should Consider Inviting Danny Wan To Provide a Presentation On How The Port of Oakland is Recovering from the Pandemic

2. Also To Have DR Hurst To Provide a Report in Consideration of Having the School Resource Officers Sincerely
Cordell
From: Bruce Beyaert
To: City Clerk Dept User; Soheila Bana; Claudia Jimenez; Eduardo Martinez; Gayle McLaughlin; Doria Robinson; Melvin Willis; Cesar Zepeda
Cc: Lina Velasco; Hector Rojas; Lydia Elias; Bruce Brubaker Subject: Public Comments Agenda Item O.2.a - Bicycle & Pedestrian Action Plan Date: Monday, February 6, 2023 10:40:34 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Mayor Martinez and City Councillors,
TRAC, the Trails for Richmond Action Committee, requests that you adopt by Consent the excellent Bicycle & Pedestrian Action Plan (BPAP) developed through an extensive process of public input. It provides an excellent blueprint for making it safer and more attractive for those of all abilities and ages to bicycle and walk for healthy active transportation and recreation.

This BPAP lays out a strategy to develop comprehensive bicycling and walking networks that provide access to transit

schools, parks, trails, the waterfront, and downtown.

It provides a set
of infrastructure recommendations and actions for the City of Richmond to effectively improve the safety of vulnerable roadway users biking, walking, and rolling (e.g., using micromobility devices, wheelchairs, and so on) in the short to medium term.

Please adopt the BPAP as proposed on the Consent Calendar for tonight’s City Council meeting.

Bruce
___________________
Bruce Beyaert, TRAC

Chair
[email protected]
tel. 510-235-2835
http://www.pointrichmond.com/baytrail/
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/109/TRAC
Photos: https://sfbaytrailinrichmond.shutterfly.com/pictures/5 .

From: Brian Lewis
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: 3) Open Forum P. 1: Terminal One Disposition pursuant to Amended Land Disposition Agreement Date: Monday, February 6, 2023 2:11:58 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Resending with updated Subject Line. Thank you. Brian Lewis ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Brian Lewis <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, Feb 5, 2023 at 12:09 PM
Subject: 1) Terminal One Disposition pursuant to Amended Land Disposition Agreement To: <[email protected]
>, Eduardo Martinez
<[email protected]>, Eduardo Martinez <[email protected]>, Lina Velasco <[email protected]>, Dave Aleshire <[email protected]>, Gayle McLaughlin <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Claudia Jimenez
<[email protected]>, Cesar Zepeda <[email protected]>, Cesar Zepeda <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Melvin Willis <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Shasa Curl <[email protected]>
Cc: Jeff Shukis <[email protected]>, Jeffrey Vines <[email protected]>, Susan Hubbard <[email protected]>, Tim Knowles <[email protected]>, C. Michael Lederer <[email protected]>
While a number of key points have been addressed in C-2, the staff report gives the incorrect impression that the community now supports the project in its present design. The Staff Report also gives this incorrect impression that all of the Community needs have been met. It is important to point out that the C-2 document does not address many of the community issues. There are concerns that the review process may not address the aesthetics, density, and massing of the project. As you have been told, the community has issues about the design of this project. From the beginning there have been issues related to massing of the project, aesthetics, view Corridors, Shoreline Overlay District issues, inadequate parking, etc.

For the Point Molate project, the community was given access to the developer’s proforma early on, with time to evaluate it and comment upon it during the critical period of the project and project entitlements approval process. This was not the case with the Terminal One project for which the City, by a split vote of the Council, agreed to keep the developer’s proforma confidential even though it was the key piece of information leading to the City’s agreement to allow the developer to walk away from the original project and present the current one. The proforma was just recently (January 27, 2023) made public. The Brickyard Cove for Responsible Development (BCARD) had to file a Brown Act Violation for this to happen. Upon review of this data, a few observations are made.

The data used in the proforma is old. The newest sale data is from December 2020.

The average price per foot seems low at $542.

If they were to get $630/foot, then their sales would be up to $207,711,000, indicating an extra $25 mil in profit
If they get $670/foot, they would be up by $38 mil
It is hard to forecast what things will sell for in the future, but these units will be coming on the market in several years.

BCARD’s analysis of the performa is that it appears that they were presenting it in a way that shows very low return and high risk.

The new project with 184 units is not superior to the original design. There are many aspects of the old project that are beneficial to the community:

View Corridors
More open space
Cars are parked in a large covered garage. Cars are largely not visible to the community
Parking is better
No ADUs without parking
Shoreline Overlay District maintained
More connection between the project and Bay Trail. (New project abuts the Bay Trail and constricts the trail along the Eastern boundary).

Entitlements have been issued. It may be easier for the BCARD thinks there is another option rather than rejecting the new project, accepting the new project, or accepting it with modification. The fourth option would be to bring back aspects of the original project that benefits the community, with or without the park. It is too early to tell if the community would want the original project in its entirety, that was granted entitlements, or if the original project was modified. We think the performa supports the old project and that conclusions were made on old data. In addition, the issues in C-2, largely carry over to both the new and old project.

If the old project is carried forward, this comment may not be relevant. While you have previously referenced the fact that the limit on the perimeter structures to two stories was a major problem for the developer, the final version of C-2, without any opportunity for us to oppose it, included language in Subsection (iii) of the House Siting paragraph 1 in section C. Housing Development, that was strictly the developer’s position, not the community’s position. Also, it is in a document which is written in such a way (e.g., including the phrase “Neighborhood Mitigation Requirements” in the title of the exhibit itself) that this was something the community wanted. Further, the incorporation of this subdivision (iii) as one of the “foregoing restrictions” in the concluding sentence of the House Siting paragraph, thereby making this provision apply in advance to any alternative plan, makes the situation worse. It locks the rejection of the two-story limit to any alternative plan, including one in which the wharf is no longer to be built. As previously noted, this language gives a completely false impression that this paragraph (iii) was something the community wants.That is unequivocally false, and a complete misrepresentation of our work together on this point. The proper solution to this is simple, eliminates the false impression, leaves the developer where he wants to be, and has been proposed to you before. Since the document has now been executed, that subsection (iii) should be crossed out and the cross-out initialed by all signing parties. This solution has also been proposed to you in writing and orally. However, nothing has been done. As we have said to you before, this is the only way to return us to the position on which the developer insists, namely the status of the affected structures as originally designed in this revised project, but without the completely false implication that this was something desired by the community.

The other, far preferred alternative is to get the developer to commit to limiting all perimeter structures other than those referenced in paragraph (ii) to two stories, and use as the correct Exhibit B to this section our version of the site plan with its annotations concerning these particular perimeter structures.

It has been brought to our attention by Bruce Beyaert of TRAC that certain provisions in C- 2 related to the Bay Trail are inconsistent with the obligations of the existing HOAs with regard to its maintenance, and because of the generality of language, would be inconsistent with the obligations that should be assumed by the new HOA for the Terminal One project upon its creation. With this in mind, the language of I.E.5 should be modified to read:

Parkway Maintenance. The presently existing HOAs (BYCHOA 1 & 2, Brickyard Landing, Seacliff, and Waterline) and Boardwalk Marina, shall be responsible for maintenance of irrigation and landscaping in parkway areas adjacent to their property and the street, but not the park or any Terminal One Bay Trail section along all sides of Terminal One property including the north section on BCR west of Yacht Club to Dornan Drive.

For the same reasons, the language of II.G.2 should be modified as follows:

Special Tax. Except as expressly provided herein, Cove residents individually and presently existing HOAs (BYCHOA 1& 2, Brickyard Landing, Seacliff, and Waterline) and Boardwalk Marina, shall not be charged with any special tax, assessment or other cost allocation to pay for construction or maintenance of any park, wharf, Terminal 1 landscaping, or lighting, or any Terminal One Bay Trail section along all sides of Terminal One property including the north section on BCR west of Yacht Club to Dornan Drive.

The community is concerned that the review process will not be able to address concerns about the lack of open space, improving the architectural design, and meeting environmental standards and the cumulative effects of multiple projects on the Cove.

There are design features of the old project that would be an improvement. Regardless, going forward, the impacts to the Cove are significant! Please feel free to email or call me with any questions or concerns. (510) 610 0311.

With best wishes,
Brian Lewis, Brickyard Cove for Responsible Development (BCARD)

From: Bruce Beyaert
To: City Clerk Dept User; Soheila Bana; Claudia Jimenez; Eduardo Martinez; Gayle McLaughlin; Doria Robinson; Melvin Willis; Cesar Zepeda
Cc: Dave Aleshire; Shasa Curl; Lina Velasco; Brian Lewis; Bruce Brubaker Subject: Public Comments Agenda Item P1 - Terminal 1 Disposition Date: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 9:25:39 AM
Attachments: 2021 FerryPointLoopMapSml.pdf
T1 Plans 2017.pdf
T1 Plans2022.pdf
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Mayor Martinez and City Councillors,
TRAC, the Trails for Richmond Action Committee, would like to offer its perspectives as you consider the Terminal 1 Amended Land Disposition Agreement tonight.

Both the 5-story condominium project approved in 2017 and the newly proposed 2-3 story single family dwelling project would complete a 0.5 mile Bay Trail loop providing access to San Francisco Bay where none exists currently as shown on the attached map. Each project has its pluses and minuses with respect to Bay Trail design, leaving a hybrid of the two projects as an ideal to be considered if the land sale is confirmed with subsequent project design improvements.

The Wharf Park is the stellar design feature of both projects.

It will provide Richmond
residents, especially those purchasing homes in this Latitude

project,
opportunities
to

rest, gather

and recreate, as well as to contemplate the history of the City’s first

municipal wharf opening in 1915 to capture trade from ships using the new canal to cross the

Isthmus of Panama.

The Wharf Park’s stunning Bay vistas will be
greatly appreciated, especially for residents of the Latitude project where very few homes would have Bay views as currently proposed.

We recognize that there must be a source of funding for this park. For example, there might be a small landscape and lighting district wherein the City and residents of the Latitude development share the cost of Wharf Park upkeep equitably as is done so successfully in Marina Bay. Rather than eliminating the Wharf Park entirely as has been proposed,

it might be
scaled back in size
if necessary
to secure adequate funding for maintenance. Note that a larger wharf park would be more affordable for the condominium project to maintain with its 316 dwelling units than for the recently proposed design with only 184 units.

Thank you for considering TRAC’s perspectives on the future of Terminal 1 from the standpoint of the Bay Trail and public enjoyment of this especially scenic, historic shoreline.

Bruce
___________________
Bruce Beyaert, TRAC Chair
[email protected]
tel. 510-235-2835
http://www.pointrichmond.com/baytrail/
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/109/TRAC
Photos: https://sfbaytrailinrichmond.shutterfly.com/pictures/5 .

FUTURE BAY TRAIL
.79 mi
.18 mi
.71
mi
.28
mi
.56
mi
.29
mi
.11 mi
.49
mi
.65 mi
.28 mi

1.2 mi
.79
mi

1.17 mi
.52 mi
.33 mi
.28 mi
e
.2 Kilometers approximate.10
0 .2 Miles approximat.1
East Bay Regional Park District | www.ebparks.org
Golden State Model Railroad Museum | www.gsmrm.org
Richmond Museum of History | www.richmondmuseum.org | /uni260E 510-235-7387 Rosie the Riveter World War II Home Front, National Historical Park | www.nps.gov/rori | /uni260E 510-232-5050 San Francisco Bay Trail | www.pointrichmond.com/bay-trail/ | www.baytrail.org S. S. Red Oak Victory | www.redoakvictory.us | /uni260E 510-237-2933 Trains…bricks…ferries…troopships!
The 40 years between trains entering
Richmond’s Ferry Point to send passengers
and freight to San Francisco and ships
emerging from Kaiser’s shipyards to help defeat the
nation’s World War II enemies is a story of coastline
transformation hardly matched in California’s history.

On these trails are many interpretive exhibits with
historic images and compelling stories.

RICHMOND CALIFORNIA
S
A
N
FR
AN

C I S C O B A Y

FERRY POINT LOOP
& SHIPYARD 3 TRAIL
Map Legend
Bay Trail suitable for walking, biking, roller
skating & wheelchair access
Kaiser Shipyard 3 Bay Trail
East Bay Regional Park District hiking trails
Distance markers and mileage between
two markers
Visitor Information Parking
Restrooms Bus Stop / AC Transit #72M
Drinking Water Fishing
Picnic area Dining / Food
Tot lot Showers
Swimming Small Watercraft*
*Launch and landing sites
for the San Francisco Bay
Area Water TrailTennis Courts
NO/R.alt2/T_H

0.00 mi

PUBLIC SHORE ACCESS
KKMI

BOATYARD

PUBLIC SHORE

CANAL BLVD

HARBOUR WAY SOUTH

DORNAN DRIVE

FERRY POINT TUNNEL

HOFFMAN BLVD
BR I C K Y A R D C O VE RD.

CANAL BLVD
W. CUTTING BLVDBLVD

DORNAN DRIVE
Design: © 2009, 2012, 2017, 2021 Spokewise Design
S. GARRARD
W. RICHMOND AV.

SEACLIFF DRIVE
WRIGHT AVE.

HALL AVE.

RICHMOND INNER HARBOR
S.S. Red Oak Victory
Old Brick Kilns
Nicholl Knob
To I-580
/uni2193
Golden State
Model Railroad
Museum
Miller/Knox
Regional Shoreline
Rosie the Riveter/
World War II Home Front
National Historical Park
Visitor Center
FORD
PLANT

BRICKYARD COVE
Boat Ramp
Street
East Vista Point
False Gun
Vista
West Ridge
Point
Richmond
Plunge
/uni25BE
/uni25BE
580
to I-580 E
/uni2193
Machine
Shop
Warehouse
Shipyard 3
First Aid Station
Riggers Loft
Shipyard 3
Cafeteria
Kaiser Shipyard 3
Rosie the Riveter/WWII Home Front
National Historical Park
elevation 371 feet
Interpretive
Overlook
Keller Beach
Ferry Point

POINT RICHMOND

POINT POTRERO
Judge
George D.

Carroll Park
Washington
Elementary
School
To
North
Shore
to Marina Bay
/uni2193
/uni25B6 Wade in the Bay at sandy Keller Beach.
/uni25B6 Fly a kite along the shoreline; ﬁsh from the Ferry Point pier. /uni25B6 See remnants of historic Kaiser Shipyard 3 and visit the S. S. Red Oak Victory.
/uni25B6 Hike the hillside and ridgeline trails to enjoy sweeping vistas of San Francisco Bay.
/uni25B6 Visit the Golden State Model Railroad Museum.
/uni25B6 Picnic and birdwatch at Miller/Knox lagoon; bring binoculars. /uni25B6 Shop, snack and dine in Point Richmond Historic District.

Must see, must do …
Whirley
Crane
To RSR
Bridge &
Point
Molate
Richmond-SF Ferry
Sheet Title
DateScale
G0.04LANDSCAPING

SITE PLAN

10.20.17 TERMINAL ONE

RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA

Sheet Title
DateScale
G0.06CONCEPTUAL

RENDERING

10.20.17 TERMINAL ONE

RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA
VIEW OF BUILDING 1 & RETAIL AT CORNER OF DORNAN DRIVE & BRICKYARD COVE ROAD PLEASE NOTE: PHOTO RENDERINGS ARE TO EXPRESS CHARACTER ONLY. REFER TO BUILDING ELEVATIONS, MATERIAL SAMPLES, AND LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR FINAL DESIGNS Sheet Title
DateScale
G0.07CONCEPTUAL

RENDERING

10.20.17 TERMINAL ONE

RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA
VIEW OF BUILDING 1 FROM WEST
PLEASE NOTE: PHOTO RENDERINGS ARE TO EXPRESS CHARACTER ONLY. REFER TO BUILDING ELEVATIONS, MATERIAL SAMPLES, AND LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR FINAL DESIGNS Sheet Title
DateScale
G0.09CONCEPTUAL

RENDERING

10.20.17 TERMINAL ONE

RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA

VIEW OF RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD FROM SOUTH
PLEASE NOTE: PHOTO RENDERINGS ARE TO EXPRESS CHARACTER ONLY. REFER TO BUILDING ELEVATIONS, MATERIAL SAMPLES, AND LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR FINAL DESIGNS Sheet Title
DateScale
G0.13CONCEPTUAL

RENDERING

10.20.17 TERMINAL ONE

RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA

VIEW ALONG BRICKYARD COVE ROAD
PLEASE NOTE: PHOTO RENDERINGS ARE TO EXPRESS CHARACTER ONLY. REFER TO BUILDING ELEVATIONS, MATERIAL SAMPLES, AND LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR FINAL DESIGNS

LOWWALL-

STREETOTREEOINOTREEOWELL-
ÙFRONTÙ
WFTHOp'Xp'OYARÙ

TREEOWELLS
SE™TIONOA-AO-OÙORNANOÙRIVE
S™ALE:Ol/t-yr-k-
LOWOWALLOTOOPROVIÙEOSEPARAl
•ETWEENORESIÙEN™EOANÙO•AYOTRAIL
WITHOUTOO•STRU™TINGOVIEWS
•IORETENTIONO•AStN^e
SE™TIONO•h•O-OSHORELINEOGREENO•ELT
S™ALE:Ol(tÙyl'-k-
LOWOWALLOTOOPROVIÙEOSEPWWION-eh
•ETWEENORESIÙEN™EOANÙO•AYOTRAIL
WITHOUTOO•STRU™TINGOVI•fVS
tnf SAYOTRAIL
lm'TRAILOWITH
m-OÙGOSHOULÙERSOANÙ
m'OLANÙS™APEO•UFFEROEA™HOSIÙE
OLTTÙOOR
LIVING
AREA
SE™TIONO™-™O-O•AYOTRAILOATOYA™HTO™LU•
S™ALE:Ol/tÙyl'-k-
LA™ONIAUOLATITUÙE
lutlONORTHO•ROAÙWAY
WALNUTO™REEKhO™ALIFORNIAOuprur
RichmondeO™alifornia
•AYOTRAILOSE™TIONS
™ON™EPTUALOPHASE
O™TO•EROqeOmkmm
™opyrishtOmkmmvandefToel« nOAinodhtMhOTh*Odrawing*OorwrittonOmirrinltOwnflntdOtwinOcamUtuttO(haOorisifwlOandOunpubfllhadOwortOofOth*OInndictpaOnfchircteOR« produeUone L-p
S™ALE:Ol/a*O-Or-oÙ
•OformOtoOtUlctlyOpwhiUltttOwllhoutOlh« Owritfn
ProjectONohOkmqmm
ofOvandfToo'tnOA**oci*tnh
From: Clifford Kusaj
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Terminal One Disposition pursuant to Amended Land Disposition Agreement.

Date: Sunday, February 5, 2023 11:18:27 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

I’m unable to attend the February 7th meeting but I wish it to be known that I am a member of the Waterline community and I support the Terminal One project in its current form. I’m familiar with the scope and design of the project and I believe it will be a welcome addition to the community.

I find that much of the opposition to the Terminal One project is very similar to concerns expressed regarding the Waterline development. Some people seemingly do not want new construction - period. But I love my home and I’m grateful the city wasn’t persuaded by others’ unfounded concerns.

The Terminal One structure and land in its current form is a blighted eyesore and a poor welcome for those arriving to Richmond from SF on the ferry. The undeveloped property attracts crime and strangers.

The new homes envisioned in the project would be a huge upgrade. I’m looking forward to walking along the new shoreline. And the increase in population density will be good for public safety and for nearby businesses. If neighbors are displeased with the corridors, price per square foot, or quality of the views, my recommendation to them is to not buy at Terminal One. Because others surely will.

And I’m also not concerned about the truckloads of soil required. There is very little traffic in this area and I don’t see the trucks posing too much of an inconvenience.

Yes to Terminal One! Yes to a plan to alleviate train delays! Cliff Kusaj
2 Sunset Ln
94801
Sent from my iPhone
From: Francesca Biffi
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Terminal One Disposition pursuant to Amended Land Disposition Agreement.

Date: Monday, February 6, 2023 7:43:05 AM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

I have been a city of Richmond resident for more than 10 years and I support the new construction at terminal one.

The current site is awful and attracts crime. I am one of the few people that around the area every day and I would love for the site to be built so that I could enjoy walking safely and no longer looking at the designated area debris from its prior history.

Why in the whole world the people of point Richmond oppose this construction? I do not believe the reasons they cite. If anything, they want to retain the sleepy atmosphere of their small neighborhood and other political reasons play a role.

We need more population density, we need to clean up that area.

The number of people I see walking around there is minuscule; therefore, I am not sure why they would be concerned with the way the homes and new buildings would look like, the space between homes and other concerns.

They won’t see it!
Please let’s try to keep these concerns in the right place. They are used by politicians to oppose one another and by the point Richmond residents to oppose any changes. But as a new resident of point Richmond, I am for more construction, more people around me rather than seeing nothingness, an eyesore site filled with drug dealers.

Thank you,
Francesca Biffi
From: John Gullett
To: City Clerk Dept User
Cc: Eduardo Martinez; Eduardo Martinez; Lina Velasco; Dave Aleshire; Gayle McLaughlin; Soheila Bana; Claudia Jimenez; Cesar Zepeda; Cesar Zepeda; Doria Robinson; Melvin Willis; Melvin Willis; Shasa Curl; Brian Lewis; Jeffrey Vines
Subject: public comments agenda item # P.1 Terminal One Disposition pursuant to Amended Land Disposition Agreement Date: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 3:31:04 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Dear Mayor Martinez and City Council:

We urge you to consider the many weaknesses in the proposed development that would lead to very undesirable outcomes for our community.

We feel the highest and best use of this "Terminal One; property would be as open space or recreational development for the existing community.

Currently we cannot handle any more traffic and this could create or aggravate a disaster in any emergency in our community. This Brickyard cove area is already overbuilt with respect to the infrastructure, in particular the lack of capacity for ingress and egress.

Please consider maintaining the property for the benefit of the Richmond Community and residents.

John and Marilyn Gullett
1201 Brickyard Way #417
Richmond CA 94801
PS:

We support the proposals and concerns of the BCARD group who have put forward very reasonable and cooperative recommendations.

From: Leisa Johnson
To: City Clerk Dept User
Cc: Eduardo Martinez; Gayle McLaughlin; Cesar Zepeda; Soheila Bana; Melvin Willis; Doria Robinson; Claudia Jimenez; Dave Aleshire; Dave Aleshire
Subject: Public Comments - Agenda Item P.1, Terminal One Public Hearing Date: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 7:27:06 PM
Attachments: Resolution 129-08_Honda Port of Entry Project_Complete_18NOV2008.pdf Resolution 129-08_Sealed.PDF
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Dear City Clerk
Can you please confirm receipt of this email, and include the below comments as part of the formal record, supplementary minutes?
Thank you,
Leisa
******************************************************************************************** Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor and Councilmembers -
I am speaking in opposition to amending the LDA for Terminal One and recommend you do not adopt any resolution amending this LDA.

When you took your oath of office, you vowed to protect the health, safety and welfare of those you serve. That is what we are asking you to do now.

I respectfully ask you to view Terminal One through the same lens and principles that you are applying

to
development on other parts of our

shoreline,

specifically Point Molate and the former Zeneca

site.

Like Point Molate, Terminal One is public land.

You argued that egress & ingress at Point Molate put public health and safety at great risk. This holds true for all 3

development sites in or

adjacent to BYC, including Terminal one.

You also argued that taxpayers should not be held responsible for paying to develop or maintain any infrastructure costs at Point Molate, and the same should hold for Terminal One,

including any
wharf

rehabilitation and park creation and maintenance.

Like the former Zeneca site, Terminal One is a toxic site that has never been fully remediated and subject to the same concerns associated with rising sea level.

However, Terminal One, as well as the PG&E and Quarry development sites in or abutting Brickyard Cove, are unique from Point Molate and the former Zeneca site because they fall under Resolution 129-08 and the CEQA Findings of Fact for the Honda Port of Entry Project, which required

an Emergency Response Plan.

This project and Resolution 129-08 were approved on Nov 18, 2008 and all requirements should have been in place before Honda Port Operations could be fully permitted and commence operations.

Unfortunately, the City is in serious violation of Resolution 129-08, Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and the Mitigation Measures and Reporting Program (MMRP). https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/2002 https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/4007/EIR_1104434_1317_Canal_Blvd-CC---EIR-- -Resolutio?bidId=
https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/3795/Honda-Port-of-Entry-Project---FEIR?bidId= Per Resolution 129-08, Item 15, Grade Crossing Blockages, and the associated CEQA Findings of Fact:

The Port of Richmond and Autowarehousing were to implement operational procedures that minimized:

1. blockage of at grade crossings between the Port and Richmond Yard;

2. noise associated with train movement at the curvatures at Canal and Cutting Boulevards; and

3. noise from train switching on Port property.

Five requirements were clearly spelled out in Item 15.

The Port of Richmond and Autowarehousing were to

prepare

and

implement an Emergency Response
Plan,

approved by RFD and RPD, that addresses

continuous emergency

access to all properties potentially
blocked by train crossings or switching operations.

Numerous viable approaches to improve or guarantee emergency access were provided (see below).

Sadly, 15 years later, none of those have happened. Why? Why were they fully permitted and allowed to commence operations?
It is simply irresponsible if you vote to move forward with any of these three developments in this area - The Quarry project, Terminal One or the PG&E site

— until an adequate emergency

response plan is
implemented. Our lives matter. Our homes and businesses matter. And I don’t see how any of you can knowingly and

willingly approve any

developments at this time let alone vote to put the lives of ~ 1,000 more residents and workers in jeopardy.

Resolution 129-08, Items 15 & 16, also addresses train noise. The Port of Richmond, in conjunction with the railroad, has failed to adopt a plan apply best
practices to continually reduce wheel squeal on tight radius curves on tracks serving the Honda Port of Entry Project.

Unfortunately, the Quarry

residential project was approved last year and is fully entitled, yet it has no sound wall to protect its future residents from the noisy rail yard directly across the road. The City, per

Resolution 129-08,
Item 16, may be required to fund and install
grade crossing safety devices and to ensure the Quiet Zone is maintained.

Lastly, Brickyard Cove (BYC)
Rd should be a separate discussion from any development since the City was obligated to take it over 18 years ago.

BYC Rd dedication should be complete before any future
developments are entitled.

I’ll close by saying once again, when all of you swore an oath to serve, you vowed to protect the health, safety and welfare of those you serve.

That is exactly what we are asking you to do now. The public health and safety of the residents, students and workers who are routinely and illegally trapped by trains on a near daily basis are asking you to hear our concerns, uphold the laws this City is legally obliged to enforce, and enable staff to fully address these serious violations in a timely manner.

Thank you.

Warmly,
Leisa Johnson
****************************************************************************************** Full Language from Resolution 129-08 (also attached) for Items 15 & 16.

Item

15. Grade Crossing Blockages:

T
he Port of Richmond and its Point Potrero

Marine Terminal tenant (Autowarehousing) shall implement operational procedures that minimize:
(i) noise from train switching on Port property,
(ii)

blockage of at grade crossings between the Port and Richmond Yard, and

(iii)

noise associated with train movement at the curvatures at Canal and Cutting Boulevards.

The Project shall not undertake switching operations that block traffic on Canal Boulevard, West Cutting Boulevard and Garrard Boulevard.

Project operations shall occur primarily between 7:00 p.m. and 4:00 a.m.

Grade crossing blockages associated with the Project shall be in the 1.5 to 6 minute range, and in no case shall the Project create blockages that violate CPUC General Order 135.

The City shall be responsible for installing an automated monitoring system that automatically records grade crossing blockages on Canal Boulevard, West Cutting Boulevard and Garrard Boulevard, and that information shall be made available to the public on a monthly basis.

Any grade crossing blockages in excess of 10 minutes that violate CPUC General Order 135 shall be prosecuted by the City.

Per Resolution 129-08, the FEIR, and MMRP, Mitigation Measure 5-9:

The project sponsor shall prepare
and implement an Emergency Response Plan (ERP), subject to review and approval by the Richmond Fire Department and Richmond Police Department, that

addresses
continuous emergency access

all
properties

potentially blocked by train crossings or switching operations.

The ERP shall be developed in
consultation with all potentially affected business and property owners located east of Canal Boulevard. The project applicant shall offer to consult with neighboring property owners and facility operators during preparation of the ERP in order to address any concerns they may have regarding implementation of the plan. Written evidence of consultation, or reasonable efforts to consult, shall be provided to the City before a grading permit is issued.

Possible approaches to
improve or guarantee
emergency access could include some or

all of

the following
strategies:

Install mobile communications devices on trains so that they can communicate their location and time at crossings with fire and police personnel.

Install GPS tracking devices on trains so that fire and police dispatchers can track train locations.

Install web cams at rail crossings so that motorists and emergency vehicle personnel can remotely monitor the rail crossings for blockage via computer, PDA, or smart phones.

Install a railroad preemption/warning system to alert motorists of crossing trains so that they can use alternate routes.

Investigate the potential to locate a police and fire substation south of Cutting as a long–term solution.

Investigate the potential to create a grade–separated crossing in the area.

Schedule train traffic/switching after 6 p.m. since vehicle traffic on Wharf Street drops significantly after that time.

Investigate the potential for an emergency access through PPMT facility to the east side of the rail yard. A locked gate to the proposed new BP/Arco entrance road could be established, with access codes or keys provided to emergency personnel (fire and police).

Item 16. Train Noise:

The Project will increase train traffic south of the Canal Boulevard grade crossing, and it is possible that trains will be sounded at grade crossings.

The City of Richmond shall determine what is required to establish a Quiet Zone and shall obtain cost estimates for providing sufficient grade crossing safety devices at grade crossings south of the Canal Boulevard grade crossing to qualify for a Quiet Zone.

The City of Richmond shall maintain a reserve fund for a period of two years sufficient to pay for such devices, if required.

If train horns are routinely sounded at grade crossings south of the Canal Boulevard grade crossing, the City of Richmond shall implement a Quiet Zone extending from the Canal Boulevard grade crossing to the PPMT.

After two years, the reserve capital fund shall no longer be required, but if after two years, train horns are routinely sounded at grade crossings south of the Canal Boulevard grade crossing; the City of Richmond shall install such devices in a timely manner as necessary and establish a Quiet Zone from the Canal Boulevard grade crossing.
"Routinely sounded" means sounded in accordance with 49 CFR Parts 222 and 229 promulgated by the Federal Railroad Administration but does not include sounding in case of emergencies.

In addition, the City of Richmond shall complete the required improvements and establish a Quiet Zone from the existing Garrard Boulevard (Richmond Parkway east leg) to and including the grade crossing at Cutting Boulevard near 4th Street.

The Port of Richmond, in conjunction with the railroad shall investigate, adopt a plan and apply best practices to continually reduce wheel squeal on tight radius curves on tracks serving the Honda Port of Entry Project.

Practices may include gauge face lubrication; top of rail friction modification and the maintenance and modification of track and rolling stock.

Language highlighted in yellow has never been implemented.

The Quarry Residential project has no sound wall.

RESOLUTION NO. 129-08

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND TO AFFIRM

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CERTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

REPORT, ADOPTION OF STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, IN CONJUNCTION WITH

APPROVAL OF A DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT FOR THE HONDA PORT OF ENTRY PROJECT, AT THE PORT OF RICHMOND (EIR/DRB 114434).

WHEREAS, in August 2007, the Port of Richmond, in conjunction with Auto Warehousing Co. (“Project Sponsor”), filed an application for Design Review Permit approval with the City of Richmond (“City”) for the Honda Port of Entry project (“Project”), consisting of construction of a new rail yard terminal at the Po rt of Richmond’s Point Potrero Marine Terminal (“PPMT”), improvements to an existing deep-water ship berth at the PPMT, and operation of a Northern California Port of Entry auto processing and distribut ion facility for Honda automobiles, as described in Volume I, Chapter 3 of the July 2008 Honda Port of Entry Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR”), as amended by the September 2008 Final Environmental Impact Report (together with Volumes I and II of the Draft EIR constituting the “Final EIR” and attached hereto as Exhibit A), prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), promulgated in Public Resources Code Sections 21000–21177 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15000–15387; and WHEREAS, on February 11, 2008 the City issued a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) of the EIR and an Initial Study presenting a preliminary analysis of the potential environmental effects of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the NOP was circulated for comment by responsible and trustee agencies and the public for a total of 30 days, from February 11, 2008 through March 12, 2008, during which time the City held a public scoping meeting on the Project environmental documents on March 5, 2008; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR, consisting of Volume I, and accompanying Appendices as Volume 3, was issued on July 2, 2008, and was circulated for public review through August 18, 2008, for a total of 47 days, during which time the City held a public hearing on the Draft EIR on August 5, 2008; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR assesses the potential environmental effects that would or could result from implementation of the Project; and
WHEREAS, following the close of the public review period the Final EIR, consisting of Volume II, was prepared in accordance with the CEQA Statutes and Guidelines, which responds to the written and oral comments received during the public review period; and
WHEREAS, the City received letters following the close of the public review and comment period and, although pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21 091(d)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, written responses to late comments are not requi red, the City prepared responses to these letters which are included in the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR identifies a significant adverse impact on air quality that would result from implementation of the Project and, although mitigation measures have been required to reduce the severity of the impact, it would remain a significant and unavoidable impact of the Project; and WHEREAS, the Final EIR identifies a conflict with General Plan Policy OSC–P.1 as a result of the significant and unavoidable impact on air quality and no feasible mitigation was identified to fully reduce or avoid the conflict, and the conflict would, therefore, constitute a second significant and unavoidable impact of the Project; and
WHEREAS, Exhibit A–2, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein , sets forth findings of overriding considerations for these significant and unavoidable impacts in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 218081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a) and (b); and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR identifies other potentially significant environmental effects that would or could result from implementation of the Project; and WHEREAS, the Final EIR identifies mitigation measures to avoid or reduce all other potentially significant environmental effect to a less-than-significant level; and 1 2
WHEREAS, Exhibit A–1, CEQA Findings of Fact for the Project, attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, sets forth findings of fact for all Project impacts and alternatives discussed in the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board reviewed the Final EIR and the staff report pertaining to the Final EIR and considered all comments received on the NOP/Initial Study and the Draft EIR during the public review periods in association with the Design Review Permit for the Project; and WHEREAS, Section 21000 et. seq. of the Public Resources Code and Section 15000 et. seq. of the CEQA Guidelines which govern the preparation, content, and processing of environmental impact reports, have been fully implemented in the preparation of the Final EIR; and WHEREAS, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”), attached hereto as Exhibit A–3, has been prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 to monitor and ensure implementation of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR, and the Design Review Board found on October 8, 2008 at a duly noticed public hearing that these mitigation measures are fully enforceable conditions of project approval, and shall be binding upon the Port of Richmond, the Project Sponsor, and all other affected parties; and WHEREAS, the Design Review Board found that afte r due study, deliberation, and public testimony and hearing, that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that despite the occurrence of significant environmental effects that cannot be substantially lessened or avoided through adoption of feasible mitigation measures or feasible alternatives, there exist certain overriding economic, social, or other considerations for approving the Project that the City Council believes justify the occurrence of those impacts; and WHEREAS, the City is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15021 to adopt all feasible mitigation measures or feasible project alternatives that can substantially lessen or avoid any significant environmental effects, keeping in mind its obligation to balance a variety of public objectives for the health and welfare of the jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15043) affirms the City’s authority to approve this Project even though it may cause significant effects on the environment, so long as the City makes a fully informed and publicly disclosed decision that there is no feasible way to lessen or avoid the significant effects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091) yet known, and that there ar e specifically identified expected benefits from the Project that outweigh the policy of reducing or avoiding significant or potentially significant environmental impacts of the project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093), and WHEREAS, the Design Review Board di d certify the Final EIR in Exhibit A, adopting the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Exhibit A-2, and the CEQA Findings in Exhibit A-1, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in Exhibit A-3, in conjunction with approval of the Design Review Permit (DR 1104434), for the Project on October 8, 2008; and WHEREAS, an appeal of the Design Review Board’s certification of the Final EIR, adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Port of Richmond/Honda Port of Entry Project was submitted to the City Clerk on October 18, 2008 by Mr. Fred Arm, a resident of Richmond, California; and
WHEREAS, after consideration of the Final EIR, Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the record of proceedings before the Design Review Board, the staff report to the City Council dated November 18, 2008 and the attachments thereto, and oral and written public testimony; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richmond does find that the Design Review Board, after due study, deliberation, and public testimony and hearing, did certify the Final EIR, adopt Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, with a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and in conjunction with approval of a Design Review Permit, did appropriately act on the Project in accordance with CEQA Statutes and Guidelines and the City’s Ordinance and regulations.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Richmond having independently considered the environmental effects of the Project DENIES the appeal and AFFIRMS the following actions taken by the Design Review Board on October 8, 2008:

1. Adopt the CEQA Findings of Fact attached hereto as Exhibit A–1.

2. Adopt the Statement of Overriding Consid erations attached hereto as Exhibit A–2.

3. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporti ng Program (MMRP) attached hereto as Exhibit A–3.
3 4. Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report.

5. Approve the Design Review Permit (DR 1104434) subject to conditions.

FURTHERMORE, the City Council FINDS (see CEQA Findings of Fact attached as Exhibit A-1) and APPROVES the Design Review Permit for the Project, DR 1104434, subject to all measures in the MMRP and the following conditions of approval:

Conditions of Approval:

1. The final landscaping, lighting and gateway design sh all return to the Design Review Board for final approval following consultation with Design Review Board Member Diane Bloom and the design team for the San Francisco Bay Trail segment adjacent to the Project.

2. The Project Sponsor shall enlarge the wording, “E ntering Historic Shipyard # 3”, on the proposed Gateway Sign.

3. The Project Sponsor shall work with the National Park Service (“NPS”), Trails for Richmond Action Committee (“TRAC”) and staff to establish the final location for the Gateway Sign.

4. The street lighting on Canal Boulevard should be of a historic style of LED lighting.

5. All chain link fencing incorporated into the Project design shall be (black) coated to resist tarnish and rust.

6. Project around the MAAS Boat Company or to re locate the potentially displaced MAAS Boat Company; and

7. The Project Sponsor shall make best efforts to seek funding to cold-ironing shore side power and request the Port of Richmond to submit documentary evidence of such efforts to the Design Review Board when the final landscaping, lighting and gateway plans are considered.

8. Design Review Permit Expiration: Design Review Permit (DR 1104434) approval shall expire two years from the date of final approval, unless made permanent by the issuance of building permits and the commencement of construction. If the use(s) or structure(s) approved by this action is not established within such period of time, this approva l shall be terminated and shall thereafter be null and void, unless the Project Sponsor or owner applies for an extension of time prior to expiration of the Design Review approval.

9. Design Review Permit Revocation: Failure to abid e by and faithfully comply with any and all conditions attached to this approving action shall constitute grounds for the revocation of said action by the Design Review Board.

10. Conditions of Approval on Project Plans: All conditions of approval shall be printed on the first page of the construction plans submitted for review a nd approval. These conditions of approval, and all grading and construction plans shall be kept on the Pr oject site at all times dur ing construction. It is the responsibility of the Project Sponsor to ensure th at the Project contractor is aware of, and abides by, all conditions of approval. Prior written a pproval from the Planning and Building Services Department Director or his/her designee shall be received by the Port of Richmond or Project Sponsor before any changes are made to the site design, grade, building design, building colors or materials, or related design elements.

11. Responsibility to Inform: The Project Sponsor shall be responsible for inform ing all subcontractors, consultants engineers, or other business entities pr oviding services related to the Project of their responsibilities to comply with all pertinent requi rements herein, and in the City of Richmond Municipal Code, including the requirement that a business license be obtained by all entities doing business in the City, as well as the hours of operation requirements in the City.

12. Changes to Design: Prior written approval from the Planning and Building Services Department Director or his/her designee shall be received by the Project Sponsor before any minor changes are made to the site design, grade, building design, building colors or materials, or related design elements. Major changes shall be subject to review by the Design Review Board at the Planning and Building Services Director's discretion.

13. During construction activities, the Project Sponsor shall reduce or prevent to the maximum extent practicable the direct or indirect discharge of any dust or pollutant into the storm drain system utilizing best management practices contained in the California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook for Constructi on Activities. Construction activities include, but are not limited to: watering operations; roadwork and paving operations; concrete a nd painting; structure construction and painting; constr uction material storage and hand ling; construction waste/debris 4 storage and disposal; and, construction equipm ent/vehicle cleaning, maintenance and fueling operations. The Project Sponsor is also responsible for training all contractors and subcontractors on the best management practices identified in the California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook for Construction Activities, which shall be ma de available by the Project Sponsor at the pre-construction meeting of the Project.

14. All storm drains which serve the site shall be protected from spills and soil runoff (from unpaved areas). The Project Sponsor may use “Any Source Control” BMP (Best Management Practice) as listed in the California Storm Water Best Mana gement Practice Handbook for storm water run-off for commercial sites. Storm drains will be inspected periodically.

15. Grade Crossing Blockages: The Port of Richmo nd and its PPMT tenant sh all implement operational procedures that minimize (i) noise from train switching on Port property, (ii) blockage of at grade crossings between the Port and Richmond Yard, and (iii) noise associated with train movement at the curvatures at Canal and Cutting Boulevards. Th e Project shall not undertake switching operations that block traffic on Canal Boulevard, West Cu tting Boulevard and Garrard Boulevard. Project operations shall occur primarily between 7:00 p.m. and 4:00 a.m. Grade crossing blockages associated with the Project shall be in the 1.5 to 6 minute range, and in no case shall the Project create blockages that violate CPUC General Order 135. The City shall be responsible for installing an automated monitoring system that automati cally records grade crossing blockages on Canal Boulevard, West Cutting Boulevard and Garrard B oulevard, and that information shall be made available to the public on a monthly basis. Any grade crossing blockages in excess of 10 minutes that violate CPUC General Order 135 shall be prosecuted by the City.

16. Train Noise: The Project will increase train traffic south of the Canal Boulevard grade crossing, and it is possible that trains will be sounded at grad e crossings. The City of Richmond shall determine what is required to establish a Quiet Zone and shall obtain cost estimates for providing sufficient grade crossing safety devices at grade crossings s outh of the Canal Boulev ard grade crossing to qualify for a Quiet Zone. The City of Richmond shall maintain a reserve fund for a period of two years sufficient to pay for such devices, if requi red. If train horns are routinely sounded at grade crossings south of the Canal Boulevard grade crossing, the City of Richmond shall implement a Quiet Zone extending from the Canal Boulevard grade crossing to the PPMT. After two years, the reserve capital fund shall no longer be required, but if after two years, train horns are routinely sounded at grade crossings south of the Canal Boul evard grade crossing; the City of Richmond shall install such devices in a timely manner as nece ssary and establish a Quiet Zone from the Canal Boulevard grade crossing. "Routinely sounded" means sounded in accordance with 49 CFR Parts 222 and 229 promulgated by the Fe deral Railroad Administration but does not include sounding in case of emergencies. In addition, the City of Richmond shall complete the required improvements and establish a Quiet Zone from the existing Garrard Boulevard (Richmond Parkway east leg) to and including the grade crossing at Cutting Boulevard near 4th Street. The Port of Richmond, in conjunction with the railroad shall investigate, adopt a plan and apply best practices to continually reduce wheel squeal on tight radius curves on tr acks serving the Honda Port of Entry Project.

Practices may include gauge face lubrication; t op of rail friction modifica tion and the maintenance and modification of track and rolling stock.

17. Solar Electricity Generation: Sufficient solar electrical generation shall be installed at PPMT to result in no net electrical usage from PG&E. This require ment shall apply only if economically feasible, with "feasible" being defined as no net increase in th e annual cost of power over what it would have been if purchased from PG&E. The City of Rich mond shall invite proposals from providers of Power Purchase Agreements.

18. Historic Resources Parking: In accordance w ith Mitigation Measure 5-6, the following parking spaces shall be made available for non PPMT park ing requirements. For the Riggers Loft - 78 spaces, General Warehouse - 32 spac es, Cafeteria - 54 spaces, and Red Oak Victory - 25 spaces.

These spaces shall be reserved during weekday working hours for employees and visitors of the three buildings and Red Oak Victory, at such futu re time that the buildings may be occupied by tenants, with 75% used jointly as shared parking by the Project Sponsor on nights and weekends, subject to mutual agreement of details. Whenever the Red Oak Victory or the National Park Service has special events, or anticipates substantial vis itation, up to 100 parking spaces shall be made available for short term use.

19. Emissions: Following implementation of CARB regulations for fuel sulfur for oceangoing vessels in 2009 and 2012, the emissions of NO
X and PM10, including those from this Project, shall be lower in the City of Richmond than the current baseline, a nd the health risk assessment shall indicate a lower risk than that which currently exists. Calculati ons shall be provided to the City of Richmond and submitted to the Planning and Building Services Department to show how this conclusion can be reached prior to obtaining a Building Permit, and such calculations shall be incorporated into the Design Review Permit (DR 1104434).

5 I CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of Richmond for EIR 1104434, and DR 1 104434 Port of Richmond, Honda Port of Entry Project, at a regular meeting held on November 18, 2008:

Ayes: Councilmembers Bates, Butt, Lopez, Rogers, Sandhu, Thurmond, and Viramontes

Noes: Mayor McLaughlin

Abstentions: None

Absent: Vice Mayor Marquez

DIANE HOLMES

Clerk of the City of Richmond

[ S E A L ]

Approved:

GAYLE McLAUGHLIN

Mayor of the City of Richmond

Approved as to Form:

RANDY RIDDLE

City Attorney

State of California }
County of Contra Costa : : ss.

City of Richmond }

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of Resolution No. 129-08, finally passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Richmond at meeting held on November 18, 2008.

EXHIBIT A–1: CEQA Findings of Fact
EXHIBIT A–2: Statement of Overriding Considerations
EXHIBIT A–3: MMRP, September 2008
EXHIBIT A–1
of City Council Resolution

CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT

PORT OF RICHMOND, HONDA PORT OF ENTRY PROJECT
EIR 1104434

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1. Introduction................................................................................................................ .............. 1

2. Project Summary............................................................................................................. ......... 2

3. Project Objectives .......................................................................................................... .......... 3

4. Findings on Significant Environmental Effects ....................................................................... 3 Land Use and Planning ....................................................................................................... 4 Traffic....................................................................................................................... ........... 6 Air Quality ................................................................................................................... ..... 16 Noise ........................................................................................................................ ......... 18 Biological Resources......................................................................................................... 2 0 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................ 25 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................. 30 Hydrology and Water Quality........................................................................................... 33 Hazards and Hazardous Materials..................................................................................... 37 Visual Quality ................................................................................................................ ... 40 Utilities.............................................................................................................................. 42

5. Findings on Alternatives.................................................................................................... .... 47 No–Project Alternative...................................................................................................... 47 Modified Operations Alternative 1 (MOA–1) .................................................................. 48 Modified Operations Alternative 2 (MOA–2) .................................................................. 49 Alternative Locations ........................................................................................................ 5 0 Cargo Container Facility Alternative ................................................................................ 52

EXHIBIT A–1

CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT

HONDA PORT OF ENTRY PROJECT

1. INTRODUCTION
These findings are prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of these findings is to satisfy the requirements of Sections 15091, 15092, and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, associated with approval of the proposed H onda Port of Entry Project. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15161, a Project Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the Honda Port of Entry Project.

The CEQA Statutes (Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq .) and CEQA Guidelines (Code of Regulations Sections 15000 et seq.) state that if it has been determined that a project may or will have significant impacts on the environment, then an Envir onmental Impact Report ("EIR") must be prepared.

Prior to approval of the project, the EIR must be certified pursuant to Section 15090 of the CEQA Guidelines. When an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental impacts, the approving agency must make one or mo re of the following findings, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rational pursuant to Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines, for each identified significant impact:
a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final environmental impact report.
b) Such changes or alterations are within th e responsibility and jurisd iction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Su ch changes have been adopted by such other agency, or can and should be adopted by such other agency. c) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained work ers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.

Section 15092 of the CEQA Guidelines st ates that after consideration of an EIR, and in conjunction with making the Section 15091 findings identified above, the lead agency may decide whether or how to approve or carry out the project. A project shall not be approved if it would result in a significant environmental impact unless the lead agency has e liminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible and determined that any remaining significant effects on the environment found unavoidable are acce ptable due to overriding considerations. Only when there are specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations that outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, can a project with unmitigated significant impacts be approved. Section 15093 requires the lead agency to document and substa ntiate any such determination in "statements of overriding considerations" as a part of the record. A Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Honda Port of Entry Project is included as Exhibit A–2.

In making the finding that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect (i.e., mitigation measures), the Exhibit A–1
CEQA Findings of Fact
Honda Port of Entry Project

Page 2 of 58 ends

measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. In the case of the Honda Port of Entry project, the mitigation measures will be adopted as conditions of approval of the required Design Review Permit. In making the fi ndings, the lead agency must also a program for monitoring or reporting on the mitigation measures re quired for the project. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Honda Port of Entry project is included as Exhibit A–3.

2. PROJECT SUMMARY
The proposed Honda Port of Entry project would consist of an expansion of existing automobile import and distribution operations at the Port of Richmond’s Point Potrero Marine Terminal (PPMT), including construction and operation of a rail yard terminal on the PPMT property. The PPMT is located in the southwestern portion of the City of Richmond, in western Contra Costa County. The site is located at the shoreline of the Richmond Inner Harbor, located in central San Francisco Bay.

Auto Warehousing Company (AWC) has been operating an auto processing facility at the PPMT since 2004, processing Hyundai and Kia cars imported from Ko rea by ship. AWC is proposing to expand its existing operations at the Port of Richmond to develop a Northern California Port of Entry for Honda automobiles. The purpose of the project is to improve the efficiency of the North American distribution system for imported Honda autos, while at the same time improving the efficiency of the local and regional distribution system of Honda imports and domestically–manufactured cars and of imported autos from various other foreign car manufacturers.

The project would include construction of a new rail yard terminal at the PPMT, adjacent to the facilities two large ship berths on the Harbour Channel that fl anks the site on the east. Currently, the Hyundai and Kia cars delivered by ship to the PPMT are driven one by one (after processing) to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Rail Road automotive termin al located at the corner of Canal Boulevard and Cutting Boulevard, about 1 mile north of the PPMT. From there they are loaded onto rail cars and shipped to destination markets elsewhere in the U.S. They are also loaded directly onto car carrier trucks at the PPMT and distributed around northern California and the San Francisco Bay Area. With construction of the proposed rail yard, the auto shu ttling operation would be elim inated, and all vehicles imported into the PPMT and bound for rail shipment out of State (Hondas as well as the current Hyundai/Kia operations) would be loaded onto trains at the PPMT instead of the BNSF terminal.

The project proposal also includes the construction of minor improvements to one of the existing ship berths at the PPMT, consisting of repairs to the concrete deck pavement, installation of new bull rail at the edge of the berth, and replacement of the existing dock fender system on the side of the berth.

Construction of these improvements would not intrude into the Bay water.

Following completion of the rail yard and ship berth improvements, Honda would begin delivering autos manufactured in Japan to the PPMT facility in car–carry ing ships. After processing by AWC, similar to the Hyundai and Kia cars, they would be loaded onto trains for distribution around the rest of the U.S., and loaded onto car carrier trucks for distributi on around the Bay Area and northern California. Honda expects to import 150,000 vehicles per year by ship, and would distribute approximately 35,000 of those vehicles via truck to dealerships throughout northern California. Honda also imports autos into the Port of San Diego, which is the distribution point for auto s to the southern California region. Approximately 35,000 imported Hondas per year are currently brought into Northern California by auto carrier from the Port of San Diego; these highway trips would be eliminated by the proposed project.

Exhibit A–1
CEQA Findings of Fact
Honda Port of Entry Project

Page 3 of 58 ends

3. PROJECT OBJECTIVES
In pursuing the proposed Honda Port of Entry project, the Applicant has the following objectives:
• To provide competitive, operationally efficient and environmentally responsible vehicle Port of Entry operations for Honda at the Port Of Richmond’s Point Potrero facilities. • To establish a modern and operationally effectiv e rail loading capability within the Port, and eliminate the current requirement for shuttling vehicles along Canal Boulevard to the current rail loading facility located at Canal and Cutting Boulevards.

In supporting the application for the proposed Honda Port of Entry project, the City and the Port of Richmond have the following objectives:
• To improve rail operations between the BNSF Richmond Yard and all rail served industries within the Canal Boulevard industrial corridor, through reductions in peak–hour blockages at grade crossings, and the effective management of diesel particulate emissions through the use of environmentally efficient locomotives and improved rail operational practices. • To promote long–term industrial distribution opportunities within the Port of Richmond, which enhance the Port’s financial condition and support community goals of environmentally responsible economic development.
• To pursue the goals of City Council resolution 100–07, approved on September 11, 2007, making it public policy to maximize economic be nefit from underutilized real estate assets in the Port of Richmond.

4. FINDINGS ON SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The Final EIR sets forth environmental impacts of the project that would be significant in the absence of mitigation measures. These effects (o r impacts) are restated below along with final applicable mitigation measures (including any changes or alterations) to be adopted by the City to avoid or substantially lessen those potentially significant or significant effects. Also set forth are any significant effects that cannot be avoided or reduced to a less–than–significant level even with the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures proposed in the Final EIR. In adopting th ese findings, the City is also adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations setting forth the economic, soci al, and other benefits of the Project that will render these significant effects acceptable. See Exhibit A–2, Statement of Overriding Considerations.

In the "Findings of Fact" discussions, the City's determination is provided regarding environmental impacts that remain significant or are reduced to a less–than–significant level given the implementation of adopted feasible mitigation, and also whether cer tain other measures which were proposed, but not adopted, are infeasible for social, economic, or othe r reasons. Pursuant to Section 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City is not required to adopt mitigation measures for impacts that are less–than– significant. Nonetheless, the City restates these conc lusions below. Pursuant to Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines, the discussion below provides findings of fact concerning each of the impacts and mitigation measures identified in the EIR.

Exhibit A–1
CEQA Findings of Fact
Honda Port of Entry Project

Page 4 of 58 ends

LAND USE AND PLANNING
Impact 4–1: The proposed project would be inconsistent with Richmond General Plan policies requiring compliance with adopted air quality standards and prot ection of the public from the adverse health effects of air pollution.

Mitigation Measure 4–1: None feasible.

Significance After Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable.

Findings of Fact:

As discussed below under Impact 6–2, implementation of the project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact due to the project’s ope rational emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO x). Because the project would, therefore, not comply with the adopted air quality standard for NO x, there is no feasible mitigation measure or alternative that the City could adopt that would render the project consistent with General Plan Policy OSC–P.1, which states “(O)nly a pprove projects that will comply with applicable regulations and will not exceed air quality standards.” This impact therefore, remains significant and unmitigable. To the extent that this adverse impact will not be eliminated or lessened to an acceptable (less–than–significant) level, the City finds that spec ific economic, legal, social, technological and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit A–2) support approval of the project as modified, despite unavoidable residual impacts.

Impact 4–2: The proposed project would be inconsistent with Richmond Coastline Plan Public Access Policy 1, which calls for permanently guaranteed access to the shoreline.

Mitigation Measure 4–2: The Port of Richmond shall maintain permanent public access to the shoreline and historic sites on the PPMT while complying with Federal and State security regulations. If relocation of the planned Bay Trail Segment is required in the fu ture due to national security concerns or for other reasons, the Port shall provide alternative shoreline access and, alternative access to the historic resources at the PPMT. In determining the location and design of public access, as well as final design of the PPMT site plan, the Port and the applicant shall offer to consult with nei ghboring property owners and facility operators to address security concerns. Written evidence of consultation, or reasonable efforts to consult, shall be provided to the City before any permit for project construction is issued.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

In response to comments received on the DEIR, Mitig ation Measure 4–2 was modified from the original wording presented in the DEIR. The measure was strengthened to require the Port of Richmond to continue providing permanent public access to the s horeline and historic sites on the PPMT irrespective of feasibility. Because, in order to comply with Federal and State security regulations, this could potentially require the Port to relocate the public ac cess trail, additional language was added requiring the Port and the applicant to consult with neighboring property owners as part of any relocation effort.

Exhibit A–1
CEQA Findings of Fact
Honda Port of Entry Project

Page 5 of 58 ends

The City hereby determines based on substantial evidence in the record that the changes to the mitigation measure serve to clarify, amplify, or make insignificant modifications to an adequate EIR, and therefore recirculation is not required. The City hereby di rects that the stated mitigation measure (with the modifications indicated above) be incorporated into th e project as a required condition of approval. This mitigation measure constitutes a change or alteration of the project that is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City. The Council finds, based on s ubstantial evidence in the r ecord, that this measure is appropriate and feasib le, and will lessen to an acceptable less–than–significant level, or avoid, the impact.

Impact 4–3: The proposed project would conflict with San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan policies identifying the project site as a future container cargo port facility.

Mitigation Measure 4–3: As part of the application for a development permit from the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), the project sponsor shall provide data to the Seaport Planning Advisory Committee of BCDC, dem onstrating that implementation of the proposed project would not prevent Bay Area ports from collectively achieving the 2020 cargo projections contained in the San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan , which contains a variety of potential uses for Port facilities. The proposed project will be fully consistent with elements of the Seaport Plan that support the Port’s extension of trackage into Point Potrero, thereby facilitating potential growth of intermodal service at the Port.

BCDC has identified the future need to expand container capacity at the Port of Richmond in its 2020 Seaport Plan. To address any inconsistency with the Seaport Plan, if any portion of the PPMT is required for such development expansion during the term of H onda’s operations at the Port of Richmond, then on the mutual agreement of the Port, AWC, and Honda, the Port shall relocate such portion of the facilities so that the resulting premises provide an equally efficient site for the operation of Honda’s operations.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

In response to comments received on the DEIR from the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), the significance of Impact 4–3 before mitigation was changed from “Less than Significant” to “Significant,” and th e mitigation became required rather than a recommendation. In addition, the mitigation measur e for this impact was altered from the original wording as presented in the DEIR. Mitigation Measure 4–2 was modified to require rather than recommend the applicant provide data to the Sea port Planning Advisory Committee of BCDC that demonstrate that implementation of the proposed project would not prevent Bay Area ports from collectively achieving the 2020 cargo projections contained in the San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan .

Also, if container cargo capacity is required at th e PPMT in the future to help achieve the goals established in the San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan, the Port will be required to accommodate such development by relocating all or a portion of the Ho nda auto processing facilities to a location mutually agreed upon by the Port, AWC, and Honda. These modifications serve to increase the project’s consistency with an adopted policy document that governs development of the project site.

Exhibit A–1
CEQA Findings of Fact
Honda Port of Entry Project

Page 6 of 58 ends

The City hereby determines based on substantial ev idence in the record that the changes to the impact/mitigation measure serve to clarify, amplify, or make insignificant modifications to an adequate EIR, and therefore recirculation is not required. The City hereby directs that the stated mitigation measure (with the modifications indicated above) be incorporated into the project as a required condition of approval. This mitigation measure constitutes a cha nge or alteration of the project that is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City. The Counc il finds, based on substantial evidence in the record, that this measure is appropriate and feasible, and w ill reduce to a less–than–significant (acceptable) level, or avoid, the impact.

TRAFFIC
Impact 5–1: Construction of the proposed project would ge nerate additional traffic from construction workers traveling to and from the site, from truck deliveries of construction materials and ballast stone, and from trucks exporting excess fill.

Mitigation Measure 5–1: None required.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

A less–than–significant impact is anticipated as the temporary impacts of construction are not projected to be substantial or beyond the capacity of the surrounding roadway network. Additional findings pursuant to CEQA are not required.

Impact 5–2: Staging of construction equipment and materi als, construction parking, lane closures, and slow–moving construction trucks all have the potential to disrupt traffic on Canal Boulevard and create potential traffic hazards during construction.

Written evidence of consultation, or reasonable efforts to consult, shall be provided to the City before a grading permit is issued. At a minimum, the plan shall include the following:
• identification of construction truck routes, staging, and park ing areas for workers, as well as areas of potential encroachment into the public right–of–way; • provision of appropriate traffic control personnel and signs; and • designation of an on–site construction manage r as a contact for the City and the public.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Exhibit A–1
CEQA Findings of Fact
Honda Port of Entry Project

Page 7 of 58 ends

Findings of Fact:

In response to comments received on the DEIR, Mitig ation Measure 5–2 was modified from the original wording presented in the DEIR. A requirement was added for the project applicant to consult with neighboring property owners and facility operators during preparation of the traffic control plan in order to address any concerns they may have regarding formulation and implementation of the plan.

The City hereby determines based on substantial evidence in the record that the changes to the mitigation measure serve to clarify, amplify, or make insignificant modifications to an adequate EIR, and therefore recirculation is not required. The City hereby di rects that the stated mitigation measure (with the modifications indicated above) be incorporated into th e project as a required condition of approval. This mitigation measure constitutes a change or alteration of the project that is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City. The Council finds, based on s ubstantial evidence in the r ecord, that this measure is appropriate and feasible, and will reduce to a less–than–significant (acceptable) level, or avoid, the impact.

Impact 5–3: Under Background Plus Project Conditions, the addition of project–generated traffic to the local road network would incrementally increase averag e delay at project study intersections, but all of the intersections would continue operating acceptably at LOS C or better.

Mitigation Measure 5–3: None required.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

A less–than–significant impact is anticipated as the a dditional traffic generated by the operation of the project is projected to be an incremental increase in average delays at the intersections and not substantial, nor will it result in a volume beyond the capacity of the surrounding roadway network. Additional findings pursuant to CEQA are not required.

Impact 5–4: The proposed project would increase the number of large trucks and other vehicles traveling at speed through the unsignalized intersection of Canal Boulevard and Seacliff Drive, which provides inadequate stopping sight distance and inadequate intersection sight distance. Although this is an existing condition, the additional project traffic would s ubstantially exacerbate the safety hazard at this intersection by increasing the number of motorists exposed to potential accidents between autos and large car–carrier trucks.

Mitigation Measure 5–4: The City of Richmond shall impl ement appropriate improvements, as determined by the Public Works Department, at the intersection of Canal Boulevard and Seacliff Drive in order to provide adequate intersection sight dist ance (minimum of 450 feet on Canal Boulevard) and improve eastbound vehicle deceleration on Seacliff Dr ive at the intersection approach. The project sponsor shall pay the fair–share cost of implementing this mitigation measure, as determined by the City of Richmond.

Exhibit A–1
CEQA Findings of Fact
Honda Port of Entry Project

Page 8 of 58 ends

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

Mitigation Measure 5–4 was modified from the orig inal wording presented in the DEIR as a staff– initiated text change. Because Caltrans traffic warrant s for signalization of the intersection of Canal Boulevard and Seacliff Drive would not be met and signalization would increase delays for traffic on both roadways, the mitigation was revised to require improvements to be made to address the sight distance safety hazard and to improve eastbound vehicle deceleration on Seacliff Drive at the intersection approach. The changes in the mitigation would al low for the resolution of sight distance and other hazards at the intersection in a more cost–e ffective manner and without introducing undesirable secondary effects.

The City hereby determines based on substantial evidence in the record that the changes to the mitigation measure serve to clarify, amplify, or make insignificant modifications to an adequate EIR, and therefore recirculation is not required. The City hereby di rects that the stated mitigation measure (with the modifications indicated above) be incorporated into th e project as a required condition of approval. This mitigation measure constitutes a change or alteration of the project that is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City. The Council finds, based on s ubstantial evidence in the r ecord, that this measure is appropriate and feasible, and will reduce to a less–than–significant (acceptable) level, or avoid, the impact.

Impact 5–5: The proposed project would increase the number of large multi–axel trucks traveling on Canal Boulevard, contributing wear to a roadway that is already in substandard condition south of Seacliff Drive.

Mitigation Measure 5–5: None Required.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

A less–than–significant impact is anticipated as the wear to the roadway will be factored into the City’s program for Capital Improvements and road repair. Additional findings pursuant to CEQA are not required.

Impact 5–6: The anticipated parking demand by PPMT employees, longshoremen, visitors, and the public would exceed the parking supply proposed by the project.

Mitigation Measure 5–6: The City of Richmond, in consultation with the Port of Richmond and the Project Sponsor, shall make a determination as to the appropriate amount of parking to be provided at the PPMT, and this requirement shall become a condition of the Design Review Permit required for the project. This determination may allow for the Proj ect Sponsor to designate a portion of the new auto storage areas as reserve parking (60 spaces) for the ex tra longshoremen needed at the site on the periodic Exhibit A–1
CEQA Findings of Fact
Honda Port of Entry Project

Page 9 of 58 ends

occasions when two ships are at berth at the PPMT, thereby reducing the perman ent parking requirement by 60 spaces. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Project Sponsor shall demonstrate on the final site plan the provision of the number of spaces required by the City.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

Mitigation Measure 5–6 was modified from the orig inal wording presented in the DEIR as a staff– initiated text change. An inaccurate reference to a Conditional Use Permit was revised to correctly identify the Design Review Permit required for the project . Conditions of approval have been included in the Resolution for the Design Review Permit approval , precluding the need for a Conditional Use Permit for the Honda Port of Entry project.

The City hereby determines based on substantial evidence in the record that the changes to the mitigation measure serve to clarify, amplify, or make insignifican t modifications to an adequate EIR, and, therefore, recirculation is not required. The City hereby di rects that the stated mitigation measure (with the modifications indicated above) be incorporated into th e project as a required condition of approval. This mitigation measure constitutes a change or alteration of the project that is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City. The Council finds, based on s ubstantial evidence in the r ecord, that this measure is appropriate and feasible, and will reduce to a less–than–significant (acceptable) level, or avoid, the impact.

Impact 5–7: Under Cumulative Year 2030 Plus Project Conditions, the addition of project–generated traffic to the local road network would incrementally increase average delay at project study intersections, but all of the intersections would continue operating acceptably at LOS C or better.

Mitigation Measure 5–7: None required.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

A less–than–significant impact will result from cumulative plus the project-generated traffic as the increase in traffic would be incremental and not s ubstantial, nor beyond the capacity of the surrounding roadway network and intersections. Additional findings pursuant to CEQA are not required.

Impact 5–8: The proposed establishment of a rail yard at the PPMT would result in periodic delays to vehicles attempting to enter or exit Wharf Street during train crossings.

Mitigation Measure 5–8: None required.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Exhibit A–1
CEQA Findings of Fact
Honda Port of Entry Project

Page 10 of 58 ends

Findings of Fact:

A less–than–significant impact is anticipated from rail yard operational delays as monitoring of delays by improved communication systems would be an on-going pa rt of the operations, and the peak hour for rail trips does not coincide with that of motor vehicle trip s in the area. Some delay in traffic movement is already experienced in the area, but not to a substant ial level. Additional findings pursuant to CEQA are not required.

Impact 5–9: Switching and other train operations between the proposed PPMT rail yard and the BNSF Automotive Terminal would temporarily block access to industrial properties east of Canal Boulevard.

Project trains traveling between the PPMT and the Richmond Rail Yard and utilizing the at–grade crossings at Canal, West Cutting, and South Garrard boulevards would similarly temporarily block access to residential and other properties located south of these crossings. This could result in the inability of emergency vehicles to access these properties during fires, medical emergencies, or other types of emergencies.

Mitigation Measure 5–9: The project sponsor shall prepare and implement an Emergency Response Plan (ERP), subject to review and approval by the Richmond Fire Department and Richmond Police Department, that addresses continuous emergency acce ss to all properties potentially blocked by train crossings or switching operations. The ERP shall be developed in consultation with all potentially affected business and property owners located east of Canal Boulevard. The project applicant shall offer to consult with neighboring property owners and facility operators durin g preparation of the ERP in order to address any concerns they may have regarding implementation of the plan. Written evidence of consultation, or reasonable efforts to consult, shall be provided to the City before a grading permit is issued.

Exhibit A–1
CEQA Findings of Fact
Honda Port of Entry Project

Page 11 of 58 ends

• Investigate the potential for an emergency access through PPMT facility to the east side of the rail yard. A locked gate to the proposed new BP/Arco entrance road could be established, with access codes or keys provided to emergency personnel (fire and police).

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

In response to comments received on the DEIR, Mi tigation Measure 5–9 was altered from the original wording presented in the DEIR. A requirement was added for the project applicant to consult with neighboring property owners and fac ility operators during preparation of the emergency response plan in order to address any concerns they may have regarding formulation and implementation of the plan.

The City hereby determines based on substantial evidence in the record that the changes to the mitigation measure serve to clarify, amplify, or make insignificant modifications to an adequate EIR, and therefore recirculation is not required. The City hereby di rects that the stated mitigation measure (with the modifications indicated above) be incorporated into th e project as a required condition of approval. This mitigation measure constitutes a change or alteration of the project that is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City. The Council finds, based on s ubstantial evidence in the r ecord, that this measure is appropriate and feasible, and will reduce to a less–than–significant (acceptable) level, or avoid, the impact.

Impact 5–10: The increase in ship traffic resulting from implementation of the proposed project could potentially cause congestion or disruption to the normal flow of traffic in San Francisco Bay.

Mitigation Measure 5–10: None required.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

A less–than–significant impact is anticipated from implementation of the project relative to ship traffic as the volume of ship traffic into the port and the SF Bay has historically been below the capacity of the waterway. In the 1980s, shipping traffic was much higher into the Port than today. Only 75 additional ships are projected to follow the course into the Richmond Port with the project, and the improvements incorporated into the Project will in crease the efficiency of navigating into the Port. Additional findings pursuant to CEQA are not required.

Impact 5–11: The increase in ship traffic at the project site caused by the proposed project could potentially cause congestion or disruption to the normal flow of traffic at the Port of Richmond.

Mitigation Measure 5–11: None required.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Exhibit A–1
CEQA Findings of Fact
Honda Port of Entry Project

Page 12 of 58 ends

Findings of Fact:

Impact 5–12: The increase in ship traffic resulting from implementation of the proposed project could potentially increase risk of collision or accident in San Francisco Bay and at the project site.

Mitigation Measure 5–12: None required.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

A less–than–significant impact is anticipated as a hi gh level of safety precautions are utilized in moving ships in and out of the San Francisco Bay and in the Port area. Steering of the ships is done by highly skilled navigators, and tugboats are used to carefu lly navigate the ships within the Richmond Inner Harbor into the PPMT berth. Additional findings pursuant to CEQA are not required.

AIR QUALITY
Impact 6–1: Activities associated with proposed project construction would ge nerate short–term emissions of criteria pollutants, including constr uction–related dust emissions and equipment exhaust emissions, during the term of construction.

Mitigation Measure 6–1: The applicant shall implement dust abatement measures identified by BAAQMD as feasible dust control, during all construction activities, including the following:
• water all active construction areas at least twice daily; • cover all trucks hauling soil, sa nd, and other loose materials, or require such trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard;
• pave, apply water at a minimum three times da ily in dry weather, or apply non–toxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas; • sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas; • sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if vi sible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets areas;
Exhibit A–1
CEQA Findings of Fact
Honda Port of Entry Project

Page 13 of 58 ends

• hydroseed or apply non–toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more);
• enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non–toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.);
• limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour; • install sandbags or other erosion control measu res to prevent silt runoff to public roadways; and
• replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.

The applicant shall implement the following constr uction combustion emissions mitigation measures identified by BAAQMD during all construction activities:
• Use alternative–powered constr uction equipment (i.e., hybrid, co mpressed natural gas (CNG), biodiesel, electric), where feasible.
• Use construction equipment which uses a dd–on control devices such as diesel oxidation catalysts or particulate filters, or that meets the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) most recent certification standards for at least 10 percent of the total equivalent construction period.
• Minimize idling time (e.g., 5 minute maximum).
• Maintain properly tuned equipment.
• Limit the hours of operation of heavy–duty equi pment and/or the amount of equipment in use.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

In response to comments received on the DEIR, Mi tigation Measure 6–1 was altered from the original wording presented in the DEIR. Additional requirements for equipment and operational procedures that will further reduce air pollutant emissions during proj ect construction were added to the mitigation.

These measures transcend the measures identified by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) for implementation during construction of projects in the Bay Area and will target NO x and
other criteria pollutants, in addition to PM10.

The City hereby determines based on substantial evidence in the record that the changes to the mitigation measure serve to clarify, amplify, or make insignificant modifications to an adequate EIR, and therefore recirculation is not required. The City hereby di rects that the stated mitigation measure (with the modifications indicated above) be incorporated into th e project as a required condition of approval. This mitigation measure constitutes a change or alteration of the project that is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City. The Council finds, based on s ubstantial evidence in the r ecord, that this measure is appropriate and feasible, and will reduce to a less–than–significant (acceptable) level, or avoid, the impact.

Exhibit A–1
CEQA Findings of Fact
Honda Port of Entry Project

Page 14 of 58 ends

Impact 6–2: Operation of the proposed project would gene rate emissions of criteria pollutants from the auto carrier marine vessels, tugs, rail activities, auto carrier trucks, and employee vehicles. The impacts of carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) would be less than significant. However, the impact from em issions of nitrogen oxides would be significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measure 6–2: The Port of Richmond, shall set a targeted goal of reducing the air quality impacts of the proposed project by at least 50 percent and up to 85 percent of DPM (consistent with the 2020 goals adopted by CARB in April 2006 in association with the Goods Movement Reduction Plan).

Targeted reduction goals for project NO x emissions shall be set at 5 percent below project estimated NO x emissions. These targeted goals shall be an outcome of the development of a Clean Air Action Plan (CAAP) that targets all emissions, focusing primarily on reducing NO x, PM10/2.5, and TACs (especially diesel particulate matter) associated with PPMT and other Port of Richmond emission sources. The CAAP shall be completed prior to construction and implementation of the CAAP shall begin with the commencement of project operations.

The CAAP shall implement measures largely through the CEQA/NEPA process, tariffs, and new leases.

One goal of the CAAP shall be to stay consistent with and/or ahead of California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations. The CAAP shall focus on reduc ing NOx and diesel particulate emissions, thereby having a primary benefit of improving local and regi onal health and air quality. The CAAP Plan shall contain provisions for implementing the following measures (but not limited to just these measures), as feasible, for the Honda Port of Entry project.
• Cleaner Ship Fuels. On June 10, 2008, CARB released draft clean fuel regulations for ocean–going vessels that would require US and foreign–flagged vessels sailing within 24 miles of the California coastline to use low sulf ur marine fuels rather than bunker fuel to power main propulsion engines, auxiliary engines and boilers.

Under the proposal, by July 1, 2009, main engines and auxiliary boilers of ocean–going vessels would be required to switch either to marine gas oil with no more than 1.5 percent sulfur or marine diesel oil with 0.5 percent or less sulfur. Auxiliary engines on ocean–going vessels would be required to switch to cleaner fuel within 30 days after rule promulgation. By 2012, only marine gas oil and marine diesel oil fuels with 0.1 percent sulfur would be allowed.

CARB has estimated that implementation of th e regulations would reduce toxic particulate matter emissions from diesel vessel engines by 80 percent compared to current uncontrolled emissions. CARB estimates that sulfur oxide and nitrogen oxide emissions would also be reduced by 90 and 6 percent, respectively.

The Port of Richmond shall provide reduced dockage fees for ship operators that use cleaner fuels prior to implementation of the clean fuel regulation requirements. If the regulation is not promulgated, the Port of Richmond shall require 50 percent compliance of the cleaner fuels standard through reduced dockage fees or lease requirements.

Provide reduced dockage fees for ship operators that use cleaner fuels and cleaner ship engines.
• Cleaner Engine Technologies. Instead of meeting the cold ironing shore power requirements, ship owners may elect to reduce th eir fleet emissions at a terminal by 50 percent by 2014 using engine optimiz ation (e.g., Miller Cycle Value timing), engine process Exhibit A–1
CEQA Findings of Fact
Honda Port of Entry Project

Page 15 of 58 ends

modifications (e.g., addition of water, urea, or ammonia to the combustion process), and/or after–treatment processes (e.g., Selective Catalytic Reduction system).

The Port of Richmond shall provide reduced dockage fees for ship operators that use cleaner engine technologies.
• Idling Restrictions. Impose mandatory idling restrictions for trucks at the PPMT. Provide trucker education of anti–idling benefits and enforcement of CARB’s anti–idling regulations of no more than 5 minutes, where applicable, of auto–carrier trucks and delivery trucks servicing the proposed project. Based on emission assumptions, this could reduce PM emissions from auto carrier truck idling within the facility by up to 80 percent, given the assumption that auto carrier trucks currently idle for up to 25 minutes during loading. Impose mandatory idling restrictions for tugboats and trucks at the PPMT. • Cleaner Auto Carrier Trucks. Develop a program to encourage cleaner trucks at the PPMT.

A schedule shall be developed to achieve 2007 emission standards for the auto carrier trucks ahead of regulations.
• Grant Funding. Actively pursue State, Bay Area, and grant funds (e.g., the Carl Moyer Fund, Transportation Fund for Clean Air, etc.) for improved trucks and retrofits such as the diesel particulate filters and ocean–going vessel emission–reduction technologies. • Vessel Speed Reduction. CARB is evaluating an ocean–going vessel speed reduction program. The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach currently have a program which requests that vessels reduce their speed to 12 knots beginning 20 nautical miles off shore. A similar program shall be developed for the Port of Richmond as part of the proposed project. • General Mitigation Measure. For any of the above emission reduction measures, if a CARB–certified technology becomes available a nd is shown to be as good as or better in terms of emissions reduction than the existi ng measure, the technology could be used to replace the existing emission reduction measure pending approval by the Port. • Periodic Review of New Technology and Regulations. The Port shall require the tenant to review, in terms of feasibility, any Port–i dentified or other new emissions–reduction technology, and report the technology review resu lts to the Port. Such technology feasibility reviews shall take place at the time of the Port’s consideration of any lease amendment or facility modification. If the technology is determin ed by the Port to be feasible in terms of cost, technical and operational feasibility, the tena nt shall work with the Port to implement such technology.
• Advanced Maritime Emissions Control System (AMECS). AMECS is a pilot system composed of an Emissions Treatment Subsyste m and an Emissions Capture Subsystem. The system contains two emission–removal technologies: a Cloud–Chamber Scrubber for removal of SO
x, PM, and ROG, and a Selective Catalytic Reduction Reactor for the removal of NO x.

The AMECS treats ocean–going vessels while at be rth. This system claims to reduce SO x by up to 97 percent, PM by more than 92 percent, and NO x by up to 97 percent. The system does not require modification of the ship.

If the AMECS or another emissions treatment system is determined to be feasible for use on ships serving the proposed project, the system shall be operational upon implementation of the project. If more effective and cost effective, the AMECS or other treatment system may be located at the PPMT and/or other Port of Richmond facilities, which could provide the biggest Exhibit A–1
CEQA Findings of Fact
Honda Port of Entry Project

Page 16 of 58 ends

emission reductions either based on the frequency of ports of call, the types of vessels (cargo and container vessels tend to have greater air emissions than auto carriers), and the duration of hotelling.
• Cold Ironing. To reduce emissions while at berth, pow er can be provided either by grid– based shore power (essentially connecting to th e PG&E grid) or by ultra–clean distributed generation (proof of concept tests at the Port of Oakland have shown the ability of mobile liquefied natural gas generators to fully power ocean–going vessels while docked at berth or under “hotelling”). Similar to proposed CARB regulations for container ships, by 2014 no less than 50 percent of the project’s auto carrier ships shall limit the use of auxiliary diesel engines to less than 5 hours per visit.

If the AMECS is determined to be infeasible at the PPMT, a cold ironing unit shall be installed, if feasible. The Port of Richmond shall provide reduced dockage fees for ship operators that provide the necessary retrofits for the cold ironing unit. • Periodic Inventory of Port Emissions. The Port shall conduct a biennial emission inventory to more precisely determine the facility emissi ons and the assumptions under which emissions are determined, to assess the benefits of mitigation measures, a nd to develop other opportunities to reduce air emissions. The bien nial emissions inventory shall be made available to the public.
• Additional Mitigations. If the AMECS and cold ironing are deemed not feasible and/or not cost effective, additional mitigation measures equal to the estimated emissions reductions associated with cold ironing shall be implem ented. These additional measures would focus on emission sources at the Port (but not necessarily associated with the Proposed Project), such as installation of solar units, boiler re placement, cargo handling equipment modifications/replacement, but could also include emission sources within the vicinity such as school bus conversion, conversion of diesel forklifts to electric forklifts, educational programs, landscaping, purchasing of carbon credits, and solar/wind units. • Employee Transit Access. The Port of Richmond shall work with the City, AC Transit, and BART to provide enhanced transit access, su ch as free shuttle service for project employees between the project and local transit modes, in cluding the Richmond BART station. The Port shall coordinate with AC Transit to extend bus service to the PPMT, if feasible, such as by modifying an existing bus route in the project area. The Port and City shall encourage and provide incentives for ridesharing and use of public transit for project employees.

Significance After Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable.

Findings of Fact:

In response to comments received on the DEIR, Mi tigation Measure 6–2 was altered from the original wording presented in the DEIR. Specific, aggressive targets for reductions of diesel particulate matter (DPM) and NO
x emissions were added to the Clean Air Action Plan (CAAP) requirements, which must be completed prior to project construction. Implementation of the CAAP must now commence concurrently with project operations. The required CAAP goal to stay consistent with California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations has been modified to stay consistent or ahead of CARB regulations.

Discussion has been added on draft CARB regulations that are expected to go into effect on July 1, 2009 and require ocean–going ships to burn marine gas oil w ith no more than 1.5 percent sulfur or marine Exhibit A–1
CEQA Findings of Fact
Honda Port of Entry Project

Page 17 of 58 ends

diesel oil with 0.5 percent or less sulfur once the ships are operating within 24 miles of the California coastline. If the regulations are not adopted, the mitiga tion has been revised to require the Port to achieve 50–percent compliance with these draft regulations through reduced dockage fees for ship operators that use cleaner fuels and cleaner ship engines. The Po rt must also provide reduced dockage fees for ship operators that use cleaner engine technologies.

The restriction on idling of trucks and tugboats at the PPMT has been clarified to impose a 5–minute limit on idling, which could reduce PM emissions from auto ca rrier truck idling within the facility by up to 80 percent because they currently idle for up to 25 minutes during loading. A vessel speed reduction requirement has also been added to the mitigation, which will further reduce emissions from ocean–going vessels.

A requirement has been added for ships to utilize an emissions treatment system while at berth, if feasible. If not feasible, a cold iron ing unit shall be installed at the PPM T, if feasible, and the Port shall provide reduced dockage fees for ship operators that provide the necessary retrofits for the cold ironing unit. If neither the use of an emissions treatment system nor cold ironing are feasible, the Port must implement other measures that would achieve the same emissions reductions estimated for cold ironing, such as installation of solar units, boile r replacement, or cargo handling equipment modifications/replacement. Offsite measures could also be employed to limit emission sources within the project vicinity, such as school bus conversion, c onversion of diesel forklifts to electric forklifts, educational programs, landscaping, purchasing of carbon credits, and solar/wind units. A new requirement has also been added for the Port to work with local transit providers to attempt to extend bus service to the PPMT and to provide incentives for rid esharing and use of public transit for project employees.

The City hereby directs that the stated mitigation measure (with the modifications indicated above) be incorporated into the project as a required condition of approval. The Council further finds that there are no additional feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that the Council could adopt at this time which would reduce this impact to a less–t han–significant level. This impact, therefore, remains significant and unmitigable. To the extent that this adverse impact will not be eliminated or lessened to an acceptable (less–than–significant) level, the City finds that spec ific economic, legal, social, technological and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit A–2) support approval of the project as modified, despite unavoidable residual impacts.

Impact 6–3: Operation of the proposed project would generate emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) from the auto carrier marine vessels, tugs, rail activities, auto carrier trucks, and employee vehicles.

Mitigation Measure 6–3: None required.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

A less–than–significant impact related to emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) from the auto carrier marine vessels, tugs, rail activities, auto carrier trucks, and employee vehicles is anticipated. At the Exhibit A–1
CEQA Findings of Fact
Honda Port of Entry Project

Page 18 of 58 ends

present time, there are no Statewide guidelines for this type of emission, but AB 32 established Statewide goals in this respect, and the Project does not conf lict with these goals. Additional findings pursuant to CEQA are not required.

Impact 6–4: Although operation of the proposed project would create objectionable diesel odors in proximity to the sources, at the nearest sensitive receptors they would not be detectable, or at worst would be below offensive concentrations.

Mitigation Measure 6–4: None required.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

A less–than–significant impact is confirmed by the City. Although the project would produce objectionable odors, the nearest truck activities woul d be about 250 feet from the Seacliff at Point Richmond residences, and any objectionable diesel odor s would disperse to below objectionable levels over this distance, particularly given the prevalence of sea breezes at this location. The nearest ship berth would be nearly 2,500 feet away, so diesel odors woul d also disperse to below objectionable levels before reaching the nearest residences. Additional findings pursuant to CEQA are not required.

Impact 6–5: Project emissions of diesel particulate matter could pose a risk to human health.

Mitigation Measure 6–5: None required.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

A less–than–significant impact is confirmed by the City. The OEHHA has established a significance threshold for non–cancer health risk based on concentrations that would result in a Hazard Index greater than 1.0. Based on the modeling, the non–cancer health risks would be well below the Hazard Index of

1.0 at all receptors. The maximum non–cancer hazard risk would be an HI of 0.03 at the off–site industrial worker location. The maximum HI at a residential receptor would less than 0.01. Therefore, the non–cancer health risks from the proj ect have a less–than–significant impac t on human health and safety. Implementation of the measures identif ied in Mitigation Measure 6–2 would reduce DPM emissions and further reduce both cancer and non– cancer health risks near the project area. Additional findings pursuant to CEQA are not required.

Exhibit A–1
CEQA Findings of Fact
Honda Port of Entry Project

Page 19 of 58 ends

NOISE
Impact 7–1: Project construction would temporarily increase noise levels in the project vicinity.

Mitigation Measure 7–1: None required.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

A less–than–significant impact is confirmed by the City. Although project construction may result in substantial temporary increases in noise in the proj ect vicinity, City of Richmond Municipal Code (Section 9.52.090, Prohibited Noises) regulates constr uction noise by prohibiting construction, drilling, repair, alteration or demolition work at any time between the hours of 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. on weekdays or 6 p.m. and 8:30 a.m. on weekends and legal holidays in any residential or commercial zoning district or adjacent to any noise–sens itive uses. Section 9.52.090 also prohibits the creation of a noise disturbance anywhere within the City. Proj ect compliance with these existing code requirements would limit noise disturbance from project construction to a less–than–s ignificant impact. Additional findings pursuant to CEQA are not required.

Impact 7–2: Project–generated vehicle traffic would generate noise, but would not substantially increase roadside noise levels in the project vicinity under existing or long–term conditions.

Mitigation Measure 7–2: None required.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

A less–than–significant impact is confirmed by the City. Under both Year 2010 and Year 2030 conditions, traffic generated by the proposed project would not exceed the 5–dBA incremental increase threshold, the 3–dBA threshold, or the 1.5–dBA threshold in locations where it would apply. Therefore, traffic noise from the proposed project would not resu lt in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels and would be a less–t han–significant impact. Additional findings pursuant to CEQA are not required.

Impact 7–3: Noise from ship unloading could substantially increase noise levels at residential receptors.

Mitigation Measure 7–3: The City shall enforce the nighttime noise limit of 50 dBA at the residential property boundaries. Only ship engines that meet this noise level limit at the residential property boundaries shall be permitted to run at night (i.e., 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.).

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Exhibit A–1
CEQA Findings of Fact
Honda Port of Entry Project

Page 20 of 58 ends

Findings of Fact:

The City hereby directs that the stated mitigation measure(s) be incorporated into the project as a required condition of approval. This mitigation measure constitu tes a change or alteration of the project that is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City. The Council finds, based on substantial evidence in the record, that this measure is appropriate and feasible, and will lessen to a less–than–significant (acceptable) level, or avoid, the impact.

Impact 7–4: Noise from loading railcars at the new rail yard at PPMT would increase noise levels in the immediate vicinity, but would not substantially increase noise levels at residential receptors.

Mitigation Measure 7–4: None required.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

A less–than–significant impact is confirmed by the City. The noise levels for railcar unloadings would be well below the nighttime limit of 50 dBA at residen tial boundaries. Therefore, project–related noise generated by the loading of railcars during the day or night would cause a less–than–significant impact.

Additional findings pursuant to CEQA are not required.

Impact 7–5: Noise from loading auto carrier trucks at th e new location at PPMT could substantially increase noise levels at residential receptors.

Mitigation Measure 7–5:
a) The site plan shall be reconfigured so that truck loading remains in the same location as current truck loading; or
b) The site plan shall be reconfigured so that truck loading is moved to another location at the PPMT site no closer to the Seacliff residences than the current truck loading area; or c) The site plan shall be reconfigured so that all nighttime truck loading operations are at least 750 feet from the Seacliff residences and the lin e of sight from the residences to all truck loading operations is blocked by a sound barrier, or enclosed in a building.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

The City hereby directs that the stated mitigation measure(s) be incorporated into the project as a required condition of approval. This mitigation measure constitu tes a change or alteration of the project that is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City. The Council finds, based on substantial evidence in Exhibit A–1
CEQA Findings of Fact
Honda Port of Entry Project

Page 21 of 58 ends

the record, that this measure is appropriate and feasible, and will lessen to a less–than–significant (acceptable) level, or avoid, the impact.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact 8–1: Project implementation could result in the placement of fill into Federal and/or State jurisdictional wetlands.

Mitigation Measure 8–1:
a) A formal wetland delineation has been perform ed; the delineation shall be submitted to the USACE for a jurisdictional determination. If it is determined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) that wetlands on site are re gulated under the Clean Water Act, the project sponsor shall implement Mitiga tion Measure 8–1(b). Whether or not it is determined that wetlands on site are not regulated under the Clean Water Act, the project sponsor shall implement Mitigation Measure 8–1(c).
b) Prior to the placement of fill into any wetla nds, the project sponsor shall obtain permits under Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act. These permits, administered by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and US ACE, respectively, would identify specific mitigation measures that would be imposed on the project as permit conditions. At a minimum, the project sponsor shall implement Mitigation Measure 8–1(d) or 8–1(e). c) In order to determine the presence or absence of waters of the State subject to the jurisdiction of State regulatory agencies, a description of exis ting habitats on site shall be submitted to the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and RWQCB for review. If waters of State are determined to fall under one or both of these agencies, the project sponsor shall obtain the appropriate permits. These perm its would identify specific mitigation measures that would be imposed on the project as permit conditions. At a minimum, the project sponsor shall implement Mitigation Measure 8–1(d) or 8–1(e).
d) Given the artificial nature of the wetlands affected by the proposed project, and their location in a highly industrialize location, their biol ogical functions and values are considered impaired. While it is generally preferred by the regulatory agencies that wetland impacts are compensated by the creation of similar habitats on site, in certain instances, compensation at an off–site location may be deem ed acceptable. As part of the permitting process, the project sponsor must comply with all permit conditions of the regulatory agencies, including the implementation of an appropriate compensatory mitigation plan for unavoidable impacts to wetlands. At the discretion of the regulatory agencies, the project sponsor may seek a public or private entity in control of lands at a su itable off–site location with planned habitat restoration measures, to which an in–lieu–of fee c ould be paid. The recipient may be either an approved mitigation bank or public or private entity undertaking habitat restoration measures.

The type of restoration project and amount of the in–lieu–of fee would be determined in consultation with the regulatory agencies with the ultimate objective of satisfying agency concerns and permit conditions. If payment of in–lieu–of fees is not acceptable to one or more of the regulatory agencies or a suitable recipient cannot be found, the project sponsor shall implement on–site wetland mitigation, as outlined in Mitigation Measure 8–1(e).

Exhibit A–1
CEQA Findings of Fact
Honda Port of Entry Project

Page 22 of 58 ends

e) If required by the USACE, CDFG, or RWQC B, a Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be prepared and submitted for agency review. Detailed wetland protection, replacement, and restoration plans shall be prepared by a qualified wetland restorationist hired by the City of Richmond and paid for by the project sponsor . The plans shall accurately identify the total wetlands and other jurisdictional areas that coul d be affected by the proposed project. The plans shall provide for re–establishment, enhanc ement, and/or replacement of wetland habitat and vegetation, and be approve d by the regulatory agencies ; in certain instances, cash contributions earmarked specifically for wetland cr eation, enhancement, or restoration offsite may be deemed appropriate and acceptable to the regulatory agencies. Mitigation plantings shall be monitored for no less than five years following completion of plant installation or as otherwise specified in the permit conditions. Annual reports shall be submitted to the City of Richmond and each permitting agency, e.g., USACE, RWQCB, and/or CDFG. Additionally, the City of Richmond shall ensure that all m itigation areas, along with an appropriate upland buffer, be placed in a permanent conservation easement, or similar deed restriction, and preserved in perpetuity, as specified in the permit conditions. Prior to the issuance of grading permits by the City of Richmond, the project sponsor shall provide evidence of the required approvals from all regulatory agencies.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

Impact 8–2: Project construction could result in direct or indirect impacts to nesting, roosting, or foraging special–status birds and other migratory birds.

Mitigation Measure 8–2:
a) A qualified biologist shall conduct preconstruc tion nesting bird surveys of shrubs, willows, and other trees and non–native annual grassland habitats within 300 feet of the limits of work area, as well as the rooftop of Building 24, no more than 14 days prior to the start of construction for work occurring during the breeding season from February 1st to August 31st. b) If active nests of special–status birds and migr atory birds (i.e., occupied nests) are identified within 300 feet of the limits of work, non–distu rbance buffers shall be established by the project biologist at a distance sufficient to minimize construction–related disturbance based on the nest location, topography, cover, and species’ tolerance to disturbance. Non–disturbance buffers shall be fenced off to exclude all construction activities, including staging, storage, and laydown, and shall be maintained until the young have fledged. Buffer size shall be determined by the project biologist and shall be consistent with agency recommendations as per the regulatory status and life history requirements of the species involved.

Exhibit A–1
CEQA Findings of Fact
Honda Port of Entry Project

Page 23 of 58 ends

c) If active nests are found within 300 feet of th e limits of work and non–disturbance buffers are impracticable as determined by the project biologi st, a qualified biologist shall be on site to monitor active nest(s) for signs of disturbance. If it is determined that construction activity is resulting in nest disturbance, work shall cease immediately until such time as it is determined by the project biologist that work may safely resume. If construction activities have caused nest abandonment, then the appropriate agency shall be contacted for further guidance, which shall be binding. If a Federally listed species is involved, consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) will be initiated; if a State–listed species is involved, consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) will be initiated.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

Impact 8–3: Project construction could result in indirect effects on special–status and other natural habitats located outside of the PPMT study area. Co nstruction might also require the trimming of native willows and other trees and shrubs rooted, just outside of the work area.

Mitigation Measure 8–3:
a) The project sponsor shall be responsible fo r ensuring that all contractors have in place appropriate Best Management Practices (BMP s) throughout construction to prevent the migration off site of any potential pollutants. The effects of erosion can be decreased by collecting surface water runoff in desilting ponds before releasing the water into natural drainages or the Bay. Erosion and sedimen tation impacts can be further minimized by employing standard erosion control procedures such the use of sandbags, silt fences, hay bales, diversion ditches, desilting ponds, and undertak ing stream bank stabilization procedures.

BMPs shall be in place throughout construction.
b) The project sponsor shall be responsible fo r ensuring that all contractors have in place appropriate measures to restrict the off–site migration of dust during construction activities.

Fugitive dust emissions caused by prolonged grading activities shall be mitigated by employing standard air quality control procedur es as noted in Chapter 6, Air Quality, of this EIR.
c) To prevent harming breeding birds, the measu res outlined in Mitigation Measure 8–2 shall be followed. If any unanticipated work will occu r within areas containing shrubs, willows, or other trees or non–native annual grassland habitats more than 14 days following performance of the preconstruction survey required by Mitigation Measure 8–2(a) and during the bird breeding season (February 1st to August 31st), a follow–up survey shall be performed by the project biologist. If active nests of special–s tatus birds and migratory birds (i.e., occupied Exhibit A–1
CEQA Findings of Fact
Honda Port of Entry Project

Page 24 of 58 ends

nests) are identified, an appropriate non–distur bance buffer shall be established at a distance sufficient to minimize construction–related distur bance to breeding birds. If establishment of a non–disturbance buffer is impracticable as dete rmined by the project biologist, a qualified biologist shall be on site to monitor active n est(s) for signs of disturbance during construction in this area. If it is determined that constructi on activity is resulting in nest disturbance, work shall cease immediately and shall only resume when is determined by the project biologist that work may safely resume. If construction activities have caused nest abandonment, then the appropriate agency shall be contacted for further guidance, which shall be binding. If a Federally listed species is involved, consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) shall be initiated; if a State–listed species is involved, consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) shall be initiated.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

Impact 8–4: Increased ship traffic at the project site would increase the frequency of ship wakes, which could lead to erosion and disturbance of sensitive habitats at Brooks Island.

Mitigation Measure 8–4: None required.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

A less–than–significant impact is confirmed by the City . Ship wakes are a small source of the total wave energy to the Brooks Island shoreline. Small speed boats, which travel fast through the channel, are closer to the shoreline, and create significant wakes, are a more significant source of wave energy. The effects of project–related ship wakes on Brooks Island would therefore be a less–than–significant impact.

Additional findings pursuant to CEQA are not required.

Impact 8–5: Increased ship traffic at the project site would increase the frequency of ship wakes, which could lead to impacts to eelgrass habitat.

Mitigation Measure 8–5: None required.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Exhibit A–1
CEQA Findings of Fact
Honda Port of Entry Project

Page 25 of 58 ends

Findings of Fact:

A less–than–significant impact is confirmed by the City . The new car–carrying ship s berthing at the Port of Richmond travel at speeds of 1–2 knots on their journey from Outer Richmond Harbor Channel to the Inner Richmond Harbor Channel. The ships slow down and are then tug–assisted through the Inner Harbor Channel and into the berth. The slow spee d of the car carrying ships minimizes the effect of turbulence resulting from propeller wash on eelgrass hab itat. The impact on eelgrass habitat due to propeller wash would be localized and temporary, and would be a less–than–significant impact.

Additional findings pursuant to CEQA are not required.

Impact 8–6: The increase in ship traffic to the project s ite could increase the frequency of disturbance to harbor seals, hauled out on Brooks Island, and the de gradation or functional lo ss of seal habitat within San Francisco Bay.

Mitigation Measure 8–6: None required.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

A less–than–significant impact is confirmed by the City. This impact assumes that Brooks Island is a significant haul–out site for harbor seals. Seals have hauled out on Brook Island, but its importance as seal habitat is not well documented.
1 While traffic frequency of la rge ships entering the shipping channels and passing Brooks Island is expected to roughly double, the southeastern margin of the island is likely the best haul–out site and the margins of the sh ipping channel are unlikely to be used by harbor seals. On the basis of surrounding habitat, bathym etry, and exposure, as well as existing vessel traffic patterns, the proposed project represents a less–than–significant impact to harbor seals and harbor seal habitat in San Francisco Bay. Additional findings pursuant to CEQA are not required.

Impact 8–7: Increased ship traffic at the project site would increase the frequency of ship wakes, which could lead to impacts to marine and anadromous fish habitat.

Mitigation Measure 8–7: None required.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

A less–than–significant impact is confirmed by the C ity. Fishes inhabiting estuarine and coastal habitats are evolutionarily adapted to strong and variable water currents and wind–gene rated waves; ship wakes

1 B.A. Nickel, Movement and Habitat Use Patterns of Harbor Seals in the San Francisco Estuary , Masters Thesis, San Francisco State University, 2003.

Exhibit A–1
CEQA Findings of Fact
Honda Port of Entry Project

Page 26 of 58 ends

(or prop wash) from the project would therefore pose a less–than–significant impact to fishes or fish habitat. Additional findings pursuant to CEQA are not required.

CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact 9–1: Development of the proposed project could potentially cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5.

Mitigation Measure 9–1:
a) Resource Avoidance: The project sponsor shall plan construction of the proposed project so as to avoid adversely affecting the historic buildings on the site. The plan shall include precautionary measures (e.g., sufficient buffer di stance) to avoid potential vibration impacts on the buildings. Prior to the initiation of constr uction, the project sponsor shall submit to the City of Richmond for review and approval a Construction Staging Plan that identifies the planned locations of access points, staging areas, and the delineated areas of all construction– related activities. The Plan shall identify specifi c measures to protect historic structures in the vicinity of each activity, which may include fenc ing and monitoring to ensure that sites are protected. Following approval of the Construction Staging Plan by the City of Richmond, the project sponsor shall implement the Plan throughout construction of the proposed project. b) Construction Personnel Training: Prior to th e initiation of construction, all construction personnel who work on the project shall underg o a training session to inform them of the presence and nature of National Register–eligible cu ltural resources within the project area; of the laws protecting these resources and associated penalties; and of the procedures to follow if they discover cultural resources during project–related work.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

Impact 9–2: Development of the proposed project could potentially hinder the ability of the City Manager to carry out Richmond City Council Reso lution 100–07, by limiting access to or altering the historic setting of the four vacant historic structur es within the Rosie the Riveter World War II Home Front National Historical Park.

Exhibit A–1
CEQA Findings of Fact
Honda Port of Entry Project

Page 27 of 58 ends

Mitigation Measure 9–2: The City of Richmond shall review plans of new landscaping and parking facilities proposed in the immediate vicinity of the hi storic cafeteria and first aid buildings, as well as the final site and design plans and their potential effects on the other historic buildings at the PPMT, to ensure design compatibility with these historic buildings and maintain these buildi ngs’ historic setting. The City shall recommend appropriate setbacks and the amount of pa rking to be dedicated for use by tenants of the historic buildings, in order to ensure compatibility with City Council Resolutions 100–07 and 46a–00.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

In response to comments received on the DEIR, Mi tigation Measure 9–2 was altered from the original wording presented in the DEIR. The requirement for design review for compatibility with the historic buildings was clarified to apply to the proposed la ndscaping, parking facilities, and overall site plan, thereby broadening the scope of the measure. The requirement for project compatibility with City Council Resolution 100–07 was expanded to also include compatibility with City Council Resolution 46a–00, which establishes as City policy that future development of Shipyard 3 (i.e., the PPMT) be planned and developed in such as way as to be comp atible with the continue d preservation of intact historic resources and public access to such resour ces. This addition establishes additional performance standards that are to be met by the project, both in terms of design and operations.

The City hereby determines based on substantial evidence in the record that the changes to the mitigation measure serve to clarify, amplify, or make insignificant modifications to an adequate EIR, and therefore recirculation is not required. The City hereby di rects that the stated mitigation measure (with the modifications indicated above) be incorporated into th e project as a required condition of approval. This mitigation measure constitutes a change or alteration of the project that is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City. The Council finds, based on s ubstantial evidence in the r ecord, that this measure is appropriate and feasible, and will reduce to a less–than–significant (acceptable) level, or avoid, the impact.

Impact 9–3: Development of the proposed project could pot entially cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of archaeological resources, as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.

Monitoring shall be required for all surf ace alteration and subsurface excavation work including trenching, boring, grading, use of staging areas and access roads, and driving vehicles and equipment within 200 feet of registered archaeological site CA–CCO–294.

Selection of the qualified professional archaeologist and the cultural resources monitors identified below in Mitigation Measure 9–3(b) (if different persons) shall be subject to approval by the Richmond Planning Department. The cultural resources monitoring plan shall address (but not be limited to) the following issues:

Exhibit A–1
CEQA Findings of Fact
Honda Port of Entry Project

Page 28 of 58 ends

• Training program for all construction personne l involved in site disturbance and field workers;
• Person(s) responsible for conducting monitoring activities, including Native American monitors;
• How the monitoring shall be conducted and the required format and content of monitoring reports, including any necessary archaeological re–survey of the final track alignments (including the need to conduct s hovel–test units or auger samples to identify deposits in advance of construction); assessment, designation and mapping of the sensitive cultural resource areas on final project maps; and assessment and survey of any previously unsurveyed areas;
• Person(s) responsible for overseeing and directing the monitors; • Schedule for submittal of monitoring reports and person(s) responsible for review and approval of monitoring reports;
• Procedures and construction methods to avoid sensitive cultural resource; • Clear delineation and fencing of sensitive cultural resource areas requiring monitoring; • Physical monitoring boundaries (e.g., 200 feet each side of the site); • Protocol for notifications in case of en countering of cultural resources, as well as methods of dealing with the encountered r esources (e.g., collection, identification, curation);
• Methods to ensure security of cultural resources sites; • Protocol for notifying local authorities (i.e., Port of Richmond and Richmond Police Department) should site looting or other illegal activities occur during construction. b) Archaeological and Native American Monitors. The project applicant shall retain the services of a qualified archeological consultant that has expertise in California prehistory and a Native American monitor from a culturally–affilia ted tribe/organization to monitor ground disturbance within 200 feet of site CA–CCO –294. If an intact archeological deposit is encountered, all soil disturbing activities in the vicinity of the deposit shall cease until the deposit is evaluated. The archeological monito r shall immediately notify the project applicant and the City of Richmond Planning Department of the encountered archeological deposit. The archeological monitor shall, after making a reasonable effort to assess the identity, integrity, and significance of the encountered archeological deposit, present the findings of this assessment to the project applicant and the Planning Department. During the course of the monitoring, the archaeologist may adjust th e frequency—from continuous to intermittent—of the monitoring based on the conditions and pr ofession judgment regarding the potential to adversely affect cultural resources.

If the City of Richmond, in consultation with the archeological and Native American monitors, determines that a significant archeological resource is present and that the resource could be adversely affected by the proposed project, the proposed applicant shall:
• Re–design the proposed project to avoid any adverse effect on the significant archeological resource; OR,
Exhibit A–1
CEQA Findings of Fact
Honda Port of Entry Project

Page 29 of 58 ends

• Implement an archeological data recovery program (ADRP), unless the archaeologist determines that the archeological resource is of greater interpretive than research significance and that interpretive use of the resource is feasible. If the circumstances warrant preparation of an ADRP, the project archaeologist, project applicant, and Richmond Planning Department shall meet a nd consult to determine the scope of the ADRP. The archaeologist shall prepare a dr aft ADRP that shall be submitted to the project applicant and the Planning Department for review and approval. The ADRP shall identify how the proposed data recovery program would preserve the significant information the archeological resource is exp ected to contain. The ADRP shall identify the scientific/historic research questions appli cable to the expected resource, the data classes the resource is expected to possess, and how the expected data classes would address the applicable research questions. Data recovery, in general, shall be limited to the portions of the historic property that could be adversely affected by the proposed project. Destructive data recovery methods shall not be applied to portions of the archeological resources if nondestructive methods are practical. c) Accidental Discovery: If historic or prehistoric archaeological resources, such as chipped or ground stone, large quantities of shell, histor ic debris, building foundations, or human bone, are inadvertently discovered during ground–dist urbing activities, all construction activities within 100 feet of the find shall be halted until the City of Richmond is notified, and a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find and prepare an avoidance, evaluation, or mitigation plan to prevent any significant adverse effects on the resource(s).

The project sponsor shall fund and implement the mitigation in accordance with Section 15064.5(c)–(f) of the CEQA guidelines and Public Resources Code Section 21083.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

Impact 9–4: Construction of the proposed project coul d potentially disturb buried human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

Mitigation Measure 9–4: In the event that any human remains ar e encountered during site disturbance, all ground–disturbing work in the vicinity of the re mains shall cease immediately until the coroner of Contra Costa County has been contacted, per Section 7050 .5 of the California Health and Safety Code. If the coroner determines that the human remains are of Native American origin, the Native American Heritage Commission must be contacted within 24 hour s, and the project sponsor shall comply with State laws relating to the disposition of Native American burials, regulated by the Native American Heritage Commission (Pub. Res. Code Sec. 5097). If any human remains are discovered or recognized in any Exhibit A–1
CEQA Findings of Fact
Honda Port of Entry Project

Page 30 of 58 ends

location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until:
• the coroner of the County has been informed and has determined that no investigation of the cause of death is required; and
• if the remains are of Native American origin,
the descendants of the deceased Native Amer icans have made a recommendation to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, or the Native American Heritage Commission was unable to identify a descendant or the descendant failed to make a recommendation w ithin 24 hours after being notified by the Commission.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

Impact 9–5: Vibrations from new train traffic during project operations could potentially cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a hist orical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.

Mitigation Measure 9–5: A pre–construction survey of the two historic structures nearest proposed project operations—Building 23, the Cafeteria Building, and Building 9, the First Aid Building—shall be undertaken prior to issuance of a grading permit to dete rmine their current state of structural and cosmetic integrity. This information shall be used as a basel ine reference for future ma intenance needs stemming from the construction and operations of the proposed rail ro ad yard and rail road tracks. In the event that cosmetic or structural damages resulting from the implementation of the project occurs, the project applicant shall be responsible for performing any necessary repairs or maintenance.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

The City hereby directs that the stated mitigation measure(s) be incorporated into the project as a required condition of approval. This mitigation measure constitu tes a change or alteration of the project that is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City. The Council finds, based on substantial evidence in Exhibit A–1
CEQA Findings of Fact
Honda Port of Entry Project

Page 31 of 58 ends

the record, that this measure is appropriate and feasible, and will lessen to a less–than–significant (acceptable) level, or avoid, the impact.

Impact 9–6: Implementation of the proposed project w ould potentially cause a substantial adverse impact on public access to the Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front National Historical Park.

Mitigation Measure 9–6: Same as Mitigation Measure for 9–5 above.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Impact 10–1: Although the site is relatively flat and the project area is substantially covered with pavement, there is still potential for uncontrolled cons truction activities to result in accelerated soil erosion, which could degrade water quality in San Francisco Bay.

Mitigation Measure 10–1: A Notice of Intent (NOI), Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and Stormwater Control Plan (SCP) shall be prepar ed by the applicant and submitted along with grading permit applications. The SWPPP provides for tem porary measures to control sediment and other pollutants during construction at sites that distur b 1 acre or more and the SCP specifies permanent controls that should last for the life of the project. The requisite plans shall be prepared in accordance with the standards provided in the Association of Bay Area Government’s Manual of Erosion and Sedimentation Control Measures (ABAG, 1995). Implem entation of the plan will help stabilize graded and stockpile areas and reduce erosion and sedimentati on. The plans will designate Best Management Practices (BMPs) that shall be adhered to during construction activities. Erosion minimizing efforts such as hay bales, water bars, covers, sediment fences, sensitive area acc ess restrictions (for example, flagging), and/or retention/settlement areas shall be implemented as necessary before the onset of inclement weather. Mulching, seeding, or other suita ble stabilization measures shall be used to protect exposed areas during construction activities. The pl ans shall incorporate requirements of the Contra Costa County Clean Water Program and the Port of Richmond Stormwater Management Plan.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

Exhibit A–1
CEQA Findings of Fact
Honda Port of Entry Project

Page 32 of 58 ends

Impact 10–2: In the event of a major earthquake in the region, seismic ground shaking could potentially injure persons at the proposed project site due to structural damage of facility structures. Ground shaking could potentially expose persons and property to seismic–related hazards, including localized liquefaction and seismically–induced settlement.

The design level geotechnical investigation shall eval uate subsurface conditions with respect to potential geologic hazards such as liquefaction, subsidence, settlement, and expansive soils, and shall provide recommendations to mitigate these ha zards as necessary. All geotechni cal design recommendations shall be incorporated into the final project design and construction.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

Impact 10–3: Operation of the proposed PPMT rail termin al and lead tracks, which would involve multiple closely–spaced rail spurs, could result in significant transient weight and vibratory loading due to multiple lines of railcars. In the absence of appropria te site characterization and design, these loads could adversely affect the rail yard and/or adjacent properties, structures, or subsurface pipelines owned or operated by others. Damage to these structures co uld result in operational or safety hazards or could compromise underlying pipelines leading to leaks of pot entially hazardous products, which could, in turn, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

Mitigation Measure 10–3: Prior to construction of the PPMT rail terminal, an engineering evaluation shall be performed pursuant to City of Richmond pe rmit requirements. This evaluation shall incorporate the results of the design level geotechnical inves tigation (see Mitigation Measure 10–2) to characterize subsurface conditions along the planned alignment. The engineering evaluation shall specifically Exhibit A–1
CEQA Findings of Fact
Honda Port of Entry Project

Page 33 of 58 ends

evaluate the static, live, and vibratory loads associated with Port of Richmond’s and any potentially affected adjacent property’s above–ground utilities, below–ground utilities, and structures. As applicable, appropriate surrogate design loads (e.g. “Cooper” loco motive loads) for the project operations shall also be identified. As part of this evaluation, the project sponsor shall identify and locate all utilities and structures potentially affected by the project structures, equipment, and planned operations. The evaluation shall consider and incorporate the most recent applicable design guidelines and regulations for underground pipelines including, but not limited to API standards for pipeline protection under road and railways, American Railway Engineering Associati on (AREA) criteria for designing and installing pipe, American Concrete Pipe Association (ACPA) loadi ng and design guidance for c oncrete pipe installed under railways, BNSF Railroad standards, and BPWCP st andards. The evaluation shall also consider applicable Federal, State, and local regulations that relate to pipeline integrity and public safety. Prior to initiating the evaluation, potentially affected property owners (e.g. BPWCP) shall be consulted to confirm that all utilities have been correctly identified, that appropriate design criteria and loading conditions for affected facilities will be incorporated into the e ngineering analyses, and that the results of the geotechnical and engineering evaluations will effectively mitigate possible impacts to the facilities owned or operated by others.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

In response to comments received on the DEIR, Impact and Mitigation Measure 10–3 were altered from the original wording presented in the DEIR. The impact statement was modified to clarify that loading on the lead tracks as well as at the PPMT rail terminal could potentially damage neighboring pipelines.

Additional language was added to the mitigation me asure to clarify that the required engineering evaluation must evaluate the static, live, and vibr atory loads associated with the project, as well as appropriate surrogate design loads (e.g. “Cooper” locomotive loads), as applicable. The measure references the applicable design guidelines and re gulations for underground pipelines that should be referenced in the engineering evaluation, includi ng, but not limited to, American Petroleum Institute (API) standards for pipeline protection under road and railways, American Railway Engineering Association (AREA) criteria for designing and inst alling pipe, American Conc rete Pipe Association (ACPA) loading and design guidance for concrete pi pe installed under railways, Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad standards, and BP West Coast Products (BPWCP) standards. The evaluation must also consider applicable Federal, State, and local regulations that relate to pipeline integrity and public safety, and the applicant must consult with all affected neighboring property owners during preparation of the engineering ev aluation in order to address any c oncerns they may have regarding formulation and implementation of the plan. The preceding additions to Mitigation Measure 10–3 strengthen and provide clarifying guidance on how the mitigation shall be implemented.

The City hereby determines based on substantial evidence in the record that the changes to the mitigation measure serve to clarify, amplify, or make insignificant modifications to an adequate EIR, and therefore recirculation is not required. The City hereby di rects that the stated mitigation measure (with the modifications indicated above) be incorporated into th e project as a required condition of approval. This mitigation measure constitutes a change or alteration of the project that is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City. The Council finds, based on s ubstantial evidence in the r ecord, that this measure is appropriate and feasible, and will reduce to a less–than–significant (acceptable) level, or avoid, the impact.

Exhibit A–1
CEQA Findings of Fact
Honda Port of Entry Project

Page 34 of 58 ends

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Impact 11–1: Site preparation and construction could contribute to accelerated soil erosion, downstream sedimentation, and reduced surface water quality.

Mitigation Measure 11–1: A Notice of Intent (NOI), Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and Stormwater Control Plan (SCP) shall be prepar ed by the applicant and submitted along with grading permit applications. The SWPPP provides for tem porary measures to control sediment and other pollutants during construction at sites that distur b 1 acre or more and the SCP specifies permanent controls that should last for the life of the project. The requisite plans shall be prepared in accordance with the standards provided in the Association of Bay Area Government’s Manual of Erosion and Sedimentation Control Measures (ABAG, 1995). Implem entation of the plan will help stabilize graded and stockpile areas and reduce erosion and sedimentati on. The plans will designate Best Management Practices (BMPs) that shall be adhered to during construction activities. Erosion minimizing efforts such as hay bales, water bars, covers, sediment fences, sensitive area acc ess restrictions (for example, flagging), and/or retention/settlement areas shall be implemented as necessary before the onset of inclement weather. Mulching, seeding, or other suita ble stabilization measures shall be used to protect exposed areas during construction activities. The pl ans shall incorporate requirements of the Contra Costa County Clean Water Program and the Port of Richmond Stormwater Management Plan. The project applicant shall offer to consult with nei ghboring property owners and facility operators during preparation of the SWPPP and SCP in order to address any concerns they may have regarding formulation and implementation of the plans. Written evidence of consultation, or reasonable efforts to consult, shall be provided to the City before a grading permit is issued.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

In response to comments received on the DEIR, Mitigation Measure 11–1 was altered from the original wording presented in the DEIR. A requirement was added for the project applicant to consult with neighboring property owners and fa cility operators during preparation of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Stormwater Control Plan (SCP) in order to address any concerns they may have regarding formulation and implementation of the plans.

The City hereby determines based on substantial evidence in the record that the changes to the mitigation measure serve to clarify, amplify, or make insignificant modifications to an adequate EIR, and therefore recirculation is not required. The City hereby di rects that the stated mitigation measure (with the modifications indicated above) be incorporated into th e project as a required condition of approval. This mitigation measure constitutes a change or alteration of the project that is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City. The Council finds, based on s ubstantial evidence in the r ecord, that this measure is appropriate and feasible, and will reduce to a less–than–significant (acceptable) level, or avoid, the impact.

Exhibit A–1
CEQA Findings of Fact
Honda Port of Entry Project

Page 35 of 58 ends

Impact 11–2: Site preparation, construction, and operations could create or contribute runoff water that could exceed the capacity of existing or planned stor mwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.

Mitigation Measure 11–2: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall prepare a Stormwater Control Plan (SCP) and submit it to th e Richmond Planning Department for review and approval. The SCP shall confirm that the existing stormwater drainage system has sufficient capacity, shall ensure that all stormwater runoff is directed to Port of Richmond drainage facilities and does not adversely affect adjacent properties owned or operate d by others, and shall be prepared in accordance with the Contra Costa Clean Water Program (CCCW P) and the requirements set forth in the CCCWP’s Stormwater C.3 Guidebook (Third Edition, 2006, plus updates and errata). The SCP shall provide for natural onsite treatment of 80 percent of the average annual stormwater runoff from the new and replacement impervious surfaces (i.e., pavements) created by the proposed project, and shall identify flow controls to ensure that the rate and duration of stormwater runo ff does not exceed the calculated pre– project rates and durations. Implementation of Integrated Management Practices (IMPs), such as grassy swales, bioretention areas, and planter boxes, is recommended by the CCCWP as the most cost–effective way to comply with the Stormwater C.3 requirements. The SCP shall be prepared by a qualified civil engineer, architect, or landscape architect. The app licant shall demonstrate to the Richmond Planning Department via drawings and engineering calculati ons that the proposed project includes site design features sufficient to capture and treat on site all stormwater runoff from the project site, in compliance with Provision C.3 of the CCCWP. Landscape features sh all be used in lieu of structural features to the degree feasible. The design approach must ensure that the proposed treatment features would not decrease stability of the slopes on the site or create si gnificant erosion. As part of compliance with the CCCWP Stormwater C.3 requirements, the property owner (Port of Richmond) shall execute and implement a maintenance agreement with the City of Richmond to provide for the maintenance of all onsite stormwater treatment features and devices in perpetuity, including specification of how the maintenance will be financed. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the property owner or applicant shall provide proof of recording this agreement fro m the County Assessor’s Office. The property owner or applicant shall submit to the City of Richmond Planning Department annual certificates of compliance with the operations and maintenance requirements sti pulated in the maintenance agreement. The project applicant shall offer to consult with neighboring property owners and facility operators during preparation of the SCP in order to address any concerns they ma y have regarding formula tion and implementation of the plan. Written evidence of consultation, or reasonable efforts to consult, shall be provided to the City before a grading permit is issued.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

In response to comments received on the DEIR, Mitigation Measure 11–2 was altered from the original wording presented in the DEIR. Additional language was added to require the Stormwater Control Plan (SCP) to confirm that the existing stormwater drainage system has sufficient capacity, shall ensure that all stormwater runoff is directed to Port of Richmond drainage facilities and does not adversely affect adjacent properties owned or operated by others. A requirement was also added for the project applicant to consult with neighboring propert y owners and facility operators duri ng preparation of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and SCP in order to address any concerns they may have regarding formulation and implementation of the plans.

Exhibit A–1
CEQA Findings of Fact
Honda Port of Entry Project

Page 36 of 58 ends

The City hereby determines based on substantial evidence in the record that the changes to the mitigation measure serve to clarify, amplify, or make insignificant modifications to an adequate EIR, and therefore recirculation is not required. The City hereby di rects that the stated mitigation measure (with the modifications indicated above) be incorporated into th e project as a required condition of approval. This mitigation measure constitutes a change or alteration of the project that is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City. The Council finds, based on s ubstantial evidence in the r ecord, that this measure is appropriate and feasible, and will reduce to a less–than–significant (acceptable) level, or avoid, the impact.

Impact 11–3: Implementation of the project could expose people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.

Mitigation Measure 11–3: None required.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

A less–than–significant impact is confirmed by the City . No seiches have ever b een recorded in the Bay Area. Due to the relatively large size of San Francisco Bay with an inlet to the south and an outlet to the west, there is little potential for a seiche wave to oc cur in the Bay. Therefore, potential seiche impacts would be less than significant.

There have been 19 recorded tsunamis in the Bay Ar ea during the period of 1868 to 1968. The maximum wave height associated with these tsunamis was just under 15 feet at the Golden Gate Tide Gage in 1868. 2 After natural attenuation across the Bay, estimates have been made that the wave height was approximately half that on the Richmond shoreline and reduced to nothing by the time it reached the Carquinez Strait.3 Based on this scenario, an approximately 7.5 foot high wave coul d be generated at the project site. This wave would be about 8.5 feet belo w the elevation of the site. Additionally, it is likely that the wave would be attenuated by Brooks Island before reaching th e site. Therefore, the potential impact of a tsunami would be less than significan t. Additional findings pursuant to CEQA are not required.

Impact 11–4: The proposed project would increase ship traffic at the project site, which could potentially increase the introduction of pollutants into Bay waters due to accidental spills during routine maintenance.

2 California Geological Survey, Historic Tsunamis of California, http://www.consrv.ca.gov/CGS/geologic_hazards/Tsunami/About_Tsunamis.htm#Historic%20Tsunamis%20in %20California: 2005, accessed March 3, 2008.
3 Contra Costa County, Contra Costa County General Plan 2005–2020, Safety Element, January 2005.

Exhibit A–1
CEQA Findings of Fact
Honda Port of Entry Project

Page 37 of 58 ends

Mitigation Measure 11–4: None required.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

A less–than–significant impact is confirmed by the City. Storage of paints and thinners is in segregated store rooms equipped with fire detection and extin guishing systems. Any spill within a segregated storeroom would be contained within the storeroom, is olated from the Bay. All vehicle maintenance is conducted on land, not on–board the ve ssel. Signs are posted to educate all workers to the importance of preventing contaminants from entering the Bay. Continued implementation of these BMPs by the proposed car carriers would be sufficient to consider the impact of accidental spills as less than significant. Additional findings pursuant to CEQA are not required.

Impact 11–5: The proposed project would increase ship traffic at the project site, which could result in an accidental release of fuel oil along shipping routes either in San Francisco Bay or outer coastal waters.

Mitigation Measure 11–5: None required.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

A less–than–significant impact is confirmed by the City. Degradation of water quality could result from leaks or other accidental release of fuel from a vessel in transit or at dock. A larger fuel spill is more likely to occur in transit than at dock, and coul d have considerable impa cts on water quality in San Francisco Bay. The potential for a fuel spill is cons idered highly unlikely. Based on the operational and equipment precautions that would be in place, accident al release of fuel oil by ships traveling between Japan and the PPMT would be a less–than–significant impact. Additional findings pursuant to CEQA are not required.

Impact 11–6: The proposed project would increase ship tra ffic at the project site, which increase the introduction of toxic marine anti–fouling paint into San Francisco Bay.

Mitigation Measure 11–6: None required.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

A less–than–significant impact is confirmed by the C ity. Given the ship carriers’ compliance with the International Maritime Organization (IMO) convention to ban TBT–based paint, the potential for project Exhibit A–1
CEQA Findings of Fact
Honda Port of Entry Project

Page 38 of 58 ends

ships to leach chemicals from anti–fouling paints into San Francisco Bay would be a less–than– significant impact. Additional findings pursuant to CEQA are not required.

Impact 11–7: The proposed project would increase ship traffi c at the project site, which result in a local increase in turbidity from vessel maneuvers in Harbor Channel and at the PPMT berths.

Mitigation Measure 11–7: None required.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

A less–than–significant impact is confirmed by the C ity. Transit and berthing operations in Harbor Channel could result in resuspension of uncons olidated bottom sediment due to propeller wash, increasing turbidity local to the project site. Such operations occur within Harbor Channel on a daily basis; the proposed project will result in an incremental increase in the frequency of this local ship traffic.

Because turbidity due to propeller wash would be lo calized and temporary, this would be a less–than– significant impact. Additional findings pursuant to CEQA are not required.

Impact 11–8: The increased ship traffic th at would occur as a result of project implementation could potentially increase the cumulative impact of contaminants on San Francisco Bay water quality.

Mitigation Measure 11–8: None required.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

A less–than–significant impact is confirmed by the City. Although a cumulative problem already exists due to other projects, the incremental contribution of the project to the cumulative effect would not be cumulatively considerable because the best manage ment practices (BMPs) implemented by the project would comply with the requirements in approved plans (Basin Plan and IMO MARPOL Convention), which would avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem. 4 This would therefore be a less–than–
significant impact. Additional findings pursuant to CEQA are not required.

4 CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064(h)(3).

Exhibit A–1
CEQA Findings of Fact
Honda Port of Entry Project

Page 39 of 58 ends

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Impact 12–1: Development of the proposed project could potentially expose construction workers and future site workers to hazardous concentrations of contaminants from soils and groundwater at the site.

Mitigation Measure 12–1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project sponsor shall conduct soil and groundwater sampling to the depth of maximum anticipated excavation in areas where grading and trench excavation are planned. Soil and groundwater samples shall be analyzed for fuel hydrocarbons and metals (including arsenic). The purpose of these sampling activities would be to: (1) characterize soil to determine appropriate disposition of excavated soil ( onsite reuse versus offsite disposal); and (2) assess potential contaminant risk to workers, the public, and other receptors both during and after project construction. Based on sampling results, a site–spe cific Soil Management Plan (SMP) and Health and Safety Plan (HASP) shall be prepared prior to c onducting all invasive activities, such as excavation, dewatering, grading, and utility installation. The HASP shall be prepared in accordance with 8 CCR 5192 and shall include a provision requiring notificatio n of potentially affected neighboring businesses or residences in the event of a hazardous substances rele ase. At a minimum, the HASP shall include health and safety provisions for monitoring exposure to cons truction workers and the general public; provide procedures to be undertaken in the event that previously unreported contamination or subsurface hazards are discovered; incorporate construction safety meas ures for excavation activities; establish procedures for the safe storage and use of hazardous materials at the project site, if necessary; provide emergency response procedures; and designate personnel responsible for implementation of the HASP.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

In response to comments received on the DEIR, Mitigation Measure 12–1 was altered from the original wording presented in the DEIR. A requirement was added for the project applicant to consult with neighboring property owners and facility operators dur ing preparation of the Health and Safety Plan (HASP) in order to address any concerns they may ha ve regarding formulation and implementation of the plans.

The City hereby determines based on substantial evidence in the record that the changes to the mitigation measure serve to clarify, amplify, or make insignificant modifications to an adequate EIR, and therefore recirculation is not required. The City hereby di rects that the stated mitigation measure (with the modifications indicated above) be incorporated into th e project as a required condition of approval. This mitigation measure constitutes a change or alteration of the project that is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City. The Council finds, based on s ubstantial evidence in the r ecord, that this measure is appropriate and feasible, and will reduce to a less–than–significant (acceptable) level, or avoid, the impact.

Impact 12–2: Improper use or transport of hazardous mate rials during construction activities during development could result in releases adversely affecting construction workers and the general public.

Mitigation Measure 12–2: The HASP and SMP required by Mitigation Measure 12–1 and the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) required by Mitigation Measure 11–1 for project construction Exhibit A–1
CEQA Findings of Fact
Honda Port of Entry Project

Page 40 of 58 ends

shall include provisions to minimize potential constr uction–related contamination, particularly from wind–borne dust and stormwater runoff, and shall include emergency procedures for accidental hazardous material releases. Use, storage, disposal, and transport of hazardous materials during construction activities shall be performed in accord ance with existing local, State, and Federal hazardous materials regulations.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

Impact 12–3: Construction–related activities adjacent to utilities and buried high–pressure petroleum pipelines could result in hazardous working conditions and hazardous substance releases.

Mitigation Measure 12–3: The project applicant shall submit accurate mapping of all known existing underground utilities and high–pressure pipelines with its application for a grading permit. Permit conditions for the grading permit to be issued by the City of Richmond Prior to construction shall require that standard procedures for safeguarding utilities be implemented. These procedures shall include, at a minimum: (1) marking all excavation areas with white paint; and (2) notifying Underground Services Alert (USA), which, in turn, will notify area municipa l and private utility companies. In addition, any potentially affected petroleum product pipelines shall be located visually by potholing. This potholing shall be performed by hand excavation and shall only be conducted with the appropriate pipeline representative present. In addition, prior to the in itiation of construction ac tivities, pipeline and utility operators shall be provided an opportunity to review final construction plans and drawings and identify any additional necessary provisions that may be appropriate for the prot ection of affected pipelines and utilities, and these provisions shall be implemented by the project sponsor and/or the construction contractor(s).

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

Exhibit A–1
CEQA Findings of Fact
Honda Port of Entry Project

Page 41 of 58 ends

Impact 12–4: Development of the proposed project could result in handling of hazardous materials, substances, or wastes within one–quarter mile of an existing school.

Mitigation Measure 12–4: Same as Mitigation Measure HM–2.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

Impact 12–5: Operation of the Honda Port of Entry c ould result in accidental spills or releases of hazardous materials to the environment, which could, in turn, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

Mitigation Measure 12–5: None required.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

A less–than–significant impact is confirmed by th e City. Based on a review of AWC’s current and proposed safety procedures and hazardous spill respon se plans, the REA concluded that the potential for hazardous spills is quite remote and, in the unlikel y event a spill occurred, the volume that could be spilled—and therefore the potential scope of impact—woul d be minimal. Accordingly, the increased risk of accidental releases of hazardous materials from th e proposed Honda operations would be a less–than– significant impact. Additional findings pursuant to CEQA are not required.

Impact 12–6: Operation of the proposed Honda Port of Entry project would result in increased activity and vehicle movement, which could, in turn, result in increased accidents and safety hazards for MTC and AWC workers.

Mitigation Measure 12–6: None required.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

Exhibit A–1
CEQA Findings of Fact
Honda Port of Entry Project

Page 42 of 58 ends

A less–than–significant impact has been determined by the City. Because cars will no longer be driven on Canal Boulevard, but rather will be loaded onto rail cars within the PPMT facility, these potential risks would be limited to site workers, and the existing risk to the public along Canal Boulevard would be eliminated. In addition, both MTC and AWC train and monitor their employees in accordance with acceptable worker safety guidelines and statutes. There have been no collisions between vehicles and no personal injury accidents during the past four years th at the facility has been under the direction of the current manager.
5 For the preceding reasons, the increased potential for vehicle accidents and other worker safety hazards would constitute a less–than–s ignificant impact. Additional findings pursuant to CEQA are not required.

Impact 12–7: Operation of the proposed PPMT rail term inal, which would involve multiple closely– spaced rail spurs and could result in significant weight loading due to multiple lines of railcars, could compromise underlying BP and Kinder Morgan pipe lines and result in pipeline leaks of hazardous petroleum products, which could, in turn, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

Mitigation Measure 12–7: Prior to construction of the PPMT rail terminal, an engineering evaluation shall be performed, with the results to be confirme d and approved by the City of Richmond Engineering Division. During this engineering phase, weight loading as related to the underground pipeline and all other buried utilities shall be evaluated and any meas ures recommended to ensure pipeline integrity and safety shall be implemented by the project sponsor prior to construction of the new lead track and rail yard.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

Impact 12–8: The presence of State–listed hazardous materi als sites on and adjacent to the PPMT could result in the exposure of construction workers, facility workers, and workers at adjacent industrial sites to hazardous materials, creating a safety hazard to such workers.

Mitigation Measure 12–8: None required.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

5 Marek Bocian, Terminal Manager, Auto Warehousi ng Co., personal communication, February 29, 2008.

Exhibit A–1
CEQA Findings of Fact
Honda Port of Entry Project

Page 43 of 58 ends

Findings of Fact:

A less–than–significant impact has b een determined by the City. While there is a potential for hazardous materials sites to have previously contaminated soil a nd/or groundwater at the site to a significant degree, implementation of Mitigation Measure 12–1 during c onstruction would identify potential contamination and require appropriate remediation prior to the commencement of project opera tions. Potential exposure pathways of any unidentified contamination would re main sealed. Therefore, the presence on and near the PPMT site of listed hazardous materials sites and the associated risk they could pose to the environment and to human health and safety would be a less–than–significant impact. Additional findings pursuant to CEQA are not required.

VISUAL QUALITY
Impact 13–1: Construction of rail lines, installation of high–mast lighting, and repair of berth 6C would introduce heavy construction equipment into public and private views.

Mitigation Measure 13–1: None required.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

A less–than–significant impact has been determined by the City. The site itself, as well as the surrounding areas, all employ industrial and heavy–duty equipment regularly. The historic graving docks frequently have visible lifting equipment as well. Th e presence of additional heavy equipment on the site would be short–term in duration a nd would be aesthetically consistent with the industrial context of the site and surrounding Port areas; therefore, this impact would be less than significant. Additional findings pursuant to CEQA are not required.

Impact 13–2: Implementation of the project would increase the amount of auto–carrying ships that would dock at the project site, sometimes resulting in two ships docking simultaneously, which would create a visual interruption along the southern Harbor Channel waterfront.

Mitigation Measure 13–2: None required.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

Exhibit A–1
CEQA Findings of Fact
Honda Port of Entry Project

Page 44 of 58 ends

A less–than–significant impact is anticipated as the occurrence of this would be rare, as only 75 additional ships are projected to berth at the Port each year. Additional findings pursuant to CEQA are not required.

Impact 13–3: The proposed extension of multiple rail lines into the PPMT and additional rail lines at the BNSF Yard would be visible from surrounding public and private areas.

Mitigation Measure 13–3: None required.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

A less–than–significant impact is anticipated as some rail lines are exis ting at the location, and parallel tracks would be constructed within the same alignm ent area. Additionally, the proposed rail yard is currently used by the Glovis operations, and the land is currently a truck parking area. Additional findings pursuant to CEQA are not required.

Impact 13–4: The proposed addition of 15 100–foot–high light towers would increase light glare in the surrounding areas.

Mitigation Measure 13–4: None required.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

A less–than–significant impact has b een determined by the City. All proposed additional lighting would occur at a distance of 1,400 feet or more from the nearest residential receptor, a distance which minimizes any glare impacts. Figure 13–6 of the DEIR shows a comparison of lighting types and corresponding candlepower emission at given distances. As demonstr ated by the candlepower evaluations listed in the figure, the light output from the proposed fixtures at a distance of 1,086 feet from the supporting tower would be less than 3 percent of the output of the fixt ures at a distance of 204 feet from the tower. When adding in the additional light atte nuation due to increased distance from the source, as well as increased elevation in the case of the reside nces in the Seacliff neighborhood, the amount of incident light and associated glare affecting residential receptors west of the PPMT would be negligible. Furthermore, there would be no increase in the existing intensity of light trespass at residential properties from the proposed new light towers. This would therefore be considered a less–than–significant impact. Additional findings pursuant to CEQA are not required.

Exhibit A–1
CEQA Findings of Fact
Honda Port of Entry Project

Page 45 of 58 ends

Impact 13–5: The proposed addition of 15 100–foot–high li ght towers could contribute to sky glow in the region.

Mitigation Measure 13–5: None required.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

A less–than–significant impact has been determined by the City. The project would employ “dark sky” technology using full cutoff fixtures, as described a bove, no light would be emitted above the fixtures.

Therefore, the project would have a less–than–si gnificant impact on regional sky glow. Additional findings pursuant to CEQA are not required.

Impact 13–6: The proposed addition of 15 100–foot–high lig ht towers would contribute to local glow, which would provide a distraction to nighttime views from public and private areas in the Seacliff and Brickyard Cove neighborhoods.

Mitigation Measure 13–6: None required.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

A less–than–significant impact has been determined by the City. As shown by the visual simulation, the projected intensity of lighting would be minimized by distance to the nearest receptor. Therefore, the proposed additional lighting would not constitute a substantial source of new light that would adversely affect nighttime views. Therefore, this would be considered a less–than–significant impact. Additional findings pursuant to CEQA are not required.

UTILITIES
Impact 14–1: The project could generate additional w astewater during construction, adding to the volume conveyed to the City’s wastewater treatment plant by the existing sewer main in Canal Boulevard and increasing treatment demand at the City’s wastewater treatment plant.

Mitigation Measure 14–1: None required.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

Exhibit A–1
CEQA Findings of Fact
Honda Port of Entry Project

Page 46 of 58 ends

A less–than–significant impact has been determined by the City. As noted in the Setting discussion, there is substantial excess capacity at the treatment plan t, which could readily accommodate the incremental increase in demand for the treatment of chemical toilet waste. As discussed in Impact 14–2, below, there is greater potential for impacts to the City’s wastewat er system during project operations. However, the increased demand—both project–specific and cumulative—for wastewater collection and treatment capacity during project construction –would be a less than significant impact. Additional findings pursuant to CEQA are not required.

Impact 14–2: Operation of the proposed project would gene rate additional wastewater, adding to the volume conveyed to the City’s wastewater treatment plant by the existing sewer main in Canal Boulevard.

Mitigation Measure 14–2: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project sponsor shall prepare an engineering study evaluating and documenting that th ere is sufficient capacity in the local network of sewer lines to accommodate the increased effluent fl ow from the project and that they are in good condition. The engineering study shall be submitted to the City of Richmond Engineering Division for review and approval. If inadequacies in the onsite collection system are identified, the project applicant shall be responsible for any necessary repairs or upgr ades prior to the commencement of proposed project operations.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

Impact 14–3: Operation of the proposed project would ge nerate additional wastewater, adding to the volume requiring treatment at the City’s wastewater treatment plant.

Mitigation Measure 14–3: None required.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

Exhibit A–1
CEQA Findings of Fact
Honda Port of Entry Project

Page 47 of 58 ends

A less–than–significant impact has been determined by the City. Wastewater Treatment, the City’s wastewater treatment plant has dry weather capacity of 16 mgd, while current dry weather flows range from 8 to 12 mgd. Based on a very conservative demand estimate of 80 gallons per day per employee, the project could generate up to 15,2 00 gallons per day (gpd) of addi tional demand which would represent

0.13 to 0.19 percent of existing flows and 0.095 per cent of existing capacity. Thus, the treatment plant has sufficient capacity to treat the small volume of a dditional wastewater that would be generated by the 190 project employees. The impact of project operati on on wastewater treatment capacity, both project– specific and cumulative, would therefore be a less–than–significant impact. Additional findings pursuant to CEQA are not required.

Impact 14–4: During construction, the proposed project woul d result in an increased demand for water for drinking, restroom and/or construction purposes.

Mitigation Measure 14–4: None required.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

A less–than–significant impact has b een determined by the City. This volume of temporary construction water use would be miniscule relative to the avai lable water supply and existing demand within the EBMUD service area. In any case, this growth in water demand is accounted for in the Urban Water Management Plan. 6 For these reasons, the project–specific and cumulative water demand impact of project construction would be less than significan t. Additional findings pursuant to CEQA are not required.

Impact 14–5: During operation, the proposed project woul d result in an increased demand for water for employee drinking water and restroom use, and landscape irrigation.

6 Bill McGowan, op. cit.

Exhibit A–1
CEQA Findings of Fact
Honda Port of Entry Project

Page 48 of 58 ends

c) Irrigation for all project landscaping shall inco rporate water–efficient landscaping measures, in accordance with City and EBMUD guidelines, such as onsite capture and reuse of rainwater and/ or irrigation systems that monitor and respond to soil moisture, operate during hours when evaporation is low, and employ drip and mist irrigation. d) Water–conserving plumbing fixtures shall be installed in restroom facilities serving the proposed project.
e) Coordinate with Design Review Board memb er Diane Bloom and City staff to finalize landscape plan.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

Impact 14–6: The project would increase the area of impervious surfaces at the site, with a corresponding increase in stormwater runoff.

Mitigation Measure 14–6:
a) Same as Mitigation Measure 11–2.
b) Prior to issuance of a building permit, the pr oject sponsor should conduct an investigation of potential cross–connection(s) between the storm drain system located in Canal Boulevard and the storm drain system located in the adjacent BPWCP Richmond Terminal, using a dye test or other appropriate means. The results of the investigation should be submitted to the City of Richmond Engineering Division for review and appr oval. If the investigation determines that the storm drain system located in Canal Boulevard and the storm drain system located in the adjacent BP West Coast Products LLC Richmond Terminal are connected, the project sponsor shall design a method of separating or seali ng the connection(s) and provide BPWCP an opportunity to review and comment on the design. The project sponsor shall incorporate the comments of BP West Coast Products LLC as a ppropriate, and submit the design to the City of Richmond Engineering Division for review. After approval of the design by City of Richmond Engineering Division, the connection(s) shall be separated or sealed in accordance with the approved design.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

Exhibit A–1
CEQA Findings of Fact
Honda Port of Entry Project

Page 49 of 58 ends

In response to comments received on the DEIR, Mitigation Measure 14–6 was altered from the original wording presented in the DEIR. The measure was stre ngthened to add an additional requirement for the project sponsor to investigate the possibility of one or more cross–connections between the storm drain system located in Canal Boulevard and the storm dr ain system located in the adjacent BPWCP Richmond Terminal, using a dye test or other appropriate means. If the investigation determines that such cross– connection exists, it must be sealed or otherwise separ ated in accordance with direction from the City’s Engineering Division. These additional requirement s would not further reduce the significance of the impact, but would address concerns raised by the neighboring property owner.

The City hereby determines based on substantial evidence in the record that the changes to the mitigation measure serve to clarify, amplify, or make insignificant modifications to an adequate EIR, and therefore recirculation is not required. The City hereby di rects that the stated mitigation measure (with the modifications indicated above) be incorporated into th e project as a required condition of approval. This mitigation measure constitutes a change or alteration of the project that is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City. The Council finds, based on s ubstantial evidence in the r ecord, that this measure is appropriate and feasible, and will lessen to a less– than–significant (acceptable) level, or avoid, the impact.

Impact 14–7: Construction debris generated by the proposed project could result in a substantial amount of recyclable materials being unnecessarily disposed of at the landfill serving the site, incrementally reducing the remaining life of the landfill. When co mbined with the construc tion debris generated by other future development projects in the City and County, this would be a significant project–specific and cumulative impact.

Mitigation Measure 14–7:
a) The project sponsor shall divert at least 50 percent by weight of all demolition and construction waste other than asphalt waste from landfill disposal, and shall provide a summary report of the diversion to the City. Pr ior to the initiation of project construction, the project sponsor shall prepare a recycling plan to cover all phases of project construction, including demolition. The recycling plan shall identify a strategy for handling all waste materials that will be generated during construction in order to achieve diversion of at least 50 percent by weight of all demolition and cons truction waste other than asphalt waste from landfill disposal.
b) The project sponsor shall divert 100 pe rcent of asphalt waste from landfill disposal.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

Exhibit A–1
CEQA Findings of Fact
Honda Port of Entry Project

Page 50 of 58 ends

Impact 14–8: Operation of the project could result in a s ubstantial amount of recyclable materials being unnecessarily disposed of at the landfill serving the site , incrementally reducing the remaining life of the landfill. When combined with the operational waste generated by other future development projects in the City and County, this would be a significant project–specific and cumulative impact.

Mitigation Measure 14–8: The project sponsor shall divert at least 50 percent by weight of all operational waste from landfill disposal, and shall provide a summary report of the diversion to the City.

Prior to the initiation of project operation, the project sponsor shall prepare a recycling plan, which shall identify a strategy for handling all waste materials that will be generated dur ing operation in order to achieve diversion of at least 50 percent by weight of all operational waste from landfill disposal.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Findings of Fact:

5. FINDINGS ON ALTERNATIVES
Pursuant to Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR examines three alternatives to the proposed project, including a No–Project Alternative. In addition, several alternative locations for the project were considered by rejected from further analysis after initial consideration. Also rejected from further consideration was an alternative entailing development of the PPMT as a container cargo facility. Under CEQA, an EIR need consider only alternatives that would avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects of the proposed project. Of such alternatives, only those that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the project objectives need be examined in detail in the EIR.

Factors of feasibility that may be taken into consider ation by the agency include site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the project propone nt owns or can reasonabl y acquire, control, or otherwise have access to a viable alternative site ( CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)). Pursuant to Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines, the discussion below provides findings of fact concerning each of the alternatives considered in the EIR.

NO–PROJECT ALTERNATIVE

The No–Project Alternative would entail a continua tion of current auto processing operations at the PPMT. AWC would continue to process Hyundai and Kia cars imported from Korea by ship. Following processing and any necessary repairs, the imported cars would be shuttled approx imately 1 mile north on Exhibit A–1
CEQA Findings of Fact
Honda Port of Entry Project

Page 51 of 58 ends

Canal Boulevard by AWC employees to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Rail Road automotive terminal located at the corner of Canal Boulevard and Cutting Boulevard, where they would be loaded onto rail cars and shipped to destination markets elsewh ere in the U.S. They would also be distributed around northern California and the San Francisco Bay Area directly on car carrier trucks. Honda automobiles would continue to be imported via the Port of San Diego and delivered to northern California on auto–carrier trucks.

Findings of Fact:

This alternative was analyzed co mparatively in Chapter 15 of the DEIR. The City, based on the information and deliberation in the record as summa rized herein, and pursuant to Section 15126.6(f)(1), hereby rejects this alternative as infeasible for the reasons given below.

Project Objectives: The No–Project Alternative would achieve none of the objectives of the project set forth in Chapter 3 of the DEIR and at the beginning of this Exhibit. The No–Projective Alternative would not:
• Provide competitive, operationally efficient and environmentally responsible vehicle Port of Entry operations for Honda at the Port Of Richmond’s Point Potrero facilities. • Establish a modern and operati onally effective rail loading capability within the Port, and eliminate the current requirement for shuttling vehicles along Canal Boulevard to the current rail loading facility located at Canal and Cutting Boulevards. • Improve rail operations between the BNSF Ri chmond Yard and all rail–served industries within the Canal Boulevard industrial corridor, through reductions in peak–hour blockages at grade crossings, and the effective management of diesel particulate emissions through the use of environmentally efficient locomotives and improved rail operational practices. • Promote long–term industrial distribution opportunities within the Port of Richmond, which enhance the Port’s financial condition and s upport community goals of environmentally responsible economic development.
• Pursue the goals of City Council resolution 100–07, approved on September 11, 2007, making it public policy to maximize economic benefit fro m underutilized real estat e assets in the Port of Richmond.

Avoiding or substantially lessening significant effects of the project: Under this alternative, a rail terminal would not be developed at the PPMT and the second existing deep–water ship berth would not be rehabilitated for use by ocean–going vessels. The significant impacts of the project, including two significant and unavoidable impacts related to emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO x)would not occur.

However, existing Glovis operations already exceed th e Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) thresholds of significance for NO x and, under this alternative, the mitigation measures required to substantially reduce the emissions from the proposed project would not be implemented.

Under this alternative the environmental benefits of the project would not be achieved, including a reduction in NOx on a Statewide basis, due to the additional 4 00 miles ships need to travel from Japan to San Diego in comparison to steaming to the Port of Richmond. The reduction in vehicle miles traveled and the associated reduction in air pollutant emissions from eliminating the truck transport of imported Hondas from San Diego to northern California would not occur. The reduction in hydrocarbon (HC) Exhibit A–1
CEQA Findings of Fact
Honda Port of Entry Project

Page 52 of 58 ends

emissions (by 0.12 tons per year), NOx emissions (by 2.14 tons per year), and PM emissions (by 0.05 tons per year) that would occur as a result of using a low–emission locomotive for switching operations would not occur under the No–Projective Alternative. The traffic and air quality benefits from the elimination of auto shuttling between the PPMT and the BNSF would not be realized, nor would the dramatic reduction in blocked railroad grade crossings by train switc hing operations that would occur as a result of developing a rail terminal at the PPMT.

Feasibility: This alternative is economically feasible, in the sense that development costs would be avoided. At the same time, however, the City wo uld forego the amenities and fiscal benefits associated with the preferred project.

For the reasons set forth above, the City finds, based on substantial evidence in the record, that specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations make the No–Project Alternative infeasible.

MODIFIED OPERATIONS ALTERNATIVE 1 (MOA–1)
This alternative would modify operations to reduce the noise impact on the Seacliff at Point Richmond residences and to reduce air emissions from the in creased number of ships unloading Honda vehicles at the PPMT. The proposed truck loading area would be relocated to be no closer to the Seacliff at Point Richmond residences than the existing truck loading ar ea. To reduce air emissions from the project, the Modified Operations Alternative 1 (MOA–1) would provide reduced dockage fees for ship operators that use cleaner fuels and cleaner ship engines; develop a program to encourage cleaner trucks at the PPMT; and impose mandatory idling restrictions on tugboats and trucks at the PPMT.

Findings of Fact:

Project Objectives: The MOA–1 would achieve all of the objectiv es of the project set forth in Chapter 3 of the DEIR and at the beginning of this Exhibit.

Avoiding or substantially lessening significant effects of the project: The MOA–1 was developed to avoid project Impact 7–5, related to significant noise impacts on residential receptors from loading of auto carrier trucks, and to reduce the severity of project Im pact 6–2, related to emissions of criteria pollutants from the auto carrier marine vessels, tugs, rail activiti es, auto carrier trucks, and employee vehicles. The impacts of carbon monoxide, volatile organi c compounds, and particulate matter (PM 10 and PM2.5) would
be less than significant. However, the impact from emissions of nitrogen oxides would still be significant and unavoidable under this alternative. The altern ative would locate the truck–loading area so as to ensure that noise limits are not ex ceeded at the nearest receptors and would impose additional operational requirements on trucks, tugboats, and ships that woul d reduce air pollutant emissions. However, in response to comments received on the DEIR, Mitiga tion Measure 6–2 was altered from the original wording presented in the DEIR. The measure was st rengthened to add additiona l requirements to reduce project emissions. These additional requirements are st ricter than those incorporated into MOA–1.

Exhibit A–1
CEQA Findings of Fact
Honda Port of Entry Project

Page 53 of 58 ends

Therefore, as mitigated, the proposed project would ha ve lower air pollutant emissions than MOA–1, and would therefore be environmentally superior. Si milarly, implementation of Mitigation Measure 7–5 would achieve the same noise reduction from truck loading operations as would be achieved by MOA–1.

Feasibility: This alternative is economically feasible, as development costs would be lower than those of the proposed project.

For the reasons set forth above, the City finds, based on substantial evidence in the record, that MOA–1 is feasible, but is rejected because the proposed project , with incorporation of all identified mitigation, would have reduced impacts in comparison with MOA–1.

MODIFIED OPERATIONS ALTERNATIVE 2 (MOA–2)
This alternative would be identical to MOA–1 except it would also include a requirement for reducing the use of auxiliary diesel ship engin es while the ships importing Honda vehicles are berthed at the PPMT.

During the first year of operation of the MOA–2, a minimum of 20 percent of the car carrier ships importing Hondas into the PPMT would be required to limit the use of auxiliary diesel engines to less than 5 hours per visit. By 2014, at least 50 percent of the project’s car carrier ships would be required to limit the use of auxiliary diesel engines to less than 5 hours per visit. Power could be provided either by grid–based shore power (essentially connecting to th e PG&E grid) or by ultra–clean distributed generation from portable trailers.

Findings of Fact:

Project Objectives: The MOA–2 would achieve all of the objectiv es of the project set forth in Chapter 3 of the DEIR and at the beginning of this Exhibit.

Avoiding or substantially lessening significant effects of the project: The MOA–2 was also developed to avoid project Impact 7–5, related to significant noise impacts on residential receptors from loading of auto carrier trucks, and to reduce the severity of pr oject Impact 6–2, related to emissions of criteria pollutants from the auto carrier marine vessels, tugs , rail activities, auto carrier trucks, and employee vehicles. By imposing greater limitations on idling sh ips at berth, substantially greater reductions in NO x
would be achieved by this alternativ e in comparison with MOA–1, but NO x emissions would still be significant and unavoidable. However, in response to comments received on the DEIR, Mitigation Measure 6–2 was altered from the original word ing presented in the DEIR. The measure was strengthened to add additi onal requirements to reduce project em issions. These additional requirements are stricter than those incorporated into MOA–2. Therefore, as mitigated, the proposed project would have lower air pollutant emissions than MOA–2, and would therefore be environmentally superior. As with MOA–1, the alternative would avoid the truc k–loading noise impact of the project, but would achieve the same result as Mitigation Measure 7–5.

Exhibit A–1
CEQA Findings of Fact
Honda Port of Entry Project

Page 54 of 58 ends

Feasibility: This alternative is economically feasible, as development costs would be comparable to or lower than those of the proposed project.

For the reasons set forth above, the City finds, based on substantial evidence in the record, that MOA–2 is feasible, but is rejected because the proposed project , with incorporation of all identified mitigation, would have reduced impacts in comparison with MOA–2.

ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS
With a deep–water ship berth being a critical compone nt of the proposed project, alternative locations were considered at existing deep–water ports in no rthern California. From a practical standpoint, any alternative location would have to be located at an existing port on or adjacent to San Francisco Bay, and would require convenient and suitable access to ra il and regional freeway transportation. Various alternative locations were considered by rejected fro m detailed comparative analysis in the EIR for the reasons described below.

Project Objectives: All of the potential alternative locations c onsidered would fail to achieve any of the objectives of the project set forth in Chapter 3 of the DEIR and at the beginning of this Exhibit. None of the alternative locations would:
• Provide competitive, operationally efficient and environmentally responsible vehicle Port of Entry operations for Honda at the Port Of Richmond’s Point Potrero facilities. • Establish a modern and operati onally effective rail loading capability within the Port, and eliminate the current requirement for shuttling vehicles along Canal Boulevard to the current rail loading facility located at Canal and Cutting Boulevards. • Improve rail operations between the BNSF Ri chmond Yard and all rail–served industries within the Canal Boulevard industrial corridor, through reductions in peak–hour blockages at grade crossings, and the effective management of diesel particulate emissions through the use of environmentally efficient locomotives and improved rail operational practices. • Promote long–term industrial distribution opportunities within the Port of Richmond, which enhance the Port’s financial condition and s upport community goals of environmentally responsible economic development.
• Pursue the goals of City Council resolution 100–07, approved on September 11, 2007, making it public policy to maximize economic benefit fro m underutilized real estat e assets in the Port of Richmond.

Avoiding or substantially lessening significant effects of the project: The ports of Benicia and Stockton were both evaluated as possible alternative s ites, but were rejected from further consideration due to significant flaws. The Port of Benicia was el iminated as an alternative because it does not have an additional ship berth to accommodate the anticipated ship traffic, lacks contiguous terminal facilities and has no potential for the development of such facilitie s, and provides exclusive rail service by the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), while Honda’s rail trans port throughout the western and midwestern United States has been performed by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) for the past 20 years.

Exhibit A–1
CEQA Findings of Fact
Honda Port of Entry Project

Page 55 of 58 ends

There is also a limited clearance at the Carquin ez Bridge, which would preclude the passage of certain pure car carrier ships. Development of the Port of Benicia with the Honda Port of Entry project would have significantly greater construction impacts than the proposed project and would not avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project.

Although the Port of Stockton offers ample land for auto processing and temporary storage, and also provides dual rail carrier (BNSF and UPRR) service, car–carrier ships would require an additional 11 hours of one–way steaming time up the Sacramento River to reach this port in comparison with the Port of Richmond. There is also a limited clearance at the Carquinez Bridge which would preclude the passage of certain pure car carrier ships. Furthermore, with the Bay Area as the primary destination for new Hondas imported into Northern California, locating Honda’s Port of Entry at the Port of Stockton would require the backward transportation of tens of thousands of vehicles each year to the Bay Area by truck. Finally, utilization of the Port of Stockt on as an alternative project location would require construction of a new ship berth as well as construction of the entire terminal facility. The areas that could be developed with an automotive terminal would be on Rough and Ready Island, which was previously occupied by the U.S. military, and would consequently require the remediation of contaminated soils before development could occur. Development of the Port of Stockton with the Honda Port of Entry project would have significantly great er construction impacts than the proposed project, would not avoid or substan tially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and would result in substantially greater emissions of criteria air pollutants, including NO x, in comparison with the proposed
project.

The Port of Oakland was considered but rejected because it lacks a suitable ship berth in close proximity to a developable industrial parcel. In addition, the Port of Oakland is primarily a container port facility utilizing intermodal transportation, and development of an automotive marine terminal would require a shift in the Port’s focus.

The Port of San Francisco was considered but rejected because UPRR is the serving rail carrier at the Port of San Francisco, and the railroad does not operate mu lti–level car–carrying rail cars in the San Francisco service area. There is also a rail tunnel leading to th e Port that does not have sufficient vertical clearance to accommodate multi–level rail cars, which would essentially preclude viable rail shipment of imported autos from this location.

A comment submitted on the DEIR suggested that Point Molate, on the western Richmond shoreline, would be a prime candidate for an alternative site fo r the project. However, the environmental effects of developing this site would be far greater than those of the proposed project, and none of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened. For example, in order to create adequate level area for short–term auto storage, extensive grading of the adjacent hillside into terraces would be required, which would deface what is currently an undeveloped open space hillside highly visible to motorists on the Richmond–San Rafael Bridge and recreational boaters on San Francisco Bay. The unstable slopes would also require extensive engineering to render the site developable. The site lacks adequate rail access and vehicular access to I–580 and would require acquis ition of right–of–way and major roadway and railroad upgrading and improvements, which would have impacts not associated with the project. Similarly, development of two new de ep–water ship berths on San Francisco Bay would entail, at a minimum, significant short–term impacts to aquatic life in and near the construction zone that would not occur under the proposed project. Development of the site would conflict with the open space/recreation zoning and land use designation of the site and would conflict with the San Francisco Bay Plan adopted by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), which Exhibit A–1
CEQA Findings of Fact
Honda Port of Entry Project

Page 56 of 58 ends

designates Point Molate as Waterfront Park, Beach. It would also be inconsistent with BCDC’s Seaport Plan and with numerous goals and policies promulgated in both the Richmond General Plan and the Richmond Coastline Plan.

Feasibility: None of the alternative locations discussed above are economically feasible, as development costs would far exceed those of the proposed project. While development of the project at the Port of Oakland is not entirely infeasible, it would require approximately $100–125 million, far above the cost to develop the proposed project at the existing PPMT facilities, and would not meet the stated objectives of the project. Similarly, costs of developing the ports of Benicia or Stockton for Honda’s port of entry would far exceed the estimated costs of $25–30 million for the improvements needed at the PPMT for the proposed project, while avoiding none of the significant impacts of the proposed project. The Port of San Francisco is not technically feasible because multi– level rail cars cannot physically access the site.

Development of Point Molate would require several hundred million dollars, and would have far greater impacts than those of the proposed project.

For the reasons set forth above, the City finds, based on substantial evidence in the record, that none of the alternative locations considered in the EIR are feasible for specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations.

CARGO CONTAINER FACILITY ALTERNATIVE
Alternative development of a cargo container facility at the PPMT, established as a goal to be achieved by 2020 in the San Francisco Bay Conser vation and Development Commission’s San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan, was discussed in the EIR, but not analyzed in detail for the reasons set forth below.

Findings of Fact:

The City, based on the information and deliberation in the record as summarized herein, and pursuant to Section 15126.6(f)(1), hereby rejects this alternative as infeasible for the reasons given below.

Project Objectives: Development of a cargo container facility at the PPMT would not achieve the primary objectives of the project set forth in Chapter 3 of the DEIR and at the beginning of this Exhibit.

A cargo container facility would not:
• Provide competitive, operationally efficient and environmentally responsible vehicle Port of Entry operations for Honda at the Port Of Richmond’s Point Potrero facilities. • Promote long–term industrial distribution opportunities within the Port of Richmond, which enhance the Port’s financial condition and s upport community goals of environmentally responsible economic development.
• Pursue the goals of City Council resolution 100–07, approved on September 11, 2007, making it public policy to maximize economic benefit fro m underutilized real estat e assets in the Port of Richmond.

Exhibit A–1
CEQA Findings of Fact
Honda Port of Entry Project

Page 57 of 58 ends

Although a cargo container facility alternative could promote long–term industrial distribution opportunities within the Port of Richmond, it w ould not represent environmentally responsible development due to the inherent incompatibility of such a facility with existing and planned residential development immediately adjacent to the PPMT. Give n the area needed for such an alternative and the highly industrial nature of such development, it woul d be much less likely that adaptive reuse of the four vacant or underutilized historical buildings could be achieved in a way that maximize the economic benefit, and public access to some of the historical resources of the Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front Historical Park that would be provided under the proposed project would not be viable.

Avoiding or substantially lessening significant effects of the project: A cargo container facility alternative would not avoid any of the significant e ffects of the project, but would create substantially greater impacts. Operation of a cargo container facility would generate much greater emissions of criteria air pollutants, including NO x, than the proposed project, and noise impacts would also be greater. Such an alternative would create new significant visual imp acts, and would generate much more truck traffic, potentially resulting in significant traffic impacts th at would not occur with implementation of the proposed project. Because the potential environmenta l effects of a cargo container facility alternative would be an order of magnitude larger than tho se of the proposed project, this alternative was not evaluated in detail in the EIR.

Feasibility: The City does not have enough information to determine if a cargo container facility alternative is economically feasible, but it reject s the alternative because it would not avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects of the project.

For the reasons set forth above, the City rejects a ca rgo container facility alternative because it would not avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects of the project.

EXHIBIT A–2 OF ATTACHMENT 1

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS

HONDA PORT OF ENTRY PROJECT
(EIR 1104434)

1. INTRODUCTION
This Statement of Overriding Consid erations is made by the City of Richmond pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15161, a Project Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for th e Honda Port of Entry Project. Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a) state that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which a CEQA document has been completed which identifies one or more significant adverse environmental effects of the pr oject unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. Additionally, the findings must be supported by substantial evidence in the record (CEQA Guidelines §15091(b)). Those findings and facts have been set forth in Exhibit A–1, CEQA Findings of Fact.

As identified in the Final EIR and summarized in E xhibit A–1, the proposed project has the potential to create significant adverse air quality impacts as a re sult of operational emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO x)
and other criteria pollutants. Although implementati on of considerable mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions are being required as a condition of project approval, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Because the project w ould therefore exceed the air quality standards established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), the project would conflict with Richmond General Plan Policy OSC–P.1, which states “(O)nly approve projects that will comply with applicable regulations and w ill not exceed air quality standards.” Because the City has been unable to identify a feasible way to bring the project in compliance with the BAAQMD standard for NO x, this impact would therefore also be significant and unmitigable.

Where a public agency identifies unavoidable adverse environmental effects of a proposed project, CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 requires the agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed proj ect against its unavoidable adverse environmental effects when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits outweigh the unavoida ble adverse environmental effects, these effects may be deemed acceptable by the agency. In making such a determination, the agency may approve the project only if it states in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.

2. FINDINGS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The City of Richmond hereby finds that the specifi c economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the proposed Honda Port of En try project will outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects of the project for the following overriding considerations:

Exhibit A–2
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Honda Port of Entry Project

Page 2 of 3 ends

1. The Project will revitalize underutilized Port prope rty and play a significant role in maintaining Richmond’s Port as an active, viable deep–water port operation.

2. The Project will increase the efficiency of existing Port operations by placing rail operations adjacent to shore.

3. The Project will eliminate approximately 3,890 two–way auto carrier truck trips (i.e., 7,780 total trips) annually between San Diego and Northern California, reducing the number of vehicle miles traveled by auto carrier trucks by a conser vative estimate of approximately 3,890,000 miles per year. In addition to the benefit of reduced highway congestion and roadway wear, this will reduce annual emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO x) by 56.3 tons, particulate matter (PM 10) by 2.2 tons, reactive organic gases (ROG) by 2.6 tons , carbon monoxide (CO) by 11.4 tons, and carbon dioxide (CO2) by 5,731 tons.

4. Due to a shorter steaming distance from Japan to Richmond versus Japan to San Diego, the Project will reduce the number of miles traveled by auto carrying ships by approximately 51,000 nautical miles per year, thereby reducing annual emissions of NO x by 528 tons, PM 10 by 56.4 tons, ROG by 21.2 tons, CO by 41.4 tons, and CO2 by 25,534 tons.

5. The Project will eliminate nearly all of the existing train switching operations that currently block traffic on Canal Boulevard, West Cutting Boulev ard, and Garrard Boulevard approximately 20 times per day by shifting switching operations south into the new rail terminal at the PPMT. This will substantially reduce the aggregate delay expe rienced by drivers on these roadways and will reduce the potential for blocked or delayed emergency response to Point Richmond residents as a result of the blockages.

6. The Project will reduce the risk of autom obile accidents on Canal Boulevard by loading automobiles onto rail cars at the Port facility and eliminating the current practice of driving new automobiles from in–coming ships to the rail facility approximately 1 mile away.

7. The elimination of the current car shu ttling between the PPMT and the BNSF Automotive Terminal will eliminate approximately 78,000 annual one–way vehicle trips on Canal Boulevard between the two facilities and an estimated 24,000 annual one–way vehicle trips (12,000 two– way trips) by shuttle vans bringing the auto shu ttle drivers back to the PPMT. This reduction in trips will result in annual reductions in air pollutant emissions of 0.1 ton of NO x, 0.1 ton of ROG, and 1.2 tons of CO.

8. The Project, as mitigated, will improve safety at the intersection of Seacliff Drive and Canal Boulevard with the installation of traffic control improvements designed to increase sight distance on Canal Boulevard and slow traffic on Seacliff Drive as it approaches the intersection.

9. The Project will eliminate the current practice of shuttling approximately 3,300 empty multi– level rail cars to San Diego each year. This will reduce annual emissions of NO x by 116 tons,
PM10 by 4.3 tons, ROG by 6.5 tons, CO by 17.3 tons, and CO2 by 1,500 tons.

10. When the reductions in emissions identifie d above that will occur as a result of project implementation in comparison with current Honda operations in Northern California (including transport of vehicles from San Diego) are added together, the project will achieve total annual Exhibit A–2
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Honda Port of Entry Project

Page 3 of 3 ends

reductions of 700 tons of NOx, 63.0 tons of PM10, 30.4 tons of ROG, 70.2 tons of CO, and 32,871 tons of and CO 2. These reductions are substantially greater than the total project emissions.

Therefore, despite locally significant impacts, the project will have a net benefit on air quality Statewide and worldwide and contribute to a net reduction in greenhouse gases contributing to global warming.

11. The project will bring in gross revenue to th e City of a minimum of $6 million annually, which could be as high as $10 million annually over time, with built–in fee increases and throughput volumes potentially higher than the guaranteed mi nimum. The project will also enhance and increase the likelihood of a continuation of the existing Glovis operations, which bring in an additional net annual revenue to the City of approximately $3 million. Although the City will need to repay capital development costs of $35 million plus debt service, the gross revenues to the City over the term of the contract will be at least $90 million, and could be as much as $150 million, or net revenue of approximately $47 million to $107 million.

12. The project will create new employment opportunities for Richmond residents by creating about 120 new full–time jobs and increasing demand for c ontractual truck drivers and longshoremen.

The project require about 60 add itional longshoremen for a full day, once or twice per week. By generating an additional 12,778 outbound truck trips annually, the project will provide contractual employment for an equal number of (non–unique) truck drivers.

EXHIBIT A–3 OF ATTACHMENT 1

CITY OF RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA
Port of Richmond
Honda Port of Entry
at the Point Potrero Marine Terminal

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORT PROGRAM
(MMRP)
SEPTEMBER 2008

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
4 HONDA PORT OF ENTRY PROJECT
Honda Port of Entry Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)

1. Introduction
Assembly Bill (AB) 3180, enacted by the California Legislature in 1988, requires lead agencies to prepare and adopt a program to monitor and/or report on all mitigation measures required in conjunction with certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the Califo rnia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

A public agency must certify an EIR or adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration when approving a discretionary project that could significantly affect the environment in an adverse manner. The monitoring or reporting program is intended to ensure the successful implementation of measures that public agencies impose to redu ce or avoid the significant adverse impacts identified in an environmental document. Adoption of the monitoring program is to occur when a public agency makes the findings to approve a project requiring an EIR or when adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration. There is no statutory requirement for a lead agency to ci rculate a monitoring program for public review prior to adopting the program.

The monitoring program should specify the steps whereby implementation of project mitigation measures can be verified during project construction and operation. Typically, the monitoring program should, for each mitigation measure, identify the entity responsible for implementing the meas ure and an individual, qualified professional, or agency responsible for ensuring compliance. The monitoring program should also identify: the action or actions required to ensure compliance; when and how frequently monitoring should occur; a mechanism for reporting compliance or non–compliance; and an agency that receives and monitors the reports on compliance. AB 3180, as promulgated in Public Resour ces Code Section 21081.6, does not require a mitigation monitoring program to include measures imposed to mitigate the environmental effects of less–than–significant impacts.

AB 3180 does not provide State reimbursement for implementing the mitigation monitoring requirements because local agencies have the authority to levy fees sufficient to pay for such programs. Local agencies may recover the monitoring and reporting costs through charging a service fee pursuant to Government Code sections 65
104 and 66000 et seq.

2. Monitoring Program
The purpose of this Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is to present a thorough approach for moni toring the implementation of the measures required to mitigate the significant and potentially significant impacts identified in the Honda Port of Entry Project Environmental Impact Report. The monitoring program identifies each mitigation measure for a significant impact and specifies the means for verifying successful implementation Failure to comply with all requi red mitigation measures will constitute a basis for withholding building permits or undertaking legal enforcement actions.

Project Approvals
Prior to each successive approval during development of the proposed project, the City of Richmond Planning Department shall confirm via the MMRP table (included in this document) proper implementation of all mitigation measures required to that point in time. If any

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
5 HONDA PORT OF ENTRY PROJECT
mitigation measures have not been implemented as required, the permit or other approval shall be withheld until successful implementation of the measure has been confirmed by the City. If noncompliance of required mitigation measures occurs following completion of construction and project occupancy, the failure shall be grounds for revocation of the occupancy per mit(s) for the project, or other enforcement action by the City Attorney.

MMRP Table
The heart of this document is the MMRP table, which identifies the monitoring and reporting requirements for each mitigation measure identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration.

More specifically, the table provides the following information for each mitigation measure:
• Impact Summary— a brief one–sentence summary statement of the impact being mitigated.
• Mitigation Measure— the verbatim text of the mitig ation measure as adopted by the
City. In some cases, the measure may differ slightly from the language presented in the Mitigated Negative Declaration circulated for public review. • Implementation Responsibility— the entity responsible for implementing the mitigation measure.
• Monitoring Responsibility— th e person or agency responsible for physically verifying that the mitigation measure has been implemented and for recording the verification in the MMRP table. In some cases, an outside regulatory agency may be involved in determining or ensuring mitigation compliance, but reporting of compliance in the MMRP table is the responsibility of City staff in all cases. • Monit
oring Activity— all activities necessary to verify successful implementation of the mitigation measure. Where certain monitoring activities are verified during the normal course of project review and approvals (e.g., verification of compliance with building codes), such verification has been noted but has not bee n incorporated into the MMRP, and no separate reporting is required beyond that which normally occurs. • Timing/Frequency of Monitoring — the phase of the project during which monitoring activities must occur and/or milestone(s) at which single–event monitoring activities must occur followed by how often monitoring activities must occur. Typically, the monitoring occurs once, weekly, or monthly.
• Date & Monitor
’s Initials/Status/Comments— the initials of the Responsible Monitor verifying that implementation of the mitigation measure has been satisfactorily completed. A notation shall be provided for each required occurrence of monitoring and/or verification, as stipulated in the MMRP table for each mitigation mea sure. The notation by the proper monitor should be dated and initialed, and should note any irregularities or problems in compliance. When final implementation of a mitigation measure has been verified by the designated monitor, a notation of full and completed implementation shall be made in this space.

Reporting
Reporting shall be satisfied by a written notation in the space provided for each mitigation measure in the MMRP table, as noted above. The MMRP table shall be maintained on file at the offices of the Richmond Planning Department until, at a minimum, all mitigation measures have been successfully implemented and verifi ed.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
HONDA PORT OF ENTRY PROJECT 6
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring Activity
Timing!
Frequency of
Monitoring
Date & Monitor’s Initials!
Status!Comments

LAND USE AND PLANNING

Impact 4–1: The proposed project would be inconsistent
with Richmond General Plan policies requiring compliance with adopted air quality standards and protection of the public from the adverse health effects of air pollution.

Mitigation Measure 4–1: None feasible.
n/a n/a n/a n/a
Impact 4–2: The proposed project would be inconsistent
with Richmond Coastline Plan Public Access Policy
1 ,which call for permanently guaranteed access to
the
s h o r eline .

Mitigation Measure 4–2: The Port of Richmond shall
maintain permanent public access to the shoreline and
historic sites on the PPMT tothe eatest extent feasible g
while com plying with federal and State securit y
regulations. If relocation of the planned Bay Trail
Segment is required in the future due to national security concerns or for other reasons, the Port shall provide alternative shoreline access and, if feasible, alternative access to the historic resources at the PPMT. In
determinin g the location and desi gn of public access, as well as final design of the PPMT site plan, the Port and the applicant shall offer to consult with nei ghboring property owners and facilit y o perators t o address securit y
concerns. Written evidence of consultation, or reasonable efforts to consult, shall be provided to the City before any permit for project construction is issued.

Project Sponsor City of Richmond
Planning &
Building Services
Prior to issuance of a grading
permit, Planning staff shall verify
receipt of written evidence of
applicant consultation with
neighboring property owners and
facility operators, which shall be
included in the project file. If
future relocation is required, prior
to issuance of first administrative
or discretionary permit, Planning
staff shall periodically monitor
site to verify provision fo r
continued shoreline access, and
shall verify receipt of written
evidence of repeated applicant
consultation with neighboring
propertyowners and facility
operators regarding relocation
plans. Planning staff shall
periodically verify via field
inspection that public access to
the shoreline and historic sites is
b eing m aint aine d .

Verification of
consultation with
neighboring
property owners:

Prior to issuance
of grading permit/
Once (to be
repeated if
access is
relocated)
Verification of
continued public
access:

Following
completion of
project
construction/
Periodically, at
the discretion of
City staff.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
HONDA PORT OF ENTRY PROJECT 7

Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring Activity
Timing!
Frequency of
Monitoring
Date & Monitor’s Initials!
Status!Comments
Impact 4–3: The proposed project would conflict with San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan policies identifying the project site as a future container cargo port facility.

Mitigation Measure 4–3: As part of the application for a development permit from the San Francisco Bay
Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), the
project sponsor should shallprovide data to the Seaport Planning Advisory Committee of BCDC that demonstrate
that implementation of the proposed project would not
prevent Bay Area ports from collectively achieving the
2020 cargo projections contained in the San Francisco
Bay Area Seaport Plan As of the application for a partdevelopment from the San Francisco Baypermit Conservation and De velopment Commission (BCDC ), the
sponsor should data to the Seapor tproject providePlanning Advisory Committee of BCDC that demonstrate thatimplementation of the oposed t would notprprojeBay Areaports fromcollectively achievingtheprevent2020 cargo ro jections contained in the San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan.The proposed project will be full y consistent with elements of the Seaport Plan that support the Port’s extension of trackage into Point Potrero, thereby facilitatin g potential growth of intermodal service at the Port.

BCDC has identified the future need to expand container capacity at the Port of Richmond in its 2020 Seaport Plan.

To address any inconsistency with the Seaport Plan, if any portion of the PPMT is re quired for such develo pment
expansion durin g the term of Honda’s o perations at the Port of Richmond, then on the mutual a greement of the
Port, AWC, and Honda, the Port shall relocate such
portion of the facilitie s so that the resultin g premises provide an e qually efficient site fo r the o peration of Honda’s operations.

Project Sponsor
Port of Richmond
City of Richmond
Planning &
Building Services
Prior to issuance of a grading
permit, Planning staff shall verify
receipt of copies of BCDC permit
application, cargo projection and
capacity data, and written
r e q u e s t t o a m e n d t h e S e a p o r t
Plan. Planning staff shall also
verify that BCDC issues its
permit for the project.

Prior to issuance
of grading
permit/Once

TRAFFIC
Impact 5–1: Construction of the proposed project would
generate additional traffic from construction workers
traveling to and from the site, from truck deliveries o f construction materials and ballast stone, and from trucks e x po rt in g e x c e s s fill.

Mitigation Measure 5–1: None required.
n/a n/a n/a n/a

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
HONDA PORT OF ENTRY PROJECT 8

Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring Activity
Timing!
Frequency of
Monitoring
Date & Monitor’s Initials!
Status!Comments
Impact 5–2: Staging of construction equipment and
materials, construction parking, lane closures, and slow– moving construction trucks all have the potential to disrupt traffic on Canal Boulevard and create potential traffic hazards during construction.

Mitigation Measure 5–2: Prior to construction, the
project sponsor shall submit a construction
management/traffic control plan for City review and
approval. The projectapplicant shall offer to consult with neighboring property owners and facilit y operators during preparation of the traffic control plan in order to address any concerns the y may have re garding formulation and
implementation of the plan. Written evidence o f
consultation, or reasonable efforts to consult, shall be provided to the City before a grading permit is issued. A t a minimum, the plan shall include the following:
• identification of construction truck routes, staging, and parking areas for workers, as well as areas o
f
potential encroachment into the public right–of–way;
• provision of appropriate traffic control personnel and signs; and
• designation of an on–site construction manager as
a contact for the City and the public.

Project Sponsor/
Project Engineer
City of Richmond
Planning &
Building Services
CityofRichmond
Public Works
Department
Planning and Public Works staf
f
shall review and approve the
construction management/ traffic
control plan to ensure that it
complies with Mitigation Measure
5–2. Prior to issuance of a
grading permit, Planning staff
shall verify receipt of written
evidence of applicant
consultation with neighboring
property owners and facility
operators, which shall be
included in the project file.

Weekly site inspections shall be
conducted by Public Works staff
to verify proper implementation
of the approved construction
management/ traffic control plan.

Verification of
consultation with
neighboring
property owners:

Prior to issuance
of grading permit/
Once
Verification of
adequate traffic
control plan: Prior
to issuance of
grading permit/
Once
Verification of
proper
implementation of
construction
management/
traffic control
plan: Throughout
project
construction/
Weekly

Impact 5–3: Under Background Plus Project Conditions,
the addition of project–generated traffic to the local road network would incrementally increase average delay at
project study intersections, but all of the intersections would continue operating acceptably at LOS C or better.

Mitigation Measure 5–3: None required.
n/a n/a n/a n/a

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
HONDA PORT OF ENTRY PROJECT 9

Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring Activity
Timing!
Frequency of
Monitoring
Date & Monitor’s Initials!
Status!Comments
Impact 5–4: The proposed project would increase the
number of large trucks and other vehicles traveling at
speed through the unsignaliz ed intersection of Canal
Boulevard and Seacliff Driv e, which provides inadequate stopping sight distance and inadequate intersection sight distance. Although this is an existing condition, the
additional project traffic would substantially exacerbate the safety hazard at this intersection by increasing the numbe r of motorists exposed to potential accidents between autos and large car–carrier trucks.

Mitigation Measure 5–4: The City of Richmond shall
install a traffic signal implement appropriate
improvements, as determined by the Public Works
Department, at the intersection of Canal Boulevard and
Seacliff Drive in order to provide ade quate intersection sight distance (minimum of 450 feet on Canal Boulevard ) and im prove eastbound vehicle deceleration on Seacliff Drive at the intersection approach. The project sponsor shall pay the fair–share cost of implementing this
mitigation measure, as determined by the City of
Richmond.

City of Richmond
Planning &
Building Services
City of Richmond
Public Works
Department
Project Sponsor
City of Richmond
Planning &
Building Services
City of Richmond
Public Works
Department
Public Works staff shall ensure
and verify that the City
implements the intersection
improvements required by
Mitigation Measure 5–4.

Planning staff shall verify that the
project sponsor pays the fair–
share cost of the implementation
of the mitigation measure.

Prior to
commencement
of project
operation/
Once

Impact 5–5: The proposed project would increase the
number of large multi–axel trucks traveling on Canal
Boulevard, contributing wear to a roadway that is already in substandard condition south of Seacliff Drive.

Mitigation Measure 5–5: None Required.
n/a n/a n/a n/a

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
HONDA PORT OF ENTRY PROJECT 10
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring Activity
Timing!
Frequency of
Monitoring
Date & Monitor’s Initials!
Status!Comments
Impact 5–6: The anticipated parking demand by PPMT City of Richmond City of Richmond Prior to issuance of a Design Verification of employees, longshoremen, visitors, and the public would Plannin g & Plannin g & Review Permit, the Cit y shall parking Condition exceed the parking supply proposed by the project. Building Services Building Services determine the parking requirement for the project and
of Design Review
Approval: Prior to

Mitigation Measure 5 –6: The City of Richmond, in Pro ject Sponsor make com pliance with the Desi gn Review parking requirement a condition
of approval of the Design Review
Permit. Prior to issuance of a
Approval /Once consultation with the Port of Richmond and the Project Sponsor, shall make a determination as to the appropriate amount of parking to be provided at the PPMT, and this
requirement shall become a condition of the Conditional grading permit, Planning staff Site Plan Use Design Review Permit required for the project. This shall verify that the final site plan Verification: Prio r determination ma y allow fo r the Pro ject S ponsor to complies with the parking to the issuance of designate a portion of the new auto storage areas as
reserve parking (60 spaces) for the extra longshoremen
needed at the site on the periodic occasions when two
ships are at berth at the PPMT, thereby reducing the
permanent parking requirement by 60 spaces. Prior to
issuance of a grading permit, the Project Sponsor shall demonstrate on the final site plan the provision of the n u m ber of sp a c e s re q uire d b yth e City requirement. a grading
plan/Once

Impact 5–7: Under Cumulative Year 2030 Plus Project n/a n/a n/a n/a Conditions, the addition of project–generated traffic to the local road network would incrementally increase average delay at project study intersections, but all of the
intersections would continue operating acceptably at LOS

C or better.

Mitigation Measure 5–7: None required.

Impact 5–8: The proposed establishment of a rail yard at the PPMT would result in periodic delays to vehicles
attempting to enter or exit Wharf Street during train
crossings.
n/a n/a n/a n/a
Mitigation Measure 5–8: None required.

Impact 5–9: Switching and other train operations Project Sponsor City of Richmond Prior to issuance of a grading Verification of between the proposed PPMT rail yard and the BNSF Fire Department permit, Plannin g staff shall ERP a pproval:

Automotive Terminal would temporarily block access to receive written confirmation fromP r i or to issuance industrial properties east of Canal Boulevard. Pro ject City of Richmond the Fire and Police de partments of grading permit/ trains traveling between the PPMT and the Richmond Rail Police that the y have reviewed and Once Yard and utilizin g the at–grade crossin gs at Canal, West Department a pproved the ERP. Plannin g Cutting, and South Garrard boulevards would similarly
temporarily block access to residential and other
properties located south of these crossings. This could result in the inability of emergency vehicles to access

City of Richmond
Planning &
Building Services
staff shall also verify receipt of
written evidence of applicant
consultation with neighboring
property owners and facility
Verification of
consultation with
neighboring
property owners:

these properties durin g fires, medical emer gencies, o r operators, which shall be Prior to issuance other types of emergencies. included in the project file. of grading permit/

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
HONDA PORT OF ENTRY PROJECT 11
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibilit
Monitoring Activity
Timing!
Frequency of
Monitoring
Date & Monitor’s Initials!
Status!Comments
Mitigation Measure 5–9: The project sponsor shall
prepare and implement an Emergency Response Plan
(ERP), subject to review and approval by the Richmond
Fire Department and Richmond Police Department, that
addresses continuous emergency access to all properties potentially blocked by train crossings or switching
operations. The ERP shall be developed in consultation
with all potentially affected business and property owners located east of Canal Boulevard. The project applicant
shall offer to consult with neighboring property owners and facility operators during preparation of the ERP in order to address an y concerns the y ma y have re garding
implementation of the plan. Written evidence o f
consultation, or reasonable efforts to consult, shall be provided to the City before a gradin g permit is issued.

Possible approaches to improve or guarantee emergency
access could include some or all of the following s t r a t e gies :
• Install mobile communicati ons devices on trains so
that they can communicate their location and time
at crossings with fire and police personnel.
• Install GPS tracking devices on trains so that fire
and police dispatchers can track train locations.
• Install web cams at rail crossings so that motorists
and emergency vehicle personnel can remotely
monitor the rail crossings for blockage via
computer, PDA, or smart phones.
• Install a railroad preemption/warning system to alert motorists of crossing trains so that they can use
alternate routes.
• Investigate the potential to locate a police and fire substation south of Cutting as a long–term solution.
• Investigate the potential to create a grade–
separated crossing in the area.
• Schedule train traffic/switching after 6 p.m. since
vehicle traffic on Wharf Street drops significantly
a f t e r t h a t time .
• Investigate the potential for an emergency access
through PPMT facility to the east side of the rail
yard. A locked gate to the proposed new BP/Arco
entrance road could be established, with access
codes or keys provided to emergency personnel
Planning staff shall periodically
verify via field inspection that
public access to the shoreline
and historic sites is being
maintained. Following ERP
approval, the Fire and Police
departments shall take any
actions they deem appropriate to
ensure and verify proper
implementation of the ERP.

Within two months of the
commencement of project
operations, Planning staff shall
verify receipt of written
confirmation from the Fire and
Police departments that the ERP
is being successfully
implemented to their satisfaction,
with re–verification to occur
annually.

Once
Verification of
ERP
Implementation:

Within two
months of the
commencement
of project
operations/
Annually

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
HONDA PORT OF ENTRY PROJECT 12
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring Activity
Timing!
Frequency of
Monitoring
Date & Monitor’s Initials!
Status!Comments
(fire and police).

Impact 5–10: The increase in ship traffic resulting from implementation of the proposed project could potentially cause congestion or disruption to the normal flow of traffic in S a n F r a n cisc o B a y .

Mitigation Measure 5–10: None required.
n/a n/a n/a n/a
Impact 5–11: The increase in ship traffic at the project site caused by the proposed project could potentially
cause congestion or disruption to the normal flow of traffic at the Port of Richmond.

Mitigation Measure 5–11: None required.
n/a n/a n/a n/a
Impact 5–12: The increase in ship traffic resulting from implementation of the proposed project could potentially increase risk of collision or accident in San Francisco Bay and at the project site.

Mitigation Measure 5–12: None required.
n/a n/a n/a n/a

AIR QUALITY
Impact 6–1: Activities associated with proposed project construction would generate short–term emissions o f
criteria pollutants, including construction–related dust emissions and equipment exhaust emissions, during the
term of construction.

Mitigation Measure 6–1: The applicant shall implement
dust abatement measures identified by BAAQMD as
feasible dust control, during all construction activities, including the following:
• water all active construc tion areas at least twice
daily;
• cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose
materials, or require such trucks to maintain at least
two feet of freeboard;
• pave, apply water at a minimum three times daily in
dry weather, or apply non–toxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging
a r e a s ;
• sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access
roads, parking areas, and staging areas;
• sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible
Project Sponsor
and Construction
Contractor
Bay Area Air
Quality
Management
District
(BAAQMD)
City of Richmond
Planning &
Building Services
Site visits by Planning staff to
verify compliance with
requirements. Additional site
visits shall be promptly made in
response to any complaints
received by the City or
BAAQMD. Any excessive dust
observed shall be discussed with
the project sponsor and reported
in the MMRP table.

During
construction/
Monthly and in
response to
complaints

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
HONDA PORT OF ENTRY PROJECT 13
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring Activity
Timing!
Frequency of
Monitoring
Date & Monitor’s Initials!
Status!Comments
soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets
areas;
• hydroseed or apply non–toxic soil stabilizers to
inactive construction ar eas (previously graded
areas inactive for ten days or more);
• enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non–
toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, e t c . ) ; • limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles
per hour;
• install sandbags or other erosion control measures
to prevent silt runoff to public roadways; and
• replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as
possible.

The applicant shall implement the following construction combustion emissions miti gation measures identified b y BAAQMD during all construction activities:
• Use alternative–powered construction equipment
(i.e., h ybrid, com pressed natural gas (CNG),
biodiesel, electric), where feasible.
• Use construction equi pment which uses add–on
control devices such as diesel oxidation catal ystsor
particulate filters, or that meets the California Ai r
Resources Board’s (CARB) most recent certification
standards fo r at least 10 percent of the total
equivalent construction period.
• Minimize idling time (e.g., 5 minute maximum).
• Maintain properly tuned equipment.
• Limit the hours of operation of heavy –duty
equipment and/or the amount of equipment in use.

Impact 6–2: Operation of the proposed project would
generate emissions of criteria pollutants from the auto carrier marine vessels, tugs , rail activities, auto carrier trucks, and employee vehicles. The impacts of carbon
monoxide, volatile organic compounds, and particulate
matter (PMand
PM2.5) would be less than significant.
10 However, the impact from emissions of nitrogen oxides would be significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measure 6–2: The Port of Richmond, shall
develop set a targeted goal of reducing the air quality impacts of the proposed project by at least 50 percent and Port of Richmond City of Richmond
Planning &
Building Services
Prior to issuance of a grading
permit, Planning staff shall verif y
completion of the CAAP in
compliance with Mitigation
Measure 6–2, including staying
consistent and/or ahead of
CARB regulations. The Port of
Richmond shall prepare and
submit an annual report to the
Richmond Planning Department
documenting and updating the
status of implementation
Verification of
CAAP
preparation: Prior
to issuance of
grading permit/
Once
Verification of
annual reports on
ERP
Implementation:

Within two

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
HONDA PORT OF ENTRY PROJECT 14
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring Activity
Timing!
Frequency of
Monitoring
Date & Monitor’s Initials!
Status!Comments
up to 85 percent of DPM (consistent with the 2020 goals adopted b y CARB in A pril 2006 in asso ciation with the Goods Movement Reduction Plan). Tar geted reduction
goals for project NO emissions shall be set at 5 percentx belowproject estimated NOemissions. These tar getedx
goals shall be an outcome of the develo pment of a Clean Air Action Plan (CAAP Plan ) that tar gets all emissions , focusing primarily on reducing NO x, PM10/2.5, and TACs (especially diesel particulate matter) associated with
PPMT and other Port of Richmond emission sources. The
CAAP shall be com pleted prior to construction and
implementation of the CAAP shall be gin with the
commencement of project operations.

The CAAP Plan shall implement measures largely through
the CEQA/NEPA process, tariffs, and new leases. One
goal of the CAAP plan shall be to sta y consistent with and/or ahead of California Air Resources Board (CARB)
regulations. The CAAP Plan shall focus on reducin g NO x and diesel particulate emissions, thereby having a primary benefit of improving local and regional health and air
quality. The CAAP Plan shal l contain provisions fo r
implementing the following measures (but not limited to just these measures), as feasible, for the Honda Port of E nt ry proje ct . ¥ Cleaner Ship Fuels. On June 10, 2008, CARB
released draft clean fuel regulations for ocean–
going vessels that would re quire US and forei gn–
flagged vessels sailin g within 24 miles of the
California coastline to use low sulfur marine fuels
rather than bunker fuel to power main propulsion
engines, auxiliary engines and boilers.

Under the proposal, by July 1, 2009, main engines
and auxiliary boilers of ocean–going vessels would
berequired to switch either to marine gas oil with no
more than 1.5 percent sulfur or marine diesel oil
with 0.5 percent or less sulfur. Auxiliar y engines on
ocean–going vessels would be required to switch to
cleaner fuel within 30 da ys after rule promulgation.

By 2012, onl y marine gas oil and marine diesel oil
fuels with 0.1 percent sulfur would be allowed.

CARB has estimated that implementation of the
regulations would reduce toxic particulate matter
emissions from diesel vessel engines by 80 percent
compared to current uncontrolled emissions. CARB
estimates that sulfu r oxide and nitro gen oxide
emissions would also be reduced by 90 and 6
measures identified in the CAAP.

Planning staff shall verify and
document in this MMRP table
receipt of the annual reports.
months of the
commencement
of project
operations/
Annually

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
HONDA PORT OF ENTRY PROJECT 15
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring Activity
Timing!
Frequency of
Monitoring
Date & Monitor’s Initials!
Status!Comments
percent, respectively.

The Port of Richmond shall provide reduced
docka ge fees for shi poperators that use cleaner
fuels prior to im plementation of the clean fuel
regulation re quirements. If the re gulation is not
promulgated, the Port of Richmond shall re quire 50
percent com pliance of the cleaner fuels standard
through reduced docka ge fees o r lease
requirements.

Provide reduced dockage fees for ship operators
that use cleaner fuels and cleaner ship engines.

Cleaner Engine Technologies. Instead of meeting
the cold ironing shore power requirements, ship
owners may elect to reduce their fleet emissions at
a terminal by 50 percent by 2014 using engine
optimization (e.g., Miller Cy cle Value timing), engine process modifications (e.g., addition of water,
urea, or ammonia to the combustion process),
and/or after–treatment processes (e.g., Selective
Catalytic R e d u c tion s y s t e m ) .

The Port of Richmond shall provide reduced
docka ge fees for shi p operators that use cleaner
engine technologies.

Idling Restrictions. Impose mandatory idling
restrictions for trucks at the PPMT. Provide trucke r
education of anti –idlingbenefitsand enforcement of
CARB’s anti –idlin gregulationsof no more than 5
minutes, where applicable, of auto –carrier trucks
and deliver y trucks servicin g the proposed project.

Based on emission assum ptions, this could reduce
PM emissions from auto carrier truck idlin g within
the facilit y b y u p to 80 percent, given the
assumption that auto carrier trucks currentl y idle for up to 25 minutes during loading. Impose mandatory
•
•
•
•
idling restrictions for tugboats and trucks at the
PPMT.

Cleaner Auto Carrier Trucks. Develop a program
to encourage cleaner trucks at the PPMT. A
schedule shall be developed to achieve 2007
emission standards for the auto carrier trucks
ahead o f r e g ulation s .

Grant Funding. Actively pursue State, Bay Area,
and grant funds (e.g., the Carl Moyer Fund,
Transportation Fund for Clean Air, etc.) for

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
HONDA PORT OF ENTRY PROJECT 16
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring Activity
Timing!
Frequency of
Monitoring
Date & Monitor’s Initials!
Status!Comments
improved trucks and retrofits such as the diesel
particulate filters and ocean–going vessel
emission–reduction technologies .

Vessel Speed Reduction. CARB is evaluating an
ocean–going vessel speed reduction program. The
Ports of Los An geles and Lon g Beach currentl y
have a program which requests that vessels reduce
their speed to 12 knots beginning 20 nautical miles
off shore. A similar program shall be develo ped for
the Port of Richmond as part of the proposed
project.

General Mitigation Measure. For any of the above
emission reduction measur es, if a CARB–certified
technology becomes available and is shown to be
as good as or better in terms of emissions
performance reduction than the existing measure,
the technology could be used to replace the existing
emission reduction meas ure pending approval by
t h e P o r t .

Periodic Review of New Technology and
Regulations. The Port shall require the tenant to
review, in terms of feasibility, any Port–identified or other new emissions–reduction technology, and
report the technology review results to the Port.
¥
¥
¥
¥
Such technology feasibility reviews shall take place
at the time of the Port’s consideration of any lease
amendment or facility modification. If the
technology is determined by the Port to be feasible
in terms of cost, technica l and operational feasibility, the tenant shall work with the Port to implement s u c hte c h n olo g y.

Advanced Maritime Emissions Control System
(AMECS). AMECS is a pilot system composed of
an Emissions Treatment Subs ystem and an
Emissions Ca pture Subs ystem. The s ystem
contains two emission–removal technologies: a
Cloud–Chamber Scrubber for removal of SO x, PM,
and ROG, and a Selective Catal ytic Reduction
Reactor for the removal of NO x. The AMECS treats
ocean–going vessels while at berth. This s ystem
claims to reduce SOby up to 97 percent, PM byx
more than 92 percent, and NO byup to 97 percent.x
The s ystem does not re quire modification of the
ship.

If the AMECS or another emissions treatment

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
HONDA PORT OF ENTRY PROJECT 17
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring Activity
Timing!
Frequency of
Monitoring
Date & Monitor’s Initials!
Status!Comments
system is determined to be feasible for use on ships
servin g the proposed project, the s ystem shall be
operational upon implementation of the project. If
more effective and cost effective, the AMECS or
other treatment system may be located at the PPMT
and/or other Port of Richmond facilities, which could
provide the bi ggest emission reductions eithe r
based on the frequency of ports of call, the t ypes of
vessels (cargo and container vessels tend to have
greater air emissions than auto carriers ), and the
duration of hotelling.
¥ Cold Ironing. Similar to CARBproposedregulations for container ships, b y 2014 no less than 50 of the auto carrier shipspercent project’sshall limit the use of auxiliar y diesel engines to less than 5 hours per visit. To r educe emissions while at
berth, P power can be provided either by grid–based
shore power (essentially connecting to the PG&E
grid) or by ultra–clean distributed generation (proo f
of concept tests at the Port of Oakland have shown
the ability of mobile liquefied natural gas generators
to fully power ocean–going vessels while docked at
berth o r under “hotelling”). Similar to proposed
CARB re gulations for container shi ps, by 2014 no
less than 50 percent of the project’s auto carrier
ships shall limit the use of auxiliary diesel engines to less than 5 hours per visit.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
HONDA PORT OF ENTRY PROJECT 18
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring Activity
Timing!
Frequency of
Monitoring
Date & Monitor’s Initials!
Status!Comments
cold ironing shall be implemented. These additional
measures would focus on emission sources at the
Port (but not necessaril y associated with the
Proposed Pro ject), such as installation of sola r
units, boiler replacement, cargo handling equipment
modifications/replacement, but could also include
emission sources within the vicinit y such as school
bus conversion, conversion of diesel forklifts to
electric forklifts, educational programs, landscaping,
purchasing of carbon credits, and solar/wind units.
¥ Employee Transit Access. The Port of Richmond
shall work with the Cit y, AC Transit, and BART to
provide enhanced transit access, such as free
shuttle service for project employees between the
project and local transit modes, includin g the
Richmond BART station. The Port shall coordinate
with AC Transit to extend bus service to the PPMT,
if feasible, such as b y modif ying an existin g bus
route in the project area. The Port and City shall
encoura ge and provide incentives for ridesharin g
and use of public transit for project employees.

Impact 6–3: Operation of the proposed project would
generate emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) from the
auto carrier marine vessels, tugs, rail activities, auto carrier trucks, and employee vehicles.

Mitigation Measure 6–3: None required.
n/a n/a n/a n/a
Impact 6–4: Although operation of the proposed project
would create objectionable diesel odors in proximity to the sources, at the nearest sensit ive receptors they would not be detectable, or at worst would be below offensive c o n c e n t r a tion s .

Mitigation Measure 6–4: None required.
n/a n/a n/a n/a
Impact 6–5: Project emissions of diesel particulate matter could pose a risk to human health.

Mitigation Measure 6–5: None required.
n/a n/a n/a n/a
NOISE
Impact 7–1: Project construction would temporarily
increase noise levels in the project vicinity.

Mitigation Measure 7–1: None required.
n/a n/a n/a n/a

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
HONDA PORT OF ENTRY PROJECT 19
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring Activity
Timing!
Frequency of
Monitoring
Date & Monitor’s Initials!
Status!Comments
Impact 7–2: Project–generated vehicle traffic would
generate noise, but would not substantially increase
roadside noise levels in the project vicinity under existing or long–term conditions.
n/a n/a n/a n/a
Mitigation Measure 7–2: None required.

Impact 7–3: Noise from ship unloading could Project Sponsor City of Richmond Planning staff shall verify Verification of substantially increase noise levels at residential receptors. Planning & inclusion in construction contractual Building Services contracts the re quirement to limit re quirements:

Mitigation Measure 7 –3: The City shall enforce the construction activit y to the Prior to nighttime noise limit of 50 dBA at the residential property stipulated hours. Planning staff construction/ boundaries. Only ship engines that meet this noise level limit at the residential property boundaries shall be
permitted to run at night (i.e., 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). shall promptly make site visits in
response to any complaints
received by the City. Any
construction occurring outside
Once
Response to
complaints:

permitted hours shall be
discussed with the project
sponsor and reported in the
Upon receipt of
complaint/
As needed

MMRP table. Planning staff shall
promptly contact project sponsor
in response to any complaints
received by the City. If deemed
to be warranted by the City,
noise monitoring equipment shall
be used at appropriate
monitoring location(s) to
determine if noise levels
produced at night are in excess
of the City’s nighttime noise
limits. Project Sponsor shall be
required to cease or mitigate an
y
excessive noise.

Impact 7–4: Noise from loading railcars at the new rail yard at PPMT would increase noise levels in the
immediate vicinity, but would not substantially increase noise levels at residential receptors.
n/a n/a n/a n/a
Mitigation Measure 7–4: None required.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
HONDA PORT OF ENTRY PROJECT 20
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring Activity
Timing!
Frequency of
Monitoring
Date & Monitor’s Initials!
Status!Comments
Impact 7–5: Noise from loading auto carrier trucks at the Project Sponsor Ci ty of Richmond Prior to issuance of a Design Prior to issuance new location at PPMT could substantiall y increase noise Planning & Review Permit, Plannin g staff of Desi gn Review levels at residential receptors. Building Services shall review project design plans to verify compliance with
Permit/
Once

Mitigation Measure 7–5:
a) The site plan shall be reconfigured so that truck
loading remains in the same location as current t r uc k loa ding ; o r
b) The site plan shall be reconfigured so that truck
loading is moved to another location at the PPMT
site no closer to the Seacliff residences than the
curren t truck loa ding area ; or
c) The site plan shall be reconfigured so that all
nighttime truck loading operations are at least 750
feet from the Seacliff residences and the line of
sight from the residences to all truck loading
operations is blocked by a sound barrier, or
enclosed in a building.

Mitigation Measure N–5.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact 8–1: Project implementation could result in the Project Sponsor City of Richmond Planning staff shall verify Verification that placement of fill into federal and/or State jurisdictional and Construction Plannin g & submittal of the wetland wetlands are wetlands. Contractor Building Services delineation report to the USACE.

Planning staff shall coordinate
regulated under
the Clean Water

Mitigation Measure 8–1: California with the USACE , RWQCB and/or Act and that a) A formal wetland delineation has been performed;
the delineation shall be submitted to the USACE fo
Department of
Fish and Game
CDFG to document compliance
with the appropriate mitigation
mitigation
requirements are

a jurisdictional determination. If it is determined b y measures, depending on the implemented to the U.S. Arm y Cor ps of En gineers (USACE ) that existence on the site of wetlands satisfaction of wetlands on site are re gulated under the Clean regulated under the Clean Water USACE, RWQCG Water Act, the project sponsor shall implemen t Act. and/or CDFG:

Mitigation Measure 8–1(b). Whether or not it is Prior to issuance determined that wetlands on site are not re gulated Planning staff shall receive of grading permit/ under the Clean Water Act, the project sponsor copies of required permits from Once shall implement Mitigation Measure 8–1(c).
b) Prior to the placement of fill into any wetlands,
theproject sponsor shall obtain permits under
Sections 401 and
404 of the Clean Water Act. Thes
permits, administered by the Regional Wate
r
Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and USACE,
respectively, would identify specific mitigation
measures that would be imposed on the project as
permit conditions At a minimum the project
COE, RWQCB, and CDFG
and
Wetland Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan, as well as
confirmation of COE and
RWQCB approval of the plan. A
qualified biologist by the City of
Richmond and paid for by the
project sponsor shall verify
proper implementation of the
mitigation plan and shall provide
Verification of
issuance of any
permits required
from USACE,
RWQCG and/or
CDFG:

Prior to issuance
of grading permit/
Once

sponsor shall implement Mitigation Measure 8–1(d) the City with written confirmation Verification of

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
HONDA PORT OF ENTRY PROJECT 21
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring Activity
Timing!
Frequency of
Monitoring
Date & Monitor’s Initials!
Status!Comments
or 8–1(e). of the verification. annual monitoring
reports, if

c) In order to determine the presence or absence o f Planning staff shall verif y that, if re quired: One waters of the State subject to the jurisdiction of required by the USACE, CDFG, year afte r State regulatory agencies, a descri ption of existin g or RWQCB, a Wetland Mitigation com pletion of habitats on site shall be submitted to the California and Monitorin g Plan is prepared construction/ Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and and submitted for agency review. Annually, for no RWQCB for review. If waters of State aredetermined to fall under one or both of these agencies, the project sponsor shall obtain the
Detailed wetland protection,
replacement, and restoration
less than five
years

appropriate permits. These permits would identify
specific mitigation measures that would be imposed
plans shall be prepared by a
qualified wetland restorationist

on the project as permit conditions. At a minimum,
the project sponsor shall implement Mitigation
hired by the City of Richmond
and paid for by the

Measure 8–1(d) or 8–1(e). sponsor.
d) Given the artificial nature of the wetlands affected If required by the Wetland by the proposed project, and their location in a
highly industrialize location, their biological
Mitigation and Monitoring Plan,
mitigation plantings shall be

functions and values are considered im paired. monitored by a qualified biologist While it is generally preferred b y the regulatory for no less than five years agencies that wetland im pacts are compensated by following completion of plant the creation of similar habitats on site, in certain installation o r as otherwise instances, compensation at an off–site location may specified in the permit be deemed acceptable. As part of the permitting conditions. Annual re ports shall process, the project sponsor must com ply with all be submitted to the Cit y of permit conditions of the regulatory agencies,
including the implementation of an
appropriat
compensatory mitigation plan for unavoidable
Richmond and each permitting
agency, i.e., USACE, RWQCB,
and/or CDFG. Additionally, the

impacts to wetlands. At the discretion of the Planning staff shall ensure that regulatory agencies, the project sponsor may seek all miti gation areas, alon g with a public or private entit y in control of lands at a an appropriate upland buffer, are suitable off –site location with planned habita t placed in a permanent restoration measures, to which an in –lieu –of fee conservation easement, o r could be paid. The recipient may be either an similar deed restriction, and approved miti gation bank or public or private entit y preserved in perpetuity, as undertaking habitat restoration measures. The t ypes pecified in the permit of restoration project and amount of the in –lieu–of conditions. Prior to the issuance fee would be determined in consultation with the of grading permits b y the Cit y of regulatory agencies with the ultimate objective o f Richmond, the project sponso r satisfying agency concerns and permit conditions. shall provide evidence of the If payment of in –lieu–of fees is not acce ptable to required a pprovals from all one or more of the regulatory agencies or a suitable
recipient cannot be found, t he project sponsor shall
implement on–site wetland mitigation, as outlined in
regulatory agencies.

Mitigation Measure 8–1(e).
e) If required by the USACE, CDFG, or RWQCB, a

Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be
prepared and submitted for agency review.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
HONDA PORT OF ENTRY PROJECT 22
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring Activity
Timing!
Frequency of
Monitoring
Date & Monitor’s Initials!
Status!Comments
Detailed wetland protection, replacement, and
restoration plans shall be prepared by a qualified
wetland restorationist hired by the City of Richmond
and paid for by the project sponsor. The plans shall
accurately identify the total wetlands and other
jurisdictional areas that could be affected by the
proposed project. The plans shall provide for re–
establishment, enhancement, and!or replacement o f
wetland habitat and vegetation, and be approved by
the regulatory agencies; in certain instances, cash
contributions earmarked specifically for wetland
creation, enhancement, or restoration offsite may
be deemed appropriate and acceptable to the
regulatory agencies. Mitigation plantings shall be
monitored for no less than five years following
completion of plant installation or as otherwise
specified in the permit conditions. Annual reports
shall be submitted to the City of Richmond and
each permitting agency, e.g., USACE, RWQCB,
and!or CDFG. Additionally, the City of Richmond
shall ensure that all mitigation areas, along with an
appropriate upland buffer, be placed in a permanen
t
conservation easement, or similar deed restriction,
and preserved in perpetuity, as specified in the
permit conditions. Prior to the issuance of grading
permits by the City of Richmond, the projec t
sponsor shall provide evidence of the required
approvals from all regulatory agencies.

Impact 8–2: Project construction could result in direct or Project Sponsor City of Richmond Plan ning staff shall receive Verification of indirect im pacts to nestin g, roosting, or foraging special– and Construction Plannin g & written verification from a surve ys: Prior to status birds and other migratory birds. Contractor Building Services qualified biologist of the completion of the bird survey
issuance of
grading permit!

Mitigation Measure 8–2:
a) A qualified biologist shall conduct preconstruction
Biological Monitor during the required time period,
and shall ensure the work
wa Once
Verification of

nestin g bird surve ys of shrubs, willows, and other performed b y a qualified confirmation from trees and non –native annual grassland habitats biologist. If nestin g, roosting, or Biological Monitor within 300 feet of the limits of work area, as well as foraging special–status birds and that mitigation the rooftop of Building 24, no more than 14 days other migratory birds are was successfully prior to the start of construction for work occurrin g Planning encountered, staff shall from receive written confirmation implemented:
during the breeding season from February 1st to
August 31st.
b) If active nests of special–status birds and migratory birds (i.e., occupied nests) are identified within 300
feet of the limits of work, non–disturbance
buffers
shall be established by the project
biologist at a distance sufficient to minimize construction–relate

the biologist that all required
mitigation was successfully
implemented. If active nests are
found within 300 feet of the limits
of work and non–disturbance
buffers are impracticable as
determined by the projec t
Prior to issuance
of building
permit!
Once
On–Site
Monitoring:

Throughout

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
HONDA PORT OF ENTRY PROJECT 23
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring Activity
Timing!
Frequency of
Monitoring
Date & Monitor’s Initials!
Status!Comments
disturbance based on the nest location, topography,
cover, and species’ tolerance to disturbance. Non –
biologist, Planning staff shall
receive written verification from
construction
activity as

disturbance buffers shall be fenced off to exclude all the biolo gist that the active re quired by the construction activities, including staging, storage,
and laydown, and shall be maintained until the
young have fledged. Buffer size shall be
determined by the project biologist and shall be
consistent with agency recommendations as per the
regulatory status and life history requirements of the s p e cies inv olve d . c) If active nests are found within 300 feet of the limits of work and non–disturbance buffers are
impracticable as determined by the project biologist,
a qualified biologist shall be on site to monitor active nest(s) for signs of disturbance. If it is determined
that construction activity is resulting in nes t
disturbance, work shall cease immediately until
such time as it is determined by the project biologist
that work may safely resume. If construction
activities have caused nest abandonment, then the
appropriate agency shall be contacted for further
guidance, which shall be binding. If a federally
listed species is involved, consultation with the U.S.
nest(s) were monitored during
construction as required by
Mitigation Measure 8–2(c).

Biological Monitor
Fish and Wildlife Service (U SFWS) will be initiated;
if a State–listed species is involved, consultation
with the California Department of Fish and Game

(CDFG) will be initiated.

Impact 8–3: Project construction could result in indirect Project Sponsor City of Richmond Plan ning staff shall confirm Verification of effects on s pecial–status and othe r natural habitats and Construction Plannin g & submittal of acce ptable BMPs: Prior to located outside of the PPMT study area. Construction Contracto r Building Services Construction Staging Plan issuance of might also require the trimming of native willows and other utilizing BMPs. Public Works grading permit trees and shrubs rooted, just outside of the work area. Biological Monitor staff shall conduct weekly site visits during construction to verify
and throughout
construction/

Mitigation Measure 8–3: implementation of the plan. Weekly a) The project sponsor shall be responsible
fo Monitoring of Mitigation Measure Verification of
ensuring that all contractors have in place 8–3(b) is addressed under confirmation from appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs)
throughout construction to prevent the migration
of Mitigation Measure 6–1. Biological
Consultant that

site of any potential pollutants. The effects o f
erosion can be decreased by collecting surface
If follow–up survey is necessary,
as described in Mitigation
mitigation was
successfully

water runoff in desiltin g ponds before releasin g the Measure 8–2(c), Plannin g staff im plemented and water into natural drainages or the Bay. Erosion shall receive written verification wildlife agencies and sedimentation im pacts can be furthe r from the biolo gist that the active have si gned of, if minimized by employing standard erosion control nest(s) were buffered o r applicable: Prio r procedures such the use of sandbags, silt fences,
hay bales, diversion ditches, desilting ponds, and
monitored during construction as
required by Mitigation Measure
to initiation of
project

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
HONDA PORT OF ENTRY PROJECT 24
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring Activity
Timing!
Frequency of
Monitoring
Date & Monitor’s Initials!
Status!Comments
undertakin g stream bank stabilization procedures. 8–3(c).o perations/ BMPs shall be in place throughout construction. Once
b) The project sponsor shall be responsible fo r
ensuring that all contractors have in place
appropriate measures to restrict the off–site
migration of dust during construction activities.

If the project biologist determines
that nest abandonment has
occurred, Planning staff shall
receive and record written
verification from USFWS and/or

Fugitive dust emissions caused by prolonged
grading activities shall be mitigated by employing
standard air quality control procedures as noted in
Chapter 6, Air Quality, of this EIR.
c) To prevent harming breeding birds, the measures
outlined in Mitigation Measure 8–2 shall be
followed. If any unanticipated work will occur within
areas containing shrubs, willows, or other trees o r
non–native annual grassland habitats more than 14
days following performance of the preconstruction
survey required by Mitigation Measure 8–2(a) and
d u ring t h e bird b r e e ding s e a s o n ( F e b r u a r y 1 s t t o CDFG, as applicable, that the
agency has been consulted and
has signed off on any
subsequent measures
determined necessary by that
agency.

August 31st), a follow–up survey shall be performed
by the project biologist. If active nests of special–
status birds and migratory birds (i.e., occupied
nests) are identified, an appropriate non
–
disturbance buffer shall be established at a distance
sufficient to minimize construction–related
disturbance to breeding birds. If establishment of a
non–disturbance buffer is impracticable as
determined by the project biologist, a qualified
biologist shall be on site to monitor active nest(s) fo r
signs of disturbance during construction in this area.

If it is determined that construction activity is
resulting in nest disturbance, work shall cease
immediately and shall only resume when is
determined by the project biologist that work may
safely resume. If construction activities have
caused nest abandonment, then the appropriate
agency shall be contacted for further guidance,
which shall be binding. If a federally listed species
is involved, consultation with the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (USFWS) shall be in itiated; if a
State–listed species is involved, consultation with
the California Department of Fish and Game

(CDFG) shall be initiated.

Impact 8–4: Increased ship traffic at the project site
would increase the frequency of ship wakes, which could lead to erosion and disturbance of sensitive habitats at n/a n/a n/a n/a
Brooks Island.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
HONDA PORT OF ENTRY PROJECT 25
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring Activity
Timing!
Frequency of
Monitoring
Date & Monitor’s Initials!
Status!Comments
Mitigation Measure 8–4: None required.

Impact 8–5: Increased ship traffic at the project site
would increase the frequency of ship wakes, which could lead to impacts to eelgrass habitat.

Mitigation Measure 8–5: None required.
n/a n/a n/a n/a
Impact 8–6: The increase in ship traffic to the project site could increase the frequency of disturbance to harbor
seals, hauled out on Brooks Island, and the degradation o r
functional loss of seal habitat within San Francisco Bay.

Mitigation Measure 8–6: None required.
n/a n/a n/a n/a
Impact 8–7: Increased ship traffic at the project site
would increase the frequency of ship wakes, which could lead to impacts to marine and anadromous fish habitat.

Mitigation Measure 8–7: None required.
n/a n/a n/a n/a

CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact 9–1: Development of the proposed project could
potentially cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an historical resource as defined in Section 1 5 0 6 4 . 5 .

Following approval of the Construction Staging Plan
by the City of Richmond, the project sponsor shall
implement the Plan throughout construction of the
Project Sponsor
and Construction
Contractor
City of Richmond
Planning &
Building Services
Planning staff shall confirm
submittal of acceptable
Construction Staging Plan
utilizing precautionary measures
(e.g., sufficient buffer distance)
to avoid potential vibration
impacts on the buildings. Public
Works staff shall conduct
weekly
site visits during
construction to verify
implementation of the plan.

Planning staff shall obtain in
writing verification that
construction personnel have
undergone appropriate training
regarding cultural resources as
described in Miti gation Measure
9–1(b). Planning staff shall
record the date and participants
on this MMRP table.

Verification of
completion of
Construction
Staging Plan:

Prior to issuance
of grading permit/
Once
Verification of
completion of
personnel
training: Prior to
issuance of
grading permit/
Once
Verification of
implementation of
Construction
Staging Plan:

Throughout
construction/
Weekly

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
HONDA PORT OF ENTRY PROJECT 26

Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring Activity
Timing!
Frequency of
Monitoring
Date & Monitor’s Initials!
Status!Comments
proposed project.
b) Construction Personnel Training: Prior to the
initiation of construction, all construction personnel
who work on the project shall undergo a training
session to inform them of the presence and nature
of National Register–eligible cultural resources
within the project area; of the laws protecting these
resources and associated penalties; and of the
procedures to follow if they discover cultural
resources during project–related work.

Impact 9–2: Development of the proposed project could
potentially hinder the ability of the City Manager to carry out Richmond City Council Resolution 100–07, by limiting access to or altering the histor ic setting of the four vacant historic structures within the Rosie the Riveter World
War
II Home Front National Historical Park.

Mitigation Measure 9–2: The City of Richmond shall
review plans of new structures landscaping and parking
facilities proposed in the imme diate vicinity of the historic cafeteria and first aid buildin gs, as well as the final site and desi gn plans and their potential effects on the other historic buildin gs at the PPMT , to ensure desi gn
compatibility with these hist oric buildings and maintain these buildings’ historic setting. The City shall
recommend appropriate setbacks and the amount o f
parking to be dedicated for use by tenants of the historic buildings, in order to ensure compatibility with City Council R e s olution s 10 0– 0 7 a n d 4 6 a – 0 0 .

Project Sponsor
City of Richmond
Planning &
Building Services
City of Richmond
Planning &
Building Services
Planning staff shall review and
approve plans of new
landscaping and parking facilities
in the immediate vicinity of the
historic cafeteria and first aid
buildings to ensure design
compatibility with the historic
buildings.

Prior to issuance
of building permit!
Once

Impact 9–3: Development of the proposed project could
potentially cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of archaeological resources, as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.

Mitigation Measure 9–3:
a) Cultural Resources Monitoring Plan. Prior to
issuance of a grading permit, a qualified
archaeologist retained at the applicant’s expense
shall prepare and submit a cultural resources
monitoring plan to the City of Richmond Planning
Department for review and approval. Monitoring
shall be required for all surface alteration and
subsurface excavation work including trenching,
boring, grading, use of staging areas and access
roads, and driving vehicl es and equipment within
200 feet of registered archaeological site CA–CCO
Project Sponsor
and Construction
Contractor
Archaeological
Monitor
City of Richmond
Planning &
Building Services
Planning staff shall review,
approve, and verify completion of
the Cultural Resources
Monitoring Plan and shall verify
that the project applicant has
retained the services of a
qualified archeological consultant
that has expertise in California
prehistory and a Native
American monitor from a
culturally–affiliated tribe!
organization to monitor ground
disturbance within 200 feet of
site CA–CCO–294.

Planning staff shall verify the
Verification of
completion of
Cultural
Resources
Monitoring Plan,
selection of
archaeological
monitor, and
work–stoppage
provisions in
construction
contracts: Prior
to issuance of
grading permit!
Once
Verification
of

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
HONDA PORT OF ENTRY PROJECT 27
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring Activity
Timing!
Frequency of
Monitoring
Date & Monitor’s Initials!
Status!Comments
294. Selection of the qualified professional inclusion in all construction im plementation of archaeologist and the cultural resources monitors contracts pertaining to grading or Cultural identified below in Miti gation Measure 9 –3(b) (if other ground–disturbing activities Resources different persons) shall be subject to approval by the provisions for work stoppage Monitoring Plan:
the Richmond Planning Department. The cultural stipulated in Miti gation Measure Prior to resources monitoring plan shall address (but not be 9–3. commencement limited to) the following issues: of project
If cultural resources are o perations/
• Training program for all construction
personnel involved in site disturbance and
encountered during construction,
Planning staff shall verify receipt
Once
field workers;
• Person(s) responsible for conducting
monitoring activities, including Native
American monitors
o
f report
by the archaeologist
documenting avoidance or
implementation of an
Verification of
implementation of
archeological
data recovery
program, if

• How the monitoring shall be conducted and
program and compliance with
Mitigation Measure 9–3(c).
required: Prior to
commencement

the required format and content of monitoring of project reports, includin g an y necessar y Prior to commencement of o perations/ archaeological re –survey of the final track project operations, Planning staff Once alignments (including the need to conduct shall verif y receipt of monitorin g shovel–test units or auger samples to identify report from archaeolo gical deposits in advance of construction ); monitor reporting on and assessment, designation and mapping of the confirming successful completion sensitive cultural resource areas on final of Cultural Resources Monitoring project maps; and assessment and survey of
any previously unsurveyed areas;
Plan.
• Person(s) responsible for
overseeing and
directing the monitors;

• Schedule for submittal of monitoring reports
and person(s) responsible for review and
approval of monitoring reports;

• Procedures and
construction methods to
avoid sensitive cultural resource;

• Clear delineation and
fencing of sensitive
cultural resource areas requiring monitoring;

• Physical monitoring boundaries
(e.g., 200
feet each side of the site);

• Protocol for notifications in case of
encountering of cultural resources, as well as
methods of dealing with the
encountered
resources (e.g., collection, identification,
curation);

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
HONDA PORT OF ENTRY PROJECT 28
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring Activity
Timing!
Frequency of
Monitoring
Date & Monitor’s Initials!
Status!Comments
• Methods to ensure
security of cultural
resources sites;

• Protocol for notifying local authorities (i.e.,
Port of Richmond and Richmond Police
Department) should site looting or other
illegal activities occur during construction.
b) Archaeological and Native American Monitors. The
project applicant shall retain the services of a
qualified archeological consultant that has expertise
in California prehistory and a Native American
monitor from a culturally–affiliated tribe/organization to monitor ground disturbance within 200 feet of site

CAÐCCOÐ294. If an intact archeological deposit is
encountered, all soil disturbing activities in the
vicinity of the deposit shall cease until the deposit is evaluated. The archeological monitor shall
immediately notify the project applicant and the City
of Richmond Planning Department of the
encountered archeological deposit. The
archeological monitor shall, after making a
reasonable effort to assess the identity, integrity,
and significance of the encountered archeological
deposit, present the findings of this assessment to
the project applicant and the Planning Department.

During the course of the monitoring, the
archaeologist may adjust the frequency—from
continuous to intermittent—of the monitoring based
on the conditions and profession judgment
regarding the potential to adversely affect cultural r e s o u r c e s .

• Re–design the proposed project to avoid any adverse
effect on the significant archeological resource;
OR,

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
HONDA PORT OF ENTRY PROJECT 29
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring Activity
Timing!
Frequency of
Monitoring
Date & Monitor’s Initials!
Status!Comments
warrant preparation of an ADRP, the project
archaeologist, project applicant, and

Richmond Planning Department shall meet
and consult to determine the scope of the

ADRP. The archaeologist shall prepare a
draft ADRP that shall be submitted to the
project applicant and the Planning

Department for review and approval. The
ADRP shall identify how the proposed data
recovery program would preserve the
significant information the archeological
resource is expected to contain. The ADRP
shall identify the scientific/historic research
questions applicable to the expected
resource, the data classes the resource is
expected to possess, and how the expected
data classes would address the applicable
research questions. Data recovery, in
general, shall be limited to the portions of the
historic property that could be adversely
affected by the proposed project. Destructive
data recovery methods shall not be applied to
portions of the archeological resources if
nondestructive methods are practical.
c) Accidental Discovery: If historic or prehistori
c
archaeological resources, such as chipped o r
ground stone, large quantities of shell, histori c
debris, building foundations, or human bone, are
inadvertently discovered during ground–disturbing
activities, all construction activities within 100 feet o f the find shall be halted until the City of Richmond is
notified, and a qualified archaeologist can assess
the significance of the find and prepare an
avoidance, evaluation, or mitigation plan to prevent
any significant adverse effects on the resource(s).

The project sponsor shall fund and implement the
mitigation in accordance with Section 15064.5(c)–(f)
of the CEQA guidelines and Public Resources Code

Section 21083.

Impact 9–4: Construction of the proposed project could Project Sponsor/ City of Richmond If human remains are Prior to potentially disturb buried human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

Project
Construction
Planning &
Building Services
encountered during construction,
City staff shall receive written
commencement
of project

Su perintendent verification from the o perations/
Mitigation Measure 9–4: In the event that any human Archaeological Monito r that Once remains are encountered during site disturbance, all
ground–disturbing work in the vi cinity of the remains shall cease immediately until the coroner of Contra Costa
Archaeological
Monitor
proper notification, treatment,
documentation, and return of

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
HONDA PORT OF ENTRY PROJECT 30
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring Activity
Timing!
Frequency of
Monitoring
Date & Monitor’s Initials!
Status!Comments
Count y has been contacted , per Section 7050.5 of the remains occurred.

California Health and Safety Code. If the corone r
determines that the human remains are of Native
American origin, the Native American Heritage

City staff shall receive written
verification from the

Commission must be contacted within 24 hours, and the
project sponsor shall comply with State laws relating to the disposition of Native American burials, regulated by the Archaeological Monitor that
monitoring was successfully
completed.

Native American Herita ge Commission (Pub. Res. Code
Sec. 5097). If any human remains are discovered o r
recognized in any location other than a dedicated
cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or
disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably
suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until:

• the coroner of the County has been informed and
has determined that no investigation of the cause o f
death is required; and
• if the remains are of Native American origin,
~ the descendants of the deceased Native

Americans have made a recommendation to
the landowner or the person responsible for
the excavation work, for means of treating o r
disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the
human remains and any associated grave
goods as provided in Public Resources Code

Section 5097.98, or
~ the Native American Heritage Commission
was unable to identify a descendant or the
descendant failed to make a recommendation
within 24 hours after being notified by the

Commission.

Impact 9–5: Vibrations from new train traffic during project Project Sponsor/ City of Richmond Pl anning staff shall verify receipt Prior to issuance operations could potentially cause a substantial adverse Project Planning & of a report documenting of grading permit/ change in the significance of a historical resource as Construction Buildin g Services com pletion of a preconstruction Once defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Superintendent survey of the current state of structural and cosmetic integrity

Mitigation Measure 9–5: A pre–construction survey of Historical of Buildings 9 and 23, to be the two historic structures nearest proposed project Resource performed b y a structural operations—Buildin g 23, the Cafeteria Building, and Monitor/Pro ject engineer in coordination with an Building 9, the First Aid Building—shall be undertaken
prior to issuance of a grading permit to determine their current state of structural and cosmetic integrity. This information shall be used as a baseline reference for
future maintenance needs stemming from the construction and operations of the proposed rail road yard and rail road tracks. In the event that cosmetic or structural damages Engineer historical resource monitor.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
HONDA PORT OF ENTRY PROJECT 31
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring Activity
Timing!
Frequency of
Monitoring
Date & Monitor’s Initials!
Status!Comments
resulting from the implementation of the project occurs, the project applicant shall be responsible for performing any necessary repairs or maintenance.

Impact 9–6: Implementation of the proposed project (Addressed under (Addr essed under (Addressed under Mitigation (Addressed under would potentially cause a substantial adverse impact on Mitigation Mitigation Measure 9 –5.) Mitigation public access to the Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Measure 9 –5.) Measure 9–5.) Measure 9 –5.) Front National Historical Park.

Mitigation Measure 9–6: Same as Mitigation Measure
for 9–5 above.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Impact 10–1: Although the site is relatively flat and the Project Sponsor/ City of Richmond Prior to issuance of a grading Verification of project area is substantiall y covered with pavement, there Construction Public Works permit, Public Works staff shall SWPPP: Prior to is still potential for unco ntrolled construction activities to Contracto r Department verify preparation of the SWPPP issuance of result in accelerated soil erosion, which could de grade and confirm its ade quacy. grading permit/ water quality in San Francisco Bay. During site grading and earthwork, Public Works staff
Once
Mitigation Measure 10–1: A Notice of Intent (NOI),
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and
shall conduct monthly (or more
frequent) site inspections to
Monitoring of
Construction:

Stormwater Control Plan (SCP) shall be prepared by the verify proper implementation of During applicant and submitted along with grading permit
applications. The SWPPP provides for temporary
measures to control sediment and other pollutants during construction at sites that disturb 1 acre or more and the all required BMPs. construction/
Monthly, or more
frequently

SCP specifies permanent controls that should last for the life of the project. The requ isite plans shall be prepared in accordance with the standards provided in the Association of Bay Area Government’s Manual of Erosion and

Sedimentation Control Measures (ABAG, 1995).

Implementation of the plan will help stabilize graded and stockpile areas and reduce erosion and sedimentation.

The plans will desi gnate Best Mana gement Practices
(BMPs) that shall be adhered to during construction
activities. Erosion minimizing efforts such as hay bales, water bars, covers, sediment fences, sensitive area
access restrictions (for example, flagging), and/or
retention/settlement areas shall be implemented as
necessary before the onset of inclement weather.

Mulching, seeding, or other suitable stabilization measures shall be used to protect exposed areas during construction activities. The plans shall incorporate requirements of the

Contra Costa County Clean Water Program and the Port
of Richmond Stormwater Management Plan.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
HONDA PORT OF ENTRY PROJECT 32
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring Activity
Timing!
Frequency of
Monitoring
Date & Monitor’s Initials!
Status!Comments
Impact 10–2: In the event of a major earthquake in the
region, seismic ground shak ing could potentially injure persons at the proposed project site due to structural
damage of facility structures. Ground shaking could
potentially expose persons and property to seismic–
related hazards, including localized liquefaction and
seismically–induced settlement.

Mitigation Measure 10–2: All structures (including rail transportation facilities) for the proposed project shall be designed in accordance with the UBC, which requires
structural design that incorporates ground accelerations expected from known active faults. Expected ground
motions determined by a registered geotechnical engineer shall be incorporated into the final structural design as part of the project. The design level geotechnical investigation shall evaluate subsurface conditions with respect to
potential geologic hazards such as liquefaction,
subsidence, settlement, and expansive soils, and shall
provide recommendations to mitigate these hazards as
necessary. All geotechnical design recommendations
shall be incorporated into the final project design and construction.

Project Sponsor/
Geotechnical
Engineer
Geotechnical
Engineer
City of Richmond
Planning &
Building Services
The City Engineer shall obtain
written verification from the
project sponsor’s registered
engineering geologist o
r
geotechnical engineer that all
grading and earthwork has been
performed in accordance with
the specifications stipulated in
the final geotechnical
investigation, or as modified in
accordance with thei r
recommendations. An inspecto r
from the City of Richmond
Building Department shall
monitor site grading in
accordance with standard City
practice in order to verify site
engineering and preparation in
compliance with the
recommendations contained in
the final geotechnical
investigation.

During
construction/
consistent with
standard City
practice

Damage to these structures could result in o perational o r safety hazards or could com promise underl ying pipelines leading to leaks of potentially hazardous products, which could, in turn, create a si gnificant hazard to the public or the environment. These loads could result in subsurface settlements thatcouldcompromiseunderlyiKinderMorgan es and result in eleaks of pipelinpipeli hazardous oducts,which could, inturn, create petroleum p a significant hazard tothe publicortheenvironment.

Mitigation Measure 10–3: Prior to construction of the
PPMT rail terminal, an engineering evaluation shall be
performed pursuant to City of Richmond permitrequirements. This evaluation shall characterize subsurface conditions alon gthe plannedali gnment
an
shall s pecificall y considerthe static loads
assoc iatedwit
Project Sponsor/
Project Engineer
Geotechnical
Engineer
City of Richmond
Planning&
BuildingServices
gBPandEngineer
Prior to issuance of a grading
permit, Planning staff shall verify
receipt of written evidence of
applicant consultation with
neighboring property owners and
facility operators, which shall be
included in the project file. Prior
to issuing a grading permit, the
City Engineer shall review and
approve the engineering
evaluation of the subsurface
conditions along the planned
track alignment. The City
shall verify that any
measure recommended to
ensure pipeline integrity and
safety is implemented by the
project sponsor. An inspecto r
from the City of Richmond
Building Department shall
monitor construction of the rail
spurs in accordance with
standard City practice in order to
verify construction is completed
Verification of
consultation with
neighboring
property owners:

Prior to issuance
of grading permit/
Once
Verification of
engineering
evaluation: Prior
to issuance of
grading permit/
Once
Verification of
construction
adequacy:

During
construction/
Consistent with
standard City
practice

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
HONDA PORT OF ENTRY PROJECT 33
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring Activity
Timing!
Frequency of
Monitoring
Date & Monitor’s Initials!
Status!Comments
structures and the transient loads associated with project operations. During this engineering planned phaseloading as related to the underground and allpipelineother buried utilities shallbe evaluated and an y measures recommendedto ensure integrity and safety shallpipeline be implemented b y the sponso r toproject priorconstruction of the new lead track and rail yard. This evaluation shall incorporate the results of the design level geotechnical investi gation (see Mitigation Measure 10–2) to characterize subsurface conditions alon g the planned alignment. The en gineering evaluation shall specifically evaluate the static, live, and vibrator y loads associated with Port of Richmond’s and an y potentially affected
adjacentproperty’s above –ground utilities, below –ground utilities, and structures. As a pplicable, a ppropriate surrogate desi gn loads (e.g. “Cooper” locomotive loads ) fortheprojectoperations shall also be identified. As part of this evaluation, the project sponsor shall identif y and locate all utilities and structures potentially affected by the project structures, e quipment, and planned o perations.

The evaluation shall consider and incor porate the most recent a pplicable desi gn guidelines and re gulations for underground pipelines including, but not limited to API standards for pipelineprotection under road and railwa ys, American Railway Engineering Association (AREA) criteria for designing and installing pipe, American Concrete Pi pe Association (ACPA) loading and desi gn guidance for
concrete pipe installed under railways, BNSF Railroad
standards, and BPWCP standards. The evaluation shall
also conside r a pplicable federal, State, and local
regulations that relate to pipeline inte grity and public safety. Prio r to initiatin g the evaluation, potentially affected property owners (e.g. BPWCP) shall be consulted to confirm that all utilities have been correctl y identified, that appropriate design criteria and loadin g conditions fo r affected facilities will be incor porated into the engineering anal yses, and that the results of the geotechnical and engineerin g evaluations will effectivel y mitigate possible impacts to the facilities owned or operated by others.
in compliance with the
recommendations contained in
the engineering evaluation.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
HONDA PORT OF ENTRY PROJECT 34
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibilit
Monitoring Activity
Timing!
Frequency of
Monitoring
Date & Monitor’s Initials!
Status!Comments

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

Impact 11–1: Site preparation and construction could
contribute to accelerated soil erosion, downstream
sedimentation, and reduced surface water quality.

Implementation of the plan will help stabilize graded and stockpile areas and reduce erosion and sedimentation.

The plans will designate Best Management Practices
(BMPs) that shall be adhered to during construction
activities. Erosion minimizing efforts such as hay bales, water bars, covers, sediment fences, se nsitive area
access restrictions (for example, flagging), and/or
retention/settlement areas shall be implemented as
necessary before the onset of inclement weather.

Mulching, seeding, or other suitable stabilization measures shall be used to protect exposed areas during construction activities. The plans shall incorporate requirements of the Contra Costa County Clean Water Program and the Port
of Richmond Stormwater Management Plan. The project
applicant shall offer to consult with nei ghboring property owners and facilit y operators durin g preparation of the SWPPP and SCP in order to address an y concerns the y
may have regarding formulation and implementation of the plans. Written evidence of consultation, or reasonable
efforts to consult, shall be provided to the Cit y before a grading permit is issued.

Project Sponsor/
Grading
Contractor
City of Richmond
Planning &
Building Services
City of Richmond
Public Works
Department
Prior to issuance of a grading
permit, Planning staff shall verify
receipt of written evidence of
applicant consultation with
neighboring property owners and
facility operators, which shall be
included in the project file. Prior
to issuance of a grading permit,
Public Works staff shall verify
preparation of the SWPPP and
confirm its adequacy. During
site grading and earthwork, the
Building and/or Public Works
staff shall conduct monthly (or
more frequent) site inspections
to verify proper implementation
of all required BMPs.

Verification of
consultation with
neighboring
property owners:

Prior to issuance
of grading permit/
Once
Verification of
completion of
SWPPP: Prior to
issuance of
grading permit/
Once
Monitoring of
Construction:

During
construction/
Monthly, or more
frequently

Impact 11–2: Site preparation, construction, and
operations could create or contribute runoff water that could exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff.

Mitigation Measure 11–2: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall prepare a Stormwater Project Sponsor/
Grading
Contractor
City of Richmond
Public Works
Department
Prior to issuance of a grading
permit, Planning staff shall verify
receipt of written evidence of
applicant consultation with
neighboring property owners and
facility operators, which shall be
included in the project file. Prior
Verification of
consultation with
neighboring
property owners:

Prior to issuance
of grading permit/
Once

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
HONDA PORT OF ENTRY PROJECT 35
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring Activity
Timing!
Frequency of
Monitoring
Date & Monitor’s Initials!
Status!Comments
Control Plan (SCP) and submit it to the Richmond
Planning Department for review and approval. The SCP
shall confirm that the existing stormwater drainage system has sufficient ca pacity, shall ensure that all stormwater runoff is directed to Port of Richmond draina gefacilities and does not adversel y affect adjacent properties owned or o perated b y others, and shall be prepared in
accordance with the Contra Costa Clean Water Program
(CCCWP) and the requirements set forth in the CCCWP’s
Stormwater C.3 Guidebook (Third Edition, 2006, plus
updates and errata). The SCP shall provide for natural
onsite treatment of 80 percent of the average annual
stormwater runoff from the new and replacement
impervious surfaces (i.e., pavements) created by the
proposed project, and shall identify flow controls to ensure that the rate and duration of stormwater runoff does not exceed the calculated pre–project rates and durations.

Implementation of Integrated Management Practices
(IMPs), such as grassy swales, bioretention areas, and
planter boxes, is recommended by the CCCWP as the
most cost–effective way to comply with the Stormwater
C.3 requirements. The SCP shall be prepared by a
qualified civil engineer, architect, or landscape architect.

The applicant shall demonstrate to the Richmond Planning Department via drawings and engineering calculations that the proposed project includes site design features
sufficient to capture and treat on site all stormwater runof f from the project site, in compliance with Provision C.3 of the CCCWP. Landscape features shall be used in lieu of
structural features to the degree feasible. The design
approach must ensure that the proposed treatment
features would not decrease stability of the slopes on the site or create significant erosion. As part of compliance with the CCCWP Stormwater C.3 requirements, the
property owner (Port of Richmond) shall execute and
implement a maintenance agreement with the City o f
Richmond to provide for the maintenance of all onsite
stormwater treatment features and devices in perpetuity, including specification of how the maintenance will be
financed. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the property owner or applicant shall provide proof of
recording this agreement from the County Assessor’s
Office. The property owner or applicant shall submit to the City of Richmond Planning Department annual certificates of compliance with the operations and maintenance
requirements stipulated in the maintenance agreement.

Theprojectapplicant shall offer to consult with
neighboring property owners and facility operators during to issuance of a grading permit,
Public Works staff shall verify
preparation of the SCP and
confirm its adequacy. Prior to
commencement of project
operations, Building and/or
Public Works staff shall verify
successful construction of all
IMPs identified in the SCP.

Planning staff shall verify
execution of maintenance
agreement. Planning staff shall
verify annual receipt of
certificates of compliance.

Verification of
preparation of
SCP: Prior to
issuance of
grading permit/
Once
Verification of
successful
construction of
IMPs: Prior to
commencement
of project
operations/
Once
Verification of
receipt of
certificates of
compliance/
Throughout life of
project
operations/
Annually

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
HONDA PORT OF ENTRY PROJECT 36

Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring Activity
Timing!
Frequency of
Monitoring
Date & Monitor’s Initials!
Status!Comments
preparation of the SCP in order to address any concerns they may have regarding formulation and im plementation of the plan. W ritten evidence of consultation, o r
reasonable efforts to consult, shall be provided to the City before a grading permit is issued.

Impact 11–3: Implementation of the project could expose people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or m u d flow.

Mitigation Measure 11–3: None required.
n/a n/a n/a n/a
Impact 11–4: The proposed project would increase ship
traffic at the project site, which could potentially increase the introduction of pollutants into Bay waters due to
accidental spills during routine maintenance.

Mitigation Measure 11–4: None required.
n/a n/a n/a n/a Impact 11–5: The proposed project would increase ship traffic at the project site, which could result in an
accidental release of fuel oil along shipping routes either in San Francisco Bay or outer coastal waters.

Mitigation Measure 11–5: None required.
n/a n/a n/a n/a
Impact 11–6: The proposed project would increase ship
traffic at the project site, which increase the introduction o f toxic marine anti–fouling paint into San Francisco Bay.

Mitigation Measure 11–6: None required.
n/a n/a n/a n/a
Impact 11–7: The proposed project would increase ship
traffic at the project site, which result in a local increase in turbidity from vessel maneuvers in Harbor Channel and at t h e P P M T b e r t h s .

Mitigation Measure 11–7: None required.
n/a n/a n/a n/a
Impact 11–8: The increased ship traffic that would occur as a result of project impl ementation could potentially increase the cumulative impact of contaminants on San
Francisco Bay water quality.

Mitigation Measure 11–8: None required.
n/a n/a n/a n/a

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
HONDA PORT OF ENTRY PROJECT 37
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring Activity
Timing!
Frequency of
Monitoring
Date & Monitor’s Initials!
Status!Comments

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Impact 12–1: Development of the proposed project could
potentially expose constructi on workers and future site workers to hazardous concentrations of contaminants from soils and groundwater at the site.

Based on sampling results, a site–specific Soil
Management Plan (SMP) and Health and Safety Plan
(HASP) shall be prepared prior to conducting all invasive activities, such as excavation, dewatering, grading, and utility installation. The HASP shall be prepared in
accordance with 8 CCR 5192 and shall include a provision requiring notification of potentially affected nei ghboring businesses or residences in the event of a hazardous
substances release. At a minimum, the HASP shall
include health and safety provisions for monitoring
exposure to construction workers and the general public; provide procedures to be undertaken in the event that
previously unreported contam ination or subsurface
hazards are discovered; incorporate construction safety measures for excavation activities; establish procedures for the safe storage and use of hazardous materials at the project site, if necessary; provide emergency response
procedures; and designate personnel responsible for
implementation of the HASP.

Project Sponsor City of Richmond
Fire Department
City of Richmond
Planning &
Building Services
Prior to issuance of a grading
permit, Planning staff shall verify
receipt of written evidence of
applicant consultation with
neighboring property owners and
facility operators, which shall be
included in the project file.

Planning staff shall receive
written verification from Fire
Department staff that an
adequate HASP was completed
and Planning staff shall verify
completion of SMP. Planning
staff shall verify that Planning
and Public Works departments
receive copy of soil and
groundwater sampling report.

Verification of
consultation with
neighboring
property owners:

Prior to issuance
of grading permit!
Once
Verification of
completion of
HASP and SMP:

Prior to issuance
of grading permit!
Once
Verification of
receipt of soil and
groundwater
sampling report:

Prior to issuance
of grading permit!
Once

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
HONDA PORT OF ENTRY PROJECT 38
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring Activity
Timing!
Frequency of
Monitoring
Date & Monitor’s Initials!
Status!Comments
Impact 12–2: Improper use or transport of hazardous Project S ponsor City of Richmond Planning staff shall ensure that Prior to issuance materials during construction activities during development Fire Department the HASP and SMP, verified of grading permit/ could result in releases adversely affecting construction workers and the general public.

City of Richmond
under Mitigation Measure12–1,
contain the provisions required in
Once
Planning &M i t i gation Measure12–2.

Mitigation Measure 12–2: The HASP and SMP required
by Mitigation Measure 12–1 and the Storm Water Pollution Building Services
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) required by Mitigation Measure
11–1 for project construction shall include provisions to minimize potential construction–related contamination,
particularly from wind–borne dust and stormwater runoff, and shall include emergency procedures for accidental
hazardous material releases. Use, storage, disposal, and transport of hazardous materials during construction
activities shall be performed in accordance with existing local, State, and federal hazardous materials regulations.

Impact 12–3: Construction–related activities adjacent to Project Sponsor/ City of Richmond Planning staff shall review Prior to issuance utilities and buried high –pressure petroleum pipelines Construction Fire Department grading permit application to of grading permit could r esult in h azardous w orking conditions and Contractor ensure that m apping of and prior to the hazardous substance releases. City of Richmond underground utilities and high– initiation of Planning & pressure pipelines is submitted. construction Mitigation Measure 12–3: The project applicant shall Building Services In consultation with Public Works activities/ submit accurate mapping of all known existing
underground utilities and high–pressure pipelines with its application for a grading permit. Permit conditions for the grading permit to be issued by the City of Richmond Prior to construction shall require that standard procedures for safeguarding utilities be implemented. These procedures shall include, at a minimum: (1) marking all excavation areas with white paint; and (2) notifying Underground
Services Alert (USA), which, in turn, will notify area
municipal and private utility companies. In addition, any potentially affected petroleum product pipelines shall be located visually by potholing. This potholing shall be
performed by hand excavation and shall only be
conducted with the appropriate pipeline representative
present. In addition, prior to the initiation of construction activities, pipeline and utility operators shall be provided an opportunity to review final construction plans and
drawings and identify any addi tional necessary provisions that may be appropriate for the protection of affected
pipelines and utilities, and these provisions shall be
implemented by the project sponsor and/or the
construction contractor(s).
staff, Planning staff shall issue
permit conditions with grading
permit as described in Mitigation
Measure 12–3. Prior to issuance
of the grading permit, Planning
staff shall receipt from the project
sponsor written confirmation
from all affected pipeline and
utility operators that they have
been provided an opportunity to
review final construction plans
and drawings and have identified
any additional provisions that
shall be implemented by the
construction contractor.

Once

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
HONDA PORT OF ENTRY PROJECT 39
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring Activity
Timing!
Frequency of
Monitoring
Date & Monitor’s Initials!
Status!Comments
Impact 12–4: Development of the proposed project could Project Sponsor City of Richmond City staff shall ensure that the Prior to issuance result in handlin g of hazardous materials, substances, o r Fire Department HASP and SMP contain the of grading permit/ wastes within one–quarter mile of an existing school. provisions re quired in Miti gation Once City of Richmond Measure 12 –2.

Mitigation Measure 12–4: Same as Mitigation Measure Planning & HM–2. Building Services
Impact 12–5: Operation of the Honda Port of Entry could result in accidental spills or releases of hazardous
materials to the environment, which could, in turn, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
n/a n/a n/a n/a
Mitigation Measure 12–5: None required.

Impact 12–6: Operation of the proposed Honda Port of n/a n/a n/a n/a Entry project would result in increased activity and vehicle movement, which could, in turn, result in increased
accidents and safety hazards for MTC and AWC workers.

Mitigation Measure 12–6: None required.

Impact 12–7: Operation of the proposed PPMT rail
terminal, which would involve multi ple closely–spaced rail Project Sponsor/
Project Engineer
Geotechnical
Engineer
Prior to issuing a grading permit,
the Cit
y Engineer shall review
Verification of
Evaluation: Prio r

spurs and could result in significant weight loading due to and approve the engineering to issuance of multiple lines of railcars, could compromise underlying BP City of Richmond evaluation of the subsurface grading permit/ and Kinder Morgan pipelines and result in pipeline leaks of Planning & conditions alon g the planned Once hazardous petroleum products, which could, in turn, create Building Services track ali gnment. The Cit y a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

Mitigation Measure 12 –7: Prior to construction of the
Engineer shall verify that any
measure recommended to
ensure pipeline integrity and
Verification of
construction
adequacy:

PPMT rail terminal, an engineering evaluation shall be
performed, with the results to be confirmed and approved by the City of Richmond Engineering Division. During this engineering phase, weight loading as related to the
underground pipeline and all other buried utilities shall be evaluated and any measures recommended to ensure
pipeline integrity and safety shall be implemented by the project sponsor prior to constr uction of the new lead track a n draily ard. safety is implemented by the
project sponsor. An inspector
from the City of Richmond
Building Department shall
monitor construction of the rail
spurs in accordance with
standard City practice in order to
verify construction is completed
in compliance with the
recommendations contained in
the engineering evaluation.

During
construction/
Consistent with
standard City
practice

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
HONDA PORT OF ENTRY PROJECT 40
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring Activity
Timing!
Frequency of
Monitoring
Date & Monitor’s Initials!
Status!Comments
Impact 12–8: The presence of State–listed hazardous
materials sites on and adjacent to the PPMT could result in the exposure of construction workers, facility workers, and workers at adjacent industrial sites to hazardous
materials, creating a safety hazard to such workers.

Mitigation Measure 12–8: None required.
n/a n/a n/a n/a

VISUAL QUALITY
Impact 13–1: Construction of rail lines, installation of high–mast lighting, and repair of berth 6C would introduce heavy construction equipment into public and private
views.

Mitigation Measure 13–1: None required.
n/a n/a n/a n/a
Impact 13–2: Implementation of the project would
increase the amount of auto –carrying ships that would
dock at the project site, sometimes resulting in two ships docking simultaneously, which would create a visual
interruption along the southern Harbor Channel waterfront.

Mitigation Measure 13–2: None required.
n/a n/a n/a n/a
Impact 13–3: The proposed extension of multiple rail
lines into the PPMT and additional rail lines at the BNSF Yard would be visible from surrounding public and private a r e a s .

Mitigation Measure 13–3: None required.
n/a n/a n/a n/a
Impact 13–4: The proposed addition of 15 100–foot–high
light towers would increase light glare in the surrounding a r e a s .

Mitigation Measure 13–4: None required.
n/a n/a n/a n/a
Impact 13–5: The proposed addition of 15 100–foot–high
light towers could contribute to sky glow in the region.

Mitigation Measure 13–5: None required.
n/a n/a n/a n/a

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
HONDA PORT OF ENTRY PROJECT 41
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring Activity
Timing!
Frequency of
Monitoring
Date & Monitor’s Initials!
Status!Comments
Impact 13–6: The proposed addition of 15 100–foot–high
light towers would contribute to local glow, which would provide a distraction to nighttime views from public and private areas in the Seacliff and Brickyard Cove n eigh b o r h o o d s .

Mitigation Measure 13–6: None required.
n/a n/a n/a n/a

UTILITIES
Impact 14–1: The project could generate additional
wastewater during construction, adding to the volume
conveyed to the City’s wastewater treatment plant by the existing sewer main in Canal Boulevard and increasing
treatment demand at the City’s wastewater treatment pla n t.

Mitigation Measure 14–1: None required.
n/a n/a n/a n/a
Impact 14–2: Operation of the proposed project would
generate additional wastewater, adding to the volume
conveyed to the City’s wastewater treatment plant by the existing sewer main in Canal Boulevard.

Mitigation Measure 14–2: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project sponsor shall prepare an engineering study evaluating and documenting that there is sufficient capacity in the local network of sewer lines to
accommodate the increased effluent flow from the project and that they are in good condition. The engineering
study shall be submitted to the City of Richmond
Engineering Division for review and approval. If
inadequacies in the onsite collection system are identified, the project applicant shall be responsible for any
necessary repairs or upgrades prior to the commencement of proposed project operations.

Project Sponsor/
Project Engineer
City of Richmond
Public Works
Department
City of Richmond
Planning &
Building Services
Planning staff shall verify
Engineering Division approval of
engineering study and shall
ensure that project applicant
make any necessary upgrades
or repairs, in consultation with
the Engineering Division.

Verification of
engineering
study: Prior to
issuance of
building permit/
Once
Verification of any
necessary repairs
or upgrades:

Prior to
commencement
of proposed
project
operations/
Once

Impact 14–3: Operation of the proposed project would
generate additional wastewater, adding to the volume
requiring treatment at the City’s wastewater treatment
plan t .

Mitigation Measure 14–3: None required.
n/a n/a n/a n/a

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
HONDA PORT OF ENTRY PROJECT 42
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring Activity
Timing!
Frequency of
Monitoring
Date & Monitor’s Initials!
Status!Comments
Impact 14–4: During construction, the proposed project
would result in an increased demand for water for drinking, restroom and/or construction purposes.

Mitigation Measure 14–4: None required.
n/a n/a n/a n/a
Impact 14–5: During operation, the proposed project
would result in an increased demand for water for
employee drinking water and restroom use, and landscape irrigat io n .

Mitigation Measure 14–5:
a) Prior to construction, the applicant shall consult with the Water Conservation Division of the East Bay
Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), to determine
appropriate water conservation devices and
procedures for the proj ect. The applicant shall
implement all feasible water conservation measures
c alled f o r b y E B M U D .
b) All project landscaping shall consist of drought–
tolerant plants.
c) Irrigation for all project landscaping shall
incorporate water–effici ent landscaping measures,
in accordance with City and EBMUD guidelines,
such as onsite capture and reuse of rainwater and/
or irrigation systems that monitor and respond to
soil moisture, operate during hours
when
evaporation is low, and employ drip and mist
irrigation.
d) Water–conserving plumbing fixtures shall be
installed in restroom facilities serving the proposed p r ojec t .

Project Sponsor City of Richmond
Planning &
Building Services
Planning and Building Services
staff shall receive written
verification of the project
sponsor’s consultation with
EBMUD and shall review and
approve landscaping plans and
building plans to ensure
compliance with Mitigation
Measure 14–5. Building
Department staff shall verify
installation of water–
conservation features according
to the approved plans,consistent
with standard City building
inspection practice.

Verification of
plans: Prior to
issuance of
building permits/
Once
Verification of
successful
implementation of
plans: Prior to
commencement
of project
operations/
Once

Impact 14–6: The project would increase the area of
impervious surfaces at the site, with a corresponding
increase in stormwater runoff.

Planning staff shall verify
execution of maintenance
agreement. Planning staff shall
Verification of
preparation of
SCP: Prior to
issuance of
grading permit/
Once
Verification of
successful
construction of
IMPs: Prior to
commencement

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
HONDA PORT OF ENTRY PROJECT 43
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibilit
Monitoring Activity
Timing!
Frequency of
Monitoring
Date & Monitor’s Initials!
Status!Comments
Richmond T erminal, using a dye test or other
appropriate means. The results of the investi gation
should be submitted to the Cit y of Richmond
Engineering Division for review and approval. If the
investigation determines that the storm drain
system located in Canal Boulevard and the storm
drain system located in the adjacent BP West Coast
Products LLC Richmond Terminal are connected,
the project s ponsor shall desi gn a method of
separating or sealing the connection(s) and provide
BPWCP an o pportunity to review and comment on
the design. The project sponsor shall incorporate
the comments of BP West Coast Products LLC as
appropriate, and submit the desi gn to the Cit y of
Richmond Engineering Division for review. Afte r
approval of the desi gn b y Cit y of Richmond
Engineering Division, the connection (s) shall be
separated o r sealed in accordance with the
approved design.

verify annual receipt of
certificates of compliance.

Engineering staff shall verify
receipt of approved dye test or
other approved cross–
connection test of storm drain
lines. If lines are crossed,
Engineering staff shall verify that
connections are sealed or
separated to the satisfaction o f
the Engineering Division and BP
W e s t C o a s t P r o d u c t s L L C .
of project
operations/
Once
Verification of
receipt of
certificates of
compliance/
Throughout life of
project
operations/
Annually
Verification of
storm drain
cross–connection
test: Prior to
issuance of
grading permit
Once
Verification of
storm drain
modifications and
repairs, if
required: Prior to
commencement
of project
operations:

Once

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
HONDA PORT OF ENTRY PROJECT 44
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibilit
Monitoring Activity
Timing!
Frequency of
Monitoring
Date & Monitor’s Initials!
Status!Comments
Impact 14–7: Construction debris generated by the
proposed project could result in a substantial amount o f recyclable materials being unnecessarily disposed of at the landfill serving the site, incrementally reducing the remaining life of the landfill. When combined with the
Project Sponsor/
Construction
Contractor
City of Richmond
Planning &
Building Services
Planning and Building Services
staff shall review and approve
the recycling plan to ensure
compliance with Mitigation
Measure 14–7. Planning and/or
Verification of
approved
recycling plan:

Prior to initiation
of project

construction debris generated by other future development Building Department staff shall construction/ projects in the City and County, this would be a significant project–specific and cumulative impact.

Mitigation Measure 14–7:
a) The project sponsor shall divert at least 50 percent conduct weekly site inspections
during construction to verify
compliance with the approved
recycling plan or shall receive
written manifests, to be provided
by the project sponsor,
Once
Verification of
compliance with
approved
recycling plan:

by weight of all demolition and construction waste
other than asphalt waste fr om landfill disposal, and
shall provide a summary report of the diversion to
the City. Prior to the initiation of projec t
construction, the project sponsor shall prepare a
recycling plan to cover all phases of projec t
construction, including demolition. The
recyclingplan shall identify a strategy for handling all waste
materials that will be generated during
construction in order to achieve diversion of at
least 50 percent by weight of all demolition and
construction waste
other than asphalt waste from landfill disposal.
b) The project
sponsor shall divert 100 percent of
asphalt waste from landfill disposal
documenting the disposition of
all construction and demolition
waste. Planning staff shall verify
performance of the inspections
or receipt of waste manifests and
the summary report.

Throughout
construction
Weekly (by
inspection) or
monthly (by
manifest
documentation)

Impact 14–8: Operation of the project could result in a Project Sponsor City of Richmond Pl anning staff shall review and Verification of substantial amount of recyclable materials being Planning & approve the recycling plan to approved unnecessaril y disposed of at the landfill servin g the site, Building Services ensure com pliance with rec ycling plan:
incrementally reducing the remaining life of the landfill. Mitigation Measure 14 –8. Prior to initiation When combined with the operational waste generated by Planning staff verif y receipt of of project other future development projects in the City and County, this would be a significant project–specific and cumulative imp ac t.

Mitigation Measure 14–8: The project sponsor shall
divert at least 50 percent by weight of all operational waste from landfill disposal, and shall provide a summary report annual summary reports on
waste diversion in compliance
with the approved recycling plan,
to be submitted by the project s p o n s o r .
construction/
Once
Verification of
compliance with
approved
recycling plan:

of the diversion to the City. Prior to the initiation of project operation, the project sponsor shall prepare a recycling plan, which shall identify a strategy for handling all waste materials that will be generated during operation in order to achieve diversion of at leas t 50 percent by weight of all operational waste from landfill disposal.

Throughout life of
project
operations/
Annually

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
HONDA PORT OF ENTRY PROJECT 45
(This page intentionally left blank.)

From: martha bielawski
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Terminal One Disposition pursuant to Amended Land Disposition Agreement.

Date: Sunday, February 5, 2023 11:19:55 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

To Whom It May Concern,
I strongly object to any large housing project in the Ferry Point/Brickyard Cove area, as I did when this proposal first came up years ago. This is a spectacular piece of land and I understand the city’s desire to develop it in some way — but housing is the wrong way. This is a very vulnerable area with limited access. We saw just this winter that when a small landslide caused the evacuation of only 7-8 families at Seacliff, the process was impacted by flooding on Dornan Drive. The families had to leave via Canal Blvd. What if there were a larger event — earthquake, fire, flooding? There are already hundreds of families living in the Brickyard Cove, Seacliff, and now Waterline communities, and it is doubtful that evacuation would be safe as things are. Adding more housing units in this area is asking for disaster.

Martha Bielawski
Sent from my iPad
From: mary Land
To: City Clerk Dept User
Cc: Eduardo Martinez; Soheila Bana; Claudia Jimenez; Cesar Zepeda; Doria Robinson; Melvin Willis; Gayle McLaughlin
Subject: Public Comments - Open Forum: Terminal One Disposition pursuant to Amended Land Disposition Agreement Date: Monday, February 6, 2023 2:51:15 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This is to express my concerns, as a homeowner and resident, regarding the Terminal One project.

The developer has not met community needs and has ignored issues that are important to current residents.

The secrecy of the developer’s proforma, and the current design, are at odds with the community’s request for environmental safety, appropriate density, parking issues, and quality of life for future and existing residents.

I am requesting the City Council either reject the
current project or require modifications including imposing a two-story limit and changes to provisions for the Bay Trail to comport with existing HOA obligations.

The structural, and parking issues, if not properly addressed will live on as problems, long after the developer has taken its money and gone.

Let’s please be thoughtful and cautious
about this permanent development, so it doesn’t become a greater problem for the neighborhood and community.

Thank you,
Mary Land
1316 Mallard Drive
Richmond, CA 94801
[email protected]
From: C Michael Lederer
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: public comments agenda item # P.1 Terminal One Disposition pursuant to Amended Land Disposition Agreement Date: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 1:22:10 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Dear Mayor Martinez and Council Members,
I recommend that you REJECT the project as presently proposed. Residents of Brickyard cove are eager for responsible development of the Terminal One site. This proposal is irresponsible in many ways that you will hear from others tonight. More important, it will not serve the City of Richmond well, financially, architecturally, socially, or environmentally. WE CAN DO BETTER.

Whether or not the Council choses to accept the project, I urge you to to ACCEPT DEDICATION OF THE PRIVATE PORTION OF BRICKYARD COVE ROAD FORTHWITH. If you accept the project, I urge you to modify the ALDA to do this no later than September 2023.

Sincerely,
Mike Lederer
Resident of Brickyard Cove since 2007
Member of the Brickyard Cove Alliance for Responsible Development

From: Sue Hodges
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Terminal One Disposition pursuant to Amended Land Disposition Agreement Date: Monday, February 6, 2023 3:02:49 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

To:

City of Richmond
From:

Sue Spahr Hodges
500 Seacliff Place Seacliff Place
Point Richmond, CA 94801
(805) 705-8089
Re:

Terminal One Disposition pursuant to Amended Land Disposition Agreement To Whom it May Concern:

The purpose of this letter is to express my concerns regarding the terms of Attachment C-2 to the amended Land Disposition Agreement (“ALDA”) for Terminal One Project. I object to the assumption that the public is satisfied with the ALDA and Attachment C-2. We are not. This attachment does not address several issues that are important to us, some of which are adequate parking and massing of units along the perimeter, especially that of the Richmond Yacht Club. We would encourage you to bring back aspects of the original project that benefits the community, with or without the park.

Additionally, the developer’s pro forma (only recently made available to the public) analysis is clearly based on older data and appears to exclusively serve the interests of the developer. The prices arrived at in the analysis are, in my opinion, vastly underestimated.

Additionally, we want the City to take over the road and to limit the contribution of the HOAs to $250,000 for rebuilding the road.

And lastly, it has been brought to our attention by Bruce Beyaert of TRAC that certain provisions in C-2 related to the Bay Trail are inconsistent with the obligations of the existing HOAs with regard to its maintenance, and because of the generality of language, would be inconsistent with the obligations that should be assumed by the new HOA for the Terminal One project upon its creation. With this in mind, the language of I.E.5 should be modified to read:

Parkway Maintenance. Subject to the approval by the following entities, the presently existing HOAs (BYCHOA 1 & 2, Brickyard Landing, Seacliff, and Waterline) and Boardwalk Marina, shall be responsible for maintenance of irrigation and landscaping in parkway areas adjacent to their property and the street, but not the park or any Terminal One Bay Trail section along all sides of Terminal One property including the north section on BCR west of Yacht Club to Dornan Drive.

For the same reasons, the language of II.G.2 should be modified as follows:

Thank you for the opportunity to submit my concerns.

Respectfully,
Sue Spahr Hodges
From: Yasaman Nazmi
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Agenda Item Z2 Latitude Residential Project
Date: Monday, February 6, 2023 5:02:53 AM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

I would like to know to whom the city has sold terminal one. Is it a non profit affordable housing developer? Which one? And what is the proposed development? Yas Yasaman Lee
415.596.7776 (cell)
From: Cordell Hindler
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comments Q.1 Budget Session
Date: Thursday, February 2, 2023 5:21:45 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Hello Mayor Martinez, Council Members and Staff,
I Really Appreciate the Hard Work That These Departments Put Into to Make our city Better Sincerely
Cordell

Richmond City CouncilFebruary 7, 2023

Richmond City Council
February 7, 2023