Agenda — Richmond City Council, March 5, 2024 (part 4 of 6)

Attachment 5 - Fiscal Year 2023-24 Mid-Year Proposed Position Listing Department Revised
FY22-23
Adopted
FY23-24
Revised
FY23-24
Mid-Year
Adj't
Mid-Year
FY23-24 Notes
POLICE
SWORN
Asst Police Chief 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Police Captain 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Police Chief 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Police Lieutenant 8.0 8.0 9.0 9.0
Police Officer 107.0 107.0 109.0 109.0
Police Officer Trainee 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0
Police Sergeant 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0
Sub-total Sworn 145.0 145.0 146.0 0.0 146.0

NON-SWORN
Administrative Assistant 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Assistant Police Property Technician 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Administrative Services Coordinator 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
CCTV Wireless & Systems Specialist 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Civilian Admin Manager 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Community Services Officer 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Communications Dispatcher I/II/III 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0
Communications Manager 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Communications Shift Supervisor 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Crime Analysis Technician 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Crime Analyst 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Crime Prevention Manager 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Crime Prevention Specialist 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Crime Scene Technician 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Jailer 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Network and Systems Specialist I/II 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Office Assistant 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Parking Enforcement Representative 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0
Police Admin Manager 1.0 1.0 1.0
Police Property Technician 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Police Records & Property Mgr. 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Police Records Specialist 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0
Project Manager I/II 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Community Engagement Mgr 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Public Safety Technology Supervisor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Senior Accountant 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Senior Admin Analyst 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Systems Administrator 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Sub-total Non-Sworn 68.0 67.0 68.0 0.0 68.0
Total Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) 213.0 212.0 214.0 0.0 214.0

PUBLIC WORKS -
Administrative Assistant 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0
Associate Admin Analyst 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 (1) Transportation (Term Grant Funded) Associate Civil Engineer 1.0 1.0
Building Trades Worker I/II/Senior 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Capital Projects Manager 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Carpenter 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Combo Equipment Mechanic 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Streets Supervisor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Construction Inspector I/II 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Custodial Maintenance Supervisor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Deputy Public Works Director 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Development Project Manager I/II 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
Electrical Supervisor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Electrician I/II 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Equipment Mechanic III/Senior 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Equipment Operator 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Equipment Parts Specialist 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Equipment Services Superintendent 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Equipment Supervisor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Executive Assistant I/II 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0
Gardener 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0
Groundskeeper 13.0 13.0 14.0 14.0
Junior/Assistant Engineer 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 Additional Position Requested (Traffic & Transportation) Maintenance Leadworker 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Maintenance Worker I/II 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0
Office Aide 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
Office Assistant 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Painter 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Parks & Landscaping Superintendent 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Parks Construction & Maintenance Worker 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Parks Supervisor 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Project Manager I/II 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Director of Public Works 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
PW Facilities Maint. Superintendent 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
PW Streets Maint. Superintendent 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Public Works Abatement Superintendent 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Senior Civil Engineer 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0
Senior Electrician 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Stationary Engineer 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Stationary Engineer Supervisor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Tree Leadworker 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Facilities Maintenance Worker I/II 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Total Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) 132.2 131.2 133.2 2.0 135.2

Page 4 of 5450 ends

Attachment 5 - Fiscal Year 2023-24 Mid-Year Proposed Position Listing Department Revised
FY22-23
Adopted
FY23-24
Revised
FY23-24
Mid-Year
Adj't
Mid-Year
FY23-24 Notes
PUBLIC WORKS (Water Resource Recovery) -
Administrative Assistant 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Admin Services Coordinator 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Deputy Director of Public Works - City Engineer 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Infrastructure Administrator 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Environmental Compliance Inspector 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Environmental Manager 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Executive Assistant I/II 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Project Manager I/II 1.0 1.0 1.0 -1.0 0.0
Water Resources Division Manager 1.0 1.0
Project Coordinator 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Senior Accountant 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Senior Civil Engineer 1.0 1.0 1.0
Senior Environmental Inspector 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Total Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) 12.0 12.0 12.0 0.0 12.0

RENT CONTROL
Administrative Assistant 3.0 3.0 1.0 1.0
Compliance Specialist 2.0 2.0
Deputy Director Rent Program 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Executive Director Rent Program 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Hearing Examiner Rent Program 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
General Counsel Rent Program 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Office Assistant 2.0 2.0
Rent Program Analyst I/II 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Senior Admin Analyst 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Senior Management Analyst 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Staff Attorney Rent Program 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Total Full-Time Equivalents(FTEs) 12.0 12.0 14.0 0.0 14.0

RICHMOND HOUSING AUTHORITY
Administrative Assistant 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Building Maintenance Supervisor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Executive Director Housing Authority 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Resident Housing Manager 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Senior Development Project Manager 1.0 1.0 1.0 -1.0 0.0 Senior Property Manager 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Senior Resident Housing Manager 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) 7.0 6.0 6.0 -1.0 5.0 GRAND TOTAL ALL DEPARTMENTS 732.0 743.0 752.0 17.0 769.0

Page 5 of 5451 ends

EŽ͘ EĂŵĞŽĨ'ƌŽƵƉ DĞĞƚŝŶŐKĐĐƵƌƌĞŶĐĞ ĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚĂů^ƵƉƉŽƌƚ ϭ ϲϭϳŵĞĞƚŝŶŐƐ ŵŽŶƚŚůǇ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
Ϯ ϵϯϵ;ŽŶƚƌĂŽƐƚĂŽƵŶƚǇͿŵĞĞ ƚŝŶŐƐ ŵŽŶƚŚůǇ ŝƚǇDĂŶĂŐĞƌΖƐKĨĨ ŝĐĞ͕ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
ϯ ůĂŵĞĚĂͬŽŶƚƌĂŽƐƚĂWĂƌŬƐĂŶĚZĞĐƌĞĂƚŝŽŶŝƌĞĐƚŽƌĂůůƐ ŵŽŶƚŚůǇ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ϰ ŵĞƌŝĐĂΖƐ:ŽďĞŶƚĞƌŽĨĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂ;:Ϳ ƋƵĂƌƚĞƌůǇ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ϱ ƌƚƐĂŶĚƵůƚƵƌĞŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ ŵŽŶƚŚůǇ ŝƚǇDĂŶĂŐĞƌΖƐKĨĨŝĐĞ͕ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
ϲ ƐƐŽĐŝĂƚŝŽŶŽĨĂǇƌĞĂ'ŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚƐ;'Ϳ
ŝƚǇDĂŶĂŐĞƌΖƐKĨĨŝĐĞ
ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
ϳ ĂǇƌĞĂŝƌYƵĂůŝƚǇDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ;YDͿ ŵŽŶƚŚůǇ͕ĂƐŶĞ ĞĚĞĚ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ
ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
WƵďůŝĐtŽƌŬƐ
ϴ ŝĐǇĐůĞWĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶĚǀŝƐŽƌǇŽŵ ŵŝƚƚĞĞ;WͿ ŵŽŶƚŚůǇ WƵďůŝĐtŽƌŬ Ɛ ϵ Ăůs/WŐƌĂŶƚŵĞĞƚŝŶŐƐ ŵŽŶƚŚůǇ ŽŵŵƵŶƚŝƚǇ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ
ϭϬ ĂƐƚƌŽZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŵĞĞƚŝŶŐƐ ŵŽŶƚŚůǇ
ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
&ŝƌĞ
WŽůŝĐĞ
ϭϭ ŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶŽŶŐŝŶŐ ŵŽŶƚŚůǇ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ
ϭϮ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ
ŵĞƌŐĞŶĐǇZĞƐƉŽŶƐĞdĞĂŵ;
ZdͿ &ŝƌĞ
ϭϯ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇWŽůŝĐĞZĞǀŝĞǁŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ ŵŽŶƚŚůǇ
ŝƚǇDĂŶĂŐĞƌΖƐKĨĨŝĐĞ
ŝƚǇƚƚŽƌŶĞǇΖƐKĨĨŝĐĞ
WŽůŝĐĞ
ϭϰ ŽŶƚƌĂŽƐƚĂůĞĂŶtĂƚĞƌ ďŝͲǁĞĞŬůǇ WƵďůŝĐtŽƌŬƐ
ϭϱ ŽŶƚƌĂŽƐƚĂ,ĞĂůƚŚϯŵĞĞƚŝŶŐƐ ŵŽŶƚŚůǇ
ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ
&ŝƌĞ
WŽůŝĐĞ
ϭϲ ŽŶƚƌĂŽƐƚĂdƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶƵƚ ŚŽƌŝƚǇ;dͿ ŵŽŶƚŚůǇ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ϭϳ ƌŝŵĞ&ƌĞĞDƵůƚŝͲ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐDĞĞƚŝŶŐƐ ŵŽŶƚŚůǇ
WŽůŝĐĞ
ZŝĐŚŵŽŶĚ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐƵƚŚŽƌŝƚǇ
ϭϴ ĞƐŝŐŶZĞǀŝĞǁŽĂƌĚ ďŝͲǁĞĞŬůǇ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ ϭϵ
ĂƐƚĂǇZĞŐŝŽŶĂůWĂƌŬƐ
ŝƚǇDĂŶĂŐĞƌΖƐKĨĨŝĐĞ͕
ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
WƵďůŝĐtŽƌŬƐ
ϮϬ
ĂƐƚĞƌ,ŝůů,ŽƵƐŝŶŐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚŝŽŶ ƋƵĂƌƚĞƌůǇ
ZŝĐŚŵŽŶĚ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐƵƚŚŽƌŝƚǇ
ŝƚǇDĂŶĂŐĞƌΖƐKĨĨŝĐĞ
ŝƚǇůĞƌŬ
&ŝŶĂŶĐĞ
ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
Ϯϭ
/Ě,ŽĐŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞ ĂƐŶĞĞĚĞĚ
ŝƚǇDĂŶĂŐĞƌΖƐKĨĨŝĐĞ
ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ
ϮϮ
/'ƌĂŶƚZĞǀŝĞǁĚͲ,ŽĐŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞ ĂƐŶĞĞĚĞĚ ŝƚǇDĂŶĂŐĞƌΖƐKĨĨŝĐĞ Ϯϯ
/dƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶKǀĞƌƐŝŐŚƚŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞ ĂƐŶĞĞĚĞĚ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ Ϯϰ
ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƐƐŽĐŝĂƚŝ ŽŶ;
Ϳ ŵŽŶƚŚůǇ ŝƚǇDĂŶĂŐĞƌΖƐK ĨĨŝĐĞ͕
ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
Ϯϱ
ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŽŵŵŝƐƐŝ ŽŶ ŵŽŶƚŚůǇ ŝƚǇDĂŶĂŐĞƌΖƐKĨĨŝĐĞ͕ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
Ϯϲ
Ě&ƵŶĚĂŵƉĐŚŝĞǀĞ ƋƵĂƌƚĞƌůǇ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ
Ϯϳ
ůĞĐƚƌŝĐsĞŚŝĐůĞ;
sͿ^ƚĞĞƌŝŶŐŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞ ƋƵĂƌƚĞƌůǇ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ
Ϯϴ &ŝƌĞ^ĂĨĞƚǇŽƵŶĐŝů &ŝƌĞ
Ϯϵ &ƌŝĞŶĚƐŽĨƚŚĞZŝĐŚŵŽŶĚWƵďůŝĐ> ŝďƌĂƌǇ ŵŽŶƚŚůǇ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ^ĞƌǀŝĐ ĞƐ ϯϬ 'ĞŶĞƌĂůWĞŶƐŝŽŶŽĂƌĚ ĂƐŶĞĞĚĞĚ ŝƚǇůĞƌŬΖƐKĨĨŝĐĞ
ϯϭ 'ŝůŵĂŶ^ƚƌĞĞƚ^ƉŽƌƚŽŵƉůĞǆ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ
ϯϮ 'ŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚůůŝĂŶĐĞŽŶZĂĐĞĂŶĚ
ƋƵŝƚǇ;'Z
Ϳ ŵŽŶƚŚůǇ
ŽƵŶĐŝů^ƚĂĨĨ
ŝƚǇDĂŶĂŐĞƌΖƐKĨĨŝĐĞ
ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ
/ŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶdĞĐŚŶŽůŽŐǇ
ϯϯ 'ƌĞĞŶŝƚŝĞƐĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂ ŵŽŶƚŚůǇ ŝƚǇDĂŶĂŐĞƌΖƐKĨĨŝĐĞ͕ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
ϯϰ ,ŝůůƚŽƉŝƐƚƌŝĐƚŵĞĞƚŝŶŐƐ ŵŽŶƚŚůǇ WƵďůŝĐtŽƌŬƐ
ϯϱ ,ŝƐƚŽƌŝĐWƌĞƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ ŵŽŶƚŚůǇ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ WĂŐĞϭ
Attachment 6 - List of Boards and Commissions
452
ϯϲ ,ŽŵĞůĞƐƐdĂƐŬ&ŽƌĐĞ ŵŽŶƚŚůǇ
ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
WŽůŝĐĞ
ϯϳ ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐĚǀŝƐŽƌǇŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ ŵŽŶƚŚůǇ
ŝƚǇDĂŶĂŐĞƌΖƐKĨĨŝĐĞ͕
ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
ZŝĐŚŵŽŶĚ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐƵƚŚŽƌŝƚǇ
ϯϴ ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐƵƚŚŽƌŝƚǇŽĂƌĚŽĨŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶĞƌƐ ŽŶĞƚŽƚŚƌĞĞƚŝŵĞƐƉĞƌŵŽŶƚŚ ŝƚǇDĂŶĂŐĞƌΖƐKĨĨŝĐĞ
ŝƚǇůĞƌŬ
ŝƚǇƚƚŽƌŶĞǇ
/ŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶdĞĐŚŶŽůŽŐǇ
ZŝĐŚŵŽŶĚ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐƵƚŚŽƌŝƚǇ
ϯϵ ,ƵŵĂŶZŝŐŚƚƐĂŶĚ,ƵŵĂŶZĞůĂƚŝŽŶƐŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ ŵŽŶƚŚůǇ
ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
ŝƚǇƚƚŽƌŶĞǇΖƐKĨĨŝĐĞ
ϰϬ :ƵŶĞƚĞĞŶƚŚWůĂŶŶŝŶŐŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞ ŵŽŶƚŚůǇĂƐŶĞĞĚĞĚ WŽůŝĐĞ ϰϭ >ĞĂŐƵĞŽĨĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂŝƚŝĞƐ
ĂƐƚĂǇ ƋƵĂƌƚĞƌůǇ
ŝƚǇDĂŶĂŐĞƌΖƐKĨĨŝĐĞ
D>d͕ĂƐŶĞĞĚĞĚ
ϰϮ >ŝďƌĂƌǇŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ ďŝͲŵŽŶƚŚůǇ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ
ϰϯ >ŝďƌĂƌǇ&ŽƵŶĚĂƚŝŽŶ ŵŽŶƚŚůǇ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ
ϰϰ >ŝƚĞƌĂĐǇĂǇ
ǀĞŶƚŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞ ŵŽŶƚŚůǇ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ
ϰϱ >ŽĐĂůŚŝůĚƌĞŶΖƐ&ƵŶĚŝŶŐWƌŽũĞĐƚ ŵŽŶƚŚůǇ ĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨŚŝůĚƌĞŶĂŶĚzŽƵƚŚ ϰϲ DĂƌŝŶĂŝƐƚƌŝĐƚŵĞĞƚŝŶŐƐ ŵŽŶƚŚůǇ WƵďůŝĐtŽƌŬƐ
ϰϳ DĂǇŽƌƐŽŶĨĞƌĞŶĐĞ ŵŽŶƚŚůǇ
ŝƚǇDĂŶĂŐĞƌΖƐKĨĨŝĐĞ
DĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ>ĞĂĚĞƌƐŚŝƉdĞĂŵ͕ĂƐŶĞĞĚĞĚ
ϰϴ D
ůĞĂŶ
ŶĞƌŐǇ ŝƚǇDĂŶĂŐĞƌΖƐKĨĨŝĐĞ͕
ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
ϰϵ EĂƚŝŽŶĂůEŝŐŚƚKƵƚƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐĐŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞ ĂƐŶĞĞĚĞĚ
ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ
WŽůŝĐĞ
ϱϬ EĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚŽƵŶĐŝů;ŝŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂůͿŵĞĞƚŝŶŐƐ ǁĞĞŬůǇ
ŝƚǇDĂŶĂŐĞƌΖƐKĨĨŝĐĞ
ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ
&ŝƌĞ
WŽůŝĐĞ
WƵďůŝĐtŽƌŬƐ
ϱϭ EŽƌƚŚZŝĐŚŵŽŶĚ
ĂƌƚŚĂǇŽŵŵŝ ƚƚĞĞ ĂƐŶĞĞĚĞĚ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ
ϱϮ EŽƌƚŚZŝĐŚŵŽŶĚ'ƌĞĞŶ ĂƐŶĞĞĚĞĚ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ
ϱϯ EŽƌƚŚZŝĐŚŵŽŶĚDŝƚŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ&ĞĞŽ ŵŵŝƚƚĞĞ ĂƐŶĞĞĚĞĚ;ƐĞŵŝͲĂŶŶƵĂů ůǇͿ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ϱϰ EŽƌƚŚZŝĐŚŵŽŶĚDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůĚǀŝ ƐŽƌǇŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞ ĂƐŶĞĞĚĞĚ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ϱϱ EǇƐƚƌŽŵhŶŝƚĞĚZĞǀŝƚĂůŝǌĂƚŝŽŶ
ĨĨŽƌƚ;EhZs
ͿWŽůŝĐǇĚͲ,ŽƋƵĂƌƚĞƌůǇ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ
ϱϲ WĂƌĂƚƌĂŶƐŝƚŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚŝŶŐŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞ ŵŽŶƚŚůǇ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ϱϳ WĂƌŬŝŶŐ>ĞŐŝƐůĂƚŝǀĞŵĞĞƚŝŶŐ ĂƐŶĞĞĚĞĚ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ϱϴ WĞƌƐŽŶŶĞůŽĂƌĚ ŵŽŶƚŚůǇ ,ƵŵĂŶZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ
ϱϵ WůĂŶŶŝŶŐŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ ďŝͲǁĞĞŬůǇ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ ϲϬ WŽůŝĐĞΘ&ŝƌĞŵĂŶΖƐWĞŶƐŝŽŶŽĂƌĚ ĂƐŶĞĞĚĞĚ ŝƚǇůĞƌŬΖƐKĨĨŝĐĞ ϲϭ WƵďůŝĐDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚƐƐŽĐŝĂƚŝŽŶ ŵŽŶƚŚůǇ
ŝƚǇDĂŶĂŐĞƌΖƐKĨĨŝĐĞ
/ŶƚĞƌŶĂů^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ
ϲϮ ZĞĐƌĞĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚWĂƌŬƐŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ ŵŽŶƚŚůǇ
ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ
WƵďůŝĐtŽƌŬƐ
ϲϯ ZĞĐǇĐůĞDŽƌĞƌĞŐŝŽŶĂůƐƚĂĨĨŵĞĞƚŝŶŐƐ ŵŽŶƚŚůǇ ŝƚǇDĂŶĂŐĞƌΖƐKĨĨŝĐĞ͕ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
ϲϰ ZĞŐŝŽŶĂůWĂƌŬĂŶĚZĞĐƌĞĂƚŝŽŶ' ƌŽƵƉ ŵŽŶƚŚůǇ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ϲϱ ZĞŝŵĂŐŝŶŝŶŐWƵďůŝĐ^ĂĨĞƚǇŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇdĂƐŬ&ŽƌĐĞ ŵŽŶƚŚůǇ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ
ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
WŽůŝĐĞ
ϲϲ ZĞƉƵďůŝĐ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐͬŝƚǇŽĨZŝĐŚŵŽŶĚŵĞĞƚŝŶŐƐ ŵŽŶƚŚůǇ ŝƚǇDĂŶĂŐĞƌΖƐKĨĨŝĐĞ͕
ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
ŝƚǇƚƚŽƌŶĞǇΖƐKĨĨŝĐĞ
ϲϳ ZŝĐŚŵŽŶĚ&ƌŝĞŶĚƐŽĨZĞĐƌĞĂƚŝŽŶ ďŝͲŵŽŶƚŚůǇ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ϲϴ ZŝĐŚŵŽŶĚ&ƵŶĚĨŽƌŚŝůĚƌĞŶĂŶĚz ŽƵƚŚKǀĞƌƐŝŐŚƚŽĂƌĚ ŵŽŶƚŚůǇ Ğ ƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨŚŝůĚƌĞŶĂŶĚzŽƵƚŚ ϲϵ ZŝĐŚŵŽŶĚ&ƵŶĚĞƌƐ&ŽƌƵŵ ďŝͲŵŽŶƚŚůǇ ĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨŚŝůĚƌĞŶĂŶĚzŽƵƚŚ ϳϬ ZŝĐŚŵŽŶĚ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐƵƚŚŽƌ ŝƚǇŽƌƉŽƌĂƚŝŽŶ ƋƵĂƌƚĞƌůǇ
ŝƚǇDĂŶĂŐĞƌΖƐKĨĨŝĐĞ
ŝƚǇůĞƌŬ
ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
&ŝŶĂŶĐĞ
ZŝĐŚŵŽŶĚ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐƵƚŚŽƌŝƚǇ
WĂŐĞϮ
Attachment 6 - List of Boards and Commissions
453
ϳϭ
ZŝĐŚŵŽŶĚEĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚŝŶŐŽƵŶĐŝů

ǆĞĐƵƚŝǀĞďŽĂƌĚ ŵŽŶƚŚůǇ
ŝƚǇDĂŶĂŐĞƌΖƐKĨĨŝĐĞ͕
ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ
ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
&ŝƌĞ
WŽůŝĐĞ
WƵďůŝĐtŽƌŬƐ
ϳϮ ZŝĐŚŵŽŶĚWŽůŝĐĞĐƚŝǀŝƚŝĞƐ>ĞĂŐƵĞ;ZW>Ϳ>ŝƚƚůĞ>ĞĂŐƵĞŽĂŵŽŶƚŚůǇ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ϳϯ ZŝĐŚŵŽŶĚWƌŽŵŝƐĞ ŵŽŶƚŚůǇ ŝƚǇDĂŶĂŐĞƌΖƐKĨĨŝĐĞ
ϳϰ ZŝĐŚŵŽŶĚZĞŶƚŽĂƌĚ ŵŽŶƚŚůǇ ZĞŶƚWƌŽŐƌĂŵ
ϳϱ ZŝĐŚŵŽŶĚZĞƉŽƐŝƚŝŽŶŝŶŐĂŶĚdƌĂŶƐĨĞƌŝƐĐƵƐƐŝŽŶ;W,Z^Ϳ ďŝͲǁĞĞŬůǇ &ŝŶĂŶĐĞ
ZŝĐŚŵŽŶĚ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐƵƚŚŽƌŝƚǇ
ϳϲ ZŝĐŚŵŽŶĚ^ǁŝŵƐ ĂƐŶĞĞĚĞĚ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ
ϳϳ ZŝĐŚŵŽŶĚdĞŶŶŝƐƐƐŽĐŝĂƚŝŽ Ŷ ŵŽŶƚŚůǇ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ϳϴ ^ĂĨĞƚǇŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞDĞĞƚŝŶŐƐ ŵŽŶƚŚůǇ
ŽŵŵŶƵŶŝƚǇ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ
,ƵŵĂŶZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ
WƵďůŝĐtŽƌŬƐ
ϳϵ ^ŚŝŵĂĚĂ&ƌŝĞŶĚƐŚŝƉŽŵŵŝƐƐŝ ŽŶ ŵŽŶƚŚůǇ ŝƚǇŽƵŶĐŝůKĨĨŝĐĞ ϴϬ ^ŽƵƚŚƐŝĚĞнϭEĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚŽ ƵŶĐŝů ďŝͲŵŽŶƚŚůǇ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞ Ɛ ϴϭ ^ƚĂƚĞǁŝĚĞ/ůůĞŐĂůƵŵƉŝŶŐWƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŽŶdĞĐŚŶŝĐĂůĚǀŝƐŽƌǇƋƵĂƌƚĞƌůǇ ŝƚǇDĂŶĂŐĞƌΖƐKĨĨŝĐĞ͕ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
ϴϮ dƌĂŝůƐĨŽƌZŝĐŚŵŽŶĚĐƚŝŽŶŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞ;dZͿ ĂƐŶĞĞĚĞĚ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ
WƵďůŝĐtŽƌŬƐ
ϴϯ dƌĂŶƐĨŽƌŵĂƚŝǀĞůŝŵĂƚĞŽŵŵƵŶŝƚŝĞƐ;dͿŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞ ŵŽŶƚŚůǇ ŝƚǇDĂŶĂŐĞƌΖƐKĨĨŝĐĞ͕
ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ
WƵďůŝĐtŽƌŬƐ
ϴϰ hŶŚŽƵƐĞĚ/ŶƚĞƌĚĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚĂůdĞĂŵ ŵŽŶƚŚůǇ
ŝƚǇDĂŶĂŐĞƌΖƐKĨĨŝĐĞ
ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ
WƵďůŝĐtŽƌŬƐ
WŽůŝĐĞ
ϴϱ hƌďĂŶ&ŽƌĞƐƚĚǀŝƐŽƌǇŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞ ŵŽŶƚŚůǇ WƵďůŝĐtŽƌŬƐ ϴϲ tĞƐƚŽŶƚƌĂŽƐƚĂ/ŶƚĞŐƌĂƚĞĚtĂƐƚĞDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚƵƚŚŽƌ ŵŽŶƚŚůǇ ŝƚǇDĂŶĂŐĞƌΖƐKĨĨŝĐĞ͕ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
ϴϳ tĞƐƚŽŶƚƌĂŽƐƚĂdƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶĚǀŝƐŽƌǇŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞ;tŵŽŶƚŚůǇ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ϴϴ tĞƐƚŽŶƚƌĂŽƐƚĂhŶŝĨŝĞĚ^ĐŚŽŽůŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ;th^ͿŽŵŵŵŽŶƚŚůǇ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ϴϵ tĞƐƚŽƵŶƚǇŐĞŶĐǇ;:WďĞƚǁĞĞŶZŝĐŚŵŽŶĚĂŶĚtĞƐƚŽƵŶƚǇtĂƐƚ ĞǁĂƚĞƌŝƐƚƌŝĐƚͿ WƵďůŝĐtŽƌŬƐ ϵϬ tĞƐƚŽƵŶƚǇDĂǇŽƌƐĂŶĚ^ƵƉĞƌǀŝƐŽƌƐ ŵŽŶƚŚůǇ
ŝƚǇDĂŶĂŐĞƌΖƐKĨĨŝĐĞ
DĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ>ĞĂĚĞƌƐŚŝƉdĞĂŵĂƐŶĞĞĚĞĚ
ϵϭ tĞƐƚŽƵŶƚǇtĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌŝ ƐƚƌŝĐƚ ƋƵĂƌƚĞƌůǇ WƵďůŝĐtŽƌŬƐ ϵϮ tŽƌŬĨŽƌĐĞĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŽĂƌĚ ďŝͲŵŽŶƚŚůǇ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ϵϯ zŽƵƚŚŽƵŶĐŝů ĂƐŶĞĞĚĞĚ ŝƚǇŽƵŶĐŝůKĨĨŝĐĞ
ϵϰ ŚŽƵƐŚĂŶ&ƌŝĞŶĚƐŚŝƉŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ ŵŽŶƚŚůǇ ŝƚǇŽƵŶĐŝůKĨĨŝĐĞ WĂŐĞϯ
Attachment 6 - List of Boards and Commissions
454
City of Richmond
FY2023-24 Mid-Year Report
Attachment 7 - Capital Improvement Projects Budget Report by Department EXPENDITURES - CAPITAL PROJECTS by

DEPARTMENT

ORIGINAL
BUDGET
FY2023-24

TRANSFERS/
ADJUST
FY2023-24

REVISED
BUDGET
FY2023-24
12/31/2023

EXPENDED
FY2023-24 ENCUMB

BALANCE

REMAINING
% Without
ENCUMB % USED

MID-YEAR

ADJUSTMENT

REVISED
BUDGET
FY2023-24 NOTES

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT - CIP
13TH STREET COMPLETE STREET 3,775,063 57,110 3,832,173 70,586 57,960 3,703,626 2% 3% 3,832,173

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) MISC
SIDEWALKS 3,115,181 - 3,115,181 19,153 249,729 2,846,299 1% 9% 3,115,181 ATP QUICK BUILD CUTTING/HOFFMAN 211,793 402,419 614,212 - 402,419 211,793 0% 66% 614,212 ATP QUICK BUILD HARBOUR WAY S. CYCLE
TRACK 154,721 - 154,721 5,273 - 149,448 3% 3% 154,721 BOOKER T. ANDERSON (BTA) CENTER HVAC - 500,000 500,000 - - 500,000 0% 0% 500,000 BOOKER T. ANDERSON (BTA) CENTER
INFRASTRUCTURE - 1,000,000 1,000,000 - - 1,000,000 0% 0% 1,000,000 BOORMAN PARK REVITALIZATION 3,324,489 216,109 3,540,598 (185,631) 207,945 3,518,284 -5% 1% 3,540,598 BRIDGE PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE 2,121,735 - 2,121,735 11,123 7,878 2,102,735 1% 1% 2,121,735 CARLSON BLVD. CROSSTOWN CONNECTIONS
IMPROVEMENTS 214,599 22,858 237,457 - 22,858 214,599 0% 10% 237,457 CARLSON BLVD. FY2023-24 750,000 520,000 1,270,000 59,110 2,845 1,208,045 5% 5% 1,270,000 CASTRO RANCH ROAD REHABILITATION - 670,648 670,648 - 670,648 - 0% 100% 670,648 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA LANDSCAPING 200,000 200,000 [1] CORP YARD BATHROOM REMODEL 131,235 45,000 176,235 - - 176,235 0% 0% 176,235 CORP YARD FENCE 37,500 37,500 [2] CORP YARD FUEL SITE UPGRADE 179,211 - 179,211 - - 179,211 0% 0% 179,211 DIRT WORLD BIKE PARK REVITALIZATION 444,800 508,750 953,550 164,777 343,973 444,800 17% 53% 953,550 DORNAN TUNNEL LIGHTING 60,000 60,000 [3] FIRE STATION 66 IMPROVEMENTS 275,052 505,000 780,052 - - 780,052 0% 0% 780,052 FIRE TRAIL ACCESS 50,000 50,000 [4] GREENING THE YELOW BRICK ROAD 351,769 1,045,572 1,397,341 120,062 925,510 351,769 9% 75% 1,397,341 GREENWAY REHAB AND BIKE EDUCATION 124,810 2,500 127,310 - 35,400 91,910 0% 28% 127,310 HARBOUR 8 PARK EXTENSION 513,190 4,906,364 5,419,554 1,011,123 3,916,577 491,854 19% 91% 5,419,554 HARBOUR WAY & WRIGHT SECTION 130 1,197,000 - 1,197,000 - - 1,197,000 0% 0% 1,197,000 HILLTOP FIRE STATION CARD READER 50,000 20,000 70,000 - - 70,000 0% 0% 70,000 I-80 CENTRAL INTERCHANGE PHASE II 2,192,740 4,500,000 6,692,740 60,504 98,784 6,533,452 1% 2% 6,692,740 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. COMMUNITY CENTER 267,692 - 267,692 - - 267,692 0% 0% 267,692 Notes:
[1] Mid-year adjustment to appropriate $200K for Civic Center Plaza Landscaping [2] Mid-year adjustment to appropriate $37,500 for Corp Yard Fence [3] Mid-year adjustment to appropriate $60K for the Dornan Tunnel Lighting [4] Mid-year adjustment to appropriate $50K for the Fire Trail Access project, the balance was not carried from last year

Page 1 of 5455 ends

City of Richmond
FY2023-24 Mid-Year Report
Attachment 7 - Capital Improvement Projects Budget Report by Department EXPENDITURES - CAPITAL PROJECTS by

DEPARTMENT

ORIGINAL
BUDGET
FY2023-24

TRANSFERS/
ADJUST
FY2023-24

REVISED
BUDGET
FY2023-24
12/31/2023

EXPENDED
FY2023-24 ENCUMB

BALANCE

REMAINING
% Without
ENCUMB % USED

MID-YEAR

ADJUSTMENT

REVISED
BUDGET
FY2023-24 NOTES
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT - CIP - Continued
NATIVE AMERICAN HEALTH CENTER 50,000 - 50,000 - - 50,000 0% 0% 50,000 NEVIN CENTER HVAC - ARPA 450,000 575,000 1,025,000 - - 1,025,000 0% 0% 1,025,000 PARKS MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT - 215,729 215,729 - 215,729 - 0% 100% 215,729 PARKS YARD FUEL SITE UPGRADES 220,000 - 220,000 - - 220,000 0% 0% 220,000 POST ENCAMPMENT CLEANUP EQUIPMENT 75,000 75,000 [5] PT. MOLATE COTTAGES ASSESSMENT - 878,160 878,160 39,980 308,282 529,898 5% 40% 878,160 RECREATION CENTER HVAC - ARPA 451,000 640,000 1,091,000 - - 1,091,000 0% 0% 1,091,000 RICHMOND SOCCER FIELD STUDY - 80,000 80,000 76,607 46 3,347 96% 96% 80,000 RICHMOND ART AND LIGHT - 4,000,000 4,000,000 - - 4,000,000 0% 0% 4,000,000 RICHMOND MUSEUM HVAC - ARPA 467,400 (467,400) - - - - 0% 0% - SANTA RITA ROAD STABILIZATION 650,000 390,000 1,040,000 46,816 818,926 174,258 5% 83% 1,040,000 SF BAY TRAIL- PT. MOLATE 980,137 750,000 1,730,137 - - 1,730,137 0% 0% 1,730,137 SHIELDS-REID PARK REVITALIZATION 6,437,609 443,603 6,881,212 41,000 936,603 5,903,609 1% 14% 6,881,212 SMART SIGNALS SAN PABLO & 23RD - 182,336 182,336 - - 182,336 0% 0% 182,336 SOCCER FIELDS-RESTROOMS-PARKS - 4,200,000 4,200,000 - - 4,200,000 0% 0% 4,200,000 STREET PAVING 2,840,455 461,717 3,302,172 1,706,290 524,226 1,071,656 52% 68% 431,066 3,733,238 [6] STREET PAVING - ANNUAL ALLOCATION 2,864,927 - 2,864,927 - - 2,864,927 0% 0% 2,864,927 STREET PAVING - 37TH STREET - 36,915 36,915 - 36,915 - 0% 100% 36,915 STREET PAVING - CUTTING/HARBOUR WAY S.

BIKEWAY 79,717 415,436 495,153 32,493 424,793 37,867 7% 92% 495,153 STREET PAVING - MARINA WAY - 3,553 3,553 - 3,553 - 0% 100% 3,553 SURFACE DRAINAGE 300,000 - 300,000 - - 300,000 0% 0% 300,000 TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM 1,200,000 8,262 1,208,262 38,579 1,676 1,168,006 3% 3% 500,000 1,708,262 [7] TRAFFIC SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS 375,000 10,769 385,769 5,811 120,758 259,200 2% 33% 385,769 VIA VERDI MITIGATION 400,000 400,000 [8] YELLOW BRICK ROAD 5,000 - 5,000 - - 5,000 0% 0% 5,000

YELLOW BRICK ROAD CLEAN, GREEN &
BEAUTIFUL 4,000,000 - 4,000,000 290,070 3,315,727 394,203 7% 90% 4,000,000 TOTAL - PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CIP 40,766,325 27,746,410 68,512,735 3,613,727 13,649,760 51,249,247 5% 25% 1,753,566 70,266,301

PUBLIC WORKS - WATER RESOURCE RECOVERY WASTEWATER - CIP COGENERATION 3,000,000 31,616 3,031,616 - 31,616 3,000,000 0% 1% 3,031,616 CUTTING BLVD. & HARBOUR WAY S. SEWER 2,000,000 - 2,000,000 - - 2,000,000 0% 0% 2,000,000 DORNAN DRIVE FORCE MAIN REHABILITATION 4,000,000 - 4,000,000 - 57,760 3,942,240 0% 1% 4,000,000 Notes:
[5] Mid-year adjustment to appropriate $500K for Traffic Calming [6] Mid-year adjustment to appropriate $75K for Post Encampment Cleanup Equipment [7] Mid-year adjustment to appropriate $131,066 for Street Paving using Measure J Funding and $300K from additional revenue received [8] Mid-year adjustment to appropriate $400K for Via Verdi Mitigation

Page 2 of 5456 ends

City of Richmond
FY2023-24 Mid-Year Report
Attachment 7 - Capital Improvement Projects Budget Report by Department EXPENDITURES - CAPITAL PROJECTS by

DEPARTMENT

ORIGINAL
BUDGET
FY2023-24

TRANSFERS/
ADJUST
FY2023-24

REVISED
BUDGET
FY2023-24
12/31/2023

EXPENDED
FY2023-24 ENCUMB

BALANCE

REMAINING
% Without
ENCUMB % USED

MID-YEAR

ADJUSTMENT

REVISED
BUDGET
FY2023-24 NOTES
PUBLIC WORKS - WATER RESOURCE RECOVERY WASTEWATER - CIP - Continued GRIT AND AERATION REPLACEMENT 20,000,000 4,455,382 24,455,382 3,697,588 842,942 19,914,853 15% 19% 24,455,382 S. 33RD WET WEATHER SEWER LINE 2,000,000 - 2,000,000 - - 2,000,000 0% 0% 2,000,000 SANITARY SEWER REPAIRS 2,500,000 235,069 2,735,069 954,343 877,358 903,368 35% 67% 2,735,069 WWTP SCADA UPGRADE 91,018 91,018 [9] WWTP SLUDGE THICKENER 13,500,000 97,393 13,597,393 7,767 89,626 13,500,000 0% 1% 13,597,393

SANITARY SEWER REPAIRS /BRICK MANHOLE
REHAB 250,000 - 250,000 - - 250,000 0% 0% 250,000

TOTAL - WATER RESOURCE RECOVERY
WASTEWATER CIP 47,250,000 4,819,460 52,069,460 4,659,698 1,899,301 45,510,461 9% 13% 91,018 52,160,478

PUBLIC WORKS - WATER RESOURCE RECOVERY STORMWATER - CIP FULL TRASH CAPTURE FACILITIES 42,934 2,426,372 2,469,306 655,661 1,770,712 42,934 27% 98% 2,469,306 NORTH RICHMOND PUMP STATION - 359,203 359,203 - 359,203 - 0% 100% 359,203 RHEEM CREEK FLOOD RISK REDUCTION 1,298,344 650,000 1,948,344 398,275 1,353,684 196,385 20% 90% 1,948,344 STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE - 750,000 750,000 - - 750,000 0% 0% 750,000

TOTAL - PUBLIC WORKS - WATER RESOURCE
RECOVERY STORMWATER - CIP 1,341,278 4,185,576 5,526,854 1,053,936 3,483,599 989,319 19% 82% - 5,526,854

COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT - CIP

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
BOOKER T. ANDERSON (BTA) CENTER 485,000 - 485,000 - - 485,000 0% 0% 485,000

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
PARCHESTER CENTER 441,481 25,843 467,324 - 25,843 441,481 0% 6% 467,324 AUDITORIUM CONVENTION CENTER UPGRADES 497,955 305,021 802,976 2,619 302,402 497,955 0% 38% 802,976

RICHMOND COMMUNITIES CLEAN
COLLOBORATIVE 4,954,838 227,532 5,182,371 70,902 482,411 4,629,058 1% 11% 5,182,371

SHIELDS-REID COMMUNITY CENTER HVAC
SYSTEM UPGRADE 127,250 900,000 1,027,250 - - 1,027,250 0% 0% 1,027,250

TOTAL - COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CIP 6,506,524 1,458,396 7,964,920 73,521 810,656 7,080,744 1% 11% - 7,964,920 Notes:
[9] Mid-year adjustment to appropriate $91,018 for the WWTP Scada Upgrade project

Page 3 of 5457 ends

City of Richmond
FY2023-24 Mid-Year Report
Attachment 7 - Capital Improvement Projects Budget Report by Department EXPENDITURES - CAPITAL PROJECTS by

DEPARTMENT

ORIGINAL
BUDGET
FY2023-24

TRANSFERS/
ADJUST
FY2023-24

REVISED
BUDGET
FY2023-24
12/31/2023

EXPENDED
FY2023-24 ENCUMB

BALANCE

REMAINING
% Without
ENCUMB % USED

MID-YEAR

ADJUSTMENT

REVISED
BUDGET
FY2023-24 NOTES

LIBRARY DEPARTMENT - CIP
BOOKMOBILE - NEW 390,000 - 390,000 65,123 2 324,875 17% 17% 390,000 COURTYARD ENCLOSURE - MAIN LIBRARY 364,188 (364,188) - - - - 0% 0% - MAIN LIBRARY REMODEL 29,958,469 372,108 30,330,577 7,552 3,102,474 27,220,551 0% 10% 30,330,577 TOTAL - LIBRARY DEPARTMENT CIP 30,712,657 7,920 30,720,577 72,675 3,102,476 27,545,426 0% 10% - 30,720,577

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - PORT OF RICHMOND - CIP
AREA FM CAP 924,842 - 924,842 3,126 1,404 920,312 0% 0% 924,842 ELECTRICAL MAINTENANCE 60,000 - 60,000 - - 60,000 0% 0% 60,000 PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE 150,000 - 150,000 - - 150,000 0% 0% 150,000 PPMT ELECTRICAL AND WATERING METERING 365,000 - 365,000 - - 365,000 0% 0% - 365,000 PROCESSING BUILDING VENTILATION 55,000 - 55,000 - - 55,000 0% 0% 55,000 PROCESSING BUILDING WINDOW REPAIR 350,000 - 350,000 - - 350,000 0% 0% 350,000 RIGGERS LOFT PAINTING 285,000 - 285,000 - - 285,000 0% 0% 285,000 TERMINAL 4 WHARF REMOVAL 6,102,815 4,150,000 10,252,815 4,935,049 1,159,909 4,157,857 48% 59% 10,252,815 UPGRADE IRRGATION SYSTEM 41,000 41,000 [10] TERMINALS 7 & 8 DREDGING 65,000 - 65,000 - - 65,000 0% 0% 65,000 TERMINALS 7 & 8 ELECTRIFICATION 1,700,000 - 1,700,000 - - 1,700,000 0% 0% 1,700,000 YACHT ENTRANCE HARBOUR DREDGING 45,000 - 45,000 - - 45,000 0% 0% 45,000

TOTAL - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - PORT OF
RICHMOND CIP 10,102,657 4,150,000 14,252,657 4,938,175 1,161,314 8,153,168 35% 43% 41,000 14,293,657

PUBLIC WORKS - EQUIPMENT SERVICES AND REPLACEMENT - CIP FIRE VEHICLES 3,310,000 (140,000) 3,170,000 3,309,048 - (139,048) 104% 104% 3,170,000 OTHER CITY EQUIPMENT 470,000 (20,000) 450,000 245,408 106,596 97,996 55% 78% 450,000 OTHER CITY VEHICLES 5,570,000 1,011,516 6,581,516 475,048 4,774,872 1,331,596 7% 80% 6,581,516 POLICE VEHICLES 1,400,000 985,557 2,385,557 1,068,311 453,531 863,715 45% 64% 2,385,557 TOTAL - EQUIPMENT SERVICES CIP 10,750,000 1,837,073 12,587,073 5,097,815 5,334,999 2,154,258 41% 83% - 12,587,073 Notes:
[10] Mid-year adjustment to appropriate $41K for irrigation upgrades in the Marina area

Page 4 of 5458 ends

City of Richmond
FY2023-24 Mid-Year Report
Attachment 7 - Capital Improvement Projects Budget Report by Department EXPENDITURES - CAPITAL PROJECTS by

DEPARTMENT

ORIGINAL
BUDGET
FY2023-24

TRANSFERS/
ADJUST
FY2023-24

REVISED
BUDGET
FY2023-24
12/31/2023

EXPENDED
FY2023-24 ENCUMB

BALANCE

REMAINING
% Without
ENCUMB % USED

MID-YEAR

ADJUSTMENT

REVISED
BUDGET
FY2023-24 NOTES

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY - CIP
AUDIO VIDEO EQUIPMENT 294,000 294,000 [11] TOTAL - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CIP - - - - - - 0% 0% 294,000 294,000

PLANNING DEPARTMENT - CIP
SAFETY BARRIER FOR PERMIT COUNTER 100,000 100,000 [12] TOTAL - PLANNING CIP - - - - - - 0% 0% 100,000 100,000

POLICE - CIP
CORP YARD SECURITY CAMERAS 37,500 37,500 [13] TOTAL - POLICE CIP - - - - - - 0% 0% 37,500 37,500 GRAND TOTAL 147,429,441 44,204,834 191,634,275 19,509,546 29,442,105 142,682,624 10% 26% 2,317,084 193,951,359 Notes:
[11] Mid-year adjustment to appropriate $294K for Audio Video Equipment for Information Technology Department [12] Mid-year adjustment to appropriate $100K for Safety Barrier for Permit Counter, Planning & Building Department [13] Mid-year adjustment to appropriate $37,500 for Corp Yard Security Cameras

Page 5 of 5459 ends

Attachment 8 - Capital Improvment Projects with Projected Shortfall Count CIP # Project Name Total Project
Cost
Estimated
Shortfall
City Council
Agenda
03/23/2023
Mid Year
City Council
Agenda
05/16/2023
Q3
City Council
Agenda
11/07/2023
Unspent Funds
City Council
Agenda
12/07/23
ARPA
City Council
Agenda
02/06/2024
City Council
Agenda
03/05/2024
Mid Year
City Council
Agenda
03/05/2024
Mid Year -
Additional
Request
Future Years
(Unfunded)
2 01A04 Americans with Disabilities Act Miscellaneous Sidewalk Rehab $ 3,115,181 (3,115,000)$ 3,115,181$ 3 4 23G07 ATP Quick Build Cutting/Hoffman
29103 Cutting/Hoffman & Harbour Way S.
5 SB115 Street Paving - SB1 - Cutting Harbour Way S. Bikeway 6 23006 Boorman Park Revitalzation $ 6,950,000 (3,000,000)$ 3,000,000$ 7 AR247 Booker T. Anderson Community Center Renovation and Rebuild $ 500,000 -$ 29122 Carlson Blvd. Crosstown Connection Improvements
9 23034 Corp Yard Bathroom Remodel $ 175,000 (45,000)$ 45,000$ 10 23029 Dirt World Bike Park $ 1,170,000 -$
11 05G01 Fire Station 66 - Gender Specfic Restrooms $ 1,281,000 (505,000)$ 81,717$ 423,283$ 12 29125 Greening the Yellow Brick Road $ 4,100,000 -$ 13 23023 Greenway Rehab and Bike Education $ 124,810 (25,000)$ 25,000$ 14 23014 Hilltop Fire Station Card Reader $ 70,000 (20,000)$ 20,000$ 15 23022 Harbour Way & Wright Section 130 $ 1,200,000 -$ 17 23015 Native American Health Center $ 50,000 -$ 18 AR232 Nevin Center HVAC - ARPA $ 1,036,000 (575,000)$ 575,000$ 19 AR233 Recreation Center HVAC - ARPA $ 1,092,000 (640,000)$ 640,000$ 20 23037 Santa Rita Road Stabilization Project $ 1,140,000 -$ 22 23028 Shields-Reid Park Revitalization $ 8,000,000 -$ 23 01A05 Street Paving $ 2,810,455 -$ 461,717$ 11,000,000$ Pt Molate Beach Restoration
750,000$ (750,000)$ 21 01A14
SF Bay Trail - Pt. Molate
$ 7,688,264
16 29110 I-80 Central Interchance Phase II $ 16,073,000 (1,730,000)$ (1,270,000)$ 750,000$ 520,000$
8 $ 2,123,233 -$
8 23033 Carlson Blvd. Pavement Improvement Project $ 4,134,927 29104 Carlson Blvd. Crosstown Connection Improvements
23G06 ATP Quick Build Cutting/Hoffman
$ 2,690,506 (280,000)$
215,000$
280,000$
1 29120 13th Street Complete Street $ 5,291,466 (215,000)$

Page 1 of 5460 ends

Attachment 8 - Capital Improvment Projects with Projected Shortfall Count CIP # Project Name Total Project
Cost
Estimated
Shortfall
City Council
Agenda
03/23/2023
Mid Year
City Council
Agenda
05/16/2023
Q3
City Council
Agenda
11/07/2023
Unspent Funds
City Council
Agenda
12/07/23
ARPA
City Council
Agenda
02/06/2024
City Council
Agenda
03/05/2024
Mid Year
City Council
Agenda
03/05/2024
Mid Year -
Additional
Request
Future Years
(Unfunded)
24 01C09 Surface Drainage $ 300,000 -$
#18 Barrett Ave and Key Blvd
#12 S 55th St
#5 S 37th St and Wall Ave
#4 Esmond Ave between 24th St and 26th St
#7 32nd St between Garvin Ave and Clinton Ave
#13 State Ave and 49th St
#2 Carlson Blvd and Carl Ave
#8 Mariposa St and Carl Ave
#9 I-580 and Bayview Ave
#17 Three Rail Crossings: Point Richmond
#1 15th St and Macdonald Ave
#3 16th St and Macdonald Ave
#6 Merced St and Carl Ave
#10 29th St and Vale Rd
#11 41st St / 42nd St
#14 Carlson Blvd and Sutter Ave
#15 Carlson Blvd and Shasta St
#16 Carlson Blvd and Tehama Ave
Yellow Brick Road Clean, Green & Beautiful - Street Lighting -$ Yellow Brick Road Clean, Green & Beautiful - Add Scope to POGO YBR -$ Yellow Brick Road Clean, Green & Beautiful - Harbour 8 Park -$ 28 23041 Lincoln Safe Routes to School $ 761,880 (265,000)$ 265,000$ 29 23042 Barrett Ave Road Improvements $ 1,719,520 (315,000)$ 315,000$ 30 23043 Macdonald Ave Pedestrian Crossing $ 274,560 (50,000)$ 50,000$ 31 23039 McBryde Safe Routes to Parks $ 1,285,730 (260,000)$ 260,000$ 32 23040 Bayview to BART $ 1,944,122 (270,000)$ 270,000$ 33 23031 Richmond Art and Lighting $ 4,000,000 -$ 34 16G12 Richmond Wellness Trail Phase II $ 4,816,154 -$ 35 16G11 Neighborhood Complete Streets 5,181,173$ -$ 37 CSA20 Auditorium Convention Center Upgrades 1,500,000$ -$ Richmond Communites Clean Collaborative - Boorman Park $ 5,503,742 (1,500,000)$ 1,500,000$ 38 23030
-$
27 23032 $ 5,000,000
36 22A02 Flood Risk Reduction - Rheem Creek $ 2,248,844 26 29113 Yellow Brick Road $ 8,499,000 (300,000)$ 300,000$ 25 23035 Traffic Calming Program FY 23-24 $ 1,200,000 -$

Page 2 of 5461 ends

Attachment 8 - Capital Improvment Projects with Projected Shortfall Count CIP # Project Name Total Project
Cost
Estimated
Shortfall
City Council
Agenda
03/23/2023
Mid Year
City Council
Agenda
05/16/2023
Q3
City Council
Agenda
11/07/2023
Unspent Funds
City Council
Agenda
12/07/23
ARPA
City Council
Agenda
02/06/2024
City Council
Agenda
03/05/2024
Mid Year
City Council
Agenda
03/05/2024
Mid Year -
Additional
Request
Future Years
(Unfunded)
Richmond Communities Clean Collaborative - 7th St Bike Lane $ 600,112 -$ 39 CSA27 Shields-Reid Community Center HVAC System Upgrade 1,050,000$ (900,000)$ 900,000$ 42 23008 BTA Community Center Fire Restortation $ 3,309,678 -$ 43 PM902 Point Molate Cottages Repair $ 357,350 -$ 520,000$ 44 36028 Cafeteria Building @ Shipyard #3 $ 142,000 -$ 45 23045 Booker T. Anderson Infrastructure $ 1,000,000 (1,000,000)$ 1,000,000$ 46 22107 Stormwater Infrastructure $ 750,000 (750,000)$ 750,000$ 47 23046 Soccer Fields-Restrooms-Parks $ 4,200,000 (4,200,000)$ 4,200,000$ 48 23048 Street Sweeping Signs $ 550,000 -$ 550,000$ 49 23011 Area FM Cap 924,842$ -$
50 01L10 Cogeneration 3,000,000$ -$
51 22103 Cutting Blvd. & Harbour Way S. Sewer Line Wet Weather Improvement Project 2,000,000$ -$ 52 01Z10 Dornan Drive Force Main Rehabilitation 4,000,000$ -$ 53 22A01 Full Trash Capture Facilities 42,934$ -$ 54 01X10 Grit and Aeration Replacement 20,000,000$ -$ 55 36009 Point Potrero Marine Terminal (PPMT) Electrical And Watering Metering 365,000$ -$ 56 36011 Point Potrero Marine Terminal (PPMT) Electrical Maintenance 60,000$ -$ 57 36012 Point Potrero Marine Terminal (PPMT) Pavement Maintenance 150,000$ -$ 58 36021 Process Building Window Repair 45,000$ -$ 59 36014 Processing Building Ventilation 55,000$ -$ 60 36005 Riggers Loft Painting 285,000$ -$
61 22235 Sanitary Sewer Brick Manhole Repairs 250,000$ -$ 62 22230 Sanitary Sewer Repairs 2,500,000$ -$
63 22104 South 33rd Wet Weather Sewer Line 2,000,000$ -$ 64 36020 Terminals 7 & 8 Dredging 65,000$ -$ 65 36007 Terminals 7 & 8 Electrification 1,700,000$ -$ 66 01M10 WWTP Sludge Thickener 13,597,400$ -$
760,000$ 41 23021 Terminal 4 Wharf Removal $ 9,612,605 (760,000)$ 15,000,000$ 40 AR231 Revitalizing the Historic Richmond Main Library $ 29,569,469 (15,000,000)$ 38 23030

Page 3 of 5462 ends

Attachment 8 - Capital Improvment Projects with Projected Shortfall Count CIP # Project Name Total Project
Cost
Estimated
Shortfall
City Council
Agenda
03/23/2023
Mid Year
City Council
Agenda
05/16/2023
Q3
City Council
Agenda
11/07/2023
Unspent Funds
City Council
Agenda
12/07/23
ARPA
City Council
Agenda
02/06/2024
City Council
Agenda
03/05/2024
Mid Year
City Council
Agenda
03/05/2024
Mid Year -
Additional
Request
Future Years
(Unfunded)
67 (2) 23012 Corp Yard Fuel Sites Upgrades $ 1,680,000 (1,380,000)$ 250,000$ 1,250,000$ 68 (12) 23004 Harbour 8 Park Extension $ 8,850,000 (350,000)$ 350,000$ 1 Richmond Tunnel Lighting 60,000$ 500,000$
3 Station 63 300,000$ 3,000,000$
4 Annual Roof Improvements 300,000$ -$ 2,000,000$ 5 Street Light Improvements 300,000$ 200,000$ 2,000,000$ 6 Corp Yard Fence Replacement and Security 278,501$ 75,000$ 400,000$ 7 Fire Emergency Exit Routes for Mitigation Measures 50,000$ 8 Via Verdi Mitigation $ 4,500,000 (4,500,000)$ 400,000$ 4,100,000$ -$ 9 Civic Center Plaza Landscape and Citywide Plant & Median Materials 200,000$ -$ 10 Traffic Calming (locations 1-18)/Complete Streets/Paving $ 1,500,000 (1,500,000)$ 500,000$ 1,100,000$ 1,500,000$ 11 Booker T. Anderson - Transformer Pole Removal 150,000$ 13 CIP Management Software 50,000$ 100,000$ 14 Abatement, Fencing, Boulder, K-Rails, Others $ 75,000 (75,000)$ 75,000$ 17 07001 Nevin Ave. from 19th to 27th Stt - Grant Closeout $ 50,000 (50,000)$ 50,000$ -$ 16 29105 37th Street Improvementt - Grant Closeout $ 50,000 (50,000)$ 50,000$ -$ 18 Street Signs, Traffic Signals & Street Light Poles data Collection/Management 540,081$ 40,000$ -$ 65,000$ 69 (15) 23G02 Bridge Preventive Maintenance $ 2,262,679 (105,000)$

Page 4 of 5463 ends

Attachment 8 - Capital Improvment Projects with Projected Shortfall Count CIP # Project Name Total Project
Cost
Estimated
Shortfall
City Council
Agenda
03/23/2023
Mid Year
City Council
Agenda
05/16/2023
Q3
City Council
Agenda
11/07/2023
Unspent Funds
City Council
Agenda
12/07/23
ARPA
City Council
Agenda
02/06/2024
City Council
Agenda
03/05/2024
Mid Year
City Council
Agenda
03/05/2024
Mid Year -
Additional
Request
Future Years
(Unfunded)
01015 Martin Luther King Jr. Community Center 16,028,789$ (15,000,000)$ 15,000,000$ Auditorium Various Improvements 9,000,000$ (9,000,000)$ 9,000,000$ 23017 Parks Yard Fuel Site Upgrades $ 1,800,000 (1,580,000)$ 1,580,000$ Regatta and S34th Wayside Horn 250,000$ (250,000)$ 250,000$ Richmond Electrical Pull-Box Replacement 215,000$ (215,000)$ 215,000$ Richmond Parkway 4,500,000$ (4,500,000)$ 4,500,000$ Traffic Signals LED light replacement 250,000$ (250,000)$ 250,000$ Replace Windows at the Recreation Complex (energy efficient) 200,000$ (200,000)$ 200,000$ Fire Department Regional Training Center 2,000,000$ (2,000,000)$ 2,000,000$ Replace Station 66 8,000,000$ (8,000,000)$ 8,000,000$ Replace Station 67 8,000,000$ (8,000,000)$ 8,000,000$ Training Tower at New Facility 800,000$ (800,000)$ 800,000$ Broadband Accessibility Project 500,000$ (500,000)$ 500,000$ Computer Replacement/Upgrades 3,000,000$ (3,000,000)$ 3,000,000$ Fiber Expansion 1,800,000$ (1,800,000)$ 1,800,000$ New Police Facility 80,000,000$ (80,000,000)$ 80,000,000$ Marina Bay Switchgear Replacement 700,000$ (700,000)$ 700,000$ Urban Greening Master Plan Update & Implementation Plan/Budget 300,000$ Parks Master Plan Update & Implementation Plan/Budget 300,000$ Facility Needs Assessment and Implementation Plan 500,000$ 01B02 Traffic Safety Improvements $ 375,000 -$ 20201 Fire Trail Access $ 50,000 (50,000)$ 50,000$ STR23 2023 Winter Storm Related Cost $ 406,812 (406,812)$ 406,812$ Fully Funded Projects
Mid-Year Project Requests
Inactive/Unfunded Projects
Annual Programs
Legend

Page 5 of 5464 ends

Attachment 9 - Resolution Mid-Year Budget Review Fiscal Year 2023-24 RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND ADOPTING FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 MID-YEAR BUDGET AND ADJUSTMENTS
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 1(b) of Article IV of the Richmond City Charter the City Manager is required to prepare an annual budget for the review and approval by the City Council; and

WHEREAS, all appropriations for the prior fiscal years shall lapse at the end of Fiscal Year 2023-24 and any remaining amounts shall be credited against their respective fund balances except for any encumbered amounts for specific obligations outstanding at the end of said Fiscal Year; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the proposed mid-year budget and adjustments for the Fiscal Year 2023-24 at a public meeting on February 27, 2024.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby adopts the FY 2023- 24 Mid-Year Budget adjustments for the following funds:

FUND

PROPOSED

REVENUE

ADJUSTMENTS

PROPOSED

EXPENDITURE

ADJUSTMENTS
NET

MID-YEAR

ADJUSTMENTS
0001 GENERAL FUND (9,005,680) 18,556,434 9,550,754
1006 OUTSIDE FUNDED SVCS - GRANTS (151,500) 151,500 0 2001 GENERAL CAPITAL FUND (10,686,686) 10,736,686 50,000 2002 MEASURE J - 216,866 216,866
2110 IMPACT FEE - PARKS (15,096) - (15,096) 2111 IMPACT FEE - TRAFFIC (71,296) - (71,296) 2113 IMPACT FEE - FIRE (15,172) - (15,172) 2114 IMPACT FEE - POLICE (13,088) - (13,088) 2115 IMPACT FEE - COMM/AQUATC (60,758) - (60,758) 2116 IMPACT FEE - PARKS/OPEN (253,350) - (253,350) 2117 IMPACT FEE - LIBRARY (72,106) - (72,106) 2119 IMPACT FEE - STORM DRAINAGE (23,854) - (23,854) 4001 PORT (50,000) - (50,000)
4003 WASTEWATER - 1,113,629 1,113,629
4404 RHA-NEVIN PLAZA (20,797) 4,334 (16,463) 4405 RHA-NYSTROM VILLAGE (66,406) 242,534 176,128 4406 RHA-RICHMOND VILLAGE ONE 45,745 (45,745) 0 4407 RHA-RICHMOND VILLAGE TWO 15,787 (15,787) 0 4408 RHA-RICHMOND VILLAGE THRE 44,138 (44,138) 0 4501 RHA-CENTRAL OFFICE COST CENTER - 44,873 44,873
4502 RHA-HOUSING CORPORATION (5,000) 7,000 2,000 1003 TRANSPORTATION OPERATION (97,500) 97,500 0 1015 MARINA BAY LNDSCP & LIGHTING - 41,000 41,000
1050 CR-PLANNING & BUILDING - 280,584 280,584
1205 EMPLOYMENT & TRAINING (536,706) 255,834 (280,872) 1005 LIBRARY FUND (150,000) 150,000 0
1018 RENT CONTROL (89,753) 234,209 144,456 1055 ENCROACHMENT SVCS - 45,488 45,488
1303 KIDS FIRST INITIATIVE - 1,664 1,664
Total All Funds (21,279,078) 32,074,465 10,795,387

465
Attachment 9 - Resolution Mid-Year Budget Review Fiscal Year 2023-24 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby adopts the FY 2023-24 Mid-Year Budget adjustments listed in Attachment 5 – Mid-Year Budget Adjustments.

*****************************
I certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richmond at a _________ meeting held on _____________ by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:

________________________________________
Clerk of the City of Richmond

(SEAL)

Approved:

_______________________________
Mayor

Approved as to form:

____________________________
City Attorney

466
Fiscal Year 2023-24 Mid-Year Budget Review
Shasa Curl, Nickie Mastay, Andrea Miller,Mubeen Qader, Jerry Gurule & Antonio Banuelos 1467
Overview
Economic Overview
General Fund Proposed Revenue Adjustments
Funding Update – ACFR & Additional Revenue Projections
General Fund Mid-Year Budget Review
Capital Improvement Projects Update
Non-General Fund Mid-Year Budget Review
Next Steps & Questions
2 468
Recommended Action
3 RECEIVE the FY 2023-24 Mid-Year budget presentation
and report for the period of July 1, 2023, through
December 31, 2023; and PROVIDE direction to staff;
and ADOPT a Resolution to APPROPRIATE the FY
2023-24 Mid-Year budget adjustments.
469
The US economy is on its final descent to a soft landing 4 With inflation falling and the job
market buoyant, Goldman Sachs
Research forecasts that the Fed will
keep rates steady until a rate cut in
the last quarter of 2024. Our
economists expect that policy
decision to be followed by a 25-basis-
point cut per quarter until the fed
funds rate reaches 3.5-3.75%
(compared with 5.25-5.5% now) in
the second quarter of 2026.
*Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) includes the price of all medical goods and services purchased by employer-provided insurance as well as public programs such as Medicare.
**CPI only includes medical items purchased out-of-pocket by households. ***Source: https://www.goldmansachs.com/intelligence/pages/the-us-economy-is-on-its-final-descent-to-a-soft-landing.html 470
10-Years City of Richmond Unemployment Rate
5 7.5
6 5.1

4.5 3.6 3.6 3.2

10.4 5.2

3.4 4.9
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 2013 Dec
2014 Dec
2015 Dec
2016 Dec
2017 Dec
2018 Dec
2019 Dec
2020 Dec
2021 Dec
2022 Dec
2023 Dec
Unemployment Rate
Year/MonthRichmond California USA
Source: https://www.bls.gov/data471
10-Year General Fund Revenue and Expenditures - Inflation Adjusted
6Source: https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Revenue 178,965,378 170,022,472 180,998,021 185,485,113 204,699,251 197,505,859 206,855,208 204,590,849 211,578,430 209,452,941 226,379,776 Expenditure 179,661,865 181,661,193 179,443,695 184,579,162 197,201,367 197,246,712 205,685,150 202,799,703 199,455,378 188,928,995 210,103,490 Revenue Percentage Change 0 -5% 6% 2% 10% -4% 5% -1% 3% -1% 8% Expenditure Percentage Change 0 1% -1% 3% 7% 0% 4% -1% -2% -5% 11% (50)
-
50 100
150
200
250Millions
Year
472
FY 2023-24 Available Funding Update and Recommendation
7 Amount
ACFR Additional Unspent Funds (Above 21% Reserve Level) (6,879,432) Projected Mid-Year 23-24 Revenue Increase (9,005,680)
Total Available (15,885,112)
Recommendation:

Mid-Year Proposed Expenditures Adjustments 7,102,426
Capital Improvement Projects 8,782,686
Total Appropriations 15,885,112
473
General Fund: Remaining Unspent Funds at Close of FY 2022-23 8 Estimated
Year-End
FY 22-23*
Final
Year-End
FY 22-23
Beginning
FY 23-24
Fund Balance 47,328,667 55,196,962 55,196,962
Minimum Required 21% 47,328,667 47,328,667 47,328,667
Fund Balance above 21% Reserve - 7,868,295 7,868,295
Other Appropriations
Fire CAD System Upgrade (Allocated by Council) (438,863) Street Sweeping Signs (Allocated by Council) (550,000)
Fund Balance above 21%
Reserve 6,879,432
474
General Fund Proposed Revenue Adjustment – Assumptions
9 •Amounts received year to date are compared to historical data •Secured Property Tax Revenue is based on Assessed Valuation, amount received through December represents 55% of the total amount remitted by the county
•Sales and Use Tax adjustment is based on forecast from City's Sales Tax Consultant
•Gas and Electricity Utility Use Tax increasing based on increased rates from PG&E and historical data
•Other Tax increase based on new PG&E Franchise Agreement •Measure U Business Tax Adjusted based on first full year of actuals 475
10 General Fund – FY 2023-24 Mid-Year Revenue Budget Adjustments

CATEGORY

PROPOSED
BUDGET

ADJUSTMENTS

PERCENTAGE

CHANGE DESCRIPTION/ASSUMPTIONS
PROPERTY TAXES (1,614,181) 3% Higher Assessed Valuation growth SALES & USE TAX (1,144,846) 2% Revised forecast from City's Sales Tax Consultant UTILITY USERS TAX (2,162,928) 4% UUT from Gas & Electricity higher than expected OTHER TAXES (906,654) 4% New PG&E Franchise Agreement
LICENSES, PERMITS & FEES (2,492,980) 19% Revised Measure U revenue based on first full year FINES & FORFEITURES 179,70 -54% Municipal Court Fee trending lower USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY (784,886) 78% Investment Income increase due to higher rates CHARGES FOR SERVICES 25,00 -1% Parking Citations trending lower INTERGOV STATE GRANT (73,911) 67% State Of California Police Officers Standards Training Reimbursements
INTERGOV OTHER GRANT (30,000) 12% State Of California Supplemental Law Enforcement Reimbursements
TOTAL REVENUES (9,005,680)
4%
476
General Fund: Mid-Year 2023-24 Revenue Adjustments
11 CATEGORY
FY 2023-24

ORIGINAL
BUDGET
FY 2023-24

REVISED BUDGET YTD ACTUALS
% USED
W/O
ENCUMB.
% USED W.

ENCUMB.

PROPOSED
BUDGET

ADJUSTMENTS

MID-YEAR

PROPOSED
BUDGET
PROPERTY TAXES (50,567,173) (50,567,173) (23,877,788) 47.2% 47.2% (1,614,181) (52,181,354) SALES & USE TAX (56,752,495) (56,752,495) (15,864,789) 28.0% 28.0% (1,144,846) (57,897,341) UTILITY USERS TAX (55,775,083) (55,775,083) (31,341,319) 56.2% 56.2% (2,162,928) (57,938,011) OTHER TAXES (23,237,723) (23,237,723) (3,542,186) 15.2% 15.2% (906,654) (24,144,377) LICENSES, PERMITS & FEES (13,286,195) (13,286,195) (2,006,437) 15.1% 15.1% (2,492,980) (15,779,175) FINES & FORFEITURES (331,144) (331,144) (70,194) 21.2% 21.2% 179,706 (151,438) USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY (1,011,535) (1,011,535) (877,697) 86.8% 86.8% (784,886) (1,796,421) CHARGES FOR SERVICES (2,561,992) (2,561,992) (949,409) 37.1% 37.1% 25,000 (2,536,992) OTHER REVENUE (238,480) (238,480) (137,190) 57.5% 57.5% - (238,480) RENTAL INCOME (777,028) (777,028) (549,296) 70.7% 70.7% - (777,028) INTERGOV STATE TAXES (125,000) (125,000) - 0.0% 0.0% - (125,000) INTERGOV STATE GRANT (110,000) (110,000) (148,524) 135.0% 135.0% (73,911) (183,911) INTERGOV OTHER GRANT (250,000) (250,000) (200,818) 80.3% 80.3% (30,000) (280,000) PROC FR SLE PROP - - (62,711) - - - -
LOAN/BOND PROCEEDS (40,400) (40,400) - 0.0% 0.0% - (40,400) OPER XFERS IN (20,310,358) (20,310,358) (20,266,966) 99.8% 99.8% - (20,310,358) TOTAL REVENUES (225,374,607) (225,374,607) (99,895,323) 44.3% 44.3% (9,005,680) (234,380,287)477 12 Recommendation: General Fund – FY 2023-24 Mid-Year Expenditure Budget Adjustments
Line
# Department
Increase
/
Decrease
Proposed
Mid-Year
Adjustment
Description
1 City Attorney Increase 20,000 Part-Time Staff - Support in-house attorneys and assist in implementing IManage
2 Community Development/Code
Enforcement Increase 20,000 Overtime General - Evening, Weekends and After-hour Investigations, Inspections and Community Outreach
3 Fire Increase 652,900 Fire Overtime - Increase due to Vacancies, Injury leave and Contract Changes
4 Fire Increase 225,000 Firefighter Annual Physical Exams, Hazmat Tech Training, Annual Refresher and Equipment Replacement
5 Fire Increase 108,000 VHF Radios Required by Cal OES
6 Community Services Increase 274,489 Neighborhood Activities, Community Build Activities 7 Community Services/Recreation Increase 49,753 Additional Position - Administrative Assistant, Grant Funded Term Position - ECIA
8 Internal Services/Information
Technology Increase 382,000 Professional Services, Network Infrastructure, Cyber Security, Licensing, and Digital Mapping Modernization
478
13 Recommendation: General Fund – FY 2023-24 Mid-Year Expenditure Budget Adjustments(Continued)
Line
# Department
Increase
/
Decrease
Proposed
Mid-Year
Adjustment
Description
9 Internal Services/Information
Technology Increase 294,000 Audio Video Equipment Replacement And Installation 10 Internal Services/Information
Technology Increase 40,000 Tyler Technologies Professional Services To Create Reports 11 Internal Services/Information
Technology Increase 42,000 Professional Service Copier Machines 12 Public Works Increase 35,000 Professional Services, Street Vacation Program Consultant 13 Public Works Increase 72,018 Additional Position - Assistant Engineer 14 Public Works Increase 525,000 Gas & Fuel Heating Expense 15 Public Works Increase 300,000 Building Roof & Maintenance 16 Public Works Increase 30,000 Two Maintenance Aide Part Time Staff. 17 Public Works Increase 300,000 Street Light Repairs
479
14 Recommendation: General Fund – FY 2023-24 Mid-Year Expenditure Budget Adjustments(Continued)
Line # Department
Increase
/
Decrease
Proposed
Mid-Year
Adjustment
Description
18 Public Works Increase 400,000 Via Verdi Mitigation (CIP) 19 Public Works Increase 60,000 Dornan Tunnel Lighting (CIP) 20 Public Works Increase 200,000 Civic Center Plaza Landscaping (CIP-Design) 21 Public Works Increase 75,000 Abatements, Fencing, Boulder, K-Rails, Other 22 Public Works Increase 500,000 Traffic Calming
23 Public Works Increase 37,500 Corp Yard Fence (Design) due to increase in burglaries 24 Police Increase 37,500 Corp Yard Security Cameras (Design) due to increase in burglaries 25 Police Increase 1,979,851 Police and Emergency Dispatch Center Overtime - Increase due to Vacancies within the department Approx. 20%
480
15 Line # Department
Increase
/
Decrease
Proposed
Mid-Year
Adjustment
Description
26 Community Services/Employment &
Training Increase 150,495 General Fund Subsidy for Cost Pool Charges not covered by Grant Revenue
27 Community Services/Employment &
Training Increase 236,211 One Time Adjustment to Cover Prior Years' Expenditures not Covered by Grants
28 Economic Development Decrease (11,529) 12th and Macdonald Exclusive Right To Negotiate Agreement/ Developer Deposit
29 Cost Pool/A87 Increase 17,238 Cost Allocation Plan Overhead Charges Adjustment 30 Community Services - Transportation (38) Decrease (97,500) Support to Transportation Fund(1003) 31 Community Services - Transportation (38) Increase 97,500 Support to Transportation Fund(1003) - Transfer Out of General Fund
32 Non-Departmental Increase 50,000 Employee Retention And Appreciation Activities

GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE REQUEST -
SUBTOTAL 7,102,426
33 Non-Departmental Increase 2,671,322
One time contribution from prior years unspent funds to the OPEB and Pension 115 trust accounts per the prefunding policies
NET ADJUSTMENTS - GENERAL FUND REQUESTS 9,773,748
Recommendation: General Fund – FY 2023-24 Mid-Year Expenditure Budget Adjustments(Continued)
481
General Fund Expenditure Budget
16 GENERAL FUND
FY 2023-24

ORIGINAL
BUDGET
FY 2023-24

REVISED BUDGET
YTD

ACTUALS
% USED W/O
ENCUMB.
% USED W.

ENCUMB.

PROPOSED
BUDGET

ADJUSTMENTS

MID-YEAR

PROPOSED
BUDGET
SALARIES AND WAGES 83,345,132 83,181,052 39,413,373 47.4% 47.4% 2,746,272 85,927,324 PYROLL/FRINGE BENEFIT 62,867,833 62,866,974 29,285,450 46.6% 46.6% 2,671,322 65,538,296 PROFESSIONAL & ADMIN COSTS 20,302,711 20,874,642 5,274,821 25.3% 47.5% 612,471 21,487,114 OTHER OPERATING 8,611,971 8,644,492 2,718,776 31.5% 56.0% 473,239 9,117,731 UTILITIES 5,288,272 5,153,706 2,597,648 50.4% 57.3% 525,000 5,678,706 EQUIPMENT & CONTRACT SERVICES 5,918,655 5,251,708 1,397,456 26.6% 37.5% 640,000 5,891,708 PROVISN FOR INS LOSS 34,200 34,200 29,572 86.5% 86.5% - 34,200 COST POOL 21,593,734 21,593,734 10,806,533 50.0% 50.0% - 21,593,734 ASSET/CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,893,500 2,694,363 1,121,993 41.6% 53.3% - 2,694,363 DEBT SVC EXPENDITURE 841,353 841,353 418,000 49.7% 49.7% - 841,353 A87 COST PLAN REIMBS (3,531,611) (3,531,611) (1,827,819) 51.8% 51.8% 17,238 (3,514,373) GRANT EXPENDITURES 19,155 19,155 (1,625) -8.5% 24.3% - 19,155 OPER XFERS OUT 18,189,702 27,709,920 18,468,514 66.6% 66.6% 2,088,206 29,798,126 TOTAL EXPENSES 225,374,607 235,333,687 109,702,690 46.6% 50.0% 9,773,748 245,107,435 482
Proposed Positions Included in the Recommendation
17 Department Mid-Year Adjustment Notes
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (Planning & Building, Code Enforcement, Housing, Successor Agency) Building Inspector (Cost Recovery) 1 Additional Position Requested Plan Checking Engineer (Cost Recovery) 1 Additional Position Requested COMMUNITY SERVICES (Employment & Training)
Admin Trainee (Grant Funded) 2 Additional Positions Requested COMMUNITY SERVICES (Administration)
Administrative Assistant (Grant Funded) 1 Additional Position Requested COMMUNITY SERVICES (Community Crisis Response)
Administrative Analyst/Associate (General Fund) 1 Additional Position Requested Community Intervention Specialists/EMTs (General Fund) 8 Additional Positions Requested Mental Health Clinician (General Fund) 1 Additional Position Requested

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH
Community Services Technician I/II (General Fund Measures E & K) 1 Additional Position Requested ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (Environmental Initiatives)
Management Analyst/Associate Analyst 1 Additional Position Requested

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (RHA)
Senior Development Project Manager -1 Unallocate

PUBLIC WORKS
Junior Assistant Engineer (Cost Recovery) 1 Additional Position Requested PUBLIC WORKS (Water Resource Recovery)
Project Manager I/II -1 Reallocate to Water Resource Recovery Manager Water Resource Division Manager 1 Reallocate from Project Manager I/II Total Full Time Equivalents 17
483
19 CIP Dashboard Launch - Live Demonstration
To View See URL: https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/86362b12585448b583b74a3a2ae32745/ 484
20 Capital Projects with Immediate Funding Needs
Multi-Year Projects Included in Attach.
4 of Staff Report Additional Requests
1 Richmond Tunnel Lighting 60,000 500,000
2 Corp Yard Fuel Site - 250,000
3 Station 63 - 300,000
4 Annual Roof Improvements 300,000
5 Street Light Improvements 300,000 200,000
6 Corp Yard Fence Replacement and Security 75,000 400,000 7 Fire Emergency Exit Routes for Mitigation Measures 50,000 8 Via Verde Mitigation 400,000 4,100,000
9 Civic Center Plaza Landscape and Citywide Plant & Median Materials 200,000 10 Traffic Calming (locations 1-18)/Complete Streets/Paving 500,000 1,100,000 11 Booker T. Anderson - Transformer Pole Removal - 150,000 12 Harbour 8 Park (LEED Cert. & Living Preview Bike Detour) - 350,000 13 CIP Management Software - 50,000
14 Abatement, Fencing, Boulder, K-Rails, Others 75,000
15 Bridge Preventative Maintenace (CIP#23G02) 40,000
16 37th Street Improvement (CIP#29105) 50,000
17 Nevin Ave. from 19th to 27th St (CIP#07001) 50,000
18 Street Signs, Traffic Signals & Street Light Poles data Collection/Management 540,081 Subtotal 1,910,000 8,130,081
CIP Public Art Requirement 150,601
5% Project Management included in Subtotal Amount Mid-Year 502,004 Total Additional Amount Mid-Year 8,782,686
Funds Available 8,782,686
Balance -
* City Staff will further explain this slide during the Council meeting 485
21 Capital Projects with Future Funding Needs
Multi-Year Projects Next Year
FY 2024-25
1 Corp Yard Fuel Site 1,250,000
2 Station 63 3,000,000
3 Annual Roof Improvements 2,000,000
4 Street Light Improvements 2,000,000
5 Facility Needs Assessment and Implementation Plan/Budget 500,000 6 Civic Center Plaza Landscape 2,000,000
7 Traffic Calming Program 1,500,000
8 Harbour 8 Park (LEED Cert. & Living Preview Bike Detour) 700,000 9 CIP Management Software 100,000
10 Street Paving 11,000,000
Subtotal 24,050,000
Public Art Requirement (1.5%) 360,750
5% Project Management 1,202,500
Total 25,613,250
Funds Available 0
Balance (25,613,250)
486
22 Unfunded Capital Projects (Rough Order of Magnitude) Department Project Estimated Amount
Public Works Martin Luther King (MLK) Jr. Community Center 15,000,000 Auditorium Various Improvements 9,000,000
Parks Yard Fuel Site Upgrades 1,580,000
Regatta and S34th Wayside Horn 250,000
Richmond Electrical Pull-Box Replacement 215,000
Richmond Parkway 4,500,000
Traffic Signals LED light replacement 250,000
Urban Greening Master Plan Update and Implementation
Plan/Budget
300,000
Parks Master Plan Updateand Implementation Plan/Budget 300,000 Community Services Replace Windows at the Recreation Complex (energy efficient) 200,000 Fire Department Fire Department Regional Training Center 2,000,000 Replace Station 66 8,000,000
Replace Station 67 8,000,000
Training Tower at New Facility 800,000
Information Technology Broadband Accessibility Project 500,00 Computer Replacement/Upgrades 3,000,000
Fiber Expansion 1,800,000
Police New Public Safety and Community Services Building 80,000,00 Economic Development Marina Bay Switchgear Replacement 700,000 Total 136,395,000487
23 Nov 2022
The City Council
approved 18 locations
to create concepts for
the design, bidding, and
construction phases.

Spring 2023
New Public Works
Engineering staff joined
the City.

Staff worked with
finance to address
accounting and contract
issues with the
Transportation
Consultants to proceed
with concept
development and
proceeding phases.

Summer 2023
Release Traffic Calming
Program website which
received over +150
requests in three
months.

Created temporary
back-end database to
track and monitor
requests.

Completed
Construction for 1
Speed Hump location
and reviewing 2 Pilot
Sideshow Deterrent
location designs.

Fall 2023
Transportation
Consultants developed
a process for evaluating
traffic calming requests
to ensure uniform
analysis for inquires.

Staff and transportation
consultants began
collaborating on a beta
prioritization profile
map.

Current
Completed
Construction for 2
Speed Hump locations
and design for 1 Speed
Hump location and
scheduling for
construction.

Reviewing design
constructability for 2
Pilot Sideshow
Deterrent locations
Programmed remaining
12 locations for design
through construction
delivery.

Traffic Calming 18 Projects
FY2023-2024 Update
488
24 Update on Traffic Calming Map:
18 Project Locations
(3)
(2)
(9)
(4)
489
Traffic Calming
Completed Locations: Speed Humps
#4 Esmond Ave between 24th St
and 26th St
25 #7 32nd St between Garvin Ave
and Clinton Ave
#13 State Ave and 49th St
490
Traffic Calming Project Tracker:

Public Works Operations/Others- 10 of 18 Locations
26 Priority
No.

Location(s) Type Deliverable Status
18 Barrett Ave and Key Blvd Pilot Sideshow Deterrence Public Works Operations / Contract Design – Winter 2023 12 S 55th St Speed Humps Public Works Operations Construction – Spring 2024 5 S 37th St and Wall Ave Pilot Sideshow Deterrence Public Works Operations Construction – Spring 2024 4 Esmond Ave between 24th St and 26th St Speed Humps Public Works Operations Completed – Sept. 2023 7 32nd St between Garvin Ave and Clinton
Ave Speed Humps Public Works Operations Completed – Dec. 2023 13 State Ave and 49th St Speed Humps Public Works Operations Completed – Jan. 2024 2 Carlson Blvd and Carl Ave Rapid Flashing Beacon Others - #23033 Carlson Blvd Pavement Improvement Project
Planning - Request for
Proposal Design
8 Mariposa St and Carl Ave Drainage Issue
Others – #01BO2 Traffic Safety
Improvements & #01C09 Surface
Drainage
Planning - Request for
Proposal Design
9 Bayview Ave / I-580 Overpass Sidewalk Repair Others - #01A04 ADA Sidewalk, Curbs and Curb Ramps
Planning - Request for
Proposal Design
17 Three Rail Crossings: Point Richmond Rail Crossing Safety and Traffic Others - RFP Larger Study Planning - Request for Proposal Study
* From Fehr & Peers Report
491
27 PRIORITY
#18

LOCATION
Barrett Ave & Key Blvd
Sideshow Deterrence
492
28 S. 37th St & Wall Ave
Sideshow Deterrence

PRIORITY
#5

LOCATION
493
29 S. 55th St
Speed Humps
Insert Plans
N N
N
N

PRIORITY
#12

LOCATION
494
Traffic Calming Project Tracker:

Fehr & Peers 8 of 18 Locations - Continued
30 Priority No. Location(s) Type March April May June Summer Fall Winter 1 15th St / Macdonald Ave Rapid Flashing Beacon
3 16th St / Macdonald Ave Rapid Flashing Beacon
6 Merced St / Carl Ave Striping and Signage
10 29th St / Vale Rd Striping and Signage
11 41st / 42nd St Striping and Signage
14 Carlson Blvd / Sutter Ave Rapid Flashing Beacon
15 Carlson Blvd / Shasta St Rapid Flashing Beacon
16 Carlson Blvd / Tehama Ave Rapid Flashing Beacon
Bid-Award
Construction
Completed
Data Collection, Field Visit, Analysis
Draft Plans, Specifications and Estimate
Final Plans, Specifications and Estimate
495
Non-General Fund Revenue
31 FUND TYPE ORIGINAL
BUDGET

REVISED
BUDGET YTD ACTUALS % USED W/O
ENCUMB
% USED W.

ENCUMB.

PROPOSED
BUDGET

ADJUSTMENTS

MID-YEAR

PROPOSED
BUDGET
Total Capital Improvement Fund (45,085,732) (71,470,814) (17,472,931) 24.4% 24.4% (2,580,220) (74,051,034) Total Debt Service Funds (19,551,216) (19,551,216) (11,144,364) 57.0% 57.0% - (19,551,216) Total Enterprise Funds (41,443,141) (41,443,141) (22,371,972) 54.0% 54.0% (50,000) (41,493,141) Total Housing Funds (1,911,772) (1,911,772) (1,549,885) 81.1% 81.1% - (1,911,772) Total Housing Authority Funds (5,563,388) (5,563,388) (1,871,990) 33.6% 33.6% 13,466 (5,549,922) Total Internal Service Funds (30,919,340) (30,919,340) (15,852,074) 51.3% 51.3% - (30,919,340) Total Other Operations Funds (32,931,748) (43,108,672) (9,902,080) 23.0% 23.0% (634,206) (43,742,878) Total Special Revenue Funds (52,120,364) (87,299,299) (19,217,299) 22.0% 22.0% (239,753) (87,539,052) Total All Funds (229,526,702) (301,267,643) (99,382,594) 33.0% 33.0% (3,490,713) (304,758,356) 496
Non-General Fund Expenditures
32 FUND TYPE ORIGINAL
BUDGET

REVISED

BUDGET YTD ACTUALS
% USED
W/O
ENCUMB.
% USED
W.

ENCUMB.

PROPOSED
BUDGET

ADJUSTMENTS

MID-YEAR

PROPOSED
BUDGET
Total Capital Improvement Funds 71,270,921 111,411,564 10,404,344 9% 29% 2,322,366 113,733,930 Total Debt Service Funds 19,174,878 19,174,878 13,060,596 68% 68% - 19,174,878 Total Enterprise Funds 86,084,855 99,763,707 21,473,602 22% 33% 1,113,629 100,877,336 Total Housing Funds 6,249,305 6,275,149 399,622 6% 8% - 6,275,149 Total Housing Authority Funds 5,570,438 5,570,438 1,941,276 35% 38% 193,072 5,763,510 Total Internal Service Funds 36,799,838 42,901,280 15,455,762 36% 52% - 42,901,280 Total Other Operations Funds 33,182,604 47,788,104 12,021,464 25% 40% 674,918 48,463,022 Total Special Revenue Funds 68,197,088 119,828,961 29,390,808 25% 30% 431,361 120,260,322 Total All Funds 326,529,928 452,714,081 104,147,475 23% 35% 4,735,346 457,449,427 497
Next Steps
33 City staff will continue to monitor revenues and expenditure trends in the current fiscal year to determine if adjustments will be needed during the Quarter 3 budget review planned for May 2024.
498
Recommended Action
34 RECEIVE the FY 2023-24 Mid-Year budget
presentation and report for the period of
July 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023;
and PROVIDE direction to staff; and
ADOPT a Resolution to APPROPRIATE the
FY 2023-24 Mid-Year budget adjustments.
499
Thank You
&
Questions!
35 500

Page 1 of 2 ends

March 5, 2024

Community Development

DATE: March 5, 2024
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM: Lina Velasco, Director of Community Development

Subject: Brickyard Cove Residential Project Appeal
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

On March 16, 2023, the Planning Commission approved
Density Bonus Waivers, Major Design Review, and a
Vesting Tentative Map for the Brickyard Cove Residential Project (PLN21-444) as submitted by Republic Urban
Properties (“Applicant”). An appeal was filed by the
“Brickyard Cove Alliance for Responsible Development”
(BCARD), Jeffrey Vines, and Robert Kish (collectively
“Appellants”) on March 27, 2023. The Applicant has since withdrawn their application; therefore, City staff is
seeking City Council action to grant the appeal and set aside the approvals granted by the Planning Commission
for this project.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

HOLD a Public Hearing; and ADOPT a Resolution
granting the appeal and setting aside the Density Bonus Waivers, Major Design Review, and Vesting Tentative
Map (PLN21-444) granted by the Planning Commission
for the Brickyard Cove Residential Project as the
application for the entitlements has since been withdrawn by the Applicant – Community Development Department
(Lina Velasco 510-620-6841).

AGENDA
REPORT
501

Page 2 of 2 ends

March 5, 2024
DISCUSSION:

On March 16, 2023, the Planning Commission approved Density Bonus Waivers, Major Design Review, and Vesting Tentative Map for the Brickyard Cove Residential Project (PLN21-444) (see Resolution in Attachment 2). An appeal was filed by the “Brickyard Cove Alliance for Responsible Development” (BCARD), Jeffrey Vines, and Robert Kish (collectively “Appellants”) on March 27, 2023 (see Attachment 3). Appeals of Planning Commission decisions are regulated by Richmond Municipal Code Section

15.04.803.140. The Applicant requested and the Appellants agreed to move the appeal hearing date several times with the final date set for January 16, 2024. However, on December 14, 2023, the Applicant withdrew its application (see Attachment 4) before the appeal was considered by the City Council. However, the Richmond Municipal Code does not contain a mechanism to allow for withdrawal once entitlements have been approved and prior to City Council consideration of the appeal of the same.

Therefore, City staff is seeking City Council action to grant the appeal and void the approvals granted by the Planning Commission for this project. Given that the application has been withdrawn, it is no longer necessary to argue the merits of the appeal. Since the Applicant has withdrawn its application and does not object to the voiding of their previously granted approvals, City staff advised the Appellants that a presentation of their appeal was not necessary for the hearing.

City staff recommends the City Council adopt the Resolution granting the appeals and setting aside or voiding the project approvals granted by the Planning Commission for the Brickyard Cove Residential project (Attachment 1). The voiding of the previously granted approvals would require any future applicant for development of the property to follow required review processes specified in the Richmond Municipal Code or as provided by State Law, in effect at the time. The Applicant for the project does not object to the City Council action to set aside or void the project approvals granted on March 16, 2023, by the Planning Commission as noted in their withdrawal letter.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – CC Resolution
Attachment 2 – PC Resolution
Attachment 3 – BCARD Appeal
Attachment 4 – Request to Withdraw Application

502

1 of 2
01337.0005/961083.1

RESOLUTION NO. _____

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND GRANTING AN APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S CONDITIONAL

APPROVAL OF DENSITY BONUS WAIVERS, MAJOR DESIGN REVIEW, AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP (PLN21-444) GRANTED FOR THE BRICKYARD COVE RESIDENTIAL

PROJECT AS THE APPLICATION FOR THE ENTITLEMENTS HAS SINCE BEEN

WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT

WHEREAS, Republic Urban Properties (the “applicant”) requested approval of a Density Bonus with Waivers, Major Design Review, and a Tentative Map for the construction of a 90-Unit Multifamily residential development (“Project”) (PLN21-444) at Brickyard Cove Road (APNs:
560-340-043 and 560-340-039).) (“subject site”) within the RM-1 (Multifamily Residential) and PA (Planned Area) Districts; and

WHEREAS, on February 22, 2023, at a publ ic hearing the Design Review Board voted to recommend conditional approval of the Major Design Review permit with additional project - specific conditio ns to the Planning Commission ; and

WHEREAS , on March 16, 2023, at a publ ic hearing the Planning Commission reviewed the Project and voted to adopt Resolution No. 23-09 approving the Project, subject to conditions ; and

WHEREAS , on March 27, 2023, an appeal was filed by the Brickyard Cove Alliance for Responsible Development (BCARD) (“Appellants”) and certain property owners surrounding the project site, objecting to the Planning Commission approval of the Project; and

WHEREAS, the Applicant requested and the Appellants agreed to move the appeal hearing date several times with the final date set for January 16, 2024; and

WHEREAS, on December 14, 2023, the Applicant withdrew its application before the appeal was considered by the City Council; and

WHEREAS , on March 5 , 2024, the City C ouncil conducted a prop erly noticed public hearing pursuant to Californ ia Government Code S ection 65090 and has duly considered all written and verbal testimony pre sented before or during th e hearing, including the staff report; and

WHEREAS, Planning Division staff has determined that the City Council’s rejection or disapproval of the Project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Cal. Pub. Res. Code, § 21000, et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq.) pursuant to Section 15270(a) of the CEQA Guidelines because CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. The City Council has reviewed staff’s determination of exemption and based on its own independent judgment, concurs in the staff’s determination of exemption.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, on the basis of the written appeal, plans, materials, agenda report, and testimony received at or before the public hearing, the City Council does hereby grant the appeal, and reverses and overturns the Planning Commission’s conditional approval of the 503

2 of 2
01337.0005/961083.1

Density Bonus Waivers, Major Design Review, and Vesting Tentative Map (PLN21-444) for the Brickyard Cove Residential Project as all findings can be made, as the application for the entitlements has been withdrawn by the Applicant, there is no longer evidence being presented in support of the granting of the entitlements and no entitlements are now being sought, and the Applicant has consented to the same.
*****************************************************

I CERTIFY, that t he foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of Richmond, California, at a regular meeting held on March 5, 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:

_____________________________

CLERK OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
(SEAL)

Approved:

_____________________
Eduardo Martinez
Mayor

Approved as to form:

_____________________________
Dave Aleshire
City Attorney
504
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 23-09

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND APPROVING DENSITY BONUS WAIVERS; MAJOR DESIGN REVIEW; AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP FOR THE BRICKYARD COVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT (PLN21-444),

SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS
I. GENERAL FINDINGS
A. Introduction. Republic Brickyard LLC ("Applicant") is proposing to construct a 94-unit residential development ("Project") on a 5.9-acre site including two parcels (APN Nos. 560-340- 043 and 560-340-039) located on the north side of Brickyard Cove Road, between Seacliff Estates and Brickyard Landing ("Project Site") in the City of Richmond, Contra Costa County, California. The Project consists of 19 three-story buildings with four to six units per building. It features 12 different unit types, varying in architectural treatments and ranging in size from 2- bedroom to 3-bedroom units. In addition to the residential units, the Project includes a shared 6,251-square-foot recreation center with a pool, along with leasing offices, located at the frontage on Brickyard Cove Road. The required Project approvals are the following: Density Bonus Waivers; Major Design Review; and a Vesting Tentative Map (collectively referred to as the "Project Approvals").

B. Environmental Review Process. On April 24, 2012, the City Council of the City of Richmond adopted Resolution No. 51-12 certifying the Program Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") (SCH#2008022018) for the Richmond General Plan 2030 ("General Plan") and adopting the associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP"). Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines Section 15168, the City has prepared an Environmental Checklist (Exhibit A-1 and A-2) demonstrating that the analysis contained in the General Plan Program EIR adequately addresses the potential impacts of the Project. The Environmental Checklist was prepared in compliance with CEQA requirements, CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Richmond Guidelines and Procedures for the Implementation of CEQA.

C. Administrative Record. The administrative record, upon which all the findings related to the Project Approvals are based, includes the following:
(1) The General Plan Program EIR and all documents referenced in or relied upon by the General Plan Program EIR;
(2) The Environmental Checklist prepared for the Project and all documents referenced in or relied upon by the Environmental Checklist;
(3) All information (including written evidence and testimony) provided by City Staff to the Design Review Board and Planning Commission relating to the General Plan Program EIR, the Project, the Environmental Checklist, and the Project Approvals; 01337.0005/865380.l 1 505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
David A Tucker
514
NORTH AMERICA | EUROPE | AFRICA | AUSTRALIA | ASIA
WWW.FIRSTCARBONSOLUTIONS.COM
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15168 and 15183 Environmental Checklist Brickyard Cove Project
City of Richmond, Contra Costa County, California
Prepared for:

City of Richmond
450 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
Phone: 510.620.6706
Contact: Andrea Villarroel, Planner II
Prepared by:

FirstCarbon Solutions
2999 Oak Road, Suite 250
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
925.357.2562
Contact: Mary Bean, Project Director
Elizabeth Johnson, Project Manager
Date: January 13, 2023
Exhibit A-1
515

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
516
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Table of Contents

FirstCarbon Solutions iii
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Table of Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................................ vii Section 1: Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 - CEQA Assessment .............................................................................................................. 1

1.2 - Summary of Results ........................................................................................................... 2 Section 2: Project Description ........................................................................................................ 3

2.1 - Project Location and Setting.............................................................................................. 3

2.2 - Project Background and Previous Environmental Review ................................................. 4

2.3 - Project Description ............................................................................................................ 5

2.4 - Discretionary Approvals .................................................................................................. 10 Section 3: Projects Consistent With Prior Environmental Documentation ..................................... 31

3.1 - CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 ...................................................................................... 31

3.2 - Public Resources Code Section 21166 and Guidelines Section 15162 ............................ 31

3.3 - CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 ...................................................................................... 33 Section 4: Environmental Checklist .............................................................................................. 35

4.1 Aesthetics ................................................................................................................... 37

4.2 Agriculture and Forest Resources ............................................................................... 52

4.3 Air Quality ................................................................................................................... 56

4.4 Biological Resources ................................................................................................... 84

4.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources ..................................................................... 104

4.6 Energy ....................................................................................................................... 114

4.7 Geology and Soils ..................................................................................................... 124

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...................................................................................... 132

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................ 144

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................... 151

4.11 Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................. 158

4.12 Mineral Resources .................................................................................................... 161

4.13 Noise ......................................................................................................................... 163

4.14 Population and Housing ........................................................................................... 172

4.15 Public Services .......................................................................................................... 175

4.16 Recreation ................................................................................................................ 180

4.17 Transportation .......................................................................................................... 183

4.18 Utilities and Service Systems .................................................................................... 190

4.19 Wildfire ..................................................................................................................... 197

4.20 Mandatory Findings of Significance ......................................................................... 201 Section 5: List of Preparers ......................................................................................................... 205

Appendix A: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis Appendix B: Biological Resources Analysis
B.1 - Special-status Species Evaluation
B.2 - Wetland Assessment Memorandum
Appendix C: Cultural Resources Analysis
Appendix D: Noise Impact Analysis
517
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Table of Contents Consistency Checklist

iv FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Appendix E: Geotechnical Supporting Information
Appendix F: Hazards and Hazardous Materials Supporting Information Appendix G: Transportation Impact Analysis

List of Tables
Table 1: Proposed Unit Types .................................................................................................................. 5 Table 2: Proposed Building Types ............................................................................................................ 6 Table 3: Project Consistency with Applicable Clean Air Plan Control Measures ................................... 59 Table 4: Preliminary Construction Schedule ......................................................................................... 65 Table 5: Construction Emissions (Unmitigated) .................................................................................... 65 Table 6: Operational Emissions (Unmitigated) ...................................................................................... 67 Table 7: Project DPM Construction Emissions ...................................................................................... 71 Table 8: Estimated Cancer Risks and Chronic Non-Cancer Hazards (Unmitigated) ............................... 73 Table 9: Estimated Cancer Risks and Chronic Non-Cancer Hazards (Mitigated) ................................... 74 Table 10: Summary of the Cumulative Health Impacts at the MIR During Construction ..................... 75 Table 11: Odor Screening Distances ...................................................................................................... 78 Table 12: Annual Project Energy Consumption ................................................................................... 117 Table 13: Construction GHG Emissions ............................................................................................... 134 Table 14: Operational GHG Emissions ................................................................................................. 135 Table 15: Consistency with the City of Richmond Climate Act Plan .................................................... 138 Table 16: Consistency with SB 32 2017 Scoping Plan Update ............................................................. 139

List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1: Regional Location Map .......................................................................................................... 13 Exhibit 2: Local Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................. 15 Exhibit 3: Existing General Plan Land Use ............................................................................................. 17 Exhibit 4: Existing Zoning ...................................................................................................................... 19 Exhibit 5: Site Plan ................................................................................................................................. 21 Exhibit 6: Distribution of Building Types ............................................................................................... 23 Exhibit 7: Representative Building Elevation ......................................................................................... 25 Exhibit 8: Bay Trail and Frontage Improvements .................................................................................. 27 Exhibit 9: Proposed On-site Parking ...................................................................................................... 29 Exhibit 10: Visual Simulation Vantage Points ........................................................................................ 39 518
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Table of Contents

FirstCarbon Solutions v
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Exhibit 10a: View 1–Looking North from Brickyard Cover Road .......................................................... 41 Exhibit 10b: View 2–Looking East from West Ridge Trail ..................................................................... 43 Exhibit 10c: View 3–Looking South from Crest Trail ............................................................................. 45 Exhibit 11: Land Cover and Vegetation Communities .......................................................................... 87 Exhibit 12: CNDDB Special-status Species Occurrence (5-mile radius) ................................................ 91 Exhibit 13: Impact on Biological Resources .......................................................................................... 97 519

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
520
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Acronyms and Abbreviations

FirstCarbon Solutions vii
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
°C degrees Celsius (Centigrade)
°F degrees Fahrenheit
µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
AB Assembly Bill
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
AC Alameda County
ADT Average Daily Traffic
AERMOD American Meteorological Society/EPA Regulatory Model Air Basin San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
ALUP Airport Land Use Plan
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
AQP Air Quality Plan
ARB California Air Resources Board
ATCM Airborne Toxic Control Measures
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BART Bay Area Rapid Transit
BERD Built Environment Resource Directory
BGS below ground surface
BMP Best Management Practice
BTEX benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAP Climate Action Plan
CARE Community Air Risk Evaluation Program
CBC California Building Standards Code
CCR California Code of Regulations
CCTA Contra Costa Transportation Authority
CDF California Department of Finance
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CHL California Historic Landmarks
CIWMB California Integrated Waste Management Board
CMA Congestion Management Agency
521
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Acronyms and Abbreviations Consistency Checklist

viii FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx CMP Congestion Management Program
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CNPSEI California Native Plant Society’s Electronic Inventory CO carbon monoxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
COA Condition of Approval
CPF cancer potency factor
CPHI California Points of Historical Interest
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CUP Conditional Use Permit
CWA Clean Water Act
dBA A-weighted decibel
DPM diesel particulate matter
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EMFAC EMission FACtors
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
EPH extractable petroleum hydrocarbons
ESL Environmental Screening Level
EV electric vehicle
FAR floor area ratio
FCS FirstCarbon Solutions
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GHG greenhouse gas
GIS Geographic Information System
GP General Plan
HARP2 Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program
HCP habitat conservation plan
HI hazard index
HRA Health Risk Assessment
HRI California Historical Resources Inventory
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
522
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Acronyms and Abbreviations

FirstCarbon Solutions ix
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx IHO Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
IM Implementing Measures
IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
kWh kilowatt-hour
lbs pounds
Leq equivalent sound level
LID Low Impact Development
Lmax maximum noise/sound level
LOS Level of Service
LRA Local Responsibility Area
LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MCE Marin Clean Energy
mgd million gallons per day
MIR Maximally Impacted Sensitive Receptor
MM Mitigation Measure
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
mph miles per hour
MT metric tons
MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission
MTSO Multimodal Transportation Service Objectives
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NCCP natural community conservation plan
NFA No Further Action
NOX oxides of nitrogen
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NWIC Northwest Information Center
OEHHA California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment OHP California Office of Historic Preservation
OHWM ordinary high water mark
OPR Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
PA Planned Area
PCB polychlorinated biphenyls
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company
PM10 particulate matter, including dust, 10 micrometers or less in diameter 523
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Acronyms and Abbreviations Consistency Checklist

x FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx PM2.5 particulate matter, including dust, 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter PPV peak particle velocity
RAP Remedial Action Plan
REC Recognized Environmental Concern
RecycleMore West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority REL Reference Exposure Level
RFD Richmond Fire Department
ROG reactive organic gases
RPD Richmond Police Department
RPS Renewable Portfolio Standard
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB Senate Bill
SC Standard Condition
SDBL State Density Bonus Law
SLCP Short-lived Climate Pollutant
SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
SRA State Responsibility Area
State Water Board California State Water Resources Control Board SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
TAC toxic air contaminant
TCR Tribal Cultural Resources
TES Technical and Ecological Services
TIS Transportation Impact Study
TPH total petroleum hydrocarbons
TRAC Trails for Richmond Action Committee
UCL Upper Confidence Limit
UGB Urban Growth Boundary
USACE United States Army Corp of Engineers
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
UST underground storage tank
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VOC volatile organic compounds
WCCTAC West Contra Costa County Transportation Advisory Committee WCCUSD West Contra Costa Unified School District
W-Trans Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
ZEV Zero-Emission Vehicle
524
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Introduction

FirstCarbon Solutions 1
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
The Brickyard Cove Residential Project (proposed project) proposes the development of 94 multi- family dwelling units on an approximately 6-acre site. This Consistency Checklist and attached supporting documents have been prepared to determine whether and to what extent the Richmond General Plan Environmental Impact Report (General Plan EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 200802218, certified April 25, 2012) prepared for the City of Richmond (City) remains sufficient to address the potential impacts of the proposed project, or whether additional documentation is required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code, Section 21000, et seq.).

1.1 - CEQA Assessment
The following Environmental Checklist, Section 4 of this Consistency Checklist, has been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 which states that no subsequent environmental documentation is required where the activity was properly examined in a prior certified EIR, such as the General Plan EIR. Section 15168(c)(3) directs the lead agency to incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the Program EIR in later activities in the program. The CEQA Guidelines instruct agencies to use checklists or similar mechanisms to conduct this analysis pursuant to Section 15162’s guidance for determining the need for subsequent documents. Factors that an agency may consider in making this determination include, but are not limited to, consistency of the later activity with the type of allowable land use, overall planned density and building intensity, geographic area analyzed for environmental impacts, and covered infrastructure as addressed in the General Plan EIR.

Separate and independent from the streamlining procedure in Section 15168 described above, the proposed project also would qualify for CEQA streamlining pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183. That section states that “projects which are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site.” (14 California Code of Regulation [CCR] § 15183(a)). The project is consistent with the density established by the General Plan for the project site. Under Section 15183, if an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards, then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact. An effect of a project on the environment is not peculiar to the project or the parcel for the purposes of Section 15183 if uniformly applied development policies or standards have been previously adopted by the City or county with a finding that the development policies or standards will substantially mitigate that environmental effect when applied to future projects, unless substantial new information shows that the policies or standards will not substantially mitigate the environmental effect. Such policies or standards need not be part of the general plan or any community plan, but can be found within another pertinent planning document such as a Zoning Ordinance. An environmental effect shall not be considered peculiar to the project or parcel solely because no uniformly applied development policy or standard is applicable to it. 525
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Introduction Consistency Checklist

2 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx

1.2 - Summary of Results
As illustrated by the following Environmental Checklist, the proposed project is found to be in conformance with the analysis and conclusions of the General Plan EIR. This determination supports the approval of the proposed project and is based on the following criteria:

1. There are no new significant effects peculiar to the proposed project or its site;

2. There are no new significant effects that were not previously evaluated in the General Plan EIR;

3. There are no new significant off-site or cumulative impacts that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and

4. There are no adverse impacts that are more severe than those previously identified in the General Plan EIR.

This evaluation concludes that the proposed project is within the scope of the General Plan and the General Plan EIR, and that no further CEQA documentation is required.

The Final General Plan Environmental Impact Report (General Plan EIR) is available at:

City of Richmond
City Hall
450 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
http:///www.ci.richmond.ca.us/2608/General-Plan-2030
526
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Project Description

FirstCarbon Solutions 3
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx SECTION 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 - Project Location and Setting

2.1.1 - Project Location
The approximately 6-acre project site is located to the north of Brickyard Cove Road just east of the Brickyard Landing Condominiums in the City of Richmond (City), Contra Costa County (County), California (Exhibit 1). The project site comprises two Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs): 560-340-039 and 560-340-043. The project site is currently vacant and is bound by East Bay Regional Park District open space to the north, Brickyard Landing Condominiums to the west, Brickyard Cove Road to the south with the Richmond Boardwalk and Brickyard Cove located further south, and single-family housing to the east (Exhibit 2). The northern portion of the site slopes upward, providing sweeping views of the Bay. The project site is located on the California United States Geological Survey (USGS)

7.5-minute San Quentin, Latitude 37° 54’ 39” North; Longitude -122° 22’ 7” W.

2.1.2 - Existing Development and Land Use Activities
The project site is located in the Point Richmond area of the City and is currently undeveloped. The project has been previously used as a brick-making kiln and factory, clay mining pit, and more recently, a natural gas distribution facility. A railroad right-of-way was located on the southern portion of the site. All structures have been removed and the site is now vacant with limited patches of asphalt occurring on the lower elevations.

A large crest-shaped cut was made into the hillside in the central portion of the site to accommodate the foundation of a natural gas storage tank as part of the distribution facility. The tank was removed but a large depression remains. The fill spoils from this are assumed by the consulting Geotechnical Engineer1 to have been reused on the lower portion of the site. Portions of the site are subject to erosion and slumping, possibly due to previous grading and concentrated surface water flows.

Residual subsurface contamination from the prior site uses has been determined to be low and de minimis and although no further action is required, adding fill to the site would serve as a buffer between the existing soils and new construction.

The primary vegetation on the site is non-native grassland, seasonal wetland that is potentially jurisdictional as a water of the State, and toyon woodland with a small mixed woodland.

2.1.3 - General Plan and Zoning Designations
The site is designated as Medium-Density Residential by the City of Richmond General Plan (General Plan), which is intended for single and multi-family housing types, including town houses, and provides for a density of 10 to 40 dwelling units per acre and a 35-foot height limit. (Exhibit 3). A majority of the project site (APN 560-340-039) is zoned Multi-family Residential (RM-1), which is also intended for single and multi-family housing types, including townhouses, with a small portion of the project site (APN 560-340-043) designated as Planned Area (PA) (Exhibit 4). The proposed project’s

1 Cornerstone Earth Group, Inc. 2022. Brickyard Residential Geotechnical Investigation, Brickyard Cove, Richmond CA, April. 527
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Project Description Consistency Checklist

4 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx use and density would be consistent with both the General Plan Medium Density Residential designation and the RM-1 zoning.

Pursuant to State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) (Government Code § 65915, et seq.), the applicant is requesting certain concessions and waivers from existing zoning development standards. Waivers may be requested for “any development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development” that meets the SDBL’s minimum affordable requirements “at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by [SDBL].” The requested waivers would allow the proposed project to exceed the 35-foot building height limitation by an additional 3 feet, up to 38 feet; would decrease setbacks; would allow the upper story massing on the third floor of each building to be 100 percent instead of 80 percent; would decrease open space dimensions; would decrease the amount of private open space provided; would allow for a building length of 160 feet instead of 125 feet; would decrease visible landscaping; would decrease setbacks on individual lots and on the site overall; and would decrease personal storage space. The detailed requests are presented below under 2.4 Discretionary Approvals.

An applicant is not limited in the number of waivers that may be requested or granted. A local government may deny a requested waiver only in very limited circumstances. Specifically, under SDBL, a city “shall grant . . . if requested by the applicant and consistent with the applicable requirements of this section, incentives or concessions . . ., waivers or reductions of development standards . . ., and parking ratios” if an applicant agrees to construct at least 10 percent low-income units or 10 percent moderate-income units in a condominium project. A waiver must be granted if application of the requirement would “have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development [covered by SDBL] at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted” by SDBL. To deny a requested waiver, a city must make written findings, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that the waiver would have a specific, adverse impact upon health or safety and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact other than to deny the waiver, the waiver would result in an adverse impact on real property listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, or the waiver is contrary to State or federal law .

2.2 - Project Background and Previous Environmental Review

2.2.1 - General Plan
The General Plan’s goals and policies represent the City’s overall philosophy on public and private development and provide a foundation for public and private decision-making on related issues. 2 The General Plan provides a framework for development that dictates decisions on how to grow, provide public services and facilities, and protect and enhance the environment. Pursuant to California law (Government Code § 65300), the General Plan is comprehensive, internally consistent, and long-range. The General Plan was adopted by the City Council in 2012. As described above, the project site was designated Medium-Density Residential in the General Plan.

2 City of Richmond. 2012. Richmond General Plan 2030.
528
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Project Description

FirstCarbon Solutions 5
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx

2.2.2 - General Plan Environmental Impact Report
The City prepared a Program EIR for the General Plan, which was certified by the City Council on April 25, 2012. The General Plan EIR identified significant environmental effects that could result from implementation of the General Plan and also approved additional mitigation measures to reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the Draft EIR to less than significant with the incorporation of the identified mitigation. The General Plan EIR also identified project objectives that express the community’s vision and goals for the future. The General Plan EIR’s conclusions related to each topical area are listed in Section 4, Environmental Checklist, of this document.

2.3 - Project Description

2.3.1 - Development Summary
The proposed project would advance the General Plan’s goals and policies with the objective of expanding quality and affordable housing options for current and future residents. The proposed project would result in the construction of 94 townhomes, on the 6-acre project site, resulting in a density of 15.67 dwelling unit per acre. Ten percent of the units would be affordable, in compliance with the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO). The proposed project would meet the IHO requirements by providing the required 10 percent affordable units distributed throughout the property. From the exterior, the affordable units would be indistinguishable from the market- rate units, would be representative of the mix of unit sizes provided by the proposed project, and the households in the affordable units would have access to all community amenity spaces.

If the proposed project is a rental project, the affordable units would be affordable to low-income households, consistent with City requirement for rental projects. If offered for ownership, the affordable units would be restricted to a price affordable to moderate-income families.

Providing affordable housing qualifies the project for SDBL benefits, including waivers and a concession/incentive. The project proponent is requesting waivers, which are listed below in Section

2.4. The proposed project would consist of 19 three-story buildings with four to six units per building (Exhibit 5). The proposed project includes 12 different unit types, varying in architectural treatments and ranging in size from 2-bedroom units to 3-bedroom units. Table 1 provides further details for each unit type, and Table 2 provides a summary of the project’s building types and the number of each unit type per building.

Table 1: Proposed Unit Types
Unit Types
Total
Number of
Each Unit
Type
Number of
Bedrooms
Total Area
(square feet)
Deck/Patio
(square feet)
Garage
(square feet)
Per Unit
Total for
Unit Type Per Unit
Total for
Unit Type Per Unit
Total for
Unit Type
Unit Type 1 19 2 1,423 27,037 106 2,014 452 8,588
Unit Type 2 8 3 1,636 13,088 384 3,072 455 3,640

529
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Project Description Consistency Checklist

6 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Unit Types
Total
Number of
Each Unit
Type
Number of
Bedrooms
Total Area
(square feet)
Deck/Patio
(square feet)
Garage
(square feet)
Per Unit
Total for
Unit Type Per Unit
Total for
Unit Type Per Unit
Total for
Unit Type
Unit Type 3 5 3 1,758 8,790 146 730 522 2,610
Unit Type 4 27 2 1,413 38,151 75 2,025 496 13,392
Unit Type 5 13 3 1,521 19,773 119 1,547 444 5,772
Unit Type 6 6 3 1,595 9,570 75 450 501 3,006
Unit Type 7 2 3 1,655 3,310 308 616 479 958
Unit Type 8 4 3 1,603 6,412 75 300 501 2,004
Unit Type 9A* 4 2 1,464 5,856 249 996 477 1,908
Unit Type 9B* 4 2 1,464 5,856 230 920 477 1,908
Unit Type 10A* 1 3 1,682 1,682 362 362 481 481
Unit Type 10B* 1 3 1,682 1,682 396 396 481 481
Project Total 94 – – 141,207 – 13,428 – 44,748
Notes:
*Covered/Adaptable DU
Source: Republic Urban Properties 2022.

Table 2: Proposed Building Types
Building Types
Number of
Buildings
per Building
Type
Number of Each Unit Type per Building Type
Unit
Type
1 Unit
Type
2 Unit
Type
3 Unit
Type
4 Unit
Type
5 Unit
Type
6 Unit
Type
7 Unit
Type
8 Unit
Type
9A
Unit
Type
9B
Unit
Type
10A
Unit
Type
10B
Building Type A 2 2 1 – – – – 1 – – – –
Building Type B 3 – – – 2 1 1 – – – – –
Building Type C 4 3 1 1 – – – – – – – –
Building Type D 4 – – – 3 1 – – 1 – – –
Building Type E 1 3 2 1 – – – – – – – –
Building Type F 3 – – – 3 2 1 – – – – –
Building Type G 1 – – – – – – – – 4 1
Building Type G
_EXT porch 1 4 1
Project Total 19 19 8 5 27 13 6 2 4 4 4 1 1
Source: Republic Urban Properties 2022.

530
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Project Description

FirstCarbon Solutions 7
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx As shown in the tables above, of the 94 total dwelling units, 54 dwelling units would be 2-bedroom units, and 40 dwelling units would be 3-bedroom units. Overall, the proposed project’s total area, including residential area, decks and porches, and garages, would be approximately 199,383 square feet. Exhibit 6 shows the location of the different building types in the proposed project plan.

In addition to the residential units, there would be a shared 6,251-square-foot recreation center including a pool, along with leasing offices, located at the frontage on Brickyard Cove Road.

Two bioretention areas would be located near the street front to collect and treat stormwater runoff.

Planned finished first floor grade would range from elevation 27.3 feet up to elevation 72.8 feet. The recreation center would have its first floor at elevation 17.2 feet. Terraced retaining walls with 2:1 cut slopes would be located at the back and sides of the site. The walls along the sides of the site would range from 2 to 12 feet in height while the terraced walls at the back of the site would be 9 feet high.

2.3.2 - Design and Appearance
Sixteen of the 19 residential buildings would be grouped in pairs around landscaped common areas.

Drive aisles would access the parking garage from the rear of each building. Retaining walls would be constructed along the back of the project and along the sides. The overall theme of the design is natural earth and sea-toned color scheme in shingle style with cementitious-shingle siding with wooden barge board and shingle roofing. A typical elevation for one of the larger buildings is shown in Exhibit 7.

The project design would incorporate lighting in conformance with Municipal Code 15.04.604.050 to ensure no trespass onto neighboring properties in excess of City standards.

2.3.3 - Landscaping
Landscaping would be provided around the building exteriors, as well as throughout the parking area. The City of Richmond Municipal Code (Municipal Code) Section 15.04.607.060 requires projects to provide 10 percent of total acreage as landscaping. The 6-acre site would require a minimum of 0.6 acres of landscaping. The proposed project would provide a total of 96,200 square feet of landscaping (approximately 2.2 acres). Extensive landscaping would be provided at the entrance to the project, with appropriate landscaping and street furniture and signage along the Bay Trail, which forms the frontage of the property. Common open spaces would be landscaped and also serve as bioretention basins for runoff. Retaining walls are proposed to be terraced to provide planter locations on the face of the wall.

Proposed landscaping would include native and adapted low-water-use plants, predominately groundcover, shrub, and tree plants that are inspired by the Point Richmond shoreline. A hierarchy of grasses are proposed to be combined with adapted and native shrubs to create enhanced planting areas around residences and the recreation center .

The following trees species are proposed in the landscaping palette: California buckeye (Aesculus californica), coast live oak (quercus agrifolia), red maple (acer rubrum ‘Armstrong’), Japanese maple 531
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Project Description Consistency Checklist

8 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx (acer palmatum ‘Bloodgood”), marina madrone (arbutus ‘Marina’), madrone (arbutus menziesii), lemon bottlebrush (callistemon citrinus), crape myrtle (lagerstroemia Indica), Brisbane box (lophostemon confertus), and Chinese pistache (pistachio chinesis).

2.3.4 - Circulation
Vehicular Circulation
Vehicular access to the project site would be provided from one private street off Brickyard Cove Road, temporarily named “Street A,” with shared driveways leading to each unit’s garage from this street. This central private street would end in a hammerhead configuration at the northern end of the site (Exhibit 5). The street would be 26 feet wide with an additional 8 feet of on-street parking and 6-foot-wide sidewalks on either side. A roundabout is part of the entry area, and the right-of- way would be landscaped with bulb-outs for trees. The existing median on Brickyard Cove Road would be modified to include a left-turn lane into the project site. An acceleration lane would be added to allow left turns exiting the project to enter Brickyard Cove Road eastbound safely. The project proponent would improve the section of road along the project frontage with new striping and signage.

Pedestrian Access
Pedestrian access would be provided via the Bay Trail along the project’s frontage. The proposed project would improve the trail and frontage by providing a 12-foot-wide paved shared use trail, with a 3-foot shoulder on each side (Exhibit 8).Six-foot-wide sidewalks would provide access from the Bay Trail into the development along the single-access street.

2.3.5 - Parking
The proposed project would provide a total of 212 parking spaces. Each dwelling unit would include two parking spaces in a private garage and 24 surface parking spaces would be provided for guests.

Guest spaces would be located along the main access road, in the Recreation Center parking lot and at the end of four of the driveways, as shown in Exhibit 9. The proposed project would also include six bicycle parking spaces.

2.3.6 - Utilities
Water and Wastewater
The proposed project would include new potable water and sanitary sewer lines throughout the project site. Domestic and fire protection water would be charged with private booster pump systems. The proposed project would include a new water line connection to the existing potable water line located within Brickyard Cove Road, and a new sanitary sewer connection to an existing sanitary sewer line along the site’s western boundary. The proposed project would also construct a new sanitary sewer manhole.

Storm Drainage
New storm drain lines would be located throughout the site to convey runoff to two on-site bioretention areas totaling 6,945 square feet, located along the Brickyard Cove Road frontage of the 532
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Project Description

FirstCarbon Solutions 9
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx project site (Exhibit 5). The bioretention basins would connect to an existing stormwater drainage line contained within Brickyard Cove Road. The proposed bioretention basin would include native, drought tolerant plantings to reduce soil erosion, which would be maintained by drip irrigation. The drainage calculations for the project indicate that the site would produce stormwater drainage equivalent to 6,370 square feet, which would be accommodated by the two bioretention areas.

Natural Gas and Electricity
Buildings would comply with Municipal Code Chapter 9.64.040 (Prohibition of Natural Gas Infrastructure in Newly Constructed Buildings) by being all-electric with no natural gas or propane plumbing installed. Electricity may be obtained through on-site solar panels or from Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). There are existing power lines on-site along the project frontage within Brickyard Cove Road.

Telecommunications
Telecommunications providers own and operate infrastructure, such as cellphone towers and fiber optic cables, within the City. Existing telecommunication providers such as AT&T and Xfinity may provide internet and phone service to the project site.

2.3.7 - Phasing and Construction
The proposed project would be constructed in two phases. It is anticipated that construction would begin in December 2023, beginning with site clearing. Grading would take approximately five months, with building construction taking approximately 20 months.

Rough grading would generate approximately 63,700 cubic yards of cut, which would be redistributed on-site as engineered fill material. An additional approximately 68,100 cubic yards of fill material would be imported to raise the elevation of the site (addressing the depression left by the gas plant) and create construction pads as well as addressing previous slumping and erosion over the site. A total of 131,800 cubic yards of fill would be used on-site, including reuse of the on-site cut material. Depending on the characteristics of the soil, one truck could carry between 13 and 16 cubic yards of fill, requiring 5,238 truck trips over the 5-month period required to bring the fill to the site.

Up to 153 trucks per day could be scheduled to bring fill to the site, although the number of trips would vary from day to day. The air quality analysis of the construction phase, which is discussed in Section 4, below, used a greater amount of imported fill, requiring 11,000 truck trips, in order to analyze the worst-case scenario. This analysis also used a start date of August 2023 to model the potential impacts, which also represents a worst-case scenario, as estimated construction emissions would decrease due to ongoing improvements in technology and more stringent regulatory requirements that would affect future construction equipment. Trucks would access the site from I- 580, exiting on Canal Boulevard, then traveling via Seacliff Drive to Brickyard Cove Road. The builder would be required to prepare a Construction Traffic Plan per General Plan Action SN4.E to mitigate noise, traffic, and control dust. This allows the City to coordinate traffic from concurrent projects and ensure that traffic flow is not impeded on roadways or at railroad crossings. The City will require that adequate access for all transportation modes, especially emergency vehicles, be maintained during construction. The hours of construction, including truck traffic, shall be limited as follows per Article 533
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Project Description Consistency Checklist

10 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx

15.04.605.060 of the Municipal Code: General construction noise shall be limited to weekdays from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Pile driving (which is no required for the project) and similar loud activities shall be limited to weekdays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

2.4 - Discretionary Approvals
The proposed project requires the following discretionary approvals from the City:
• Approval of the project’s Design Review Permit;
• Approval of the following SDBL waiver requests:
- A maximum height allowance of 38 feet, exceeding the City’s maximum of 35 feet. - A decrease in setbacks on individual lots to allow 8-foot front setback, 1-foot side setbacks, and 3-foot rear setbacks on the ground floor and zero-foot rear setback on the upper two floors.
- Decrease in overall setbacks at the street, rear lot line, and side lot lines of each parcel by applying those standards to the project as a whole rather than the individual parcels, with a waiver to allow a decreased interior side setback of 7 feet. - Increase in upper story massing to allow the third story to be 100 percent of the ground floor.
- Decrease in Private Open Space from 300 square feet per unit to 75 square feet per unit. - Decrease in minimum open space dimensions. A waiver to allow private open space on all levels to have a minimum dimension as low as 4 feet. This waiver allows the townhomes to fit on the property at the density allowed.
- Decrease in Visible Landscaping from the required 35 percent to 33 percent. - Increase in Building Length. A waiver to allow building lengths of up to 160 feet, exceeding the maximum of 125 feet.
- Decrease in Personal Storage Space from 80 square feet of enclosed personal storage space in addition to a garage and bedroom closets to 55 square feet. • Tentative Subdivision Map Approval.

The following administrative actions would also be required from the City:
• Subdivision improvements;
• Grading Permits;
• Encroachment Permits;
• Building Permits; and
• Other City approvals as necessary to develop the proposed project.

Other agencies with permitting or regulatory authority over the proposed project include:
• East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD);
• San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB); • Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD);
534
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Project Description

FirstCarbon Solutions 11
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx • Contra Costa County Environmental Health Department (for the proposed community pool); and
• City of Richmond Municipal Sewer District.
535

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
536
!
·|}þ12
·|}þ29
·|}þ121
·|}þ121
·|}þ37
·|}þ4
Solano County
!"#$80
!"#$80
!"#$680
·|}þ116
!"#$780
Petaluma
Temelec
Pacific Ocean
San
Francisco
Bay
San Pablo Bay
Suisun Bay
Contra Costa County
Marin County
Solano County
Sonoma County
San Francisco County
San Mateo County
Alameda County
Napa County
Montezuma
Slough
Napa River
San Pablo
Reservoir
Briones
Reservoir
Upper San
Leandro
Reservoir
Lake
Chabot
Alpine
Lake
Kent
Lake
Carquinez
St rai t
!"#$580
£¤101
·|}þ1 ·|}þ24
Napa
Petaluma
Vallejo
BeniciaNovato
Hercules
Martinez
San
Anselmo San Rafael
San Pablo
Richmond
Larkspur
El Cerrito
Mill Valley
Albany
Lafayette
Orinda
Berkeley
San Francisco
Moraga
Piedmont
Alameda
Oakland
San Leandro
Daly City
San Lorenzo
South San
Francisco
Sonoma
American Canyon
21210024 " 11/2022 | 1_regional.mxd Exhibit 1
Regional Location Map
Source: Census 2000 Data, The California Spatial Information Library (CaSIL). 5 0 52.5
Miles
!
Text
Project Site
CITY OF RICHMOND
BRICKYARD COVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST
Project Site
I
Legend
Richmond City Limits
537

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
538
21210024 " 11/2022 | 2_local_vicinity.mxd Exhibit 2
Local Vicinity Map
Source: Bing Aerial Imagery. CITY OF RICHMOND
BRICKYARD COVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST
I
1,000 0 1,000500
Feet
Legend
Project Site
539
540
21210024 " 11/2022 | 3_existing_land_use.mxd Exhibit 3
Existing General Plan Land Use Source: Bing Aerial Imagery. City of Richmond General Plan Land Use. Contra Costa County. CITY OF RICHMOND
BRICKYARD COVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST
I
200 0 200100
Feet
Legend
Project Site
General Plan Land Use
Low-Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Neighborhood Mixed-Use
Parks and Recreation
541

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
542
21210024 " 11/2022 | 4_existing_zoning.mxd Exhibit 4
Existing Zoning
Source: Bing Aerial Imagery. City of Richmond Zoning. Contra Costa County. CITY OF RICHMOND
BRICKYARD COVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST
I
200 0 200100
Feet
Legend
Project Site
Existing Zoning
RL2 - Single-Family Low Density Residential
RM1 - Multifamily Residential
CM-2 - Commercial Mixed-Use, Neighborhood
PR - Parks and Recreation
PA - Planned Area
543

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
544
Source: Republic Urban Properties.

I
21210024 • 11/2022 | 5_site_plan.cdr CITY OF RICHMOND

BRICKYARD COVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST
Exhibit 5
Site Plan
545

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
546
21210024 11/2022 | 6_building_types.cdr•
Exhibit 6
Distribution of Building Types

CITY OF RICHMOND

BRICKYARD COVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST547

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
548
21210024 11/2022 | 7_building_elevation.cdr•
Exhibit 7
Representative Building Elevation

CITY OF RICHMOND

BRICKYARD COVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST
549

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
550
21210024 • 11/2022 | 8_Bay_Trail_Frontage_Improvements.cdr Exhibit 8
Bay Trail and Frontage Improvements

CITY OF RICHMOND

BRICKYARD COVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST
Source: HMH Landscape Architecture. Ruggeri Jensen Azar. Bassenian Lagoni. 04/08/2022. 551

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
552
21210024 11/2022 | 9_parking.cdr•
Exhibit 9
Proposed On-site Parking

CITY OF RICHMOND

BRICKYARD COVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST553

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
554
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Projects Consistent with Prior Environmental Documentation

FirstCarbon Solutions 31
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx SECTION 3: PROJECTS CONSISTENT WITH PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL

DOCUMENTATION

3.1 - CEQA Guidelines Section 15168
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, later activities that fit within the scope of a program are properly examined in the prior EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared. The CEQA Guidelines instruct agencies to use checklists or similar mechanisms to conduct this analysis. An additional environmental document is not required unless the later activity:
(1) would have new effects not examined in the prior EIR; or (2) would require new mitigation measures not previously identified in the prior EIR. If both requirements are met, the lead agency may approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the prior EIR, and no additional environmental documentation is required. If the lead agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no subsequent EIR would be required, the agency can approve the activity as being withing the scope of the proposed project covered by the Program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required. The lead agency shall incorporate all applicable mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the prior EIR into subsequent actions in the program.

The proposed project fits within the scope of the program analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and therefore does not require additional environmental review. As discussed in Section 4, below, the proposed project would not have any new or substantially more severe significant effects not examined in the General Plan EIR, nor does the proposed project require any new mitigation measures; all applicable mitigation measures and alternatives have been incorporated.

3.2 - Public Resources Code Section 21166 and Guidelines Section 15162 To determine whether a later activity is within the scope of the project covered by a Program EIR, Section 15168 directs the agency to consider CEQA’s requirements for preparation of subsequent environmental documents as outlined in Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a) that direct that once an EIR has been certified, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared unless the lead agency determines, based on substantial evidence, one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the General Plan EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the General Plan EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the General Plan EIR was certified as complete, shows any of the following:
555
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Projects Consistent with Prior Environmental Documentation Consistency Checklist

32 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the General Plan EIR;
b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the General Plan EIR;
c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the General Plan EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

As described in Section 4, Environmental Checklist, none of the situations requiring the preparation of subsequent or supplemental environmental documentation are present for the proposed project.

An alternative to the proposed project has been proposed that would reduce the number of units to between 37 and 46. Although this proposed alternative would not require the import of fill material, it would require additional depths of cut into the existing depression on-site. Similar to the proposed project, this proposed alternative would result in less than significant impacts with the incorporation of the General Plan EIR mitigation measures. However, it would not substantially reduce any potentially significant impacts. Additionally, no engineering has been presented to accompany the proposed alternative, which was presented in conceptual sketch form. The issue of the steep slope and historic landslides and slumps above the project footprint is not addressed by the proposed alternative design. The alternative would not meet the General Plan objective aiming to design projects in accordance with particular principles defined in the General Plan to the same degree as the proposed project because it would not result in development consistent with the General Plan density of Medium Density-residential. Nor would the alternative expand quality and affordable housing options for current and future residents, as directed in the General Plan, to the same degree as the proposed project.

Further, courts have interpreted SDBL as prohibiting cities from demanding a developer redesign a project to satisfy subjective concerns (e.g., Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755). As courts have stated, under SDBL, a city may only impose such development standards if not doing so “would have a specific, adverse impact . . . upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact” or “would have an adverse impact on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, or to grant any waiver or reduction that would be contrary to State or federal law.” (Government Code § 65915, subd. (e)(1)). Thus, even if the project as designed is inconsistent with some of the City's design standards, SDBL would preclude the City from applying those standards to deny this project.

As presented in this Checklist, all of the proposed project’s impacts were determined to be less than significant with the incorporation of the General Plan EIR mitigation measures. In accordance with CEQA, Section 4 of this document analyzes the proposed project with respect to the General Plan EIR, and demonstrates that all of the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed 556
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Projects Consistent with Prior Environmental Documentation

FirstCarbon Solutions 33
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx project would be within the envelope of impacts already evaluated in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project and the circumstances under which it would be taken do not result in any substantial changes that would result in new significant environmental effects or result in a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact. As demonstrated by the analysis herein, the proposed project would not result in any new additional significant impacts, nor would it substantially increase the severity of previously anticipated significant impacts. Rather, all of the impacts associated with the proposed project are within the scope of impacts addressed in the General Plan EIR and do not constitute a new or substantially increased significant impacts.

Based on this determination, the proposed project does not meet the requirements for preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. Accordingly, the activity may be deemed within the scope of the project covered by the General Plan EIR as contemplated under Section 15168(c)(2).

3.3 - CEQA Guidelines Section 15183
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, subdivision (c) states that in instances where a project is consistent with a community plan or zoning, if an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect in a prior certified EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards, then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact. This is consistent with the fundamental CEQA policy favoring finality once an EIR is certified, and thus streamlines the review of such projects and reduces the need to prepare repetitive environmental studies.

To evaluate the proposed project’s consistency, this analysis will evaluate whether the proposed project is consistent with the zoning density in the General Plan and the General Plan EIR, and if there are any:
(1) “project-specific significant effects that are peculiar to the project or its site,” (2) environmental effects that were “not analyzed as significant effects” in the General Plan EIR;
(3) “potentially significant off-site impacts or cumulative impacts which were not discussed” in the General Plan EIR; or
(4) environmental effects that were “previously identified significant effects, which as a result of substantial new information . . . are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the previous” General Plan EIR. (CEQA Guidelines § 15183(b)(1)(4)).

A supplemental environmental document need not be prepared for a project solely on the basis of an impact that can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards (CEQA Guidelines § 15183(c)). An impact is not peculiar if uniformly applied development standards or procedures are imposed with a finding that they will substantially mitigate the applicable environmental impact (CEQA Guidelines § 15183(f)). Such uniformly adopted policies or procedures do not have to be addressed in the prior EIR or included in the community plan or the general plan. (Id.)
557
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Projects Consistent with Prior Environmental Documentation Consistency Checklist

34 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx In approving a project that is consistent under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the lead agency appropriately limits its examination of environmental effects to those listed above.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 applies to the proposed project since it meets all of the following conditions.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(d)(1)(b) and (d)(1)(c): The project is consistent with the development density established by general plan policies incorporated via the Housing Element.

A project is consistent with established zoning and density if the project is the same or less than the standard contemplated for the involved parcel(s) in the general plan for which an EIR has been certified, and the project complies with the density-related standards contained in that plan. (CEQA Guidelines § 15183(i)(2)). Density standards are expressed in various ways, including based on the number of dwelling units per acre, the number of people in a given area, floor area ratio (FAR), and other measures of building intensity, building height, and size limitations and use restrictions. (State of California, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research General Plan Guidelines, 2003: 50.) Density standards are also subject to density bonus laws. The proposed project would not amend the zoning and would be consistent with the applicable density after the application of the Density Bonus law (Government Code 65915), which allows for measured increases in density beyond the allowed limits.
3 Accordingly, the proposed project meets the requirements of this section.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(d)(2): An EIR was certified by the lead agency for the zoning action, the community plan, or the general plan.

The General Plan was approved pursuant to the General Plan EIR, certified on April 25, 2012. The proposed project is within the scope of and is consistent with the relevant provisions of the adopted General Plan and the certified General Plan EIR. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, the General Plan and General Plan EIR establish and evaluate the development density and zoning for the project site. Accordingly, the proposed project meets the requirements of this section.

3 California Government Code. Title 7. Planning and Land Use [65000-66499.58]. Division 1.Planning and Zoning [65000-66301] Chapter 4.3. Density Bonuses and Other Incentives [65915-65918]. 65915. 558
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 35
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx SECTION 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
According to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, subsequent activities within the program must be examined in the light of the Program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared. Use of program EIRs to cover later activities is addressed in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c):
(c) Use with Later Activities. Subsequent activities in the program must be examined in the light of the Program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared.
(1) If a later activity would have effects that were not examined in the Program EIR, a new Initial Study would need to be prepared leading to either an EIR or a Negative Declaration.
(2) If the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no new effects could occur or no new mitigation measures would be required, the agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the Program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required.

Section 15168(c)(2) states that if the lead agency finds that pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no new effects would occur or no new mitigation measures would be required, then the lead agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the Program EIR and no new environmental document is required.

According to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no additional environmental review shall be prepared for a project unless the public agency with the next discretionary approval determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or Negative Declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
559
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

36 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

The following pages of this document contain an Environmental Checklist that examines the project’s potential environmental effects within the parameters outlined at CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and establishes the proposed project’s eligibility under Sections 15168 and, separately and independently, Section 15183. The “General Plan EIR” used for determining consistency is the Final City of Richmond General Plan EIR certified by the City Council on April 25, 2012, including all impact determinations and significance thresholds utilized therein.

Conditions of Approval (COA) necessary to implement the Municipal Code are listed in each topical section. Additionally, in the analysis for each topical area, this document identifies adopted General Plan EIR mitigation measures and General Plan policies applicable to the proposed project. Where appropriate to ensure compliance with an identified mitigation measures or General Plan Policy, this document also discusses relevant actions to fully implement the General Plan mitigation measures and/or Policies. These Implementing Measures (IM) would ensure consistency with the General Plan and certified General Plan EIR.
560
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 37
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Environmental Issues
Prior General Plan
EIR Determination
CEQA Section 15168 Criteria
Effect Peculiar
to Project or
Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-site,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More Severe
Adverse
Impact?

4.1 Aesthetics
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial
adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
Less than
significant with
mitigation
incorporated
No No No No
b) Substantially damage
scenic resources,
including, but not limited
to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and
historic building within a
State Scenic Highway?
None identified No No No No
c) In non-urbanized areas,
substantially degrade the
existing visual character
or quality of public views
of the site and its
surroundings? (Public
views are those that are
experienced from
publicly accessible
vantage point). If the
project is in an urbanized
area, would the project
conflict with applicable
zoning and other
regulations governing
scenic quality?
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
incorporated
No No No No
d) Create a new source of
substantial light or glare
which would adversely
affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
incorporated
No No No No

a) Scenic Vista
Would the project: Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR concluded that various points throughout the City have views of the shoreline or the hillside that would constitute a locally recognized scenic vista or corridor. The General Plan EIR 561
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

38 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx determined that buildout of the General Plan would allow for increased building heights, up to 135 feet in the three activity centers, which are pedestrian and transit-friendly community hubs that include mixed-use and higher-density development. It was determined that higher building heights have the potential to create a more urban feel and, therefore, could result in a substantial adverse change in scenic vistas with views of and beyond those change areas. Because of increased development and increases in building height resulting from General Plan buildout, it is possible that existing residents could have existing views of the shorelines or hillsides that would either be fully or partially obscured. However, adopted General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure (MM) 3.15-1, which requires the applicant to provide photographs or another appropriate form of visual record of the project location's existing physical setting, and a photograph or another appropriate form of visual record of one or more public vistas of the project location, would reduce these impacts. The General Plan EIR concluded that the City is an evolving urban environment, and development activities associated with the proposed General Plan do not equate to significant adverse aesthetic impacts, given the implementation of adopted MM 3.15-1.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
The proposed project would result in the construction of 94 dwelling units within 19 buildings, which would have a maximum height of 38 feet. General Plan Goal CN2 aims to conserve open space and to continue to protect surrounding hills and viewsheds as character-defining features that provide scenic backdrops, as well as publicly accessible trails and vistas. The General Plan identifies the Berkeley Hills, San Pablo Ridge, Sobrante Ridge, Point Richmond, and the San Francisco and San Pablo Bays as prominent scenic areas in the City.

Consistent with adopted MM 3.15-1, visual simulations of the proposed project from three vantage points were created, which represent the nearest publicly accessible areas to the project site (Exhibit 10). View 1 represents the view from Brickyard Cove Road, just south of the project, looking north toward the project site. View 2 represents the West Ridge Trail, approximately 0.6 miles west of the project site, looking east toward the project site. View 3 represents the view from Crest Trail, approximately 500 feet north of the project site, looking south toward the project site.

Exhibit 10a illustrates View 1, looking north from Brickyard Cove Road under the existing and proposed conditions. This location provides views toward the Miller/Knox ridgeline, which would be obscured by the proposed project. However, the General Plan does not identify the Miller/Knox ridgeline as a prominent scenic resource. Further, the change in view would be experienced mainly by drivers of vehicles traveling on Brickyard Cove Road, and thus the change mainly would be experienced only fleetingly.

Exhibit 10b illustrates View 2, looking east from the West Ridge Trail, for existing and proposed conditions. The West Ridge Trail at this point provides views of the San Francisco Bay, the Miller/Knox hillside, and the Berkeley Hills in the distance. As shown in the proposed conditions, the proposed project would not obstruct views of San Francisco Bay, the Miller/Knox Hillside, or the Berkeley Hills.

Exhibit 10c illustrates View 3, looking south from the Crest Trail, for existing and proposed conditions. The Crest Trail at this point provides views of the City of San Francisco, Angel Island, and the San Francisco Bay. As shown in the proposed conditions, the proposed project would not block any views of the San Francisco Bay, Angel Island, or the City of San Francisco. 562

CITY OF RICHMOND

BRICKYARD COVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST
21210024 • 11/2022 |10_Vantage_Points.cdr
Exhibit 10
Visual Simulation Vantage Points
563

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
564

CITY OF RICHMOND

BRICKYARD COVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST
21210024 • 11/2022 |10a_View_1.cdr
Exhibit 10a
View 1 - Looking north from Brickyard Cove Rd
565

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
566

CITY OF RICHMOND

BRICKYARD COVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST
21210024 • 11/2022 |10b_View_2.cdr
Exhibit 10b
View 2 - Looking east from W Ridge Trail
567

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
568

CITY OF RICHMOND

BRICKYARD COVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST
21210024 • 11/2022 |10c_View_3.cdr
Exhibit 10c
View 3 - Looking South From Crest Trail
569

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
570
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 47
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Therefore, the effects of the proposed project were anticipated in the General Plan EIR and there are no project-specific effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project would not introduce new or off-site cumulative impacts or create more severe impacts related to aesthetics than those analyzed in the General Plan EIR. No additional analysis is required. b) State Scenic Highways
Would the project: Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway? Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR generally discusses scenic resources and identifies that there are no eligible or designated State Scenic Highways in the City. Therefore, no impacts were identified. This condition precludes the potential for substantial damage to scenic resources within view of a State Scenic Highway.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
As described above, there are no eligible or designated State Scenic Highways in the City. Therefore, the effects of the proposed project were anticipated in the General Plan EIR and there are no project-specific effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project would not introduce new or off-site cumulative impacts or create more severe impacts related to scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway than those analyzed in the General Plan EIR. No additional analysis is required.
c) Visual Character
Would the project: In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR concluded that the City is an evolving urban environment where change is the only constant, and proposed infill development throughout the City identified in the buildout of the General Plan could result in change in the existing visual character of the City. The General Plan, City ordinances, the City’s discretionary permit and design review process, and the CEQA process all have components designed to protect and enhance the visual character of the City while embracing the changes inherent in an urbanized area. However, MM 3.15-1, which requires the applicant provide photographs or another appropriate form of visual record of the project location’s existing physical setting, and a photograph or another appropriate form of visual record of one or more public vistas of the project location, would reduce these impacts. The General Plan EIR concluded that development activities associated with the proposed General Plan do not equate to significant adverse aesthetic impacts, given the implementation of MM 3.15-1. 571
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

48 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx General Plan EIR. Additionally, the General Plan EIR discusses that after the General Plan is approved, the City will initiate amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to achieve consistency with the adopted General Plan. The Zoning Ordinance would further define land use designations and the performance standards applicable to the land use designations. This would ensure that all future development applications that are consistent with the General Plan and all applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would not cause any environmental impacts not analyzed in the General Plan EIR
Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
The project site is bound by East Bay Regional Park District open space to the north (Miller/Knox Regional Shoreline), Brickyard Landing Condominiums to the west, Brickyard Cove Road to the south with the Richmond Boardwalk and Brickyard Cove Marina further south, and single-family housing to the east. Therefore, the project site is located within an urbanized area. The project site has a land use designation of Medium-Density Residential. A majority of the project site (APN 560-340-039) is zoned RM-1 with a small portion of the project site (APN 560-340-043) designated as PA.

The PA zoning district is intended to facilitate orderly development of larger sites in the City (at least two acres or larger) consistent with the General Plan, especially where a particular mix of uses or character is desired that can best be achieved through an integrated development plan. Pursuant to Article 15.04.810 of the Zoning Ordinance, the proposed project’s development is consistent with this designation.

The Medium-Density Residential land use designation allows for a building height of up to 35 feet and a density of 10 to 40 dwelling units per acre. It includes single and multi-family housing types such as one to three-story garden apartments, historic bungalows and cottages on small lots, townhouses and stacked flats. The project is consistent with the applicable objective standards in the RM-1 and PA zonings after accounting for SDBL benefits because requirements waived or reduced through the use of SDBL are not applicable to the proposed project.

The project applicant is requesting a density bonus waiver to the building height limit to allow a structure of 38 feet in height. The proposed project would result in a residential density of 15.67 dwelling units per acre and a building height of approximately 38 feet. The following is the full list of waivers requested that would allow variance from the City’s development standards:
• Increase in Building Height. Municipal Code Section 15.04.201.050 limits heights to 35 feet.

The applicant requests a waiver to increase heights up to 38 feet to allow variations in rooflines (dormers and pitched roofs) and space for interior duct work. • Decrease in Setbacks on Individual Lots. The Municipal Code stipulates that the individual lot on which a townhome sits is subject to a 10-foot front setback, with a 7-foot setback for stoops, porches, and doors, 5-foot side setback for three stories, and 5-foot rear setback except for garages entered from an alley. The applicant requests a waiver to allow 8-foot front setbacks, 1-foot side setbacks, and 3-foot rear setbacks on the ground floor and zero-foot rear setbacks on the upper two floors. The reductions in the setbacks allow the project to fit on the property at the density allowed and with upper story articulation, including window bays. 572
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 49
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx • Decrease in Overall Setbacks. The Municipal Code requires the following setbacks in the RM1 zone: 10 feet in front; 5 feet for the first two stories and 10 feet thereafter on an interior side; 10 feet on the street side; and 20 feet on the rear. The applicant requests a waiver to the upper story interior side setback to allow that setback to be as low as 7 feet. The waiver is necessary to provide the density allowed together with the required circulation and open space.
• Increase in Upper Story Massing. Municipal Code Section 15.04.201.050 states that a second story can be 100 percent of the ground floor and a third story can be 80 percent of the ground floor. The applicant requests a waiver to allow the third story to be 100 percent of the ground floor.
• Decrease in Private Open Space. Municipal Code Section 15.04.201.080 requires townhomes to provide 300 square feet of private open space per unit. The applicant requests a waiver to allow the proposed project to provide 75 square feet of private open space per unit. • Decrease in Minimum Open Space Dimensions. Municipal Code Section 15.04.201.050 requires private open space on the ground level to have no dimension less than 10 feet and on upper levels to have no dimension less than 6 feet. Municipal Code Section 15.04.201.080 states that for townhouses, the minimum ground floor dimension of common open space is 15 feet and ground floor dimension of private open space is 8 feet and the minimum dimension for balconies is 6 feet. The applicant requests a waiver to allow private open space on all levels to have a minimum dimension as low as 4 feet. • Increase in Building Length. Municipal Code Section 15.04.201.080 states that the maximum building length can be 125 feet. The applicant requests a waiver to allow building lengths of up to 160 feet. Without this waiver, the proposed project would need to reduce its density, in part because the project’s site plan is restricted by the required circulation and the property’s topography.
• Decrease in Personal Storage Space. Municipal Code Section 15.04.201.080 requires each townhome to provide 80 square feet of enclosed personal storage space in addition to a garage and bedroom closets. The applicant requests a waiver to reduce this requirement to 55 square feet. Because of the shape of the property and proposed amenities, including unit size, the project requests this waiver to provide the density proposed.

The proposed project would be consistent with the density for the Medium-Density Residential designation.

Additionally, the proposed project would be required to undergo design review prior to project approval. Under State law, the design review board can require that the proposed project comply with objective, written standards. Therefore, the proposed project would comply with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality and the effects of the proposed project were anticipated in the General Plan EIR and there are no project-specific effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project would not introduce new or off-site cumulative impacts or create more severe impacts related to visual character than those analyzed in the General Plan EIR. No additional analysis is required.
573
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

50 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx e) Light or Glare
Would the project: Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR concluded that the City is primarily built out, and a significant amount of light and glare from urban uses already exists. However, new development permitted under the General Plan could create new sources of glare from paved surfaces, glare from reflective building surfaces, exterior building lighting, lighted recreation facilities, new street lighting, parking lot lights, and headlights of vehicular traffic. These new sources would be more noticeable from new development in large infill areas and previously undeveloped sites outside of the downtown area. As a result, these new sources of glare could affect the day or nighttime views of adjacent sensitive land uses.

These sensitive land uses could generally be undeveloped lands and residential uses adjacent to commercial or industrial areas. However, the General Plan concluded that the substantial increase in light and glare from exterior and street lighting at new project sites would be minimized with the implementation of the following adopted mitigation measures: MM 3.15-2a, MM 3.15-2b, MM 3.15- c, and MM 3.15-d. These mitigation measures, provide guidelines for street lighting, outdoor lighting, and design review for reflective buildings.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
The project site is currently vacant and does not have existing sources of light and glare. The proposed development would create new sources of light and glare from windows, interior lighting, exterior security and safety lighting, and car headlights from cars circulating the project site.

However, the proposed project would implement the adopted Final General Plan MM 3.15-2a, MM

3.15-b, MM 3.15-c, and MM 3.15-d, which provide guidelines for street lighting, outdoor lighting, and design review for reflective buildings, which would ensure that new sources of light and glare created by the proposed project do not create significant impacts. The project design would incorporate lighting in conformance with these mitigation measures and Municipal Code

15.04.604.050. Therefore, the effects of the proposed project were anticipated in the General Plan EIR and there are no project-specific effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project would not introduce new or off-site cumulative impacts or create more severe impacts related to aesthetics than those analyzed in the General Plan EIR. No additional analysis is required.

General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project MM 3.15-1 As a condition of authorizing development within existing undeveloped areas or demolishing commercial or industrial structures that were built prior to 1950, the City shall require the applicant to provide photographs or another appropriate form of visual record of the project location’s existing physical setting, and a photograph or another appropriate form of visual record of one or more public vistas of the project location (e.g., views from public parks or civic buildings). These visual records shall be submitted to the Planning Department or its designee for appropriate storage and retrieval for future studies of the City’s evolving urban character. 574
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 51
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx MM 3.15-2a All street lighting shall be directed downward and shielded to prevent light spill onto surrounding properties, sky glow, and glare.

MM 3.15-2b The City shall restrict the use of high-level outdoor lighting for new homes, particularly along the hillside ridges.

MM 3.15-2c Landscaping shall be incorporated along internal roads and near off-site homes to reduce spill light emanating from vehicles and buildings.

MM 3.15-2d The City shall require design review of any project containing reflective glass or metal building materials that exceed 50 percent of any building surface or the first three floors.

Conclusion
The conclusions from the certified General Plan EIR remain unchanged when considering the implementation of the proposed project.

The proposed project is consistent with the development evaluated in the General Plan and the analysis in the certified General Plan EIR and would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of any previously identified impacts as compared to what was already identified and disclosed, either individually or cumulatively related to aesthetics.

Further environmental analysis is not required because:
• No peculiar impacts have been identified as a result of the proposed project or its site.

Implementation of relevant previously approved General Plan mitigation measures, uniformly applied General Plan policies and standards along with regulations of the City of Richmond and incorporation of identified project design features ensure impacts are below the level of significance.
• There are no potentially significant impacts that were not analyzed as significant in the certified General Plan EIR. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts that were not discussed by the Certified General Plan EIR. • No substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the certified General Plan EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. • No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the certified General Plan EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
• There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the certified General Plan EIR was certified as complete.
575
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

52 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Environmental Issues
Prior General
Plan EIR
Determination
CEQA Section 15168 Criteria
Effect
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-site,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More Severe
Adverse
Impact?

4.2 Agriculture and Forest Resources
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the State’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.

Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to
nonagricultural use?
None identified No No No No
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract?
None identified No No No No
c) Conflict with existing zoning for,
or cause rezoning of, forest land
(as defined in Public Resources
Code Section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code Section 4526),
or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by
Government Code Section
51104(g))?
None identified No No No No
d) Result in the loss of forest land
or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use?
None identified No No No No
e) Involve other changes in the
existing environment which, due
to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of Farmland,
to nonagricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-
forest use?
None identified No No No No

576
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 53
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx a) Conversion of Important Farmland
Would the project: Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
Overall, the General Plan EIR determined that impacts related to agriculture and forest resources would not be significant. Areas of the City with significant natural habitat, open space, parks and recreational resources and agricultural lands have been identified for conservation, preservation, and environmental rehabilitation by the General Plan. Resources in these areas are valued by the community and will continue to be protected by the City and other public and regulatory agencies.

The General Plan EIR also concluded that areas where topsoil could be present are generally limited to existing undeveloped areas designated agricultural lands, so development permitted under the proposed General Plan would not convert those lands to urban uses that could, in turn, reduce topsoil.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
The proposed project site would be located on land designated by the General Plan as Medium- Density Residential and PA. According to the California Department of Conservation Important Farmland Finder, the project site is designated as Other Land and is surrounded by land designated as Urban and Built Up Land.4 The site does not contain Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. This condition precludes the proposed project from resulting in the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use. Therefore, the effects of the proposed project were anticipated in the General Plan EIR and there are no project-specific effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project would not introduce new or off-site cumulative impacts or create more severe impacts related to agriculture and forest resources than those analyzed in the General Plan EIR. No additional analysis is required. b) Agricultural Zoning and Williamson Act Contracts
Would the project: Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Summary of the General Plan EIR
As previously discussed, the General Plan EIR determined that impacts related to agriculture and forest resources would not be significant.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
Presently, the project site consists of two parcels, which are zoned as RM-1 and PA. Neither the RM- 1 nor the PA zoning districts allow for agricultural uses. There are no active agricultural uses at the site. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use.

4 California Department of Conservation. 2016. California Important Farmland Finder. Website:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed August 22, 2022. 577
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

54 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Additionally, neither of the parcels that compose the project site are identified as having Williamson Act contracts.5 Therefore, the effects of the proposed project were anticipated in the General Plan EIR and there are no project-specific effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project would not introduce new or off-site cumulative impacts or create more severe impacts related to agriculture and forest resources than those analyzed in the General Plan EIR. No additional analysis is required.
c, d) Forest Zoning and Conversion of Forest Land
Would the project: Conflict with existing zoning for forest land or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? Would the project: Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR did not discuss impacts related to forest resources, including forest land and timberland. This issue area was not identified as potentially significant in the scoping process for the General Plan EIR.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
As previously discussed, the project site consists of two parcels, which are zoned as RM-1 and PA.

Neither the RM-1 nor the PA zoning districts allow for forestry or timberland production, which precludes the project from conflicting with zoning for forest land or timberland or resulting in the loss of forest land. In addition, there is no forest land or timberland on the project site. The proposed project would not introduce new or off-site cumulative impacts or create more severe impacts related to timberland and forest resources than those analyzed in the General Plan EIR. No additional analysis is required.
e) Pressures to Convert Farmland or Forest Land
Would the project: Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
As previously discussed, the General Plan EIR determined that impacts related to the conversion of farmland or forest land to nonagricultural or non-forest use would not be significant.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
As previously discussed, the project site is surrounding by built up and urban land. Thus, the proposed project would not result in changes in the existing environment that would convert farmland or forest land to nonagricultural or forestry uses. Therefore, the effects of the proposed project were anticipated in the General Plan EIR and there are no project-specific effects that were

5 Contra Costa Conservation and Development. 2016. Williamson Act web page, Map of Properties Under Contract PDF. Website:
https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/882/Map-of-Properties-Under-Contract?bidId=. Accessed August 22, 2022. 578
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 55
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project would not introduce new or off-site cumulative impacts or create more severe impacts related to agriculture and forest resources than those analyzed in the General Plan EIR. No additional analysis is required.

General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project None.

Conclusion
The conclusions from the General Plan EIR regarding the topic remain unchanged. The proposed project is consistent with the development evaluated in the General Plan and the analysis in the certified General Plan EIR and would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of any previously identified impacts as compared to what was already identified and disclosed, either individually or cumulatively related to agricultural and forest resources.

Further environmental analysis is not required because:
• No peculiar impacts have been identified as a result of the proposed project or its site. • There are no potentially significant impacts that were not analyzed as significant in the certified General Plan EIR. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts that were not discussed by the Certified General Plan EIR. • No substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the certified General Plan EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. • No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the certified General Plan EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
• There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the certified General Plan EIR was certified as complete.

579
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

56 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Environmental Issues
Prior General Plan
EIR Determination
CEQA Section 15168 Criteria
Effect
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New Significant
Off-site,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More Severe
Adverse Impact?

4.3 Air Quality
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the
applicable air quality
plan?
Less than
significant with
mitigation
incorporated
No No No No
b) Result in a cumulatively
considerable net
increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the
project region is
nonattainment under an
applicable federal or
State ambient air quality
standard?
Less than
significant with
mitigation
incorporated
No No No No
c) Expose sensitive
receptors to substantial
pollutant
concentrations?
Less than
significant with
mitigation
incorporated
No No No No
d) Result in other
emissions (such as those
leading to odors or)
adversely affecting a
substantial number of
people?
Less than
significant
No No No No

a) Air Quality Plan Conflict
Would the project: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR identified that implementation of the proposed General Plan would provide new sources of regional air emissions that could conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Clean Air Plan.6 However, the General Plan EIR adopted MM 3.3-1a through MM 3.3-1e, which recommend transportation management measures to encourage the use of public transit and active transportation to reduce the transportation-related pollutants and emissions. The General Plan EIR

6 City of Richmond. 2011. General Plan Final EIR.
580
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 57
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx also states that generally, if a project is planned in a way that results in the minimization of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), both within the project area and the surrounding area in which it is located, and minimizes air pollutant emissions, that aspect of the project is consistent with the Clean Air Plan. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that this impact would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation. It should be noted that since the certification of the General Plan EIR the BAAQMD has since adopted a new, updated 2017 Clean Air Plan.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
The project site is located in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (Air Basin), where the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) regulates air quality. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for identifying nonattainment and attainment areas for each criteria pollutant within the Air Basin. The Air Basin is designated nonattainment for State standards for 1 hour and 8-hour ozone, 24-hour respirable particulate matter (PM10), annual PM10, and annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5).7
The BAAQMD has adopted several air quality policies and plans to address regional air quality, the most recent of which is the 2017 Clean Air Plan. The 2017 Clean Air Plan was adopted in April of 2017 and serves as the regional Air Quality Plan (AQP) for the Air Basin for attaining National Ambient Air Quality Standards and California Ambient Air Quality Standards. The primary goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan are to protect public health and protect the climate. The 2017 Clean Air Plan acknowledges that the BAAQMD’s two stated goals of protection are closely related. As such, the 2017 Clean Air Plan identifies a wide range of control measures intended to decrease both criteria pollutants
8 and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.9 The 2017 Clean Air Plan also accounts for projections of population growth provided by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and VMT provided by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and identifies strategies to bring regional emissions into compliance with federal and State air quality standards. A project would be judged to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2017 Clean Air Plan if it would result in substantial new regional emissions not foreseen in the air quality planning process.

The BAAQMD does not provide a numerical threshold of significance for project-level consistency analysis with AQPs. Therefore, the following criteria will be used for determining a project’s consistency with the applicable AQP , the 2017 Clean Air Plan:
• Criterion 1: Does the project support the primary goals of the AQP? • Criterion 2: Does the project include applicable control measures from the AQP? • Criterion 3: Does the project disrupt or hinder the implementation of any AQP control measures?

7 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. California Environmental Quality Act. Air Quality Guidelines. 8 The EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six of the most common air pollutants—carbon monoxide, lead, ground level ozone, particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide—known as “criteria” air pollutants (or simply “criteria pollutants”).
9 A greenhouse gas (GHG) is any gaseous compound in the atmosphere that is capable of absorbing infrared radiation, thereby trapping and holding heat in the atmosphere. By increasing the heat in the atmosphere, greenhouse gases are responsible for the greenhouse effect, which ultimately leads to global warming. 581
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

58 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Criterion 1
The primary goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan, the current AQP to date, are to:
• Attain air quality standards;
• Reduce population exposure to unhealthy air and protect public health in the Bay Area; and • Reduce GHG emissions and protect the climate.

A measure for determining whether the proposed project conflicts with the primary goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan is if the proposed project would result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the 2017 Clean Air Plan. This measure is determined by evaluating whether the proposed project was reasonably accounted for in the 2017 Clean Air Plan.

The BAAQMD estimates the regional emissions inventory for the Air Basin, in part, from the regional population, housing, and employment projections developed by the ABAG and MTC. These demographic trends are incorporated into Plan Bay Area 2040, compiled by ABAG and the MTC, to determine priority transportation projects and estimate VMT in the Bay Area and are based on cities’ and counties’ general plan land use designations. Therefore, these regional demographic projections derived from local jurisdictions’ land use patterns form the foundation of the emissions inventory for the 2017 Clean Air Plan. As such, projects consistent with the local general plan are considered consistent with the applicable AQP , the 2017 Clean Air Plan. Large projects that exceed regional employment, population, and housing planning projections have the potential to be inconsistent with the regional inventory compiled as part of the 2017 Clean Air Plan.

The General Plan was adopted in 2012, which was considered in the growth assumptions of the BAAQMD’s 2017 Clean Air Plan. The project site is designated Medium-Density Residential by the General Plan and is mostly zoned RM-1 according to Article 15.04.201.010 of the Municipal Code. 10 As previously discussed, the RM-1 zoning district is intended for single and multi-family housing types, and a maximum density of 26 dwelling units per acre is permitted.11 The proposed project would build 94 dwelling units on the approximately 6-acre site, resulting in a density of 15.67 dwelling units per acre, and would be within the City’s density allowance of 26 dwelling units per acre for the RM-1 zoning district. Therefore, the proposed project’s anticipated population growth and subsequent emissions generation would be within the assumptions contained in Plan Bay Area 2040 and by extension the 2017 Clean Air Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the land use assumptions used in the 2017 Clean Air Plan.

Furthermore, as discussed in Impact III(b) and Impact III(c), implementation of the proposed project would not exceed the BAAQMD operational or construction thresholds for criteria pollutants or health risk impacts after implementation of General Plan EIR mitigation. As such, development of the project site has been reasonably accounted for in the 2017 Clean Air Plan. Because the proposed

10 City of Richmond. 2022. Municipal Code Article XV, Zoning and Subdivision. A small portion of the site is zoned PA. No residences are proposed in the area zoned PA.
11 Ibid.
582
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 59
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx project would not exceed BAAQMD regional thresholds of significance on an average daily or annual basis, the proposed project would be consistent with the first criterion after mitigation, as further described below.

Criterion 2
The 2017 Clean Air Plan contains control measures to reduce air pollutants and GHGs at the local, regional, and global levels. Along with the traditional stationary, area, mobile source, and transportation control measures, the 2017 Clean Air Plan contains many control measures designed to protect the climate and promote mixed-use, compact development to reduce vehicle emissions and exposure to pollutants from stationary mobile sources. The 2017 Clean Air Plan also includes an account of the implementation status of control measures identified in the prior 2010 Clean Air Plan.

Table 3 lists the relevant Clean Air Plan policies to the proposed project and evaluates its consistency with the policies. As shown below, the proposed project would be consistent with the applicable control measures of the 2017 Clean Air Plan.

Table 3: Project Consistency with Applicable Clean Air Plan Control Measures Control Measure Project Consistency
Buildings Control Measures
BL1: Green Buildings Consistent. The proposed project would not conflict with implementation of this measure. The proposed
project would comply with the latest energy
efficiency standards and incorporate applicable
energy efficiency features designed to reduce project
energy consumption.

BL4: Urban Heat Island Mitigation Consistent. The proposed project would provide a total of 96,200 square feet of landscaping and a
combined total of 6,945 square feet of stormwater
basins, which would serve to reduce the urban heat
island effect and would include the planting of shade
trees.

Energy Control Measures
EN1: Decarbonize Electricity Generation Consistent. The project applicant would, at a minimum, be required to conform to the energy
efficiency requirements of the California Building
Standards Code, also known as Title 24. The 2019
Title 24 Standards are the current State building
regulations, which went into effect on January 1,
2020. Proposed buildings that would receive building
permits after January 1, 2020, but before January 1,
2023 would be subject to the 2019 Title 24 Standards
.

Proposed buildings that would receive building
permits after January 1, 2023, including the proposed
project, would be subject to the 2022 Title 24
Standards, which are more stringent than the 2019
Standards. Moreover, the proposed project would be
EN2: Decrease Electricity Demand
583
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

60 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Control Measure Project Consistency
required to comply with Richmond’s Ordinance No.
06-20 N.S., which would require the proposed project
to include solar panels and exclude natural gas
infrastructure in the project design.12
Natural and Working Lands Control Measures
NW2: Urban Tree Planting Consistent. The proposed project would include a total of 96,200 square feet of landscaped area and a
combined total of 6,945 square feet of stormwater
basins. Plantings would include trees, shrubs, and
groundcover.

WA3: Green Waste Diversion Consistent. The waste service provider for the proposed project will be required to meet the
Assembly Bill (AB) 341 and Senate Bill (SB) 939 and SB
1374 requirements that require waste service
providers to divert green waste. All vegetation refuse
generated during operations of the proposed project
would be disposed of off-site by the waste service
provider.

WA4: Recycling and Waste Reduction Consistent: The waste service provider for the proposed project will be required to meet the AB
341, SB 939 and SB 1374 requirements that require
waste to be recycled.

Stationary Control Measures
SS36: Particulate Matter from Trackout Consistent with Mitigation. Mud and dirt that may be tracked out onto the nearby public roads during
construction activities shall be removed promptly by
the contractor based on BAAQMD’s requirements.

The General Plan EIR’s adopted MM 3.3-2a, identified
under Impact III(b), would require implementation of
BMPs recommended by BAAQMD for fugitive dust
emissions during construction.

SS37: Particulate Matter from Asphalt Operations Consistent. Asphalt used during the construction of the proposed project would be subject to BAAQMD
Regulation 8, Rule 15-Emulsified and Liquid Asphalts.

Although this rule does not directly apply to the
proposed project, it does limit the reactive organic
gas (ROG) content of asphalt available for use during
construction through regulating the sale and use of
asphalt. By using asphalt from facilities that meet
BAAQMD regulations, the proposed project would be
consistent with this Clean Air Plan measure.

Transportation Control Measures
TR9: Bicycle and Pedestrian Access and Facilities. Consistent. Pedestrian access would be provided via an existing sidewalk or trail along the Brickyard Cove
Road project frontage. A trail connecting to the East

12 City of Richmond. 2020. Ordinance No. 06-20 N.S.
584
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 61
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Control Measure Project Consistency
Bay Regional Park District would be provided at the
northern boundary of the property. The Richmond
Bay Trail, which can be accessed along Brickyard Cove
Road, would provide 36 miles of accessibility within
Richmond, in connection to the planned 500-mile
multi-purpose trail throughout San Francisco and San
Pablo Bays. The proposed project would also provide
a total of 212 parking spaces (two for each unit and
24 surface parking spaces), and six bicycle parking
spaces. Therefore, the proposed project would not
conflict with the BAAQMD’s efforts to encourage
planning for bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. April 19.

In summary, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable measures under the 2017 Clean Air Plan after the implementation of the adopted General Plan EIR MM 3.3-2a, which is further discussed under Impact III(b). Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Criterion 2 after incorporation of mitigation.

Criterion 3
The proposed project is located close to a range of public transit options therefore would not discourage the use of public transit and active transportation. The proposed project would not preclude the extension of a transit line or bike path, propose excessive parking beyond parking requirements, or otherwise create an impediment or disruption to implementation of any control measures of the AQP , the 2017 Clean Air Plan. Pedestrian access would be provided via the Bay Trail along the Brickyard Cove Road project frontage. The proposed project would improve the trail and frontage and provide a 12-foot-wide paved shared use trail with a 3-foot shoulder on each side.

Exhibit 8 shows the proposed improvements to the Bay Trail and project site frontage. A trail connecting to the East Bay Regional Park District would be provided at the northern boundary of the property. The Richmond Bay Trail, which can be accessed along Brickyard Cove Road, would provide 36 miles of accessibility within the City, in connection to the planned 500-mile multi-purpose trail throughout San Francisco and San Pablo Bays.
13 The proposed project would also provide a total of
212 parking spaces (two for each unit) plus 24 additional guest parking spaces, and six bicycle parking spaces. As shown in Table 3 above, the proposed project would incorporate several 2017 Clean Air Plan control measures as project design features such as complying with energy efficiency standards contained in the 2022 California Building Code and installing landscaping across the project site. Considering this information, the proposed project would not disrupt or hinder implementation of any control measures and therefore it is consistent with Criterion 3.

Summary
As addressed above, the proposed project would be consistent with all three criteria after the incorporation of the adopted General Plan EIR MM 3.3-2a. Thus, the proposed project would not

13 Trails for Richmond Action Committee (TRAC). 2022. Bay Trail Richmond Mid-Year 2022 Report. 585
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

62 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx conflict with the 2017 Clean Air Plan and this impact would be less than significant with mitigation.

Therefore, the effects of the proposed project were anticipated in the General Plan EIR and there are no project-specific effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project and the circumstances under which it would be taken would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to conflicts with or obstructions to the applicable AQP than what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. In addition, there is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the General Plan EIR was certified as complete related to conflicts with or obstructions of the applicable AQP that would require additional environmental review. b) Air Quality Standard, Criteria Pollutants
Would the project: Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
This impact is related to the cumulative effect of a project’s regional criteria pollutant emissions. By its nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact resulting from emissions generated over a large geographic region (i.e., the air basin). The nonattainment status of regional pollutants is a result of past and present development within the Air Basin, and this regional impact is a cumulative impact. Therefore, new development projects (such as the proposed project) within the Air Basin would contribute to this impact only on a cumulative basis. No single project would be sufficient in size, by itself, to result in nonattainment of regional air quality standards. Instead, a project’s emissions may be individually limited, but cumulatively considerable when evaluated in combination with past, present, and future development projects.

The General Plan EIR concluded that regional air quality impacts could be significant due to the uncertainty of individual project operational emissions impacts. 14 However, the General Plan EIR
adopted MM 3.3-2a through MM 3.3-2e, which would reduce emissions impacts during both construction and operation of the proposed project. Implementation of adopted MM 3.3-2a and MM 3.3-2b, which address project review and incorporation of BAAQMD-recommended BMPs, would reduce construction emissions impacts to less than significant while implementation of adopted MM 3.3-2c through MM 3.3-2e, which address the incorporation of all feasible emissions reduction measures, would reduce operational impacts to less than significant, resulting from buildout of the General Plan. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
Potential localized and regional air emissions could result in exceedances of State or federal standards for nitrogen oxides (NO
X), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), or carbon monoxide (CO).

NOX emissions are of concern because of potential health impacts from exposure to NOX emissions

14 City of Richmond. 2011. General Plan Final EIR.
586
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 63
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx during both construction and operation and as a precursor in the formation of airborne ozone. PM10 and PM2.5 are of particular concern during construction because of the potential to emit exhaust emissions from the operation of off-road construction equipment and fugitive dust during earth- disturbing activities (construction fugitive dust). CO emissions are of particular concern during project operation because operational CO hotspots are related to increases in on-road vehicle congestion.

Reactive organic gas (ROG) emissions are also important because of their participation in the formation of ground level ozone. Ozone is a respiratory irritant and an oxidant that increases susceptibility to respiratory infections and that can cause substantial damage to vegetation and other materials. Elevated ozone concentrations result in reduced lung function, particularly during vigorous physical activity. This health problem is particularly acute in sensitive receptors such as the sick, elderly, and young children.

The cumulative analysis focuses on whether a specific project would result in cumulatively considerable emissions. According to Section 15064(h)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines, the existence of significant cumulative impacts caused by other projects alone does not constitute substantial evidence that the project’s incremental effects would be cumulatively considerable. Rather, the determination of cumulative air quality impacts for construction and operational emissions is based on whether the proposed project would result in regional emissions that exceed the BAAQMD regional thresholds of significance for construction and operations on a project level. The thresholds of significance represent the allowable amount of emissions each project can generate without generating a cumulatively considerable contribution to regional air quality impacts. Therefore, a project that would not exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance at the project level also would not be considered to result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to these regional air quality impacts. Construction and operational emissions are discussed separately below.

Construction Emissions
During construction, fugitive dust would be generated from site grading and other earthmoving activities. The majority of this fugitive dust would remain localized and would be deposited near the project site. However, the potential for health impacts from fugitive dust exists unless control measures are implemented to reduce the emissions from this source. Exhaust emissions would also be generated from the operation of the off-road construction equipment and from on-road construction worker vehicles, vendor trucks, and haul trucks.

Construction Fugitive Dust
As previously mentioned, fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) would be generated during earthmoving activities but would largely remain localized near the project site. The BAAQMD does not recommend a numerical threshold for fugitive dust particulate matter emissions. Instead, the BAAQMD bases the determination of significance for fugitive dust upon the control measures to be implemented. If all appropriate emissions control measures are implemented for a project as recommended by the BAAQMD, then fugitive dust emissions during construction are not considered significant.
587
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

64 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx As required by adopted General Plan EIR MM 3.3-2a, the proposed project would implement BMPs recommended by BAAQMD for fugitive dust emissions during construction. As such, with mitigation, short-term construction impacts associated with fugitive dust emissions would not violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.

Construction Air Pollutant Emissions: ROG, NOX, PM10, PM2.5 The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2020.4.0, was used to estimate the proposed project’s construction emissions and is the BAAQMD recommended model. CalEEMod provides a consistent platform for estimating construction and operational emissions from a wide variety of land use projects and is the model recommended by the BAAQMD for estimating project emissions. Estimated construction emissions are compared with the applicable thresholds of significance established by the BAAQMD to assess ROG, NOX, exhaust PM10, and exhaust PM2.5 construction emissions to determine significance.

As shown in Table 4, the proposed project would be constructed in a total of 514 workdays. For a more detailed description of the construction parameters used in estimating air pollutant emissions modeling, refer to Appendix A. The proposed project would be constructed in two phases. It is anticipated that construction would begin in December 2023, beginning with site clearing. (A different start date of August 2022 was used for the modeling, as explained below.) Grading would take approximately five months, with building construction taking approximately 20 months. Rough grading would generate approximately 63,700 cubic yards of cut, which would be redistributed on- site as engineered fill material. An additional approximately 68,100 cubic yards of fill material would be imported to raise the elevation of the site (addressing the depression left by the gas plant) and create construction pads as well as addressing previous slumping and erosion over the site. A total of 131,800 cubic yards of fill would be used on-site. Depending on the characteristics of the soil, one truck could carry between 13 and 16 cubic yards of fill, requiring 5,238 truck trips over the 5 month period required to bring the fill to the site. Up to 153 trucks per day could be scheduled to bring fill to the site, although the number of trips would vary from day to day. The air quality analysis of the construction phase included a greater amount of imported fill, requiring 11,000 truck trips, in order to analyze worst-case scenario.

The modeling and analysis below was prepared with the construction schedule that was available at the time the modeling was conducted, including an estimated construction start date of August 2022. The construction schedule utilized in this analysis represents a conservative assessment, since it assumes construction equipment to be operating at an average 6-8 hours per day for four additional months beyond what is now detailed in the project description. Furthermore, where the modeling assumed an earlier start date and a longer construction period, this analysis provides a conservative estimate of potential construction emission impacts of the project. If the construction schedule moves to later years than what is shown in the table below, estimated construction emissions would decrease due to ongoing improvements in technology and more stringent regulatory requirements that would affect future construction equipment. The duration of construction activities and associated equipment represent a reasonable approximation of the expected construction fleet as required by CEQA Guidelines. 588
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 65
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Table 4: Preliminary Construction Schedule
Construction Activity Start Date End Date
Total Number of
Working Days per
Week
Total Number of
Working Days
Phase 1 Site Preparation 8/1/2022 8/31/2022 5 23
Phase 1 Grading 9/1/2022 1/18/2023 5 100
Phase 1 Building Construction 1/19/2023 6/24/2024 5 373 Phase 1 Paving 1/19/2023 2/13/2023 5 18
Phase 1 Architectural Coating 5/30/2024 6/24/2024 5 18
Phase 2 Architectural Coating 6/25/2024 7/18/2024 5 18

The calculations of pollutant emissions from the construction equipment account for the type of equipment, horsepower, and load factors of the equipment, along with the duration of use. Project construction emissions are presented in Table 5 and compared with the appropriate significance thresholds. As shown therein, emissions generated during project construction would not exceed the BAAQMD’s significance thresholds.

Table 5: Construction Emissions (Unmitigated)
Construction Activity
Air Pollutants1 (tons)
ROG NOX PM10 (Exhaust) PM2.5 (Exhaust)
Site Preparation 0.01 0.12 0.01 0.01
Grading 0.10 1.73 0.04 0.04
Building Construction 0.27 2.97 0.09 0.09
Paving <0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.01
Architectural Coating (Phase 1) 0.71 0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Architectural Coating (Phase 2) 0.74 0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Total Emissions (tons) 1.84 4.86 0.14 0.13
Daily Average
Total Emissions (lbs) 3,676.96 9,715.90 285.36 267.02
Average Daily Emissions (lbs/day)2 7.15 18.90 0.56 0.52 Significance Threshold (lbs/day) 54 54 82 54
Exceeds Significance Threshold? No No No No
Notes:
lbs = pounds
NOX = oxides of nitrogen
PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter
589
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

66 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Construction Activity
Air Pollutants1 (tons)
ROG NOX PM10 (Exhaust) PM2.5 (Exhaust)
PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter
ROG = reactive organic gases
1 Totals may not add up due to rounding. Calculations use unrounded totals. 2 Calculated by dividing the total lbs of emissions by the total number of nonoverlapping working days of construction (514 workdays).

Source: CalEEMod Output (Appendix A).

As shown in Table 5, total construction emissions considering all construction activities are below the thresholds of significance; therefore, project construction would have a less than significant impact related to emissions of ROG, NOX, exhaust PM10, and exhaust PM2.5. As previously discussed, the proposed project would implement adopted General Plan EIR MM 3.3-2a for dust control BMPs recommended by the BAAQMD to reduce potential impacts related to fugitive dust emissions during project construction. As such, project construction would have a less than significant impact with mitigation. Therefore, the effects of the proposed project were anticipated in the General Plan EIR and there are no project-specific effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project and the circumstances under which it would be taken would not result in any new or substantially more severe significant effects related to construction emissions than what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR and there is no new, significant information that would alter the impact conclusions in the General Plan EIR.

Operation Emissions
Operational Air Pollutant Emissions: ROG, NOX, PM10, PM2.5 Operational emissions would be generated from area, energy, and mobile sources. Area sources include emissions from architectural coatings, consumer products, and landscape equipment, while energy sources include emissions from the combustion of natural gas for water and space heating, as applicable. As the proposed project would be required to be designed to prohibit natural gas plumbing under the City’s Prohibition of Natural Gas Infrastructure in Newly Constructed Buildings, the proposed project would not result in energy source air pollutants. Mobile sources include exhaust and road dust emissions from the vehicles that would travel to and from the project site.

Pollutants of concern include ROG, NO
X, PM10, and PM2.5.

Project operations were analyzed starting in 2024, the first calendar year following construction operations. The major sources for proposed operational emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 include motor vehicle traffic, use of landscaping maintenance equipment, and the occasional repainting of buildings. Operational emissions of the respective pollutants were calculated using CalEEMod, Version 2020.4.0. For detailed assumptions used to estimate emissions, see Appendix A.

The estimated annual and average daily emissions are presented in Table 6. 590
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 67
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Table 6: Operational Emissions (Unmitigated)
Emissions Source
Air Pollutants1 (tons/year)
ROG NOX PM10 (Total) PM2.5 (Total)
Area 0.97 0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mobile 0.33 0.38 0.71 0.19
Waste – – – –
Water – – – –
Annual Average
Average Annual Emissions
(tons/year) 1.30 0.39 0.72 0.20
Significance Threshold (tons/year) 10 10 15 10
Exceeds Significance Threshold? No No No No
Daily Average
Average Annual Emissions
(tons/year) 1.30 0.39 0.72 0.20
Average Annual Emissions
(lbs/year) 2,607 773 1,432 395
Average Daily Emissions (lbs/day)2 7.14 2.12 3.92 1.05
Significance Threshold (lbs/day) 54 54 82 54
Exceeds Significance Threshold? No No No No
Notes:

NOX = nitrous oxides.

PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter ROG = reactive organic gases
1 Totals may not add up due to rounding. Calculations use unrounded totals. 2 Calculated by dividing the total lbs of emissions by the total number days in a year (365 workdays). 3 Values above which represent true zeros are represented with "-" while values that are less than 0.005 are automatically rounded down to "0.00."
Source: CalEEMod Output (Appendix A).

As shown in Table 6, the proposed project would not exceed the BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance during operation, indicating that ongoing project operations would not be considered to have the potential to generate a significant quantity of air pollutants. Long-term operational impacts associated with criteria pollutant emissions generated by the proposed project would be less than significant. Therefore, the effects of the proposed project were anticipated in the General Plan EIR and there are no project-specific effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project and the circumstances under which it would be undertaken would not result in any 591
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

68 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx new or substantially more severe significant effects related to operational criteria pollutant emissions than what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR and there is no new, significant information that would alter the impact conclusions in the General Plan EIR.

Operational Carbon Monoxide Hotspot
The CO emissions from traffic generated by the proposed project are a concern at the local level.

Congested intersections can result in the potential for high, localized concentrations of CO, known as a CO hotspot.

The BAAQMD recommends a screening analysis to determine whether a project has the potential to contribute to a CO hotspot. The screening criteria identify when site-specific CO dispersion modeling is necessary. The proposed project would result in a less than significant impact to air quality for local CO if the following screening criteria are met:
• The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans; or • The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour; or
• The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway).

As discussed in Section XVI, Transportation, the Draft Transportation Impact Study (TIS) prepared for the proposed project15 notes that existing transit routes are adequate to accommodate project- generated transit trips. Furthermore, the proposed project would be consistent with the City’s VMT thresholds because it would be located in a low-VMT area. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with the local congestion management plan.

As indicated in the TIS prepared for the proposed project,16 the site is currently undeveloped and therefore not generating any trips. The proposed project is expected to generate 677 daily trips, with 45 trips in the AM peak-hour and 54 trips in the PM peak-hour. The TIS illustrates that the intersection with the most peak-hour traffic volumes in the study area, the West Richmond Avenue/South Garrard Boulevard intersection (Intersection 1), would experience existing peak-hour traffic volumes of 503 and 661 in the AM and PM peak-hours, respectively. Therefore, the addition of the proposed project’s traffic (both daily and peak-hour) would not result in any nearby intersections to have peak-hour traffic volumes exceeding 44,000 vehicles per hour.

Nonetheless, CO hotspots can occur when a transportation facility’s design or orientation prevents the adequate dispersion of CO emissions from vehicles, resulting in the accumulation of local CO

15 W-Trans. 2022. Draft Transportation Impact Study for the Point Richmond Residential Project. City of Richmond, Contra Costa County, California. July 1.
16 W-Trans. 2022. Transportation Analysis Assumptions for the Point Richmond Residential Project. City of Richmond, Contra Costa County, California. July 1.
592
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 69
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx concentrations. The design or orientation of a transportation facility which may prevent the dispersion of CO emissions include tunnels, parking garages, bridge underpasses, natural or urban canyons, below-grade roadways, or other features where vertical or horizontal atmospheric mixing is substantially limited. Adjacent roadways that would receive new vehicle trips generated by the proposed project do not include roadway segments where vertical or horizontal atmospheric mixing is substantially limited. Based on the above criteria, the proposed project would not exceed the CO screening criteria and would have a less than significant impact related to CO. Therefore, the effects of the proposed project were anticipated in the General Plan EIR and there are no project-specific effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project would not result in any new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to CO hotspots than what was previously analyzed in the Final General Plan EIR and there is no new, significant information that would alter the impact conclusions in the General Plan EIR.

Summary
As addressed above, air pollutants from both the construction and operation of the proposed project are well below the BAAQMD’s threshold of significance. As required by the General Plan EIR’s adopted MM 3.3-2a, the proposed project would implement BMPs recommended by BAAQMD to reduce fugitive dust emissions during construction. Therefore, with mitigation, short-term construction impacts associated with fugitive dust emissions would not violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. In addition, as shown above, the proposed project would generate criteria pollutant emissions below the BAAQMD’s applicable significance thresholds. Finally, the vehicle traffic generated by the proposed project would not exceed the BAAQMD’s applicable screening criteria for the potential generation of a CO hotspot. As such, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Therefore, the effects of the proposed project were anticipated in the General Plan EIR and there are no project-specific effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project would not result in any new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to criteria pollutant emissions during construction or operation, or the generation of a CO hotspot, than what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR and there is no new, significant information that would alter the impact conclusions in the General Plan EIR.
c) Sensitive Receptors
Would the project: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that implementation of MM 3.3-3 would ensure this impact would be less than significant. Adopted General Plan EIR MM 3.3-3 requires all new industrial and commercial development projects that have the potential to emit toxic air contaminants (TACs) to be located an adequate distance from existing and proposed development used by sensitive receptors, including residences, schools, day care facilities, congregate care facilities, hospitals, or other places of long-term residency. Adopted MM 3.3-3 also requires that proposed sensitive receptors be sited 593
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

70 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx an adequate distance from land uses known to emit TACs, as identified in the California Air Resources Board’s (ARB) Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective.17 Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
As the proposed project would constitute the development of residences beyond distances recommended in the ARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective with respect to existing land uses which generate pollutants of concern, and beyond the siting distance requirements included in the adopted General Plan EIR MM 3.3-3c, the proposed project is considered to implement the adopted General Plan EIR MM 3.3-3 by design. In compliance with adopted General Plan EIR MM 3.3-3d, a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) was conducted for the proposed project, and the results of the HRA are further discussed in the following sections.

The BAAQMD defines a sensitive receptor as the following: “Facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. Examples include schools, hospitals, and residential areas.” As specified by the BAAQMD, health risk and hazard impacts should be analyzed for sensitive receptors within a 1,000-foot radius of the project site. 18 The closest existing sensitive receptors
include the following:
• Single-family residences, as close as 30 feet east of the project site. • Single-family residences, as close as 30 feet west of the project site. • Single-family residences, as close as 450 feet southwest of the project site.

The following three criteria were applied to determine the significance of project emissions to sensitive receptors:
• Criterion 1: Construction of the proposed project would exceed the BAAQMD health risk significance thresholds.
• Criterion 2: Operation of the proposed project would exceed the BAAQMD health risk significance thresholds.
• Criterion 3: A CO hotspot assessment must demonstrate that the project would not result in the development of a CO hotspot that would cause an exceedance of the CO ambient air quality standards.

Criterion 1: Project Construction Toxic Air Pollutants
An assessment was made of the potential health impacts to surrounding sensitive receptors resulting from TAC emissions during construction. A summary of the assessment is provided below, while the detailed assessment is provided in Appendix A.

17 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April. 18 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Website:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed August 17, 2022.
594
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 71
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Diesel particulate matter (DPM) has been identified by the ARB as a carcinogenic substance. Major sources of DPM include off-road construction equipment and heavy-duty delivery truck and worker activities. For purposes of this analysis, DPM is represented as exhaust emissions of PM2.5.

Estimation of Construction DPM Emissions
Construction DPM emissions were estimated using CalEEMod, Version 2020.4.0, as described under the discussion for Impact III(b). As presented in Table 4, the proposed project's construction is anticipated to occur from approximately August 2022 to February 2024 for modeling purposes. 19 Construction emissions were calculated for each construction activity, as displayed in Table 5. On-site and off-site emissions generated during project construction were modeled with a working schedule of 8 hours per day, 5 days per week. As described above, the number of truck trips required for construction and delivery vehicles travelling to the site was conservatively estimated at 11,00 truck trips over the 5-month construction period.

Based on the analysis presented in this section, emissions were estimated for an unmitigated scenario and a mitigated scenario demonstrating implementation of adopted General Plan EIR MM

3.3-3d through the requirement of Implementing Measure (IM) AIR-1, which would include the use of construction equipment greater than 100 horsepower that meets the EPA and ARB’s Tier IV Final standards and electric equipment for those that are equal to or less than 100 horsepower.

Equipment tiers refer to a generation of emission standards established by the EPA and the ARB that apply to diesel engines in off-road equipment. The “tier” of an engine depends on the model year and horsepower rating; generally, the newer a piece of equipment is, the greater the tier it is likely to have. Table 7 summarizes the emission rates of unmitigated and mitigated DPM during construction of the proposed project, as analyzed for construction of the proposed project. Note that the “unmitigated” DPM emissions shown below incorporate implementation of construction BMPs as required under adopted General Plan EIR MM 3.3-2a, which affect fugitive dust emissions and not PM

2.5 exhaust.

Table 7: Project DPM Construction Emissions
Scenario
Maximum Annual Construction Emissions
On-site DPM
(pounds/year)
Off-site DPM1
(pounds/year)
Unmitigated 172.56 5.20
Mitigated2 2.46 5.20
Notes:

DPM = diesel particulate matter
1 The off-site emissions are estimated over all anticipated construction vehicle travel routes from within approximately 1,000 feet of the project site.
2 Mitigated DPM estimates shown above consider the use of Tier IV Final engines for construction equipment greater than 100 horsepower and electric equipment for those that are equal to or less than 100 horsepower.

Source: CalEEMod Output and Construction Health Risk Assessment Calculations (Appendix A).

19 This is a conservative estimate of the date project construction would begin. 595
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

72 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Estimation of Cancer Risks and Hazards
The BAAQMD has developed a set of guidelines for estimating cancer risks resulting from exposure to TACs.20,21 These guidelines recommend the use of Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP2) software to identify the cancer risk associated with DPM generated during construction activities. The HARP2 risk scenario inputs used to calculate cancer risk during project construction for both off-site and on-site receptors are as follows:

1. Analysis Type: Cancer Risk

2. Receptor Type: Individual Resident

3. Phase 1 Exposure Duration: User Defined (Tier 2)–2 Years, 3rd Trimester Start Age

4. Phase 2 Exposure Duration: User Defined (Tier 2)–0.5 Year, 3rd Trimester Start Age

5. Intake Rate Percentile: 95th (High End)

6. Pathways to Evaluate: Inhalation Only

7. Selected: “Use Tier 2 breathing rates (L/kg-day)” factor

Estimation of Non-Cancer Chronic Hazards
An evaluation of the potential non-cancer effects of chronic chemical exposures was also conducted.

Adverse health effects are evaluated by comparing the annual receptor concentration of each chemical compound with the appropriate reference exposure limit. Available reference exposure limits promulgated by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) were considered in the assessment.

Risk characterization for non-cancer health hazards from TACs is expressed as a Hazard Index (HI).

The HI is a ratio of the predicted concentration of the proposed project’s emissions to a concentration considered acceptable to public health professionals, termed the reference exposure limit. The HI assumes that chronic sub-threshold exposures adversely affect a specific organ or organ system (toxicological endpoint). For each discrete chemical exposure, target organs presented in regulatory guidance were used. Each chemical concentration or dose is divided by the appropriate toxicity reference exposure level to calculate the HI. For compounds affecting the same toxicological endpoint, this ratio is summed. Where the total equals or exceeds 1, a health hazard is presumed to exist. For purposes of this assessment, the TAC of concern is DPM for which the OEHHA has defined a reference exposure limit for DPM of 5 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m 3). The principal
toxicological endpoint assumed in this assessment was through inhalation.

Estimation of Health Risks and Hazards from Project Construction Table 8 summarizes the cancer risk and HI results for unmitigated project construction at the Maximally Impacted Sensitive Receptor (MIR), a single-family residence approximately 30 feet east of the project site. As shown in Table 8, PM2.5 exhaust emissions generated during unmitigated project construction would result in an incremental cancer risk of approximately 92 individuals per one million, which is above the BAAQMD’s significance threshold of 10 individuals per one million.

As demonstrated in Table 8, unmitigated project construction would result in an exceedance of the BAAQMD’s significance threshold for TAC concentration at the off-site MIR as well. As such, implementation of IM AIR-1 would be required to reduce impacts to less than significant.

20 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2016. BAAQMD Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Assessment Guidelines. 21 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2020. BAAQMD Health Risk Assessment Modeling Protocol. 596
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 73
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Table 8: Estimated Cancer Risks and Chronic Non-Cancer Hazards (Unmitigated) Impact Scenario
Cancer Risk
(risk per million)
Chronic Non-Cancer
Hazard Index1
TAC Concentration
(µg/m3)
Off-Site Residential MIR
(During Phases 1 and 2) 91.52 0.06 0.31
On-Site Residential MIR
(During Phase 2) 08 <0.01 0.01
Maximum MIR 91.52 0.06 0.31
Thresholds of Significance 10 1 0.3
Exceeds Individual Source Threshold? Yes No Yes
Notes:

DPM = diesel particulate matter
MIR = Maximally Impacted Sensitive Receptor
PM2.5 = particulate matter, including dust, 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter REL = Reference Exposure Level
TAC = toxic air contaminants
µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
1 Chronic non-cancer Hazard Index was estimated by dividing the annual DPM concentration (as PM2.5 exhaust) by the DPM REL of 5 µg/m3.

Emissions Source: Appendix A.

Thresholds Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.

As shown in Table 8, construction of the proposed project would exceed the applicable BAAQMD thresholds for cancer risk to a single-family residence approximately 30 feet east of the project site prior to the application of mitigation. This represents a potentially significant construction TAC exposure impact. Therefore, IM AIR-1 is required to implement the intent of adopted General Plan MM 3.3-3d and to reduce the impact during the construction period to below a level of significance.

As a programmatic analysis, the General Plan EIR determined that individual projects that were envisioned by the General Plan were not planned to the level of detail where pollution sources could be identified and emissions quantified. Therefore, the adopted General Plan EIR MM 3.3-3d, which requires the City to consult the BAAQMD to identify TAC sources and determine the need for, and requirements of, a health risk assessment for proposed development. As detailed above, the health risk assessment prepared for the proposed project determined that a requirement is necessary to meet the BAAQMD-established significance thresholds. IM AIR-1 requires that the project applicant and/or construction contractor shall provide documentation to the City demonstrating that all off- road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 100 horsepower meets EPA or ARB Tier IV Final off-road emissions standards and all off-road construction equipment equal to or less than 100 horsepower is electric-powered. Table 9 shows the health risks and non-cancer HI at the off-site residential MIR for construction with implementation of IM AIR-1. As no on-site residential receptors during Phase 2 of project construction would experience cancer risk or non-cancer hazard beyond BAAQMD significance thresholds, the off-site residential MIR is the only receptor analyzed with mitigated emission results.
597
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

74 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Table 9: Estimated Cancer Risks and Chronic Non-Cancer Hazards (Mitigated) Impact Scenario
Cancer Risk
(risk per million)
Chronic Non-Cancer
Hazard Index2
Annual PM2.5
Concentration
(µg/m3)
Off-Site Residential MIR 1.31 <0.01 <0.01
BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance 10 1 0.3
Exceeds Individual Source Threshold? No No No
Notes:

BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District
MIR = Maximally Impacted Sensitive Receptor
PM2.5 = particulate matter, including dust, 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
1 The MIR is a single-family residence located approximately 30 feet east of the project site. 2 Chronic non-cancer Hazard Index was estimated by dividing the annual DPM concentration (as PM2.5 exhaust) by the REL of 5 µg/m3.

Source: Appendix A.

As shown above in Table 9, the proposed project’s construction DPM emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD’s cancer risk, chronic non-cancer HI, and annual PM2.5 thresholds of significance at the MIR after incorporation of adopted General Plan EIR MM 3.3-3d and IM AIR-1. Therefore, the proposed project’s construction emissions would not result in significant health impacts to nearby sensitive receptors after the incorporation of mitigation.

Cumulative Health Risk Assessment at the Maximum Impacted Receptor The BAAQMD recommends assessing the potential cumulative impacts from sources of TACs within 1,000 feet of a project. For a project-level analysis, BAAQMD provides several tools for use in screening potential sources of TACs. The BAAQMD-provided tools used to assess the potential cumulative impacts from TACs are described below:
• Health Risks from Local Roadways. The BAAQMD has pre-calculated concentrations and the associated potential cancer risks and PM2.5 concentration increases for each county within its jurisdiction for roadways that carry at least 30,000 average daily trips. For certain areas, the BAAQMD also included local roadways that meet BAAQMD’s “major roadway” criteria of 10,000 vehicles or 1,000 trucks per day. The latest available screening tool is in the form of a Geographic Information System (GIS) raster file. As the proposed project is located in a Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE) Program area,
22 the BAAQMD screening tool includes
local roadways that meet BAAQMD’s “major roadway” criteria for the project area. • Freeway Screening Analysis Tool. The BAAQMD prepared a GIS tool that contains pre- estimated cancer risk and PM2.5 concentration increases for highways within the Bay Area. The nearest freeway to the project site is Interstate 580, approximately 5,100 feet north of the project site.

22 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2022. Community Air Risk Evaluation Program. April 15. Website:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/community-health/community-health-protection-program/community-air-risk-evaluation-care-program.

Accessed August 16, 2022.
598
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 75
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx • Stationary Source Risk and Hazard Screening Tools. The BAAQMD prepared a GIS tool23 with the location of permitted sources and provides a health risk calculator that estimates and refines screen-level cancer risk, a non-cancer health HI, and PM2.5 concentrations using emissions data from BAAQMD's permitting database.24 For each emissions source, the BAAQMD provides conservative estimates of cancer risk and PM2.5 concentrations. Based on information from the GIS tool, two BAAQMD-permitted stationary sources exist within 1,000 feet of the project site.
• Rail Screening Tools. The BAAQMD prepared GIS tools that contain estimated cancer risks and PM2.5 concentrations from railroad operations at any point within the Air Basin. The closest railway to the project site is one which runs adjacent to Canal Boulevard, approximately 2,300 feet east of the project site.

The cumulative health risk results at the MIR previously identified, including health risks from the existing stationary source, are summarized for project construction in Table 10. Cumulative health risk results shown therein are representative of the health risks to the MIR which would experience the highest concentration of pollutants, which is a single-family residence approximately 30 feet east of the project site.

Table 10: Summary of the Cumulative Health Impacts at the MIR During Construction Source Source Type
Distance
from
Project Site
(feet)
Distance
from MIR(1)
(feet)
Cancer Risk
(per
million)
Chronic
HI
PM2.5
Concentration
(µg/m3)
Project Construction
Mitigated Construction Construction
Equipment – 30 1.31 <0.01 <0.01
Existing Stationary Sources (BAAQMD Facility Number)2
City of Richmond
(Brickyard Booster Sta)
(17298)
Generators Unknown
Unknown,
assumed
0 feet

3.44 0.00 0.00
Brickyard Cove Marina
(15815)3 Generators 180 850 <0.01 0.00 0.00
Existing Roadways
Existing Local Roadways 10 500 0.38 N/A 0.01
Existing Highways
Existing Highways 5,100 5,100 1.32 N/A 0.03

23 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2019. Permitted Stationary Sources Risk and Hazards. Permitted Stationary Sources Risk and Hazards. Website:
https://baaqmd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2387ae674013413f987b1071715daa65. Accessed April 14, 2022.
24 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2020. Tools and Methodologies: BAAQMD Health Risk Calculator Beta 4.0.

Website: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/tools/baaqmd-health-risk-calculator-beta-4-0- xlsx.xlsx?la=en. Accessed August 10, 2022.
599
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

76 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Source Source Type
Distance
from
Project Site
(feet)
Distance
from MIR(1)
(feet)
Cancer Risk
(per
million)
Chronic
HI
PM2.5
Concentration
(µg/m3)
Existing Rail
Existing Railways 2,300 2,300 1.62 N/A <0.01
Cumulative Health Risks
Cumulative Total with Mitigated Project Construction 8.07 <0.01 0.04 BAAQMD’s Cumulative Thresholds of Significance 100 10 0.8 Threshold Exceeded? No No No
Notes:
µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District
HI = hazard index
MIR = Maximally Impacted Sensitive Receptor
N/A = no data available
PM2.5 = particulate matter, including dust, 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter 1 The Maximally Impacted Sensitive Receptor (MIR) is a single-family residence approximately 30 feet east of the project site.
2 Assumes emissions remain constant with time.
3 For conservative assessment, generator located at same address as project site is assumed to not be removed as part of project.

Source: Appendix A.

As noted in Table 10, the cumulative impacts from the project construction and existing sources of TACs would be less than the BAAQMD’s cumulative thresholds of significance. Thus, the cumulative health risk impacts from project construction would be less than significant.

Criterion 2: Operational Emissions
The proposed project would result in the development of a residential complex and would not generate substantial on-site sources of TACs during operation. As described in the Draft TIS, the proposed project is expected to generate 677 daily vehicle trips.25 The proposed project would primarily generate trips from a mix of residents and employees traveling to and from the project site, which would primarily consist of passenger vehicles. Because nearly all passenger vehicles are gasoline-fueled, the proposed project would not generate a significant amount of DPM emissions during operation; however, gasoline-fueled vehicles would still emit relatively small amounts of gasoline TACs such as benzene, isopentane, and toluene during project operation. Nonetheless, the potential cancer risks associated with non-diesel TACs emitted from gasoline vehicles in the San Francisco Bay Air Basin are substantially less than the potential cancer risks associated with DPM emissions
26 and are therefore not included in this analysis. Furthermore, these emissions would be dispersed throughout the local roadway network and would not solely be generated at the project

25 W- Trans 2022. Draft Transportation Impact Study for the Point Richmond Residential Project. City of Richmond, Contra Costa County, California. July 1.
26 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2008. Health Risk Assessment for the Union Pacific Railroad Oakland Railyard. Website:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic//railyard/hra/up_oak_hra.pdf?_ga=2.229617876.913681903.1594937953- 503090677.1594937953. Accessed August 10, 2022.
600
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 77
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant health impacts to nearby sensitive receptors during operation.

Criterion 3: Carbon Monoxide Hotspot Assessment
As discussed above under Impact III(b) and Impact III(c), the Draft TIS for the proposed project demonstrated that project operation would result in a net increase of approximately 677 daily vehicle trips, with a net increase of 45 trips in the AM peak-hour and a net increase of 54 trips during the PM peak-hour. As such, under existing plus project conditions, the intersection to receive project-generated traffic that would experience the greatest traffic volumes would be the West Richmond Avenue/South Garrard Boulevard intersection (Intersection 1) and would experience peak- hour traffic volumes of 503 and 661 in the AM and PM peak-hours, respectively. This level of peak- hour vehicle trips would not substantially add to nearby intersection traffic volumes causing an exceedance in the BAAQMD screening thresholds of 44,000 vehicles per hour or 24,000 vehicles per hour through an intersection with limited vertical and/or horizontal mixing. Therefore, the proposed project is not reasonably expected to exceed the BAAQMD’s CO screening criteria and would have a less than significant impact related to localized CO hotspots.

Summary
As described above, the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations during either construction or operations after the incorporation of adopted General Plan EIR MM 3.3-3d. Therefore, the effects of the proposed project were anticipated in the General Plan EIR and there are no project-specific effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project and the circumstances under which it would be undertaken would not in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations than previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR and there is no new, significant information that would alter the impact conclusions in the General Plan EIR. d) Odors
Would the project: Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors or) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that development proposed under full buildout of the General Plan would be subject to CEQA review, ensuring that specific projects would not result in the creation of objectionable odors that would affect a substantial number of people. As stated in the BAAQMD 2017 Air Quality Guidelines, odors are generally regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard. The ability to detect odors varies considerably among the populations and is subjective. The BAAQMD does not have a recommended odor threshold for construction activities. However, the BAAQMD recommends operational screening criteria that are based on the distance between receptors and types of sources known to generate odors. For projects within the screening distances, the BAAQMD has the following threshold for project operations:
601
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

78 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx An odor source with five or more confirmed complaints per year averaged over 3 years is considered to have a significant impact on receptors within the screening distance shown in Table 3-3 [of the BAAQMD’s guidance].

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusions
Two circumstances have the potential to cause odor impacts:

1. A source of odors is proposed to be located near existing or planned sensitive receptors, or

2. A sensitive receptor land use is proposed near an existing or planned source of odor

Projects that would site an odor source or a receptor farther than the applicable screening distance, shown in Table 11 below, would not likely result in a significant odor impact.

Table 11: Odor Screening Distances
Land Use/Type of Operation Project Screening Distance
Wastewater Treatment Plant 2 miles
Wastewater Pumping Facilities 1 mile
Sanitary Landfill 2 miles
Transfer Station 1 mile
Composting Facility 1 mile
Petroleum Refinery 2 miles
Asphalt Batch Plant 2 miles
Chemical Manufacturing 2 miles
Fiberglass Manufacturing 1 mile
Painting/Coating Operations 1 mile
Rendering Plant 2 miles
Coffee Roaster 1 mile
Food Processing Facility 1 mile
Confined Animal Facility/Feed Lot/Dairy 1 mile
Green Waste and Recycling Operations 1 mile
Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. May.

Additionally, the 2017 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines state the following related to evaluation of odor impacts: “Projects should clearly state the following information in odor analyses, which provide the minimum amount of information required to address potential odor impacts: (1) Type of odor source(s) the project is exposed to or the type of odor source(s) produced by the project (e.g., Wastewater Treatment Plant [WWTP], landfill, food manufacturing plant); (2) Frequency of odor events generated by odor source(s) (e.g., operating hours, seasonal); (3) Distance and landscape 602
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 79
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx between the odor source(s) and the sensitive receptor(s) (e.g., topography, land features); and (4) Predominant wind direction and speed and whether the sensitive receptor(s) in question are upwind or downwind from the odor source(s).”27
Project Construction
Diesel exhaust and ROG would be emitted during construction of the proposed project, which are objectionable to some; however, emissions would disperse rapidly from the project site and therefore would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. As such, construction odor impacts would be less than significant. Moreover, as discussed in Impact III(a), the proposed project would be consistent with the Medium-Density Residential land use designated by the General Plan, which was contemplated by the General Plan EIR. As such, the proposed project would not result in construction activities that differ substantially from what was envisioned in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the effects of the proposed project were anticipated in the General Plan EIR and there are no project-specific effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project and the circumstances under which it would be undertaken would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to odors during project construction than what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR and there is no new, significant information that would alter the impact conclusions in the General Plan EIR.

Project Operation
Proposed Project as an Odor Generator
Land uses typically associated with odors include wastewater treatment facilities, waste disposal facilities, agricultural operations, or other facilities and land uses listed in Table 11. The proposed project would involve the development of residences whose operations could lead to odors from laundry cleaning, passenger vehicle exhaust, outdoor cooking, and waste disposal. However, such odors generated by project operation would be small in quantity and duration and would not pose an objectionable odor impact to future and existing receptors. Moreover, as discussed in Impact III(a), the proposed project would be consistent with the Medium-Density Residential land use designated by the General Plan, which was contemplated by the General Plan EIR. As such, the proposed project would not constitute different or more odor-generating uses than what was envisioned in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the effects of the proposed project were anticipated in the General Plan EIR and there are no project-specific effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project and the circumstances under which it would be undertaken would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to odors during project operation than what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR and there is no new, significant information that would alter the impact conclusions in the General Plan EIR.

Proposed Project as a Receptor (non-CEQA required discussion for informational purposes) Using GoogleMaps, nearby land uses identified in Table 11 within the associated screening distance to the project site include one sewage treatment plant, three oil refineries, one concrete service company, two chemical manufacturers/traders, one auto body shop, three coffee shops, and one food processing company. Public records retrieved from the BAAQMD show that the following odor

27 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. CEQA HRA Guidelines. May. 603
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

80 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx complaints were filed for several of the locations during 2019 to 2022 by the time at which this analysis was prepared:
• Chevon Products Company at 841 Chevron Way–33 confirmed complaints - 7 confirmed complaints in 2019
- 3 confirmed complaints in 2020
- 23 confirmed complaints in 2021
• City of Richmond Water Pollution Control District (Sewage Treatment Plant)–24 confirmed complaints:
- 11 confirmed complaints in 2019
- 9 confirmed complaints in 2020
- 3 confirmed complaints in 2021
- 1 confirmed complaint in 2022
• Lumber Baron at 1097 Harbour Way–1 confirmed complaint since 2019. • AAK USE Richmond Group at 1145 Harbour Way–1 confirmed complaint since 2019.

In addition to the above, 12 confirmed complaints were received between 2019 and 2022 in the City but no addresses were provided, and as a result, could not be included in the impact determination.

Based on the odor complaint history, over the last three years the Chevron Products Company resulted in an average of 11 confirmed complaints per year and the City of Richmond Water Pollution Control District resulted in an average eight confirmed complaints per year. The Chevron Products Company is located 1.5 miles northwest of the project site and the City of Richmond Water Pollution Control District (Sewage Treatment Plant) is located 0.6 mile north of the project site and both sites operate 24 hours per day, 7 days a week. As illustrated by the General Plan’s Land Use Designations Map, these odor-generating land uses were contemplated, if not fully operational, when the General Plan EIR was prepared.
28 Although these complaints would exceed the threshold recommended by the BAAQMD of five confirmed complaints per year averaged over 3 years, the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan land use designation of the site and would not alter these existing conditions. As discussed in Impact III(a), the proposed project would be consistent with the Medium-Density Residential land use designated by the General Plan, which was contemplated by the General Plan EIR. As such, the proposed project would not place odor receptors closer to known odor-generating land uses than what was envisioned in the General Plan EIR. Moreover, as shown in the isopleth maps provided in Appendix A, which were generated by the air dispersion model AERMOD for purposes of the Health Risk Assessment (HRA) contained in Impact III(c), the predominant meteorological conditions suggest that the prevailing wind patterns trend westerly, meaning that winds generally flow to the east. Additionally, the proposed project is located along the southern side of a hill that would limit north–south air flow. As such, winds carrying odors generated from these nearby odor sources are presumed to take odors east and would not first carry odors south toward the project site. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to experience odor impacts

28 City of Richmond. 2011. Map 3.2b - Land Use Designations. 604
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 81
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx affecting a substantial amount of people as a result of being placed near existing odor sources, and the potential odor-related impacts resulting from placing residences at this location were contemplated in the General Plan EIR. As such, the effects of the proposed project were anticipated in the General Plan EIR and there are no project-specific effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project and the circumstances under which it would be undertaken would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to odor effects on the project during project operation than what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR and there is no new, significant information that would alter the impact conclusions in the General Plan EIR.

General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project MM 3.3-1c Continue to expand the Bay Trail and other routes for bicycle and pedestrian travel.

MM 3.3-2a All construction projects under the implementation of the General Plan shall incorporate the most recent Best Management Practices (BMPs) as required by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD).

Therefore, the BMPs, as recommended by the BAAQMD, shall be implemented during construction:
• All active construction areas shall be watered at least two times per day. • All exposed non-paved surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and access roads) shall be watered at least three times per day and/or non-toxic soil stabilizers shall be applied to exposed non-paved surfaces. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered and/or shall maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard. • All visible mud or dirt trackout onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour. • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California Airborne Toxics Control Measure [ATCM] Title 13, § 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage regarding idling restrictions shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
• All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. • The prime construction contractor shall post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints. The City of Richmond and the construction contractor shall take corrective action within 48 605
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

82 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

MM 3.3-2b Future development under the proposed General Plan shall be subject to review to determine construction air quality impacts in accordance with CEQA Guidelines.

MM 3.3-2c The City of Richmond shall continue to require individual developers to implement applicable new stationary source control measures as proposed in the most recent CAP , while conforming with existing BAAQMD stationary source regulations and requirements and complying with BAAQMD rules and regulations regarding indirect sources.

MM 3.3-3c Proposed sensitive land uses including schools, daycare facilities, congregate care facilities, hospitals, or other places of long-term residency for people shall be sited:
• At least 500 feet from dry cleaners and film processing services that use Perchloroethylene.
• At least 500 feet from auto body repair services.
• At least 50 feet from existing gasoline dispensing stations with an annual throughput of less than 3.6million gallons and 300 feet from existing gasoline dispensing stations with an annual throughput at or above 3.6 million gallons. • At least 300 feet from existing land uses that use Methylene Chloride or other solvents identified as a TAC, including furniture manufacturing and repair services. • At least 1,000 feet from distribution centers with more than 100 trucks per day; more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units per day; or where transport refrigeration unit operations cumulatively exceed 300 hours per week.

In addition, sensitive land uses should not be sited near facility entry and exit points.
• At least 1,000 feet from major service and maintenance rail yards. • At least 1,000 feet from chrome plating facilities.
• The City will support buffer zones between industrial areas and sensitive land uses, including port development. Avoid siting sensitive land uses immediately downwind (based on prevalent wind direction) from stationary TAC sources or primary loading areas located within the boundaries of existing port facilities. • The City will support buffer zones between industrial areas and sensitive land uses, including refinery development. Avoid siting sensitive land uses immediately downwind (based on prevalent wind direction) from stationary TAC sources located within the boundaries of petroleum refineries.

MM 3.3-3d The City of Richmond shall consult with the BAAQMD to identify TAC sources and determine the need for and requirements of a Health Risk Assessment for proposed developments.

To implement the intent of adopted General Plan EIR MM 3.3-3d, IM AIR-1 is required for the proposed project:
606
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 83
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx IM AIR-1 As determined by the Health Risk Assessment prepared for the project based on BAAQMD cancer risk thresholds and to comply with CAP Implementing Action GB5.2, the following requirement shall be implemented:

During construction activities, all off-road equipment with engines greater than 100 horsepower shall meet either United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or California Air Resources Board (ARB) Tier 4 Final off-road emission standards, and all off-roach equipment with engines equal to or less than 100 horsepower shall be electric-powered. The construction contractor shall maintain records concerning its efforts to comply with this requirement, including equipment lists. Off-road equipment descriptions and information may include but are not limited to equipment type, equipment manufacturer, equipment identification number, engine model year, engine certification (Tier rating), horsepower, and engine serial number.

Conclusion
The conclusions from the Final General Plan EIR regarding air quality impacts remain unchanged.

Further environmental analysis is not required because:
• No peculiar impacts have been identified as a result of the proposed project or its site.

Implementation of relevant previously approved General Plan mitigation measures, uniformly applied General Plan policies and standards along with regulations of the City of Richmond and County of Contra Costa and incorporation of identified project design features ensure impacts regarding air quality remain unchanged.
• There are no potentially significant impacts that were not analyzed as significant in the certified General Plan EIR. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts that were not discussed by the Certified General Plan EIR. • No substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the certified General Plan EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. • No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the certified General Plan EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
• There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the certified General Plan EIR was certified as complete.

607
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

84 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Environmental Issues
Prior General
Plan EIR
Determination
CEQA Section 15168 Criteria
Effect
Peculiar
to Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-site,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More Severe
Adverse
Impact?

4.4 Biological Resources
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special-status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or
United States Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local
or regional plans, policies, and
regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or
United States Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
State or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of wildlife nursery
sites?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or State Habitat
Conservation Plan?
No Impact No No No No

608
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 85
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx a) Special-status Species
Would the project: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special- status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife Service?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR concluded that the General Plan would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife Service. This impact is stated in the General Plan EIR to be less than significant under certain conditions.

The City primarily consists of urban development, including commercial, residential, and industrial land uses that do not provide habitat for any State or federally listed, or other special-status species.

However, undeveloped, natural land is present within the boundaries of the General Plan EIR’s study area. These natural areas provide suitable habitat for a variety of State and federally listed and other special-status species such as pallid manzanita, soft bird’s-beak, Santa Cruz tarplant, California red- legged frog, Alameda whipsnake, California black rail, California clapper rail, and salt-marsh harvest mouse, among others. Additionally, these natural areas provide habitat for a wide variety of common native plant and wildlife species. The City places great value on its remaining natural areas and the plant and wildlife species that they support.

Per the General Plan EIR, if special-status species are found, the project applicant, and/or its consulting Biologist would be required to coordinate with the applicable State or federal resource agency to ensure that any potential impacts on those resources are either avoided, or are mitigated to a less than significant level through compensatory mitigation.

Per the General Plan EIR, since compliance with these regulations is required on a project level, the General Plan would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Therefore, this is considered a less than significant impact by the General Plan EIR.

In reaching this conclusion, the General Plan EIR notes that Policy CN1.1 in the General Plan requires proposed projects within the City to “require mitigation of impacts to sensitive species ensuring that a project does not contribute to the decline of the affected species populations in the region” as well as to “identify mitigations in coordination with the USFWS, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and other regulatory agencies.”
Therefore, the following section includes the required mitigation of impacts to sensitive species, including special-status species.
609
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

86 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusions
Habitat Assessment
A FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) Biologist conducted a general biological survey of the project site on January 19, 2022. The survey included identification and mapping of vegetation community and land cover types (Exhibit 11), and evaluation of potential habitat for sensitive species. A follow-up site reconnaissance was conducted by Biologists from Johnson Marigold Consulting in December 2022, and findings are included in this section.

Approximately 3.76 acres of the project site are best categorized as ruderal and/or landscaped or developed. These areas include the previously graded and filled level areas on the western portion of the site and the areas along Brickyard Cove Road subject to ongoing vegetation management and disturbance. These areas are dominated by a mix of non-native annual grasses and forbs, including Italian ryegrass (Festuca perennis) and wild oats (Avena spp.), Bermuda buttercup (Oxalis pes- caprae), broadleaf filaree (Erodium botrys), stinkwort (Dittrichia graveolens), common vetch (Vicia sativa), English plantain (Plantago lanceolata), burclover (Medicago polymorpha), pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana), fountain grass (Cenchrus setaceus), cutleaf geranium (Geranium dissectum), ice plant (Carpobrotus edulis), bamboo (Bambusoideae), and others. Scattered disturbance-resistant native plants are present including coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), willow (Salix sp.) and California poppy (Eschscholzia californica).

Within the above-described matrix of ruderal vegetation, 0.07 acre of ruderal seasonal wetland vegetation can be found. This community is dominated by non-native ruderal grasses and forbs tolerant of and dependent on seasonal wetland hydrology, including Italian ryegrass, hyssop loosestrife (Lythrum hyssopifolia), and stinkwort.

Approximately 1.03 acre of non-native annual grasslands can be found above the graded areas. This community is dominated by non-native annual grasses such as wild oats, brome grass (Bromus spp.), and wild barley (Hordeum spp.). Native and non-native forbs, shrubs and trees are interspersed, including California poppy, coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) French broom (Genista monspessulana), poison oak (Tocxicodendron diversilobum) broadleaf filaree, coyote brush, and others. This vegetation community can best be classified as Avena spp.-Bromus spp. Herbaceous Semi-Natural Alliance.
29 A man-made diversion drainage 565 linear feet long by approximately 4 feet wide (on average) is located in this area.

Approximately 0.46 acre of a robust and expanding stand of toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) can be found north of and above the previous grading limit, which can best be described as “toyon woodland.”. This vegetation community is classified by CDFW as California Natural Sensitive Community 37.912.01 Heteromeles arbutifolia.

At the edges of the graded pad an approximately 0.69-acre mixed woodland has developed. This vegetation community type includes a mix of native and non-native and/or invasive trees, including gum tree (Eucalyptus sp.), golden wattle (Acacia longifolia), toyon, and coyote brush.

29 Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J.M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento.
610
Old Kiln W
ay
Brickyard Cove
Pond
Old Kiln W
ayBrickyard Cove Ln
Brickyard Way
Brickyard Cove Rd
Adm
iralty W
y
Seacliff Wy
Seacliff Dr
Flagship Ct
Seapoint Ct
21210024 " 11/2022 | 11_land_cover_veg.mxd Exhibit 11
Land Cover and
Vegetation Communities
Source: Google Earth Aerial Imagery. CITY OF RICHMOND
BRICKYARD COVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST
I
200 0 200100
Feet
Legend
Project Site 6.01 acres
Drainage Feature 565 LF
Land Cover and Vegetation Communities
Developed 0.01 acre
Heteromeles arbutifolia woodland 0.46 acre
Mixed Woodland 0.69 acre
Non-native annual grassland 1.03 acre
Ruderal and Landscaped 3.75 acre
Ruderal Seasonal Wetland 0.07 acre
611

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
612
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 89
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Literature Review
An FCS Biologist compiled a list of threatened, endangered, and otherwise special-status species previously recorded within the project vicinity based on a search of the USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) database,30 the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Electronic Inventory (CNPSEI) of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California for the San Quentin, California, USGS 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangle Maps and the eight surrounding quadrangles.31,32 The CNDDB Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS 5) was used to determine the distance between the known occurrences of special-status species and the project site. 33 Eighteen special-status plant species and 21 special-status wildlife species have been recorded within 5 miles of the project site (Exhibit 12). FCS evaluated each of these species’ potential to occur on the project site (Special-status Species Evaluation; Appendix B). This evaluation includes each species’ status, required habitat, and a summary analysis of the potential for each of these species to occur within the project site. Because of the disturbed state of most of the project site and the lack of suitable habitat, many of the species evaluated do not have potential to occur. Special-status species that have at least low potential to occur include special-status plants, nesting birds, and roosting bats, as discussed below.

Special-status Plants
The non-native grassland, seasonal wetland and toyon woodland habitat found on the northern hill slope above the previously graded area may provide marginally suitable habitat for a number of special-status plants known to occur or which have occurred within the vicinity of the project site, including alkali milk-vetch (Astragalus tener var. tener), Tiburon paintbrush (Castilleja affinis var. neglecta), Tiburon buckwheat (Eriogonum luteolum var. caninum), Santa Cruz tarplant (Holocarpha macradenia), Santa Cruz microseris (Stebbinsoseris decipiens), Tiburon jewelflower (Streptanthus glandulosus ssp. niger) and saline clover (Trifolium hydrophilum). While the potential for these species is relatively low due to the isolated location of the site and level of disturbance, grading during construction could result in the loss of populations of these species, if present. Therefore, the project shall conduct a protocol-level rare plant survey to confirm absence of special-status plants, as defined in the project-specific IM BIO-1a. If special-status plant species are present, project- specific IM BIO-1b requires compensatory mitigation to offset losses of these populations. With implementation of these project-specific implementation measures, potential impacts to special- status plants would be less than significant, and the proposed project would be consistent with the significance determination of the General Plan EIR.

30 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2022. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC). Website:
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Accessed February 4, 2022.
31 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2022. CNDDB RareFind 5 California Natural Diversity Database Query for Special- status Species. Website: https://map.dfg.ca.gov/rarefind/view/RareFind.aspx. Accessed February 4, 2022. 32 California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2022. California Native Plant Society Rare and Endangered Plant Inventory. Website:
http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/. Accessed February 4, 2022. 33 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2022. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS 5). Website:
https://map.dfg.ca.gov/bios/. Accessed February 4, 2022. 613

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
614
21210024 " 11/2022 | 12_CNDDB.mxd CITY OF RICHMOND BRICKYARD COVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST
Exhibit 12
CNDDB Special-Status
Species Occurrences (5-mile radius) Source: Bing Street Imagery. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), April 2022. 6,200 0 6,2003,100
FeetI
Legend
! Project Site
5-Mile Radius
Plant (circular)
Animal (circular)
Multiple (circular)
Sensitive EO's (Commercial only)
CNDDB version 04/2022. Please Note: The occurrences shown on this map represent the known locations of the species listed here as of the date of this version. There may be additional occurrences or additional species within this area which have not yet been surveyed and/or mapped. Lack of information in the CNDDB about a species or an area can never be used as proof that no special status species occur in an area.
fragrant fritillary
saline clover
alkali milk-vetch
Fritillaria liliacea
Trifolium hydrophilum
Astragalus tener var. tener
Scientific Name Common Name
Cooper's hawk
short-eared owl
burrowing owl
western bumble bee
coastal bluff morning-glory
northern meadow sedge
Tiburon paintbrush
Point Reyes salty bird's-beak northern harrier
San Francisco collinsia
Townsend's big-eared bat
monarch - California overwintering population western leatherwood
snowy egret
white-tailed kite
western pond turtle
Tiburon buckwheat
Marin western flax
Santa Cruz tarplant
Caspian tern
Accipiter cooperii
Asio flammeus
Athene cunicularia
Bombus occidentalis
Calystegia purpurata ssp. saxicola
Carex praticola
Castilleja affinis var. neglecta
Chloropyron maritimum ssp. palustre
Circus hudsonius
Collinsia multicolor
Corynorhinus townsendii
Danaus plexippus pop. 1
Dirca occidentalis
Egretta thula
Elanus leucurus
Emys marmorata
Eriogonum luteolum var. caninum
Hesperolinon congestum
Holocarpha macradenia
Hydroprogne caspia
The following species (not shown on map) are also known to occur within this 5-mile radius area:

Scientific Name Common Name California black rail
Alameda song sparrow
Tiburon micro-blind harvestman San Pablo vole
double-crested cormorant
Northern Coastal Salt Marsh
black-crowned night heron
Oregon polemonium
California Ridgway's rail
California red-legged frog
salt-marsh harvest mouse
Angel Island mole
Serpentine Bunchgrass
salt-marsh wandering shrew
Santa Cruz microseris
Tiburon jewelflower
California seablite
Suisun Marsh aster
Valley Needlegrass Grassland Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus
Melospiza melodia pusillula
Microcina tiburona
Microtus californicus sanpabloensis
Nannopterum auritum
Northern Coastal Salt Marsh
Nycticorax nycticorax
Polemonium carneum
Rallus obsoletus obsoletus
Rana draytonii
Reithrodontomys raviventris
Scapanus latimanus insularis
Serpentine Bunchgrass
Sorex vagrans halicoetes
Stebbinsoseris decipiens
Streptanthus glandulosus ssp. niger
Suaeda californica
Symphyotrichum lentum
Valley Needlegrass Grassland
Scientific Name Common Name
hoary bat
obscure bumble bee
Lasiurus cinereus
Bombus caliginosus
Scientific Name Common Name
615

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
616
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 93
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Special-status Animals
The only special-status animal species with potential to occur are monarch butterfly, avian species and bat species (Appendix B). Impacts to special-status avian species would be considered significant if an active nest would be impacted. Therefore, impacts to special-status avian species are addressed in the impact analysis and mitigation measures for protected nesting birds, below. Similarly, impacts to special-status bat species would be considered significant if an active bat roost would be impacted. Therefore, impacts to special-status bat species are addressed in the impact analysis and mitigation measures for roosting bats, below.

Monarch Butterfly (California Overwintering Population) The monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) is listed as Candidate under the Endangered Species Act, and wintering roosts are protected under the Fish and Game Code.

Preferred monarch habitat is filled with diverse nectar sources which support monarchs and native bees. Native milkweeds (Asclepias spp.) and other nectar sources provide monarchs with breeding habitat, resting and refueling stops during migration, and food at the overwintering sites.

Overwintering habitats consist of tree groves that typically occur within 1.5 miles of the Pacific coastline, or within the San Francisco Bay Area, where the proximity to large water bodies moderates temperature fluctuations. Overwintering begins in September or October. Suitable grove conditions include temperatures above freezing, high humidity, dappled sunlight, access to water and nectar, and protection from high winds and storms. Monarchs will select the native Monterey pine, Monterey cypress, western sycamore, and other native tree species when they are available, but will also utilize non-native eucalyptus species if other optimal habitat conditions are met. During breeding season in the late spring and summer, female monarch butterflies will lay their eggs on the underside of young leaves or flower buds of milkweeds, caterpillars then hatch within 3-5 days and begin to feed on milkweed leaves that provide energy and protective toxic compounds that protect the caterpillars from predation. Within a month, the caterpillars will grow, produce a chrysalis, and emerge as fully formed adult butterflies.

The project site provides a small stand of eucalyptus trees potentially suitable for overwintering monarchs. Overwintering colonies have been documented from approximately 2.5 miles to the east.

For these reasons, presence of overwintering monarchs cannot be ruled out. Therefore, project- specific IM BIO-2 requires pre-construction surveys and avoidance should the project remove trees during the overwintering season. With implementation of this implementation measure, potential impacts to special-status plants would be less than significant, and the proposed project would be consistent with the significance determination of the General Plan EIR.

Nesting Birds (Including Nests of Special-status Bird Species) The many trees and shrubs present on-site may provide suitable nesting habitat for bird species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), Fish and Game Code, Endangered Species Act, and California Endangered Species Act (CESA), as listed in Appendix B.

Construction activities could disturb nesting and breeding birds in trees and shrubs within and around the construction site. Potential impacts on special-status and migratory birds that could 617
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

94 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx result from construction and operation of the proposed project include destruction of eggs or occupied nests, mortality of young, and abandonment of nests with eggs or young birds prior to fledging. Therefore, the proposed project shall implement project-specific IM BIO-2, which requires the project applicant to conduct a pre-construction survey and implement further avoidance and minimization measures, if construction activities occur during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31). No action is necessary if no active nests are found during pre-construction surveys or if construction occurs during the nonbreeding season (September 1 through January 31). The implementation of project-specific IM BIO-2 would reduce potential impacts to nesting birds to a less than significant level.

Roosting Bats
Although no sign of bat activity was observed during the field survey, the trees on-site may provide suitable roosting habitat for sensitive bat species, including special-status bat species such as pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) and Townsend's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii). Potential direct and indirect impacts could occur to any roosting bats inhabiting the project site due to removal of potential roosting habitat during tree removal. These activities could potentially subject bats to risk of death or injury, and they are likely to avoid using the area until such construction activities have dissipated or ceased. Relocation, in turn, could cause hunger or stress among individual bats by displacing them into adjacent territories belonging to other individuals. Section 2000 and 4150 of the Fish and Game Code states that it is unlawful to take or possess a number of species, including bats, without a license or permit as required by Section 3007. Therefore, the project applicant shall conduct a pre-construction survey and further avoidance and minimization measures (if necessary) as described in project-specific IM BIO-3. The implementation of this implementation measure would reduce potential impacts to roosting bats to a less than significant level. b) Riparian Habitat and Sensitive Natural Communities
Would the project: Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife Service?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that potential impacts to riparian habitat and sensitive natural communities would be less than significant, under the condition that “if such communities are found, the applicant or its consulting Biologist is required to coordinate with the appropriate resource agency to ensure that impacts on these resources are either avoided or mitigated to a less than significant level.” 34
Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
The proposed project would result in an approximately 0.37-acre loss of toyon woodland through grading (Exhibit 13). This vegetation type is classified as a Sensitive Natural Community 37.912.01

34 City of Richmond. 2011. General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, Section 3.4, page 33. 618
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 95
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx (provisional) by CDFW.35 This impact can be mitigated to a less than significant level by implementing project-specific IM BIO-5, which requires the project applicant to implement the requirements in the General Plan EIR related to sensitive communities, including to coordinate with CDFW and East Bay Regional Parks District.
c) Federally Protected Wetlands
Would the project: Have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that potential impacts to wetlands would be less than significant.

In reaching this conclusion, the General Plan EIR noted that Policy CN1.1 in the General Plan requires proposed projects within the City to protect wetlands from direct and indirect impacts of new and existing development and infrastructure and ensure that direct and indirect impacts to wetland habitats are minimized by environmentally sensitive project siting and design.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
In the center of the graded former building pad, precipitation perches on the compacted layer of fill and bedrock. In slight depressions and where a thin layer of soil has developed, approximately 0.07 acre of potentially jurisdictional seasonal wetlands has developed and are proposed to be filled by the proposed project. Besides the non-native ruderal hydrophytic vegetation community described above, patches of algae, saturation, and gleyed soils support the conclusion that these areas would meet the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) criteria of a seasonal wetland. These areas do not appear to have a visible surface connection to an aquatic feature (“significant nexus”) and therefore may be considered isolated. Additionally, based on the site reconnaissance conducted by a Biologist from Johnson Marigold in December 2022, these wetlands did not maintain surface or shallow subsurface hydrology for a duration typically required to develop wetland conditions (following storms during the winter of 2022-2023), and appear to be a direct result of previous construction (i.e., grading, filling, and compaction) activities, originally conducted to provide a foundation for a large structure.

Therefore, the seasonal wetlands on-site are potentially not jurisdictional as waters of the United States due to the lack of a significant nexus to a Traditional Navigable Water of the United States, and due to lack of required hydrology. The depression likely is jurisdictional as waters of the State but may be exempt from being regulated. Should the feature be determined to be regulated pursuant to the Federal or State governments, the project would be required to attain permits from the USACE and the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

35 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2022. Natural Communities List, Sacramento: California Department of Fish and Wildlife. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities. Accessed February 8, 2022. 619

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
620
Old Kiln W
ayBrickyard Cove Ln
Brickyard Way
Brickyard Cove Rd
Adm
iralty W
y Seacliff Wy
Seacliff Dr
Flagship Ct
Seapoint Ct
21210024 " 11/2022 | 13_bio_impacts.mxd Exhibit 13
Impact On Biological Resources
Source: Google Earth Aerial Imagery. Republic Urban Properties.

CITY OF RICHMOND

BRICKYARD COVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST
160 0 16080
FeetI
Legend
Project Site6.01 acres
Project Disturbance Footprint5.77 acres Drainage Feature565 LF
Land Cover and Vegetation Communities Project Site Disturbance Footprint Developed 0.01 acre 0.003 acre Heteromeles arbutifolia woodland 0.46 acre 0.37 acre Mixed Woodland 0.69 acre 0.65 acre Non-native annual grassland 1.03 acre 0.95 acre Ruderal and Landscaped 3.75 acre 3.73 acre Ruderal Seasonal Wetland 0.07 acre 0.07 acre 621

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
622
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 99
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx A man-made diversion drainage 565 linear feet long by approximately 4 feet wide (on average) is located above the graded area to divert runoff from the site. At the time of the survey, the diversion drainage was vegetated with predominantly upland vegetation, and evidence of recent concentrated surface flow was present only at the section running downstream, forming a narrow ordinary high water mark (OHWM). No evidence or recent concentrated surface flow was present at the section running parallel to the slope. However, past evidence of scour, slumping and sediment disposal is visible, and ephemeral stormwater flows collecting in the ditch are diverted to a culvert inlet assumed to convey flows from the ditch to the San Francisco Bay. Pursuant to site reconnaissance conducted by Johnson Marigold in December 2022, this feature is man-made, and was clearly constructed in uplands, as it is constructed across the natural land topographic slope. As such, it is unlikely that this feature is a regulated water of the United States, and does not contain hydrophytic vegetation (i.e., it is not a wetland).

Pursuant to site reconnaissance conducted by Johnson Marigold in December 2022, the diversion drainage on-site is unlikely to be a jurisdictional water of the United States but may be regulated as water of the State. Note that a jurisdictional determination regarding the jurisdictional status of the diversion ditch on-site can only be made by the USACE and the RWQCB.

Based on current design plans, the project proposes to impact 0.07 acre of seasonal wetlands and the diversion drainage (approximately 0.05 acre). Therefore, project-specific COA BIO-6 requires an aquatic resources delineation, and if any feature is determined to be protected through the CWA and/or Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, USACE and RWQCB fill permits shall be obtained.

With implementation of requirements set forth through the USACE and RWQCB permits (if required), impacts to these features would be mitigated to a less than significant level. d) Fish or Wildlife Movement
Would the project: Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR concluded impacts related to fish or wildlife movement would be less than significant through compliance with General Plan Policy CN1.1. The General Plan EIR also states that, in order to reach compliance, project applicants must retain a qualified Biologist to evaluate whether a project would potentially interfere with wildlife movement, migration, or breeding/nesting. If potential to affect wildlife movement, migration, or nesting is discovered, project applicants or their consulting Biologist would be required to coordinate with the appropriate resource agency to ensure that impacts are either avoided or mitigated to a less than significant level.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusions
The project site is surrounded by residential development to the east and west as well Richmond Boardwalk and San Francisco Bay to the south. Undeveloped land can be found north of the project site. As confirmed through a site visit by a FCS Biologist, the site does not contain any natural or man-made features that could serve as a suitable corridor for wildlife movement, nor does the 623
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

100 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx project site connect one more different habitat areas to one another. Potential impacts to nesting birds, roosting bats and monarch butterfly overwintering sites are addressed through the impact analysis for special-status species, above, and project-specific IM BIO-2 and project-specific IM BIO-3.

Therefore, the development of the proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts related to fish or wildlife movement corridors or nursery sites beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
e) Conflict with Local Policies or Ordinances
Would the project: Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR concluded that impacts related to conflicts with local policies and ordinances would be less than significant through compliance with the Municipal Code Chapter 10.08 (Tree Ordinance).

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusions
The City does not have regulations regarding tree removal on private property. Per the General Plan EIR, the City has no other policies or ordinances that explicitly protect biological resources.

Therefore, the development of the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to local policies or ordinances beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. f) Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan Would the project: Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State Habitat Conservation Plan?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR noted that no Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP) or Natural Community Conservation Plans (NCCP) have been designated within the City boundaries. The closest HCP/NCCP is the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan, which is a joint venture between the cities of Brentwood, Clayton, Oakley, and Pittsburg and Contra Costa County. The City is not a part of this plan.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
As noted in the General Plan EIR, the project site does lie within the boundaries of any adopted HCP or NCCP or any other approved local, regional, or State Habitat Conservation Plan. Therefore, the development of the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to adopted conservation plans beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project None.
624
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 101
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Project-Specific General Plan Implementing Measures
The following implementation measures will ensure consistency with the MBTA and Fish and Game Code, as required by the General Plan, and will be required for the proposed project, and shall be implemented to ensure consistency with General Plan Policy CN 1.1:

IM BIO-1a A qualified botanist shall conduct protocol-level rare plant surveys to establish the presence/absence of rare plants within the project site. Rare plant surveys shall be conducted following the Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special- status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities. The results of the rare plant surveys shall be summarized in a rare plant report following the CDFW requirements defined in the protocol, and shall be submitted to the City, CDFW, and CNPS within 60 days after completion of the late-season survey.

IM BIO-1b If a special-status or rare plant species is found, the project proponent shall prepare and implement a compensatory mitigation plan submitted and approved by CDFW and CNPS to offset any losses at a minimum of 1:1 ratio.

IM BIO-2 If tree removal takes place during the overwintering season (generally November to February), pre-construction surveys for overwintering monarch butterfly shall be conducted monthly by a qualified Biologist during October and November. The methods and results shall be submitted to the City, CDFW, and USFWS. In case overwintering monarch butterflies are present, the project shall avoid all direct and indirect impacts, report presence to USFWS and CDFW, and follow all recommendations provided by USFWS and CDFW.

IM BIO-3
If any tree removal is necessary, then it shall occur outside the nesting season between September 1 through January 31, if feasible. If trees cannot be removed outside the nesting season, then pre-construction surveys shall be conducted no more than 7 days prior to tree removal to verify the absence of active nests if the removal of any trees is scheduled between February 1 and August 31.

If a protected active nest is located during pre-construction surveys, construction activities shall be restricted as necessary to avoid disturbance and nest abandonment. Restrictions may include establishment of exclusion zones (no ingress of personnel or equipment) or alteration of the construction schedule.

If the active nest belongs to State or federally listed species, then United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) (as appropriate) shall be notified regarding the status of the nest.

A qualified Biologist shall determine an appropriately-sized buffer around the active nest depending on the species. The applicant shall implement the buffer using environmentally sensitive area fencing, pin flags, and or yellow caution tape. The buffer zone shall be maintained around the active nest site(s) until the young have fledged and are foraging independently.
625
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

102 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx IM BIO-4 A qualified Biologist shall conduct surveys for roosting bats during the appropriate time of day to maximize detectability to determine whether bat species are roosting near the work area no less than 7 days and no more than 14 days prior to beginning ground disturbance and/or construction. Survey methodology may include visual surveys of bats (e.g., observation of bats during foraging period), inspection for suitable habitat, bat sign (e.g., guano), or use of ultrasonic detectors (Anabat, etc.).

Visual surveys will include trees within 500 feet of project construction activities, where accessible. Not more than two weeks prior to tree removal, the applicant shall ensure that a qualified Biologist (i.e., one familiar with the identification of bats and signs of bats) survey trees proposed for removal for the presence of roosting bats or evidence of bats. If no roosting bats or evidence of bats are found in the trees, demolition may proceed. If the Biologist determines or presumes bats are present, the Biologist shall exclude the bats from roosting cavities by installing one- way exclusion devices. After the bats vacate the cavity, the Biologist shall close off the cavity to prevent recolonization. Tree removal shall only commence after the Biologist verifies 7 to 10 days later that the exclusion methods have successfully prevented bats from returning. To avoid impacts on non-volant (i.e., nonflying) bats, the Biologist shall only conduct bat exclusion and eviction from May 1 through October 1. Exclusion efforts may be restricted during periods of sensitive activity (e.g., during hibernation or while females in maternity colonies are nursing young).

IM BIO-5
The applicant shall implement the General Plan EIR requirements related to sensitive communities, including coordination with CDFW and East Bay Parks to ensure that impacts on these resources are mitigated to a less than significant level. If CDFW is unable respond to a request for coordination, the project applicant shall compensate for the loss of 0.37 acre of toyon woodland at a minimum 1:1 ratio by establishing and maintaining a minimum of 0.37 acre of toyon woodland within the Pt. Richmond watershed area; or alternatively, contribute to a similarly valuable native plant restoration project at Miller/Knox Shoreline Park as determined by East Bay Parks.

IM BIO-6
The applicant shall have a qualified Biologist continue to monitor the onsite depression throughout the 2022/2023 rainy season. If a qualified Biologist finds that the on-site depression has sufficient characteristics to potentially be a jurisdictional wetland, the project applicant shall obtain jurisdictional determinations from the USACE and RWQCB regarding the extent of jurisdictional waters of the United States and/or State on the project site. Following the jurisdictional determination, the project proponent shall obtain all required Clean Water Act and/or Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act permits if jurisdictional waters or wetlands are proposed to be impacted.
626
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 103
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Conclusion
With adherence to General Plan Implementation Measures IM BIO-1a through IM BIO-6, the construction of the proposed project would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, General Plan Policy CN 1.1. The conclusions from the General Plan EIR regarding impacts to biological resources remain unchanged.

The proposed project is consistent with the development evaluated in the General Plan and the analysis in the General Plan EIR and would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of any previously identified impacts related to biological resources as compared to what was already identified and disclosed, either individually or cumulatively.

Further environmental analysis is not required because:
• No peculiar impacts have been identified as a result of the proposed project or its site.

Adherence to General Plan policies and standards along with regulations of the City of Richmond and incorporation of identified project design features ensure impacts are below the level of significance.
• There are no potentially significant impacts that were not analyzed as significant in the certified General Plan EIR. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts that were not discussed by the Certified General Plan EIR. • No substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the certified General Plan EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. • No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the certified General Plan EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
• There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the certified General Plan EIR was certified as complete.

627
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

104 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Environmental Issues
Prior General Plan
EIR Determination
CEQA Section 15168 Criteria
Effect
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-site,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More Severe
Adverse
Impact?

4.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a
historical resource as pursuant to
Section 15064.5?
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
incorporated
No No No No
b) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant
to Section 15064.5?
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
incorporated
No No No No
c) Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
incorporated
No No No No
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
d) Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code Section
5020.1(k), or
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
incorporated
No No No No
e) A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1. In applying
the criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resource Code
Section 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of
the resource to a California Native
American tribe.

Not addressed No No No No

628
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 105
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx The analysis in this section is based on information provided by the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), Northwest Information Center (NWIC), and a pedestrian survey of the project site. Pedestrian Survey Photographs and NAHC and non-confidential NWIC record search information is included in Appendix C.

Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File Record Search and Tribal Consultation On January 4, 2022, FCS sent a request to the NAHC to determine whether any sacred sites are listed on its Sacred Lands File for the project site. A response was received on January 21, 2022, indicating that the Sacred Lands File was positive for the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate proposed project area. The NAHC included a list of nine tribal representatives available for consultation. To ensure that all Native American knowledge and concerns over potential Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR) that may be affected by the proposed project are addressed, a letter containing project information and requesting any additional information was sent to each tribal representative on January 25, 2022. The City met with a representative of the Indian Canyon Band of Costanoan Ohlone People and an FCS Archaeologist on September 28, 2022. Correspondence with the NAHC and the tribal representatives can be found in Appendix C.

Northwest Information Center
In order to determine the presence or absence of cultural resources within the proposed project site, a records search and literature review were conducted for the project site and a standard 0.5- mile radius on February 17, 2022, at the NWIC, located at Sonoma State University in Rohnert Park.

The purpose of this review was to access existing cultural resource survey reports, archaeological site records and historic maps, and evaluate whether any previously documented prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, architectural resources, cultural landscapes, or other resources exist within or near the proposed project site. The search also included properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), California Historic Landmarks (CHL) list, California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI) list, California Historical Resources Inventory (HRI), and the California Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) for Contra Costa County.

The results from the records search indicated that nine cultural resources (five prehistoric and four historic) have been recorded within the 0.5-mile search radius, none of which are located within the proposed project boundaries. In addition, two area-specific reports are on file with the NWIC for the proposed project site and its 0.5-mile search radius, one of which (S-020324) is located within the proposed project boundaries, indicating that the immediate area has previously been surveyed for cultural resources. The non-confidential NWIC records search results can be found in Appendix C.

Pedestrian Survey
On January 19, 2022, FCS Senior Archaeologist Dr. Dana DePietro surveyed the project site to identify any unrecorded cultural resources within the project boundary. The survey began on the southeast corner of the roughly rectangular project site and moved north using east/west transects spaced at 15-meter intervals, whenever possible. The southern half of the project site is entirely flat, with a hillside that slopes up steeply to the north from the parcel’s midpoint. This slope has a very large, steep, and symmetrical concave section cut out of it, that seems indicative of extensive grading 629
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

106 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx having taken place at the site. The southern flat section appears highly disturbed, with large swaths of decomposing asphalt, and imported soils and gravel. Native soils were only partially visible due to extensive ground cover across the site (approximately 20-30 percent) and consisted of light brown/tan (Munsell 10YR 5-2) rocky loam interspersed with substantial amounts of slate, chert, and quartz from outcroppings within the hillside.

Survey conditions were documented using digital photographs and field notes. During the survey, Dr.

DePietro examined all areas of the exposed ground surface for prehistoric artifacts (e.g., fire-affected rock, milling tools, flaked stone tools, toolmaking debris, ceramics), soil discoloration and depressions that might indicate the presence of a cultural midden, faunal and human osteological remains, and features indicative of the former presence of structures or buildings (e.g., postholes, standing exterior walls, foundations) or historic debris (e.g., glass, metal, ceramics).

No indications of historic or prehistoric archaeological resources were found over the course of the pedestrian survey. The site appears to have been highly disturbed by grading activities, with the majority of undisturbed soil being situated on the remaining northern slope of the site. Pedestrian survey photos can be found in Appendix C.

Buried Site Potential
In addition to the pedestrian survey, the potential for not-yet identified cultural resources in the project vicinity was reviewed against geologic and topographic GIS data for the general area and information from other nearby projects. The proposed project was evaluated against a set of criteria originally identified by a geoarchaeological overview that was prepared for the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Districts 6 and 9.36 This study mapped the “archaeological sensitivity,” or potential to support the presence of buried prehistoric archaeological deposits based on geology and environmental parameters including distance to water and landform slope. The methodology used in the study is applicable to other parts of California, and concluded that sites consisting of flat, Holocene-era deposits in close proximity to water resources had a moderate to high probability of containing subsurface archaeological deposits when compared to earlier Pleistocene deposits situated on slopes or further away from drainages, lakes, and rivers.

The project site is situated on sloping terrain that has been cut and graded and is composed of cretaceous sandstone and shale of the Franciscan Complex, according to the geological map.37 Applying the criteria set forth above, the cretaceous era deposits at the site are unlikely to contain deeply buried archaeological deposits; however, the site’s proximity to the San Francisco Bay and multiple archaeological sites that have been recorded in the project vicinity raises the possibility that unanticipated cultural resources may be encountered over the course of project construction.

36 Meyer, J., D. Craig Young, and Jeffrey S. Rosenthal. 2010. Volume I: A Geoarchaeological Overview and Assessment of Caltrans District 6 and 9, Cultural Resources Inventory of Caltrans District 6/9 Rural Conventional Highways. Submitted to Central California Department of Transportation, District 6.
37 Blake, M.C., Graymer, R.W., Jones, D.L., and Soule, A., 2000. Geologic Map and Map Database of Parts of Marin and San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa, and Sonoma Counties, California. 630
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 107
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx a) Historical Resources
Would the project: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR found the development activities associated with the General Plan could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of historic resources as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Based on additional evaluation and adopted General Plan EIR MM 3-5.1, potential impacts to historic resources from implementation of the General Plan were mitigated to a less than significant level.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
Results from the NWIC indicate that four historic resources have been recorded within the 0.5-mile search radius; however, none are located within the project boundaries. In addition, one report is on file at the NWIC that previously addressed a portion of the southern half of the project site. The results of the report indicate the potential for historic-era deposits or features relating to the historic brickyard associated with the wharf, however, none were identified. Additionally, the pedestrian survey failed to identify any historical resources. While there were no historical resources identified within the project site, the presence of historic resources within the 0.5-mile search radius would require the implementation of adopted Final General Plan MM 3-5.1 to ensure all impacts associated with any previously unknown historic resources remain less than significant.

Consistent with the findings from the General Plan EIR, impacts would be less than significant.

Therefore, the effects of the proposed project were anticipated in the General Plan EIR and there are no project-specific effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project would not result in any effects and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified in the General Plan EIR.
b) Archaeological Resources
Would the project: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR found that development activities associated with the General Plan could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines or disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. With the implementation of the adopted General Plan EIR MM 3.5-2a, this impact was determined to be less than significant.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
Results from the NWIC indicate that there are five prehistoric resources located within the 0.5-mile search radius, however, none are located within the project boundaries. In addition, the pedestrian survey failed to identify any archaeological resources. While there are no known archaeological 631
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

108 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx resources within the project site, the presence of the recorded prehistoric resources within the 0.5- mile radius of the project site shall require implementation of adopted General Plan EIR MM3.5-2a, which would ensure that all impacts associated with any previously unknown archaeological resources remain less than significant. Further, the proposed project would implement project- specific IM CUL-1, which requires an Archaeologist to conduct a pedestrian survey following removal of ground cover and asphalt at the site, and prior to trenching and grading, as a condition of approval.

Consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant with respect to archaeological resources. Therefore, the effects of the proposed project were anticipated in the General Plan EIR and there are no project-specific effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project would not result in any effects and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified in the General Plan EIR.
c) Human Remains
Would the project: Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that significant impacts to human remains could occur due to future buildout construction activity. However, the General Plan EIR concluded that implementation of adopted General Plan EIR MM 3.5-2b would ensure that individual projects demonstrate general consistency with federal, State, and local regulations related to human remains.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
Results from the NWIC and pedestrian survey failed to locate or identify any human remains and/or cemeteries. The Sacred Land Files search from the NAHC was positive for the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate project area. Accordingly, a letter containing project information and requesting any additional information was sent to each of the nine tribal representatives recommended by the NAHC. As of this date, no responses have been received.

Nevertheless, there is always the possibility that ground-disturbing activities during construction may uncover previously unknown, buried human remains. Should this occur, Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94 and 5097.98 must be implemented. This will include the immediate ceasing of ground disturbance activities, and notification of the County Coroner. If the coroner determines the remains are Native American, the coroner shall contact the NAHC within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the “most likely descendant” of the deceased Native American.

While there are no known human remains within the project site, implementation of adopted General Plan EIR MM 3.5-2b and project-specific IM CUL-2, which provides direction if an accidental discovery occurs once project-related earthmoving begins, would ensure that all impacts associated with any previously unknown human remains remain less than significant. 632
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 109
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Consistent with the findings in the General Plan EIR, impacts shall be less than significant with respect to inadvertent discoveries of human remains. Therefore, the effects of the proposed project were anticipated in the General Plan EIR and there are no project-specific effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project would not result in any effects and shall not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified in the General Plan EIR.
d) Listed or Eligible Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR did not identify any significant impacts related to TCRs defined as site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe. TCRs were not required to be evaluated separately from Cultural Resources by CEQA Guidelines at the time of the preparation of the General Plan EIR.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
The records search conducted at the NWIC, which included a search of the CRHR, did not identify any listed or eligible TCRs that would be adversely affected by the proposed project. However, the NAHC SLF search results were positive for TCRs within the project boundaries. Should any undiscovered TCRs be encountered during project construction, implementation of adopted General Plan EIR MM 3.5-1, MM 3.5-2a and MM 3.5-2b would be required. e) Lead Agency Determined Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR did not address any significant impact related to tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object 633
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

110 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. CEQA did not require an evaluation of TCRs at the time of the General Plan EIR (April 2012).

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
No significant TCRs based upon the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 have been identified by the Lead Agency. To ensure that all Native American knowledge and concerns over potential TCRs that may be affected by the proposed project are addressed, a letter containing project information was sent to each tribal representative on August 2, 2021. A second round of letters was sent to each tribal representative on October 15, 2021. No responses have been received to date. Tribal consultation efforts conducted by the City pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 52 to identify additional significant TCRs meeting the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 was conducted with the Indian Canyon Band of Costanoan Ohlone People on September 28, 2022. No additional TCRs were identified. The City will include additional monitoring during site development as a condition of approval at the request of the Tribe.

General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project MM 3.5-1 Future projects shall implement the City’s Historic Structures Code to minimize impacts on historical resources by requiring thorough scrutiny for compliance with applicable legal requirements, including but not limited to compliance with the General Plan’s historic resource protection policies, and compliance with State and federal historic resource protection laws, before any resource may be demolished and ensuring that alteration conforms to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.

MM 3.5-2a The City shall require that impacts on unique archaeological resources be mitigated to a less than significant level through methods identified in Public Resources Section 21083.2, including planning construction to avoid archaeological sites, deeding archaeological sites into permanent conservation easements, capping or covering archaeological sites with a layer of soil before building on the sites, or planning parks, greenspace, or other open space to incorporate archaeological sites.

MM 3.5-2b The City shall require new development within the City to evaluate the potential for impacts on human remains. The City shall require that the treatment of human remains and of associated or unassociated funerary objects discovered during any soils disturbing activity shall comply with applicable State and federal laws, including notification of the County Coroner and, in the event of the Coroner’s determination that the human remains are Native American remains, notification of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC).
634
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 111
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Project-Specific Adopted Mitigation Implementation Measures The following uniformly applied measures ensure compliance with the General Plan EIR MMs described above and are included as implementation measures for the proposed project, and shall be implemented in compliance with the General Plan:

The following IM implements adopted General Plan EIR MM 3.5-2a:

IM CUL-1 An Archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology shall conduct a pedestrian survey following removal of asphalt and ground cover at the site, and prior to trenching and grading. This may be followed by regular periodic or “spot-check” archaeological monitoring as determined by the Archaeologist. In the event a potentially significant cultural resource is encountered during subsurface earthwork activities, all construction activities within a 100-foot radius of the find shall cease and workers should avoid altering the materials until an Archaeologist who meets the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology has evaluated the find. The project applicant shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. The qualified Archaeologist shall make recommendations to the lead agency on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to excavation and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Potentially significant cultural resources include, but are not limited to, stone, bone, glass, wood, or shell artifacts or features, including hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction within the project site shall be recorded on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms and will be submitted to the City of Richmond, the Northwest Information Center (NWIC), and the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), as required.

The following IM implements adopted General Plan EIR MM 3.5-2b:

IM CUL-2 In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, Public Resource Code Section 5097.98 and Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 must be followed. In this instance, once project-related earthmoving begins and if there is accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, the following steps shall be taken:

1. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the Contra Costa County Coroner is contacted to determine whether the remains are Native American and if an investigation of the cause of death is required. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the coroner shall contact the NAHC within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the “most likely descendant” of the deceased Native American. 635
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

112 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx The most likely descendant may make recommendations 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 Resource Code Section 5097.98, or

2. Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his/her authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity either in accordance with the recommendations of the most likely descendant or on the project area in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance:
• The NAHC is unable to identify a most likely descendant, or the most likely descendant failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the commission;
• The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation; or • The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and the mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.

Conclusion
The results from the General Plan EIR remain unchanged.

Further environmental analysis is not required because:
• No peculiar impacts have been identified as a result of the proposed project or its site.

Implementation of relevant previously approved General Plan mitigation measures, application of implementation measures and uniformly applied General Plan policies and standards along with regulations of the City of Richmond and incorporation of identified project design features ensure impacts are below the level of significance. • There are no potentially significant impacts that were not analyzed as significant in the General Plan EIR. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts that were not discussed by the Certified General Plan EIR.
• No substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the certified General Plan EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. • No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the certified General Plan EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
636
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 113
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx • There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the certified General Plan EIR was certified as complete.

637
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

114 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Environmental Issues
Prior General
Plan EIR
Determination
CEQA Section 15168 Criteria
Effect
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-site,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More Severe
Adverse
Impact?

4.6 Energy
Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption
of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
b) Conflict with or obstruct a State or local
plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No

a) Energy Use
Would the project: Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that implementation of General Plan Policies CF1.4, CN5.1, CN5.2, EC3.1, and EC3.2, and Actions CF1.F, CN5.A, CN5.C, EC3.A, and EC3.C would reduce the potential for impacts on energy. The General Plan EIR concluded that adherence to existing regulations, policies and actions would ensure a less than significant impact associated with wasteful or unnecessary use of energy. The General Plan EIR did not evaluate impacts at the project level. Therefore, the following analysis provides an evaluation of potential project-level impacts with respect to energy use.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
This impact discussion focuses on determining whether the proposed project would result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, following the guidance provided in Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines. According to Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines, the goal of conserving energy is translated to include decreasing overall per capita energy consumption; decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, and oil; and increasing reliance on renewable energy sources. In order to assure that energy implications are considered in project decisions, the California Environmental Quality Act requires that EIRs include a discussion of the potential energy impacts of proposed projects, with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary consumption of energy (see Public Resources Code section 21100(b)(3)). Energy conservation implies that a project’s cost effectiveness be reviewed not only in dollars, but also in terms of energy requirements. For many projects, cost effectiveness may be determined more by energy efficiency than by initial dollar costs. A lead agency may consider the 638
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 115
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx extent to which an energy source serving the project has already undergone environmental review that adequately analyzed and mitigated the effects of energy production.

The proposed project would be considered to result in a potentially significant impact if it would result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Considering the guidance provided by Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines the proposed project would be considered to result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources if it would conflict with the following energy conservation goals:
• Decreasing overall per capita energy consumption;
• Decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, or oil; and • Increasing reliance on renewable energy sources.

Construction
During construction, the proposed project would result in energy consumption through the combustion of fossil fuels in construction vehicles, worker commute vehicles, and construction equipment, and the use of electricity for temporary buildings, lighting, and other sources. No natural gas would be utilized as part of construction. Fossil fuels used for construction vehicles and other energy-consuming equipment would be used during site preparation, grading, paving, and building construction.

The types of equipment could include gasoline- and diesel-powered construction and transportation equipment, including trucks, bulldozers, frontend loaders, forklifts, and cranes. Other equipment could include construction lighting, field services (office trailers), and electrically-driven equipment such as pumps and other tools.

Based on CalEEMod estimations (Appendix A), construction-related vehicle trips and construction equipment usage would result in the consumption of an estimated 54,058 gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel combined during the construction duration (Appendix A). The complete calculations of the construction energy consumption estimates are included in Appendix A.

Fuel use associated with construction vehicle trips generated by the proposed project was also estimated. Construction trips include construction worker trips, haul truck trips for transport of soil fill material, and vendor trips for construction material deliveries. Fuel use from these vehicles traveling to the project site was based on (1) the projected number of trips the proposed project would generate during construction, (2) average trip distances by trip type, and (3) fuel efficiencies estimated in the ARB Emissions Factors model (EMFAC) mobile source emission database. The specific parameters used to estimate fuel usage are included in Appendix A. Under an unmitigated construction scenario, the proposed project would generate an estimated 915,960 VMT and consume a combined 64,238 gallons of gasoline and diesel for vehicle travel during construction.

Limitations on idling of vehicles and equipment and requirements that equipment be properly maintained would result in fuel savings. The City CAP Implementing Action GB 5.1 and BAAQMD BMPs applicable to the project limit idling to no more than 5 minutes. California Code of Regulations Title 13 Sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485, limit idling from both on-road and off-road diesel-powered 639
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

116 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx equipment and are enforced by the ARB. Moreover, in accordance with Chapter 5, Part 11, Title 24 of the applicable California Building Code, the proposed project would be required to meet various CALGreen standards for building materials and practices which would further reduce potentially wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction.

In addition, given the cost of fuel, contractors and owners have a strong financial incentive to avoid wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy during construction.

Other construction equipment such as office trailers could be used during project construction.

Single-wide mobile office trailers commonly used in construction staging areas generally range in size from 160 square feet to 720 square feet. A typical 720-square-foot office trailer would consume approximately 17,029 kilowatt-hour (kWh) during the 23-month construction phase (Appendix A).

According to Ordinance 15.04.605.060 of the Municipal Code, the City has established permissible hours of construction that limit noise producing construction activity to weekdays from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. As on-site construction activities would be restricted to these hours, it is anticipated that the use of construction lighting would be minimal after construction activities end each day.

Potential after-hours lighting and energy use would involve lighting for safety measures around the site.

The proposed project’s construction is not anticipated to result in unusually high energy use.

Limitations on idling of vehicles and equipment and requirements that equipment be properly maintained would result in fuel savings. Similarly, compliance with State regulations would limit idling from both on-road and off-road diesel-powered equipment and are enforced by the ARB.

Additionally, the overall construction schedule and process is already designed to be efficient to avoid excess monetary costs. For example, equipment and fuel are not typically used wastefully due to the added expense associated with renting the equipment, maintaining it, and fueling it.

Therefore, the opportunities for future efficiency gains during construction are limited. Therefore, it is anticipated that the construction phase of the proposed project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy. Moreover, as discussed in Impact III(a), the proposed project would be consistent with the Medium-Density Residential land use designated by the General Plan, which was contemplated by the General Plan EIR. As such, the proposed project would not result in construction activities which differ substantially from what was envisioned in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the effects of the proposed project were anticipated in the General Plan EIR and there are no project-specific effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project would not result in any effects and would not result in new or more severe impacts related to energy during project construction than what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

Operation
Building operations for the proposed project would involve energy consumption for multiple purposes including, but not limited to, building heating and cooling, refrigeration, lighting, and electronics as well as outdoor lighting. The proposed project includes several design features that reduce the consumption of energy resources, such as a rooftop solar system and low flow water fixtures. Project energy consumption is summarized in Table 12. 640
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 117
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Table 12: Annual Project Energy Consumption
Energy Resource Annual Consumption
Electricity 346,375 kWh
Natural Gas 0 kBTU
Vehicle Fuel 65,136 gallons
Notes:
kBTU = kilo-British Thermal Unit
kWh = kilowatt-hour
Source: Appendix A.

Based on CalEEMod estimations within the modeling output files used to estimate GHG emissions associated with the proposed project, operations would consume approximately 346,375 kWh of electricity per year, 0 kilo-British Thermal Unit (kBTU) of natural gas, and an estimated 65,136 gallons of vehicle fuels annually under unmitigated conditions (Appendix A). Compliance with Title 24 would result in buildings that are more energy efficient than older buildings. Further, adding infill housing in an inner Bay Area city, such as Richmond, reduces energy use compared to greenfield development that occur on the outer edges of the nine Bay Area region.

Decreasing Overall Per Capita Energy Consumption
Project-related vehicle trips would consume fuel throughout the life of the proposed project due to resident vehicles, delivery vehicles, and heavy-duty trucks. The project site is located approximately

2.5 miles south of the I-580 via the Canal Boulevard interchange. As such, it would be in proximity to a regional route of travel. In addition, Alameda County (AC) Transit provides bus service to the western portion of Contra Costa County and parts of Alameda County. AC Transit Route 72M include a bus stop at the South Garrard Boulevard and West Cutting Boulevard intersection, which stops at the Richmond and El Cerrito Del Norte BART stations. In addition, BART provides regional transit to much of the Bay Area. The existing transportation facilities in the area would provide future residents and visitors associated with the proposed project with access to public transportation, thus further reducing per capita fuel consumption during project operation.

In accordance with Richmond’s Ordinance No. 06-20 N.S. and the California Building Code,38 the proposed project would be required to include solar panels and use electricity as the sole building energy source (thus no natural gas). As such, all buildings included in the proposed project would be required to include a rooftop solar system of a minimum capacity of 3 kW PV. The proposed project would be designed and constructed in accordance with the City of Richmond’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) and the State’s Title 24 energy efficiency standards. Energy and water efficient design measures for the proposed project will include low flow plumbing fixtures and irrigation heads. Title 24 standards include a broad set of energy conservation requirements that apply to the structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems in a building. Compliance with Title 24 standards would

38 City of Richmond. 2020. Ordinance No. 06-20 N.S.
641
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

118 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx help reduce the amount of energy required for lighting, water heating, and heating and air conditioning in buildings, promote energy conservation, and reduce per capita energy consumption.

Decreasing Reliance on Fossil Fuels
The proposed project would include EV charging capable outlets and infrastructure within each townhome garage consistent with current CALGreen standards. In addition, the proposed project would be required to include solar panels and use electricity as the sole building energy source. The inclusion of these features would reduce reliance on fossil fuels for future building energy needs and facilitate the region’s EV adoption and increase in EV and clean air and high occupancy vehicle use.

In addition, the Richmond Bay Trail, which can be accessed along Brickyard Cove Road, would provide 36 miles of accessibility within Richmond, in connection to the planned 500-mile multi- purpose trail throughout San Francisco and San Pablo Bays. Thus, the proposed project would further incentivize the use of non-motorized and alternative modes of transportation and decrease reliance on fossil fuels.

Increasing Reliance on Renewable Energy Sources
As previously discussed, the proposed project would include EV charging infrastructure. The inclusion of these features would facilitate the region’s EV adoption and an increase in EV and clean air and high occupancy vehicle use by residents, employees, and visitors of the proposed project.

Accompanied by Statewide GHG emission reduction strategies, such as SB 100 which requires the mix of resources utilized to generate electricity sold in the State to continually increase its proportion of renewables through 2045 when 100 percent of generation sources shall be carbon- free, would help decrease future resident and visitor reliance on fossil fuels for transportation energy. In addition, the proposed project would include an on-site solar system and no natural gas infrastructure consistent with the City’s Prohibition of Natural Gas Infrastructure in Newly Constructed Buildings Code. As such, the proposed project would include on-site renewable electricity generation and facilitate a greater dependance on renewable energy sources. The proposed project would go beyond the requirement included in the adopted General Plan EIR MM

3.6-1c to generate at least 10 percent of their energy use from renewable sources. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with this criterion.

Summary
As addressed above, the proposed project’s impact on energy consumption would be considered less than significant. Moreover, as discussed in Impact III(a), the proposed project would be consistent with the Medium-Density Residential land use designated by the General Plan, which was contemplated by the General Plan EIR. As such, the proposed project would not result in construction activities which differ substantially from what was envisioned in the General Plan EIR.

Therefore, the effects of the proposed project were anticipated in the General Plan EIR and there are 642
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 119
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx no project-specific effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to energy during project operation than what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. b) Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Standards Consistency Would the project: Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR discussed the compliance with State or local plan for renewable or energy efficiency in its Climate Change section. It stated that implementation of the General Plan would comply with California Code of Regulations Title 24, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings. During the release of the General Plan EIR, the City was in the process of preparing a C A P.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
The following evaluates whether the proposed project would conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, including the City’s CAP.

Construction
The proposed project would result in energy consumption through the combustion of fossil fuels during construction. During the construction phase, the proposed project would adhere to California regulations (CCR Title 13, Sections 2449 and 2485) limiting idling from both on-road and off-road diesel-powered equipment. The proposed project would be required to comply with these regulations, which are enforced by ARB. There are no renewable energy standards that would apply to construction of the proposed project. As a result, construction would not conflict with or obstruct any regulations adopted for the purposes of increasing the use of renewable energy.

Furthermore, it is anticipated that construction of the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing energy use or increasing the use of renewable energy. Therefore, the effects of the proposed project were anticipated in the General Plan EIR and there are no project-specific effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project would not result in any new or more severe impacts related to construction energy efficiency and use of fossil fuels or decreased use of renewable resources beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

Operation
The proposed project would be served with electricity provided by PG&E or Marin Clean Energy (MCE). In 2021, PG&E obtained 50 percent of its electricity from renewable energy sources, while the remaining electricity was sourced from nuclear (39 percent), natural gas (7 percent), and large hydroelectric (4 percent).
39 While PG&E’s 2021 Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) reporting

39 Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). 2021. Delivering low-emission energy. Website: https://www.pge.com/en_US/about- pge/environment/what-we-are-doing/clean-energy-solutions/clean-energy-solutions.page?WT.mc_id=Vanity_cleanenergy. Accessed August 17, 2022.
643
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

120 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx showed that 50 percent of electricity sales sourced from eligible renewable sources, the RPS requirements apply to a 3-year average of utility provider electricity sourcing to allow for fluctuations in market demand and supply availability. Since 2013, the City has partnered with Contra Costa County’s community-based electricity provider, Marin Clean Energy (MCE), which is a public agency and not-for-profit electricity provider. MCE is the default energy provider for the City and offers options that are either 60.5 percent renewable (with an additional 36.8 percent of the mix from hydroelectric power) or 100 percent renewable.
40 According to 2021 MCE participation data,
approximately 81.9% of the total Richmond population was enrolled with MCE as their electricity provider. Under state law, the proposed project’s electricity provider was required to meet the State’s 2020 RPS objective of 33 percent and is required to make progress toward the State’s 2024 RPS target of 44 percent. The proposed project’s electricity provider also would be required to meet the State’s future objective of 60 percent electricity from renewable energy sources by 2030. Based on 2021 MCE participation data, it is likely that most project residents would choose MCE as its electricity provider and MCE’s renewable mix exceeds the minimum state requirements. The proposed buildings would be designed in accordance with California Code of Regulations Title 24, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings as applicable.

These standards include minimum energy efficiency requirements related to building envelope, mechanical systems (e.g., heating, ventilation, and air conditioning [HVAC] and water heating systems), and indoor and outdoor lighting. The incorporation of the Title 24 standards into the design of the proposed project would ensure that the proposed project would not result in the use of energy in a wasteful manner.

The City’s CAP includes goals and implementing actions aimed at energy conservation.41 CAP measures that are applicable to the proposed project include:

EE3.2 Work with the building department to increase compliance of all building construction, additions, and renovations with the State’s Green Building Standards (CALGreen Code), including Title 24, Part 6 energy standards.

RE1.1 Continue to work with the building department to ensure a solar permit streamlining program is in place, and that new buildings include “solar ready” measures, as required by CALGreen, to enable easier installation of photovoltaic panels.

TL2.5 Connect residential neighborhoods to commercial centers with protected bike lanes and paths (linked to Land Use).

TL3.3 Require owners of property along the shoreline to ensure maximum feasible public access and to complete the Bay Trail as part of any project approval process.

SW4.3 Require new development projects to provide a construction plan prior to permit approval that demonstrates how activities will reduce waste to achieve the required

40 Marin Clean Energy (MCE). 2022. Where Our Power Comes From. Website: https://www.mcecleanenergy.org/energy-suppliers.

Accessed December 13, 2022.
41 City of Richmond. 2016. Climate Action Plan. Website: https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/3313/Climate-Action-Plan. Accessed April 14, 2022. 644
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 121
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx diversion rate. Require disposal receipts during the building permit process to confirm proper recycling and disposal, and prevent illegal dumping.

WA1.1 Ensure CALGreen compliance with water-related codes for projects within existing buildings and for new construction.

WA3.1 Ensure all new buildings and renovations comply with CALGreen Green Building Standards Code water efficiency and conservation measures.

WA3.2 Update the City’s Landscape Design and Development Guidelines to require water efficient landscaping in all development projects.

Many of the measures in the City’s CAP apply to government agencies and not to individual development projects. Nevertheless, the proposed project would not conflict with any of the applicable implementing actions in the CAP . Furthermore, the proposed project would include design features that would support the energy conservation goals of the City’s CAP . The proposed project would comply with CalGreen water-related codes, meet Title 24, Part 6 requirements, and have solar. The project also would improve the Richmond Bay Trail along the project frontage.

Summary
As addressed above, the proposed project would comply with existing State energy standards and with energy conservation policies contained in the City’s CAP . In addition, the proposed project would implement applicable General Plan EIR mitigation measures, such as MM 3.6-1a, MM 3.6-1b, MM 3.6-1c, MM 3.6-1m, and MM 3.6-1o. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, the effects of the proposed project were anticipated in the General Plan EIR and there are no project-specific effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to energy efficiency and renewable energy standards consistency beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project MM 3.6-1a All construction projects shall incorporate the most recent Best Management Practices for Greenhouse Gas Emissions as indicated by the BAAQMD.

MM 3.6-1b All new development and all retrofits of single-family developments, multi-family developments of over 10 units, and all commercial/industrial remodels of over 10,000 square feet shall be required to exceed [2010] Title 24 standards by 20 percent by 2020 and 30 percent by 2030. This mitigation measure enhances General Plan Action EC3.C. Measures to reduce emissions can include, but are not limited to:
• Install energy efficient appliances, including air conditioning and heating units, dishwashers, water heaters, etc.;
• Install solar water heaters;
• Install top quality windows and insulation;
• Install energy efficient lighting;
645
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

122 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx • Optimize conditions for natural heating, cooling and lighting by building siting and orientation;
• Use features that incorporate natural ventilation;
• Install light-colored "cool" pavements, and strategically located shade trees along all bicycle and pedestrian routes; and o Incorporate skylights, reflective surfaces, and natural shading in buildings design and layouts;
• Replace inefficient air conditioning and heating units with new energy efficient models;
• Replace older, inefficient appliances with new energy efficient models; • Replace old windows and insulation with top-quality windows and insulation; • Replace inefficient and incandescent lighting with energy efficient lighting; and • Weatherize existing buildings to increase energy efficiency.

MM 3.6-1j Require new local serving mixed-use in residential areas to provide needed services and amenities close to where people live and work. Require new development and redevelopment projects to provide community amenities and uses that serve priority community needs. Enhances General Plan Policy EC4.1 and General Plan Actions EC4.A, EC4.B, and EC4.D.

MM 3.6-1k Require mixed-use development along transit-oriented corridors that attracts people and facilitates activity throughout the day. Prohibit isolated or gated communities in order to improve physical connectivity throughout the City and remove barriers in existing gated areas. Maintain streets to ensure that neighborhoods and streets are safe and well used. Enhances General Plan Policy EC4.2 and Actions EC2.C, EC2.E, EC2.G, EC4.A, EC4.B, EC4.C and EC4.E
MM 3.6-1m All new street lighting and all remodeled or replaced street lighting shall consist of high-efficiency lamps that reduce energy consumption [from 2010 standards] by a minimum of 16 percent.

MM 3.6-1n All new traffic lights and all replaced traffic lights shall consist of LED lights. This high-efficiency lighting would reduce emissions from traffic lights by 90 percent.

MM 3.6-1o Require new development to incorporate water-saving measures demonstrating a minimum reduction of 20 percent in water use over a similar project completed within the previous five years [of adoption of the General Plan]. This measure enhances General Plan Action EC3.F. This measure would be enhanced by General Plan Action EC3.G.
646
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 123
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Project-Specific Conditions of Approval
The following uniformly applied measure ensures compliance with the City’s Energy Reach Code and is included as a COA for the proposed project:

COA ENER-1 In accordance with Richmond Municipal Code Section 9.64.040 Prohibition of Natural Gas Infrastructure in Newly Constructed Buildings ban, the proposed project shall not incorporate the use of natural gas and shall, at a minimum have sufficient electric capacity, wiring and conduit to facilitate future full building electrification.

Conclusion
The conclusions from the Draft General Plan EIR regarding energy impacts remain unchanged.

Further environmental analysis is not required because:
• No peculiar impacts have been identified as a result of the proposed project or its site.

Implementation of relevant previously approved General Plan mitigation measures, uniformly applied General Plan policies and standards along with regulations of the City of Richmond and incorporation of identified project design features ensure impacts are below the level of significance.
• There are no potentially significant impacts that were not analyzed as significant in the certified General Plan EIR. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts that were not discussed by the Certified General Plan EIR. • No substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the certified General Plan EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; • No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the certified General Plan EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
• There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the certified General Plan EIR was certified as complete.

647
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

124 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Environmental Issues
Prior General
Plan EIR
Determination
CEQA Section 15168 Criteria
Effect
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-site,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More Severe
Adverse
Impact?

4.7 Geology and Soils
Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of
a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42.

Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
iv) Landslides? Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that
is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined
in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial direct
or indirect risks to life or property?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
648
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 125
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx a) Earthquake Hazards
Would the project: Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: (i)Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault; (ii) Strong Seismic Ground Shaking; (iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; or (iv) Landslides.
i) Fault Rupture
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR identified that within the City there is one Earthquake Fault Zone encompassing the Hayward Fault. The General Plan EIR determined that surface fault rupture could occur within the Hayward Fault, which is a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and trends southeast to northwest through the City. The General Plan EIR identified State regulations such as the California Building Standards Code (CBC) that would require seismic-resistant design standards to be implemented in new development, and local regulations, such as Municipal Code Section 6.12, which requires seismic retrofitting of older, unreinforced buildings within the City. The General Plan EIR concluded that implementation of General Plan policies and seismic structural design standards contained in the CBC would ensure impacts to surface fault rupture would be less than significant.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
The project is not within 50 feet of a fault line. As with all development within the City, the proposed project would comply with the CBC design standards to minimize adverse effects in the event of surface fault rupture. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts related to surface fault rupture beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
ii) Ground Shaking
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that strong ground shaking impacts could occur in areas located within or around the Hayward Fault. The General Plan EIR concluded that seismic shaking impacts could be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of standard seismic structural design standards contained in the most recent CBC and implementation of General Plan Policies and Actions.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
The seismicity of the project site is governed by the activity of the Hayward, Hayward-Rodgers, and Concord Faults, although ground shaking from future earthquakes on other faults will also be felt at the site. According to the Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the proposed project by Cornerstone Earth Group on April 25, 2022 (Geotechnical Investigation) (Appendix E), strong to very strong shaking could occur at the site during a large earthquake on one of the nearby faults.

However, as directed by the General Plan EIR the proposed project would adhere to seismic design 649
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

126 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx standards in the CBC and General Plan policies. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to seismic ground shaking beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
iii) Ground Failure
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that areas near the San Francisco Bay shoreline and adjacent areas throughout the City, along creeks and within the Bay Plain area, could be susceptible to liquefaction, but impacts could be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of standard seismic structural design standards contained in the 2019 CBC and General Plan policies. Figure 3.7-4 in the Draft General Plan EIR designates the site as “Zone 4, Liquefaction Potential Unknown.” Additionally, the General Plan EIR concluded that project-specific review and conformity with the City’s Hillside Preservation Ordinance would ensure that development under the proposed General Plan would not result in soil erosion that would result in long-term safety concerns or slope instability beyond an acceptable level of risk.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
Historically, ground surface displacements closely follow the trace of geologically young faults. The site is not within an Earthquake Fault Zone, as defined by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, and no known active or potentially active faults exist on the site. According to the Geotechnical Investigation, it is therefore concluded that the risk of fault offset at the site from a known active fault is very low (Appendix E).

The site is not currently mapped for liquefaction hazard potential by the State of California. The site was screened for liquefaction by the consulting Geotechnical Engineer with the following findings.

The majority of the soil underlying the site is sufficiently dense and/or cohesive to resist liquefaction; however, the geological analysis indicates there are thin layers of granular soils (primarily sand, silty sand, and sandy silt) below a depth of about 11 feet below the existing ground surface (BGS) that are susceptible to liquefaction during a major earthquake. The geological analysis indicates that the non- liquefiable soil overlaying the potentially liquefiable soil layers at the project site is sufficiently thick and the uppermost potentially liquefiable layers are sufficiently thin, such that the potential for the subsurface manifestations of liquefaction is low. In addition, 5 to 50 feet of engineered fill will be used to create building pads, which is expected to reduce the amount of spreading or liquefaction.42 However, as part of the City’s standard practice, the proposed project would be required to adhere to seismic design standards and General Plan policies, which the General Plan concluded would be sufficient to reduce impacts to less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts related to seismically related ground failure beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. No additional analysis is required.

42 Cornerstone Earth Group, Inc. 2022. Brickyard Residential Geotechnical Investigation, Brickyard Cove, Richmond CA, April. 650
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 127
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx iv) Landslides
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR identified previous areas in the City that have experienced landslides: the El Sobrante Valley, Point Richmond area, and the Berkeley Hills. The General Plan EIR determined that earthquake-induced landslides could occur in areas where landslides previously occurred and on slopes greater than 15 percent, but impacts could be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of standard seismic structural design standards contained in the most recent CBC and General Plan policies. Specifically, General Plan Policies SN1.1 and General Plan Action SN1.C direct that land use, development standards, and construction practices are to be used to reduce the risk to humans and property from geological activity such as naturally occurring landslides. Policy CN2.3 regulates site preparation grading, soils repair, foundation design and topographic alteration, quantities of cut and fill, placement of utility crossings, and removal of vegetation and would also reduce the risk to humans and property from geological activity such as naturally occurring landslides.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
The site is situated at the base of a relatively steep slope. The Geological Investigation prepared for the proposed project (Appendix E) evaluated the likelihood of landslides at the project site. The Geotechnical Investigation identified that a potential landslide may have occurred at the northeastern corner of the existing cut slope on the project site; however, aerial photos could not confirm disturbance in the area. Further, reconnaissance of the project site did not indicate evidence of deep-seated movement, scarps, pressure ridges, or other geomorphic features typical of landslides. Other shallow slump features and erosion were noted on the northern portion of the site as well. The Geotechnical Investigation ultimately concluded that the likelihood of active landslides impacting the project site is low and recommends that grading activity be observed by a certified Engineering Geologist to confirm the soil and bedrock conditions and to confirm that adverse bedding or evidence of instability is not present. The City’s COAs for the project and standard plan check process will ensure that this recommendation is reflected in the grading and building plans.

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts related to landslide beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. No additional analysis is required.
b) Erosion
Would the project: Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that erosion of topsoil could occur in sloped upland areas, during construction activity, and in areas with exposed, non-vegetated slopes. However, the General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and associated BMPs, such as a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and General Plan policies, would prevent substantial erosion or loss of topsoil and impacts would be less than significant.
651
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

128 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
The proposed project would be required to implement requirements contained in Municipal Code Chapter 12.44, Excavation, Grading and Construction, which would prevent substantial erosion or loss of topsoil through the implementation of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan during construction activity. In addition, in compliance with General Plan policies, the proposed project would implement construction and operational standards contained in the City’s NPDES permit and SWPPP that would further prevent substantial erosion or loss of topsoil. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to erosion of topsoil beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
c) Unstable Soils or Geologic Units
Would the project: Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landsliding, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR disclosed that impacts related to unstable geologic units could occur throughout the City including subsidence, landslides, and liquefaction. However, the General Plan EIR determined that implementation of General Plan policies would reduce impacts related to unstable soils or geologic units to a less than significant level.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
Historically, ground surface displacements closely follow the trace of geologically young faults. The site is not within an Earthquake Fault Zone, as defined by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, and no known active or potentially active faults exist on the site. According to the Geotechnical Investigation, the risk of fault offset at the site from a known active fault is very low.

Lateral spreading occurs when a continuous layer of soil liquefies at depth and the soil layers above move toward an unsupported face, such as a shoreline slope, or in the direction of a regional slope or gradient. Considering the potentially liquefiable soil layers are discontinuous, the geotechnical analysis concludes the potential for lateral spreading to occur at the project site is low.

Consistent with the General Plan EIR, the proposed project would be required to adhere to seismic design standards and General Plan policies which would reduce impacts to unstable soils or geologic units. Implementation of the proposed project would reuse the existing building and would reduce the amount of development that would require ground disturbance. The construction of the proposed project would require ground disturbance; however, this site does not contain loose saturated, sandy soils. Soils encountered at the site were predominantly stiff to very stiff clays and medium dense to dense sands. This condition precludes the likelihood of construction activity being on unstable or unsuitable land for development. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to unstable soils or geologic units beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
43 43 Cornerstone Earth Group, Inc. 2022. Brickyard Residential Geotechnical Investigation, Brickyard Cove, Richmond CA, April. 652
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 129
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx d) Expansive Soils
Would the project: Be located on expansive soil, creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that expansive soils could occur in areas of the City as expansive soil is prevalent in the Bay Plain area. However, implementation of General Plan Policies would ensure modern building techniques are implemented, such as removal of weak soils and replacement with engineered fill consistent with General Plan Policy SN1.1, regarding Geologic and Seismic Safety, which would regulate land use and apply development standards and construction practices to reduce the risk to humans and property in the event of an earthquake or other geological event. Thus, the General Plan EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation concluded that the proposed fill brought to the site could include expansive soils. Specific recommendations were provided for reviewing the geotechnical aspects of the project’s structural, civil, and landscape plans and specifications. The City’s standard plan check process will ensure that these recommendations are reflected in the grading and building plans.
44 Consistent with the General Plan EIR, the proposed project would adhere to General Plan Policies requiring conformance with State regulations, such as the 2019 CBC. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to expansive soils beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
e) Septic Tanks
Would the project: Have soils incapable of supporting the use of septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available? Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that the City would contain sufficient wastewater treatment capacity to serve future buildout and implementation of General Plan Policies would ensure no impacts would occur related to septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
The General Plan EIR noted that there would be no impacts related to soils supporting septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems because wastewater is conveyed and treated within the City’s wastewater collection system. As a result, this potential impact would not be relevant in Richmond and no additional analysis was required.

44 Cornerstone Earth Group, Inc. 2022. Brickyard Residential Geotechnical Investigation, Brickyard Cove, Richmond CA, April. 653
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

130 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx f) Destruction of Paleontological Resource or Unique Geologic Feature Would the project: Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that development activities associated with General Plan buildout could directly or indirectly destroy a paleontological resource or a unique geologic feature. This is due to sediment and rock formations underlying the City of Richmond, which are known to be rich in subsurface paleontological resources. However, through implementation of General Plan Policies and adopted MM 3.5-3, which requires development within area of highly sensitive paleontological resources to evaluate the project for impacts on areas susceptible to destruction of paleontological resources, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
The proposed project is not located in an area with known paleontological resources, a high sensitivity area for paleontological resources, or an area with known unique geologic features.

Further, the site has been subject to extensive excavation and the project would be adding fill. This condition precludes the possibility of destroying a paleontological resource.45 As a result, this potential impact would not be relevant to the project site, and no additional analysis was required.

General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project None.

Conclusion
The conclusions from the Draft General Plan EIR regarding geology and soils remain unchanged.

Further environmental analysis is not required because:
• No peculiar impacts have been identified as a result of the proposed project or its site.

Incorporation of identified project design features ensure impacts are below the level of significance.
• There are no potentially significant impacts that were not analyzed as significant in the certified General Plan EIR. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts that were not discussed by the Certified General Plan EIR.

45 Kenneth L. Finger, PhD Consulting Paleontologist, 2022. City of Richmond Paleontological Records Search, Point Richmond Brickyard Project, City of Richmond, Contra Costa County.
654
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 131
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx • No substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the certified General Plan EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. • No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the certified General Plan EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
• There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the certified General Plan EIR was certified as complete.

655
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

132 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Environmental Issues
CEQA Section 15168 Criteria
Prior General
Plan EIR
Determination
Effect
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-site,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More Severe
Adverse
Impact?

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment?
Less than
significant with
mitigation
incorporated
No No No No
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy
or regulation of an agency adopted for
the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
Less than
significant with
mitigation
incorporated
No No No No

A detailed description of the assumptions used to estimate emissions and the complete CalEEMod output files are contained in Appendix A.
a) Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project: Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that implementation of BAAQMD BMPs, as well as General Plan Policies (EC2.1, EC2.2, EC3.2, and EC4.3), Actions (EC2.A, EC2.K, EC3.E, EC4.G, and EC4.H), and mitigation measures (MM 3.6-1a and MM 3.6-1q) would ensure that construction emissions of GHGs would be less than significant. The General Plan EIR also stated that future development under the proposed General Plan would be subject to review to determine construction climate change impacts in accordance with CEQA.

The General Plan EIR determined that buildout of the General Plan would generate operational GHGs. However, the General Plan EIR concluded that with the implementation of General Plan Policies (EC1.1 through EC1.2, EC2.1 through EC2.7, EC3.1 through EC3.5, EC4.1 through EC4.5, EC5.1 through EC5.3, EC6.1 through EC6.3) and Actions (EC1.A through EC1.C, EC2.A through EC2.K, EC3.A through EC3.H, EC4.A through EC4.I, EC5.A through EC5.C, EC6.A through EC6.F), and all feasible mitigation measures (MM 3.6-1b through MM 3.6-1p), the impacts of operational emissions would be reduced to less than significant.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
Both construction and operational activities have the potential to generate GHG emissions. The proposed project would generate GHG emissions during temporary (short-term) construction activities such as site preparation and grading, running of construction equipment engines, 656
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 133
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx movement of on-site heavy-duty construction vehicles, hauling materials to and from the project site, asphalt paving, and construction worker, vendor, and haul truck motor vehicle trips.

Long-term, operational GHG emissions would result from project-generated vehicular traffic, operation of any landscaping equipment, off-site generation of electrical power over the life of the proposed project, the energy required to convey water to and wastewater from the project site, and the emissions associated with the hauling and disposal of solid waste from the project site.

Under the recently updated 2022 BAAQMD GHG thresholds of significance, the BAAQMD recommends that land use project demonstrate conformity with the following Criterion A or Criterion B to demonstrate less than significant impacts:

A. Projects must include, at a minimum, the following project design elements. a. Buildings:
i. The project will not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing (in both residential and nonresidential development).
ii. The project will not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy usage as determined by the analysis required under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
b. Transportation:
i. Achieve compliance with EV requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2.
ii. Achieve a reduction in project-generated VMT below the regional average consistent with the current version of the California Climate Change Scoping Plan (currently 15 percent) or meet a locally adopted SB 743 VMT target, reflecting the recommendations provided in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA:

1. Residential projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per capita.

2. Office projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per employee.

3. Retail projects: no net increase in existing VMT.

B. Projects must be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b).

The General Plan EIR utilized the BAAQMD’s June 2010 CEQA Guidelines, which considered that a plan would be considered to have a less than significant impact if it would (1) be consistent with the policies of a qualified CAP or (2) produce emissions of no more than 6.6 MT CO 2e/service
population/year (residents + employees). The use of this plan-level threshold corresponds with demonstrating consistency with the AB 32 reduction targets for 2020 and the BAAQMD’s previous significance threshold of 1,100 MT CO2e per year for a project-level significance determination.

To determine whether the proposed project would result in a GHG emissions impact significance already contemplated by the General Plan EIR, the proposed project’s GHG emissions are assessed against the BAAQMD’s previous bright-line threshold of 1,100 MT CO2e/year contained in its 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, which demonstrates conformance with the AB 32 reduction target and 657
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

134 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx the 6.6 MT CO2e/service population/year utilized in the General Plan EIR. As further discussed in the sections below, the proposed project is also analyzed against the new project design thresholds recommended by the BAAQMD in the recently updated BAAQMD 2022 GHG significance thresholds to demonstrate consistency with the latest state and regional goals to reduce GHG emissions.

Short-term Construction Impacts
The proposed project would emit GHG emissions during construction from the off-road equipment, worker vehicles, and any hauling that may occur. The BAAQMD does not presently provide a construction-related GHG emission threshold but recommends that construction-generated GHG emissions be quantified and disclosed. The BAAQMD also recommends that lead agencies (in this case, the City of Richmond) make a determination of the level of significance of construction- generated GHG emissions. Total GHG emissions generated throughout construction were combined and are presented in Table 13. As shown in Table 13, construction of the proposed project is estimated to generate approximately 1,219 MT CO2e over the entire project construction duration.

In order to account for the construction emissions, the total emissions generated during construction were amortized based on the life of the development (30 years) and added to the operational emissions to derive the project’s total annual GHG emissions. These total project emissions were analyzed against the 2020 BAAQMD bright-line threshold of 1,100 MT CO2e/year and the projected 2030 bright-line threshold of 660 MT CO2e/year.

Table 13: Construction GHG Emissions
Construction Phase MT CO2e per year
Site Preparation (Phase 1) 12
Grading (Phase 1) 447
Building Construction (Phase 1) 748
Paving (Phase 1) 4
Architectural Coating (Phase 1) 4
Architectural Coating (Phase 2) 3
Total Construction Emissions 1,219
Emissions Amortized Over 30 Years1 41
Notes:

MT CO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
1 Construction GHG emissions are amortized over the 30-year lifetime of the project.

Source: CalEEMod Output (Appendix A).

It should be noted that while the proposed project would be subject to adopted Final General Plan EIR MM 3.6-1a, measures contained therein were not contemplated in the emissions quantification contained in Table 13. Adopted General Plan Final EIR MM 3.6-1a would include measures such as sourcing labor and materials from local business and operations, the resulting emissions reductions from which cannot be accurately quantified at this time. As such, the construction GHG emissions contained in Table 13 represent a conservative assessment of project construction GHG emissions. 658
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 135
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Long-term Operational Impacts
Operational GHG emissions were estimated using CalEEMod, Version 2020.4.0 and are shown in Table

14. The proposed project was analyzed assuming full buildout in the year 2024. The estimated total annual project-generation emissions, including operational emissions and amortized construction emissions, were compared with the BAAQMD’s bright-line threshold of 1,100 MT CO2e/year to determine significance at project buildout in the year 2024. The estimated annual GHG emissions generated by the proposed project’s residents in the year 2024 were also compared with the significance threshold of 6.6 MT CO2e/per capita/year used in the General Plan EIR for informational purposes. It should be noted that the emissions estimates contained herein represent a conservative assessment of project impacts as they do not contemplate the inclusion of adopted General Plan EIR MM 3.6-1b through MM 3.6-1q, which would require a series of energy efficiency and water conservation measures, among others, to reduce GHG emissions during project operation.

Table 14: Operational GHG Emissions
Emission Source
Annual GHG Emissions
(MT CO2e per year)
Area 0
Energy 32
Mobile 615
Waste 15
Water 13
Total Operational Emissions 678
Amortized Construction Emissions 41
Total Project Emissions 719
Bright-Line Threshold (MT CO2e/year) 1,100
Does project exceed threshold? No
Total Project Per Capita Emissions2,3 2.63
General Plan EIR BAAQMD Threshold (MT CO2e/year) 6.6
Does project exceed threshold? No
Notes:

BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District
MT CO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
1 Construction GHG emissions are amortized over the 30-year lifetime of the project. 2 Calculation: 719 (MT CO2e per year) ÷ (2.9 persons per household x 94 housing units) =

2.63 MT CO2e per year per person.
3 California Department of Finance (CDF). 2022. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020-2022. Website:
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing- estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2022/. Accessed August 16, 2022.

Source: CalEEMod Output (Appendix A).

659
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

136 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx As shown in Table 14, the proposed project would generate approximately 719 MT CO2e/year in the year 2024 and would result in 2.63 MT CO2e per year per person. Therefore, the proposed project would not exceed the BAAQMD formerly recommended bright-line significance threshold of 1,100 MT CO2e/year at project buildout or the significance threshold of 6.6 MT CO2e/service population/year utilized in the General Plan EIR.

Furthermore, as recommended in the current BAAQMD 2022 GHG thresholds, to have a less than significant impact for GHGs, a project must not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing. The proposed project is required by Richmond Ordinance No. 06-20 N.S. to include solar panels and use electricity as the sole building energy source, and the proposed project includes an all-electric design (with no natural gas appliances or plumbing proposed). Project design thresholds included in the BAAQMD 2022 GHG thresholds of significance also require that the proposed project not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy usage. As further discussed in the Energy section of this document, the proposed project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy usage, and would go beyond state and local requirements for utilizing renewable energy as part of proposed project operations. In compliance with adopted General Plan EIR MM 3.6-1c, the proposed project would have energy efficient appliances, high-quality windows and insulation, energy efficient lighting, natural ventilation, and shaded sidewalks/trails. The proposed project would be designed and constructed in accordance with the City of Richmond’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) and the State’s Title 24 energy efficiency standards. Energy and water efficient design measures for the proposed project will include low flow plumbing fixtures and irrigation heads. Title 24 standards include a broad set of energy conservation requirements that apply to the structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems in a building. Compliance with Title 24 standards would help reduce the amount of energy required for lighting, water heating, and heating and air conditioning in buildings, promote energy conservation, and reduce per capita energy consumption.

Finally, the 2022 BAAQMD GHG threshold includes a requirement that proposed projects achieve a reduction in project generated VMT below the regional average or meet a locally adopted Senate Bill 743 VMT target and achieve compliance with off-street electric vehicle requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2. As further discussed in the Transportation section of this document, the proposed project would support a reduction in project demonstrated VMT beyond 15 percent. The proposed project design features off-street electric vehicle requirements in compliance with the 2022 Tier 2 CALGreen standards, including that 10 percent of the total number of parking spaces on a building site shall be EV capable, and that 25 percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be EV ready and equipped with low-power Level 2 EV charging receptables or that one EV charging receptacle is required per dwelling unit, and that 5 percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be equipped with a Level 2 EVSE. The proposed project includes one EV-ready garage space with each dwelling unit, along with two Level 2 EVSEs in the common area parking.

Therefore, the proposed project includes project design features consistent with the 2022 BAAQMD GHG thresholds and would have a less than significant impact. 660
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 137
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Summary
As addressed above, the proposed project’s GHG emissions would be below the significance thresholds and would have a less than significant impact. In addition, the proposed project would be required to implement adopted General Plan EIR MM 3.6-1a, which requires all construction projects to incorporate the most recent BAAQMD-recommended BMPs to reduce construction GHG emissions. Furthermore, adopted General Plan EIR MM 3.6-1b through 3.6-1q provide feasible measures to reduce operational GHG emissions. Therefore, the proposed project’s GHG impacts would be less than significant after incorporation of identified General Plan EIR mitigation, and the proposed project would not result in any new or more severe impacts related to GHG emissions during project operation than what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Accordingly, the effects of the proposed project were anticipated in the General Plan EIR and there are no project- specific effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. b) Greenhouse Gases Emissions Reduction Plan Conflict
Would the project: Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR evaluated if buildout of the General Plan would conflict with California’s AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan. The General Plan EIR concluded that implementation of adopted General Plan MM 3.3-1, MM 3.3-2, MM 3.6-1a through MM 3.6-1q, and General Plan Policies would reduce this impact to less than significant.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
The following analysis also evaluates whether the proposed project would conflict with either the City’s CAP , or the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update.

City of Richmond Climate Action Plan
The City of Richmond adopted its CAP in October 2016.46 The City of Richmond CAP serves as a roadmap for how the City will reduce GHG emissions and prepare for the impacts of climate change on public health, infrastructure, ecosystems, and public spaces in the community. The City’s CAP supports the community’s goals and policies identified in the City’s General Plan 2030.47 The CAP enables the City to implement strategies to fulfill the requirements of AB 32 and SB 375. The City of Richmond CAP provides goals, objectives, strategies, and associated implementing actions. The implementing actions demonstrate how the City plans to implement its 40 strategies, and in turn, meet its objectives and goals. The majority of the 449 implementing actions apply to government agencies and not to individual development; therefore, project compliance is assessed by evaluating the project’s consistency with the applicable goals and implementing actions of the City’s CAP, as shown in Error! Not a valid bookmark self-reference..

46 City of Richmond. 2016. Climate Action Plan. October. Website: https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/3313/Climate-Action-Plan. Accessed March 29, 2022.
47 City of Richmond. 2012. Richmond General Plan 2030, Introduction. 2018. Website: http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/2608/General- Plan-2030. Accessed March 29, 2022
661
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

138 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Table 15: Consistency with the City of Richmond Climate Act Plan CAP Component Consistency
Goal

1. GHG Emissions Reduction: This goal is aimed at
reducing GHG emissions originating from the
community and from government operations in
order to achieve statewide targets and reduce the
societal and environmental risks associated with
climate change.

Consistent. The proposed project includes several
design features that reduce the generation of GHG
emissions, such as a rooftop solar system, high-
efficiency lighting, and net zero energy targets.

Furthermore, as discussed under Impact VII(a),
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the proposed project
would be required to implement relevant General
Plan EIR mitigation, such as MM 3.6-1, and the
proposed project’s generation of GHG emissions
would be less than significant. Therefore, the
proposed project would be consistent with the first
goal of the City’s CAP.

2. Health and Resilient Community: This goal is
aimed at ensuring sustainable growth that
provides a healthy, resilient and equitable
environment for all. This goal includes preparing
for the impacts of climate change, providing
residents with access to walkable neighborhoods
and good jobs, providing safe, affordable, and
efficient homes, and integrating green spaces in
neighborhoods.

Consistent. The proposed project would include
sidewalks along the project frontage of Brickyard
Cove Road. The proposed project is within 4 miles of
the Richmond BART Station and is located 1.7 miles
from AC Transit Route 72M. As a result, the proposed
project would be located near transit and regional rail transit. In addition, the project provides a private
pool, a playground, a community room, and game
tables and access to private open space in a walkable
neighborhood. The other parts of this goal would not
be applicable to the proposed project as a residential
development.

Implementing Action
EE3.2. Work with the building department to increase
compliance of all building construction, additions,
and renovations with the State’s Green Building
Standards (CALGreen Code), including Title 24, Part 6
energy standards.

Consistent. Although this is a measure related to the
City’s process, the proposed project will comply with
Title 24 and CALGreen codes.

TL2.5. Connect residential neighborhoods to
commercial centers with protected bike lanes and
paths (linked to Land Use).

Consistent. The proposed project would include
sidewalks and a bike path along the project frontage
of Brickyard Cove Road. The proposed project would
not preclude the development of bike lane and path
features.

TL3.3. Require owners of property along the
shoreline to ensure maximum feasible public access
and to complete the Bay Trail as part of any project
approval process.

Consistent. The project is not at the shoreline, but
the Bay Trail is currently developed along the
proposed project frontage. The proposed project
would enhance the Richmond Bay Trail along the
project frontage. Therefore, the proposed project
would be consistent with this measure.

TL5.7. BAAQMD, Metropolitan Transportation
Commission, other regional partners and large
employers: improve Richmond Circular Shuttle
services linking BART and Amtrak stations to
Consistent. This is a regional coordination measure
that cannot be implemented by a project applicant.
662
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 139
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx CAP Component Consistency
commuter destinations, and extend service to the
planned ferry terminal and other nearby transit hubs.

Seek funding through BAAQMD Shuttle and
Rideshare program.

SW4.3. Require new development projects to provide
a construction plan prior to permit approval that
demonstrates how activities will reduce waste to
achieve the required diversion rate. Require disposal
receipts during the building permit process to
confirm proper recycling and disposal, and prevent
illegal dumping.

Consistent. Although this is a measure related to the
City’s approval process, the proposed project would
not conflict with implementation of this measure.

The proposed project would be consistent with this
measure by complying with all requirements during
the permitting process.

WA3.1. Ensure all new buildings and renovations
comply with CALGreen Green Building Standards
Code water efficiency and conservation measures.

Consistent. This is a measure related to local
enforcement of State regulations; however, the
proposed project would achieve consistency through
compliance with existing regulations. The proposed
project would implement required green building
strategies through existing regulation that requires
the project to comply with various CALGreen
requirements.

WA3.2. Update the City’s Landscape Design and
Development Guidelines to require water efficient
landscaping in all development projects.

Consistent. The proposed project would be required
to comply with the latest adopted version of the
City’s water efficient landscape ordinance.

Furthermore, the proposed
project would include low
flow plumbing fixtures and irrigation heads, and
drought tolerant plantings in the bioretention basin.

Source of Measures: City of Richmond. 2016. Climate Action Plan. October.

As shown in Table 15, the proposed project would incorporate a number of GHG reduction features and would be consistent with the applicable goals and implementing actions identified by the City of Richmond CAP.

Senate Bill 32 2017 Scoping Plan Update
The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update addressing the SB 32 targets was adopted on December 14, 2017.
47 Error! Not a valid bookmark self-reference. provides an analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan Update measures. As shown in Table 16 many of the measures are not applicable to the proposed project, and the proposed project is consistent with strategies that are applicable.

Table 16: Consistency with SB 32 2017 Scoping Plan Update 2017 Scoping Plan Update Reduction Measure Project Consistency SB 350: 50 Percent Renewable Mandate. Utilities
subject to the legislation will be required to increase their renewable energy mix from 33 percent in 2020
to 50 percent in 2030.

Not applicable. This measure would apply to utilities
and not to individual development projects. The
proposed project would purchase electricity from
663
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

140 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx 2017 Scoping Plan Update Reduction Measure Project Consistency PG&E or MCE, which are subject to the SB 350
Renewable Mandate.

SB 350 Double Building Energy Efficiency by 2030.

This is equivalent to a 20 percent reduction from
2014 building energy usage compared to current
projected 2030 levels.

Not applicable. This measure applies to existing
buildings. New structures are required to comply with
Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards that are expected
to increase in stringency over time. The proposed
project would comply with the applicable Title 24
Energy Efficiency Standards in effect at the time
building permits are received.

Low Carbon Fuel Standard. This measure requires
fuel providers to meet an 18 percent reduction in
carbon content by 2030.

Not applicable. This is a Statewide measure that
cannot be implemented by a project applicant or lead
agency. However, vehicles accessing the proposed
residential buildings at the project site would benefit from the standards.

Mobile Source Strategy (Cleaner Technology and
Fuels Scenario). Vehicle manufacturers will be
required to meet existing regulations mandated by
the LEV III and Heavy-Duty Vehicle programs. The
strategy includes a goal of having 4.2 million Zero-
Emission Vehicles (ZEVs) on the road by 2030 and
increasing numbers of ZEV trucks and buses.

Not applicable. This measure is not applicable to the
project; however, vehicles accessing the project site
would benefit from the increased availability of
cleaner technology and fuels. Future visitors can be
expected to purchase increasing numbers of more
fuel-efficient and zero-emission cars and trucks each
year.

Sustainable Freight Action Plan. The plan’s target is
to improve freight system efficiency 25 percent by
increasing the value of goods and services produced
from the freight sector, relative to the amount of
carbon that it produces by 2030. This would be
achieved by deploying over 100,000 freight vehicles
and equipment capable of zero-emission operation
and maximize near-zero-emission freight vehicles and
equipment powered by renewable energy by 2030.

Not applicable. This measure applies to owners and
operators of trucks and freight operations. The
proposed project would develop multi-family
residences, and would not support heavy-duty truck
and freight operations. It is expected that deliveries
throughout the State would be made with an
increasing number of ZEV delivery trucks, including
deliveries that would be made to the project site.

Short-lived Climate Pollutant (SLCP) Reduction
Strategy. The strategy requires the reduction of SLCPs
by 40 percent from 2013 levels by 2030 and the
reduction of black carbon by 50 percent from 2013
levels by 2030.

Consistent. Consistent with BAAQMD Regulation 6,
Rule 3, no wood-burning devices are proposed as part
of the project. Therefore, the proposed project would
not include major sources of black carbon.

SB 375 Sustainable Communities Strategies. Requires
Regional Transportation Plans to include a Sustainable
Communities Strategy for reduction of per capita
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT).

Consistent. The applicable SCS prioritizes
development in infill and previously developed areas
like the project site.

Post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program. The Post 2020
Cap-and-Trade Program continues the existing
program for another 10 years. The Cap-and-Trade
Not applicable. The proposed project is not one
targeted by the cap-and-trade system regulations,
and, therefore, this measure does not apply to the
project. However, the post-2020 Cap-and-Trade
664
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 141
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx 2017 Scoping Plan Update Reduction Measure Project Consistency Program applies to large industrial sources such as
power plants, refineries, and cement manufacturers.

Program indirectly affects people and entities who
use the products and services produced by the
regulated industrial sources when increased cost of
products or services (such as electricity and fuel) are transferred to the consumers.

Natural and Working Lands Action Plan. The ARB is
working in coordination with several other agencies
at the federal, State, and local levels, stakeholders,
and with the public, to develop measures as outlined
in the Scoping Plan Update and the governor’s
Executive Order B-30-15 to reduce GHG emissions
and to cultivate net carbon sequestration potential
for California’s natural and working land.

Not applicable. The proposed project is a residential
development in a built-up urban area and would not
be considered natural or working lands.

Source: California Air Resource Board (ARB). 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. November.

As shown in Table 16, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with the reduction measures proposed in SB 32.

Summary
As addressed above, the proposed project would comply with existing State energy standards and with energy conservation policies contained in the City of Richmond’s CAP . As such, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct an applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to consistency with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted with the purpose of reducing GHG emissions beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

MM 3.6-1c Require all new City-owned and operated facilities and 50 percent of all new development to generate at least 10 percent of their energy use from renewable sources. Enhances General Plan Action EC3.B. Measures to reduce emissions can include but are not limited to:
665
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

142 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx • Install energy efficient appliances, including air conditioning and heating units, dishwashers, water heaters, etc.;
• Install solar water heaters;
• Install top quality windows and insulation;
• Install energy efficient lighting;
• Optimize conditions for natural heating, cooling and lighting by building siting and orientation;
• Use features that incorporate natural ventilation;
• Install light-colored "cool" pavements, and strategically located shade trees along all bicycle and pedestrian routes;
• Incorporate skylights, reflective surfaces, and natural shading in buildings design and layouts;
• Replace inefficient air conditioning and heating units with new energy efficient models;
• Replace older, inefficient appliances with new energy efficient models; • Replace old windows and insulation with top quality windows and insulation; • Replace inefficient and incandescent lighting with energy efficient lighting; and • Weatherize existing buildings to increase energy efficiency.

MM 3.6-1k Require mixed-use development along transit-oriented corridors that attracts people and facilitates activity throughout the day. Prohibit isolated or gated communities in order to improve physical connectivity throughout the City, and remove barriers in existing gated areas. Maintain streets to ensure that neighborhoods and streets are safe and well used. Enhances General Plan Policy EC4.2 and Actions EC2.C, EC2.E, EC2.G, EC4.A, EC4.B, EC4.C and EC4.E
MM 3.6-1m All new street lighting and all remodeled or replaced street lighting shall consist of high-efficiency lamps that reduce energy consumption by a minimum of 16 percent.

MM 3.6-1n All new traffic lights and all replaced traffic lights shall consist of LED lights.

MM 3.6-1o Require new development to incorporate water-saving measures demonstrating a minimum reduction of 20 percent in water use over a similar project completed within the previous five years [of the adoption of the General Plan]. This measure enhances General Plan Action EC3.F. This measure would be enhanced by General Plan Action EC3.G.

Conclusion
The conclusions from the General Plan EIR regarding GHG and energy impacts remain unchanged. 666
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 143
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx The proposed project is consistent with the development evaluated in the General Plan and the analysis in the certified General Plan EIR and would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of any previously identified impacts as compared to what was already identified and disclosed, either individually or cumulatively related to GHG.

Further environmental analysis is not required because:
• No peculiar impacts have been identified as a result of the proposed project or its site.

667
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

144 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Environmental Issues
CEQA Section 15168 Criteria
Prior General
Plan EIR
Determination
Effect
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-site,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More Severe
Adverse
Impact?

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
d) Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard or excessive
noise for people residing or working in the
project area?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
incorporated
No No No No
g) Expose people or structures, either directly
or indirectly to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No

a) Routine Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials Would the project: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
668
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 145
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that trucking on highways and rail transport are the most common methods of transporting hazardous substances and hazardous waste in and around the City. I-80 and I-580 as well as major arterials such as Richmond Parkway and Cutting Boulevard are primary transportation facilities on which hazardous materials and wastes may legally be transported.

Numerous federal, State, and local laws and regulations have been enacted to regulate the management of hazardous materials. It was concluded that hazardous materials impacts are considered significant if the proposed project would create a significant hazard to the public or environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Potential risks associated with hazardous materials handling and storage would generally be limited to the immediate area where the materials would be located. However, the General Plan EIR determined that compliance with existing State and local regulations would minimize such risks. General Plan Policy CN 6.1 encourages the cleanup and reuse of contaminated sites to protect environmental health. As a result, the General Plan would have a less than significant impact with respect to use, storage, handling, and disposal of hazardous materials.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
The proposed project’s residential use was anticipated in the General Plan and would not result in the transport, use, or disposal of significant hazardous materials in amounts greater than what was analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts related to the transport, use, and storage of hazardous materials beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. b) Risk of Upset
Would the project: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that future development would include commercial, light industrial, and general industrial uses that could potentially expose workers or residents to hazardous materials due to an accidental release. However, the General Plan identifies policies designed to reduce the potential for accidental hazardous materials release. Compliance with these policies, in combination with federal, State, and local laws, would reduce the impact of the accidental release of hazardous material to a less than significant level.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
Because of the nature of the proposed project, the presence of large quantities of hazardous substances would not be expected on the property during project operation. Therefore, the development of the proposed project would be consistent with goals, plans, and policies within the General Plan, and would not result in any new or more severe impacts related to the accidental release of hazardous materials beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. 669
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

146 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx c) Exposure of Schools to Hazardous Materials or Emissions Would the project: Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that compliance with federal, State, and General Plan Policies would minimize potential adverse effects from handling hazardous materials and impacts would be less than significant.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
The school nearest the project site is Washington Elementary School, located approximately 0.71 mile to the north. John Henry High School, Richmond Charter Academy, and Benito Juarez Elementary school are all approximately 1.17 miles east of the project site. As previously discussed, due to the nature of the proposed project, the presence of large quantities of hazardous substances would not be expected on the property during project operation. Furthermore, because the project site is located greater than 0.25 mile from the nearest school, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard to schools in the project area with respect to hazardous emissions or the handling of hazardous materials, substances, or waste. For these reasons the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to schools beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. No additional analysis is required.
d) Hazardous Materials Sites
Would the project: Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? The General Plan EIR determined that redevelopment of vacant or previously developed lots could expose neighboring properties and residents to hazardous materials resulting from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUSTs) and other hazardous materials sites identified on the State’s Cortese list. However, the General Plan EIR concluded that remediation efforts would be conducted using standards developed by regulatory agencies, such as the RWQCB and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). Mandatory compliance with applicable regulations governing the investigation and remediation of the contaminated sites would ensure that future development in accordance with the General Plan would ensure that such development would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment and the impact would be less than significant. It also notes that implementation of General Plan Policy CN6.1 and associated IM CN6.A and IM CN6.B would reinforce remediation of contaminated sites in accordance with applicable regulations and coordination with local, State, and federal agencies overseeing site remediation and reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
A Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment prepared by Cornerstone Earth Group for Brickyard Cove Road Property (Appendix F) identified the following Recognized Environmental Concerns (REC):
670
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 147
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx • A railroad track spur formerly traversed the smaller site parcel that fronts Brickyard Cove Road. Assorted chemicals historically may have been used for dust suppression and weed control along the rail lines, and residual concentrations may remain in site soil. • The former PG&E Point Richmond Gas Holder parcel (APN 560-340-039) currently is listed a closed case on the RWQCB CPS database. This is a Controlled REC, because it has already been addressed by a regulatory agency. Although residual containment concentrations remain in the soil at the parcel, a significant volume of soil will be imported to accommodate the planned development. Imported soil will provide a significant buffer between the residences and residual subsurface contamination, and there should be no complete exposure pathway from subsurface contamination to a human or environmental receptor.

Soil and groundwater quality studies were conducted at the site during the 1990s by PG&E Technical and Ecological Services (TES) (1991 and 1998). Total extractable petroleum hydrocarbons (EPH) in the diesel and motor oil range were identified in soil; lead and mercury were also identified above background soil levels. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were detected in one soil sample at 1 milligram per kilogram (mg/kg) at location B35 collected from an approximate depth of 3.5 to 4 feet.

Shallow groundwater did not contain detectable concentrations of contaminants of concern (total petroleum hydrocarbons [TPH], benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene [BTEX] and dissolved lead) except for naphthalene.

A Remedial Action Plan (RAP)) subsequently was prepared and approved by RWQCB in a letter dated August 4, 1999. The RAP outlined a proposal to excavate soil impacted with petroleum hydrocarbons exceeding established cleanup goals. Soil cleanup levels were established only for TEPH (1,000 mg/kg in upper 3 feet and 20,000 mg/kg in soil deeper than 3 feet BGS). A total of 136 cubic yards of soil exceeding these levels was removed from three areas of the site.

The RWQCB issued a No Further Action (NFA) letter for the property dated January 31, 2002.

Subsequent to the RWQCB NFA, regulatory changes have resulted in current screening levels that are more stringent than those considered during prior remedial activities:
• Diesel and motor oil soil concentrations are less than the Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs, RWQCB as updated in 2019) for the construction worker and commercial worker. While most diesel concentrations are less than the residential ESL (260 mg/kg), residual diesel concentrations in a few samples outside the excavation areas exceed it. • Lead concentrations in soil are less than the commercial worker ESL of 320 mg/kg, except for one sample at 6 feet BGS at 2,400 mg/kg. A few shallow (less than 3 feet BGS) samples exceed the construction worker ESL of 160 mg/kg. However, the 95 percent Upper Confidence Limit (UCL) on the mean (the value typically used to assess exposure) of the residual lead concentrations is 59 mg/kg, if the 6 feet BGS sample is excluded. • The maximum detected soil concentration of mercury is less than the residential ESL. 671
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

148 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx • ERM concluded that risk to construction workers and current neighbors could be mitigated if soils with elevated concentrations of lead and diesel are managed appropriately during construction activities.

Because regulatory screening and cleanup levels have become more stringent since completion of the prior remedial action, and to comply with the established April 2020 land use restrictions (Covenant to Restrict Use of Property, Environmental Restriction), Brickyard Cove requested in September 2021 that the RWQCB evaluate available information for the site, to determine whether it is suitable for the planned new use as a residential development without further action to address residual contamination. The proposed development includes three-story townhomes with first-floor garages and living spaces on the second and third floors. A significant volume of soil, approximately 68,100 cubic yards, will be imported to accommodate the planned development.

The RWQCB issued an NFA letter for APN 560-340-039, dated January 25, 2022, stating that no further action related to the pollutant release is required. A Covenant to Restrict Use of Property, Environmental Restriction was established for APN 560-340-039 and remains in effect.

Conclusion
Remediation measures have been implemented pursuant to oversight by the RWQCB and no mitigation measures are required. There would be no new of substantially more severe adverse impacts beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. e) Airports
Would the project: For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR concluded that there are no airports within the City. Aircraft using the Oakland Airport and the San Francisco International Airport fly over the City, however the City is located outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise impact area. As such, the project site is not located within any applicable Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP).

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
The project site is located over 15 miles south of San Rafael Airport, approximately 24 miles north from Oakland International Airport, and approximately 32 miles northeast from San Francisco International Airport. Because the project site is located greater than 2 miles from the nearest airport, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area with respect to conflicts with applicable ALUPs. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts related to public airports or private airstrips beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. 672
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 149
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx f) Emergency Response and Evacuation
Would the project: Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that future development would impact emergency response routes due to increased traffic congestion. However, the General Plan EIR noted that implementation of General Plan Policies and Actions would ensure emergency vehicle access would be accommodated.

It was acknowledged that roadway congestion may increase due to population and job growth such that travel speeds may drop and impact emergency vehicle response. The General Plan EIR concluded that with implementation of General Plan Policies and Actions and adopted Final General Plan MM 3.14-6, impacts to emergency response would be reduced to less than significant.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
The project site would be required to comply with General Plan EIR Policy SN3.1, Emergency and Disaster Preparedness, which requires all projects to comply with the City’s Disaster Preparedness and Recovery Plan. Project construction would adhere to a construction traffic plan that would be reviewed by the City to ensure that it does not conflict with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. The project, during construction and operation, would not alter any evacuation routes and would not impair their use. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to emergency response or evacuation plans beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
g) Wildland Fires
Would the project: Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?

Summary of the General Plan EIR
The community should consider adopting wildfire development guidelines for development adjacent to fire prone areas. The General Plan EIR found that the change areas can be characterized as urban and would not substantially alter the interface between development and undeveloped areas such that the increase for wildland fire would increase.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
The project site is not located in a wildfire zone or high risk fire zone according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE).48 Therefore, the risk of loss of property or life as a result of wildland or other similar fire hazards would not be expected to occur, and the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to wildfire beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

48 State of California, Office of the State Fire Marshal. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/community-wildfire-preparedness-and- mitigation/fhsz/fire-hazard-severity-zones-map/. Accessed December 6, 2022. 673
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

150 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project MM 3.14-6 The City will continue to support coordination among its departments and other agencies in planning for emergency access and response routes and will periodically review and as appropriate update its emergency access and response route planning.

Conclusion
The conclusions from the General Plan EIR regarding hazards and hazardous materials remain unchanged.

Further environmental analysis is not required because:
• No peculiar impacts have been identified as a result of the proposed project or its site.

674
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 151
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Environmental Issues
CEQA Section 15168 Criteria
Prior General
Plan EIR
Determination
Effect
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-site,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More Severe
Adverse
Impact?

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or
groundwater quality?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the project
may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
(i) result in substantial erosion or siltation
on- or off-site;
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
(ii) substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or
off-site;
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
(iii) create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems
or provide substantial additional sources
of polluted runoff; or
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
(iv) impede or redirect flood flows? Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No

a) Water Quality
Would the project: Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality? 675
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

152 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that a combination of point and non-point source polluters impact surface water quality in the City. New development anticipated by General Plan buildout would result in greater non-point sources (such as oils, landscaping chemicals, exhaust from cars, and sediments) of stormwater pollution that could degrade water quality. However, the General Plan EIR concluded that implementation of General Plan Policies and biannual evaluation of water quality pursuant to Clean Water Act Section 305(b) would ensure impacts to water quality standards would be less than significant and projects developed within the General Plan would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The relevant waste discharge requirements are listed on page 54 of the General Plan EIR: the Municipal NPDES Permit or Regional Municipal Stormwater Permit, as applicable, the revised Construction General Permit, Industrial General Permit, and Recycled Water General Permit and the Richmond Municipal Sewer District, West County Wastewater District, EBMUD, and Stege Sanitary District individual NPDES Permits.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
The proposed project would be required to prepare and comply with a Stormwater Control Plan, as outlined within City Municipal Code Chapter 12.22, which requires new development to minimize increases in non-point source pollution in stormwater and implement a SWPPP to prevent erosion during construction. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts related to water quality standard violations and degradation beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
b) Groundwater
Would the project: Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that General Plan buildout could increase the amount of impervious surfaces and reduce groundwater recharge by limiting the area where precipitation could infiltrate. Furthermore, increased growth and development could also increase the amount of water used for potable water supplies and irrigation. As the City obtains its water supplies from the EBMUD, which obtains water from the Mokelumne River, no new groundwater wells are planned with General Plan buildout. Therefore, increased growth is not expected to result in increased groundwater use or lowering of groundwater tables. The General Plan EIR concluded that General Plan Policies and Actions would further reduce the potential for impacts on reduced groundwater recharge. As a result, the General Plan EIR determined that the City would not need to expand its water supply source and impacts would be less than significant.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
The proposed project would not include groundwater wells and would include a new water line connection to the existing potable water line located within Brickyard Cove Road. Additionally, the project landscaping would include native and adapted low-water use plants, which would further 676
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 153
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx reduce potable water consumption. Therefore, the effects of the proposed project were anticipated in the General Plan EIR and there are no project-specific effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to groundwater supplies beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
c) Drainage
Would the project: Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that construction and development anticipated under buildout would alter drainage patterns and expose soils to wind and water erosion.49 The General Plan EIR identified policies and actions that would reduce impacts on erosion, such as implementing construction BMPs, natural topography protection, and requiring that stormwater facilities are maintained. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that impacts related to drainage pattern alteration resulting in erosion or sedimentation would be less than significant, with implementation of General Plan Policies and Actions.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
The proposed project would be required to implement erosion and sedimentation control measures, such as a SWPPP , during construction and operation. Additionally, hardscaping around the buildings that would be constructed would utilize pervious paving to reduce the amount of runoff, and groundcover vegetation would prevent additional erosion and siltation. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts related to drainage pattern alteration with respect to erosion and sedimentation beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
(ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that increased impervious surfaces, insufficient flood flow capacity in restored/daylighted creeks, changes in slope, and more efficient routing of stormwater runoff could all increase the rate and amount of stormwater runoff with General Plan buildout.

Furthermore, if the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit is adopted, the General Plan EIR noted that it would only limit increased stormwater runoff when discharge is to a drainage feature

49 This discussion summarizes General Plan EIR Impacts 3.9-3 and 3.9-4 (pages 55–56). This is because this Consistency Checklist is based on the current Environmental Checklist contained in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, while the Draft General Plan EIR was organized to reflect an older version of the Environmental Checklist, and the Draft General Plan EIR did not strictly conform to that Checklist. The questions in the current Environmental Checklist vary and do not correspond directly to the earlier questions. 677
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

154 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx susceptible to erosion. Implementation of General Plan Policies and Actions would reduce impacts to flooding by requiring new development to provide sufficient stormwater facilities, the Capital Improvement Program to provide socially equitable infrastructure upgrades, and adequate maintenance of facilities. Therefore, the General Plan EIR concluded that impacts related to drainage pattern alteration resulting in downstream flooding would be less than significant with implementation of General Plan Policies.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
The proposed project would be required to implement design standards and a Stormwater Control Plan, which includes a SWPPP , that would reduce stormwater generation during construction to the maximum extent practicable. Consistent with General Plan Policies, the proposed project would include stormwater drainage collection and a bioretention basin on the project site that would detain and meter stormwater such that the proposed project would not generate stormwater volumes or rates greater than existing conditions. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts related to drainage pattern alteration with respect to flooding beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. (iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR identified that the capacity of several storm drains and creeks could be exceeded, and existing flooding issues could be exacerbated. In addition, the General Plan EIR determined that development under buildout conditions could lead to increased pollutant loads in stormwater flows. The General Plan EIR determined that implementation of General Plan Policies and Actions would reduce impacts to flooding and polluted runoff by requiring new development provide sufficient stormwater facilities and promoting sustainable infrastructure design that incorporates integrated watershed management techniques to prevent pollutants and non-point source runoff. Therefore, the General Plan EIR concluded that impacts related to exceedance of existing and planned stormwater capacity and additional sources of polluted runoff would be less than significant with implementation of General Plan Policies and Actions.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
The proposed project would be required to comply with the Municipal Code, which includes implementation of a Stormwater Control Plan including a SWPPP and the use of BMPs, which would further prevent pollutants from entering the stormwater drainage system. Compliance with General Plan Policies would reduce stormwater generation and the addition of additional sources of polluted runoff during construction and operation to the maximum extent practicable. As a result, the proposed project would not result in additional stormwater release that was not anticipated in the General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to stormwater drainage capacity or polluted stormwater runoff beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
678
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 155
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx (iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that construction and development have the potential to substantially alter drainage patterns by changing the land cover, land slope, drainage pathways, and susceptibility of materials to erosive forces. It was also noted that development on steep slopes would increase the potential for erosion because bare surfaces on steep slopes are more susceptible to erosion and cut and fill activities could lead to unstable slopes and enhanced erosion potential.

Increased impervious surfaces associated with development could also increase the rate and amount of stormwater runoff, further exacerbating the potential for creek bed and bank erosion. The General Plan EIR determined that implementation of General Plan Policies and Actions would reduce impacts that may impede or redirect flood flows. Therefore, the General Plan EIR concluded that impacts related to flood flows would be less than significant with implementation of General Plan Policies and Actions.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
Extensive landscaping is proposed for the site, which would reduce the potential to redirect flood flows at the project site by preventing additional erosion and siltation. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to redirecting flood flows beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
d) Risk of Pollutant Release Due to Inundation
Would the project: In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR identified areas within the City that are located in a 100-year flood hazard zone. The General Plan EIR determined that buildout of the General Plan would expose people, structures, and residences to risks from 100-year flood hazards. Additionally, the General Plan EIR determined that the City is located within the dam failure inundation area of the San Pablo Reservoir Dam, but the EBMUD completed a seismic upgrade in 2010 that would reduce risk of dam failure.

The General Plan EIR concluded that western portions of the City near the coastline would be subject to inundation by tsunami. However, implementation of General Plan Policies and Actions would minimize the risk to people, property, and the environment from a tsunami, seiche, or flood hazard. Therefore, impacts to a tsunami, seiche, or flood hazard would be less than significant with implementation of policies and actions contained in the General Plan.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
The project site, and the City as a whole, are located within a dam failure inundation zone. As noted above, a seismic upgrade was performed on the San Pablo Reservoir Dam to reduce dam failure risks. The project site is located in Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Zone X—” Area of Minimal Flood Hazard.” The project does not propose development within any existing 100-year flood hazard areas. This condition precludes the potential for new impacts associated with 100-year flood hazards. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts 679
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

156 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx related to flooding due to a tsunami, seiche, or flood hazards beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
e) Water Quality Control or Sustainable Groundwater Management Plans Consistency Would the project: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
This question was not addressed in the General Plan EIR because sustainable groundwater planning was not regulated in California until passage of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SB 1168) in 2015, after the certification of the General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR determined that cumulative growth and development within Contra Costa County would be subject to the Construction General Permit, Municipal NPDES Permit (or Regional NPDES Permit, if adopted), Industrial General Permit (for regulated industries), and Recycled Water General Permit. These waste discharge requirements have been designed to be protective of water quality–both surface water and groundwater. Compliance with these permits, including the hydrograph modification standard, would reduce the potential for erosion and siltation, transport of pollutants in stormwater runoff to receiving waters, and ensure that the use of recycled water for landscaping does not present additional environmental risk. Compliance with these permits would ensure protection of surface water and groundwater quality through implementation of BMPs, pollutant source reductions, and operations and management practices. Relevant water quality standards, with which development would be required to comply through the RWQCB, are listed in the Basin Plan. As a result, upon compliance with the existing regulatory mechanisms, potential impacts related to water quality control or sustainable groundwater management plans would be reduced to less than significant.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
The proposed project would be subject to the Construction General Permit, Municipal NPDES Permit, and Recycled Water General Permit. The proposed project would ensure that adequate drainage would be provided through the existing water and sanitary sewer lines as well as the bioretention treatment areas. As previously mentioned, the proposed project would be required to comply with the Municipal Code, which includes implementation of a Stormwater Control Plan, including a SWPPP and the use of BMPs, which would further prevent pollutants from entering the stormwater drainage system. Additionally, with adherence to General Plan Policies for the City and from Contra Costa County, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to water quality plans or sustainable groundwater management plans beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project None.

Conclusion
The conclusions from the General Plan EIR regarding hydrology remain unchanged. 680
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 157
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx The proposed project is consistent with the development evaluated in the General Plan and the analysis in the certified General Plan EIR and would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of any previously identified impacts as compared to what was already identified and disclosed, either individually or cumulatively related to hydrology.

Further environmental analysis is not required because:
• No peculiar impacts have been identified as a result of the proposed project or its site.

Implementation uniformly applied General Plan policies and standards along with regulations of the City of Richmond and County of Contra Costa and incorporation of identified project design features ensure impacts are below the level of significance. • There are no potentially significant impacts that were not analyzed as significant in the certified General Plan EIR. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts that were not discussed by the Certified General Plan EIR. • No substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the certified General Plan EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. • No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the certified General Plan EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
• There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the certified General Plan EIR was certified as complete.

681
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

158 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Environmental Issues
CEQA Section 15168 Criteria
Prior General
Plan EIR
Determination
Effect
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-site,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More Severe
Adverse
Impact?

4.11 Land Use and Planning
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
community?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
b) Cause a significant environmental impact
due to a conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
None
identified
No No No No

a) Division of an Established Community
Would the project: Physically divide an established community? Summary of the General Plan EIR
The types of barriers or physical features that can divide a community include roads, freeways, railroads, transit lines, and open space that is not developed for recreational use. Roads can both connect or divide communities: entire sections of the City are physically connected to the rest of the City by little more than a roadway, while other sections are disconnected from the rest of the City by roadways. The General Plan EIR concluded that the General Plan would be developed to include policies to restore its traditional compact neighborhoods: mixed-use, walkable, transit-oriented communities that allow residents to comfortably access nearby schools, parks, and community facilities and improve the connectivity of neighborhoods. In addition, the General Plan incorporates a place-based land use approach and place-based system for streets and trails. Additionally, the General Plan’s place-based system tailors streets to priority modes of travel that complement the surrounding land use, street function, and desired neighborhood character. The approach also works with the system of parks and other General Plan elements to promote high-quality street and park design to influence the overall character and connectivity of public and private spaces throughout the City. This discussion is found on pages 3.1-6 through 3.1-7 of the Draft General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR concluded that the General Plan has been designed as a cohesive plan to improve accessibility for all residents in existing and future neighborhoods. Consequently, the General Plan would not physically divide an existing established community, and impacts would be less than significant.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
The project site is currently developed, and redevelopment would not divide an established community. With the approval of the project’s zone change, the proposed project would be consistent with the corresponding standards for development outlined in the General Plan and the 682
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 159
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Zoning Ordinance. As a result, the proposed project would not have any significant effects that either have not already been analyzed in the General Plan EIR or that are more significant than previously analyzed, or that uniformly applicable development policies would not substantially mitigate.

Therefore, no further environmental analysis is required. b) Conflict with Applicable Land Use Plans, Policies, or Regulations Would the project: Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

Summary of the General Plan EIR
The City’s Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 15.04 of the City’s Municipal Code, is one of the primary means of implementing the General Plan. Adoption of the General Plan required updating the Zoning Ordinance to be consistent with policies pertaining to land use, density/intensity of development, design and development, resource conservation, public safety, and other pertinent topics. After the General Plan was adopted, the City updated the Zoning Ordinance to be consistent with the Plan. The General Plan included new land use designations that are reflected in the revised Zoning Ordinance. The General Plan EIR concluded that the General Plan would not conflict with plans or policies that are designed to reduce environmental effects.

The General Plan allows development along the Bay and its shoreline, but also contains policies to protect the Bay. Furthermore, any substantive land use changes for the General Plan would be focused in the change areas, and public access to the Bay would not be limited and may be enhanced through implementation of the Plan. The General Plan EIR concluded that while the General Plan is intended to increase the mixed-use character in the urban core of the City, depending on the specific location of certain uses that could be developed under the General Plan, potential incompatibilities could occur. To the extent that there are specific incompatibilities associated with noise, odor, light, or traffic, these concerns are addressed in the appropriate technical sections of the General Plan EIR. However, based on the analysis of the General Plan, the General Plan EIR concluded that implementation of the development strategy to integrate uses within core areas within the City would not result in substantial land use incompatibilities, and impacts would be less than significant.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
The conclusions from the Draft General Plan EIR regarding land use and planning remain unchanged.

General Plan EIR General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project None.

Conclusion
The conclusions from the General Plan EIR regarding land use and planning remain unchanged. 683
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

160 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx The proposed project is consistent with the development evaluated in the General Plan and the analysis in the certified General Plan EIR and would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of any previously identified impacts as compared to what was already identified and disclosed, either individually or cumulatively, related to land use and planning.

Further environmental analysis is not required because:
• No peculiar impacts have been identified as a result of the proposed project or its site.

684
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 161
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Environmental Issues
CEQA Section 15168 Criteria
Prior General
Plan EIR
Determination
Effect
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-site,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More Severe
Adverse
Impact?

4.12 Mineral Resources
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the State?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No

a, b) Loss of Minerals Resources of Statewide or Local Importance Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that there are three areas of land in the City that classify as Mineral Resource Zone-2 (MRZ-2), which indicates the existence of a deposit that meets certain criteria for value and marketability.61 The State has also designated these areas as regionally significant sectors. Sector W-1 is located on the north end of the San Pablo-Potrero Hills Ridge.

Sector W-2 is located to the south of Sector W-1 on the San Pablo-Potrero Hills Ridge, and Sector W- 3 is located on the eastern slope on the San Pablo-Potrero Hills Ridge. With adherence to Sections 2762 and 2763 of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) and General Plan mineral resource management policies, impacts related to the loss of mineral resources and locally important mineral resource recovery sites would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
The proposed project is not located near any of the three sectors delineated in the General Plan EIR that classify as MRZ-2. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region, and it would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site.

General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
None.
685
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

162 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Conclusion
The conclusions from the General Plan EIR regarding mineral resources remain unchanged.

686
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 163
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Environmental Issues
CEQA Section 15168 Criteria
Prior General
Plan EIR
Determination
Effect
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-site,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More Severe
Adverse
Impact?

4.13 Noise
Would the project:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
incorporated
No No No No
b) Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
incorporated
No No No No
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
incorporated
No No No No

Characteristics of Noise
Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Sound levels are usually measured and expressed in decibels (dB), with 0 dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of hearing. Most of the sounds that we hear in the environment do not consist of a single frequency, but rather a broad band of frequencies, with each frequency differing in sound level. The intensities of each frequency add together to generate a sound. Noise is typically generated by transportation, specific land uses, and ongoing human activity.

The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the dB. The 0 point on the dB scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Changes of 3 dB or less are only perceptible in laboratory environments. A change of 3 dB is the lowest change that can be perceptible to the human ear in outdoor environments. While a change of 5 dBA is considered to be the minimum readily perceptible change to the human ear in outdoor environments.

Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, the A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) was derived to relate noise to the sensitivity of humans, it gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. The A-weighted sound level is the basis for a number of various sound level metrics, including the day/night sound level (Ldn) and the 687
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

164 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx CNEL, both of which represent how humans are more sensitive to sound at night. In addition, the equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) is the average sound energy of time-varying noise over a sample period and Lmax is the maximum instantaneous noise level occurring over a sample period. a) Noise Levels in Excess of Adopted Standards
Would the project result in: Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that implementation of General Plan Policies (SN4.1) and Actions (SN4.B, SN4.C, and SN4.E), as documented on page 3.10-22 of the certified General Plan EIR, which emphasize the need to mitigate construction noise on a site-specific and project-specific basis, would reduce impacts related to construction noise. The General Plan EIR determined that noise generated by construction activities under the General Plan could exceed allowable noise levels despite compliance with the time and duration restrictions of the City’s Municipal Code, but that with implementation of adopted General Plan EIR MM 3.10-1 which requires future development to incorporate project-specific mitigation measures to reduce the impact of construction noise, the potential impact associated with construction noise would be mitigated to less than significant.

The General Plan EIR determined that implementation of General Plan Policies (SN4.1 and SN4.2) and Actions (SN4.A, SN4.B, and SN4.C), which require design considerations and measures to be incorporated into new development, would restrict operational stationary source noise levels such that existing noise levels would be maintained. The General Plan EIR concluded that with the implementation of revised MM 3.10-3 the potential noise effects from nearby rail operations would be reduced to less than significant.

The General Plan EIR determined that implementation of General Plan Policies (SN4.1, SN4.2, and SN4.3) and Actions (SN4.B and SN4.C) and MM 3.10-5 would reduce impacts related to operational/mobile source noise to less than significant.

The General Plan EIR did not evaluate impacts at the project level. Therefore, the following analysis provides an evaluation of potential project-level impacts with respect to noise exposure.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
Short-term Construction Impacts
Construction-related Traffic Noise
The transport of workers and construction equipment and materials to the project site would incrementally increase noise levels on access roads leading to the site. Because workers and construction equipment would use existing routes, noise from passing trucks would be similar to existing vehicle-generated noise on these local roadways. Proposed project-related construction trips would not be expected to double the hourly traffic volumes along any roadway segment in the project vicinity. For this reason, short-term intermittent noise from construction trips would be 688
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 165
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx minor when averaged over an hour or longer time-period and would not result in a perceptible increase in hourly or daily average traffic noise levels in the project vicinity, and the impact would be less than significant.

Therefore, the effects of the proposed project were anticipated in the General Plan EIR and there are no project-specific effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project would not result in any new or more severe impacts related to short-term construction-related noise impacts associated with the transportation of workers and equipment to the project site beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

Construction Equipment Operational Noise
The closest noise-sensitive receptors to the project site are residential land uses located east of the site on Flagship Place. The closest residences would be located approximately 50 feet from the nearest acoustic center of the construction footprint where the heaviest construction equipment would be operating. At this distance, these residential land uses may be exposed to reasonable worst-case hourly average noise levels of 85 dBA L
max when the loudest piece of heavy construction
equipment operates at the nearest construction footprint to this residential receptor.

The closest sensitive receptors to the west of the project site would experience reasonable worst- case construction noise levels of 79 dBA Lmax when the loudest piece of heavy construction equipment operates at the nearest construction footprint. The noise calculation spreadsheet is provided in Appendix D. These calculated reasonable worst-case construction noise levels are below the City’s noise construction standard of 80 dBA Lmax, as identified in Section 9.52.110 of the Municipal Code.

Furthermore, the City also has applicable noise standards for construction noise contained in Section

15.04.605.060 of the Municipal Code. The requirements of this noise ordinance are as follows:

A. General construction noise shall be limited to weekdays from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Pile driving and similar loud activities shall be limited to weekdays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

General construction noise on projects repairing, renovating, or adding to residential structures with one to five dwelling units shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, Sundays and federal holidays. Pre-construction activities, including loading and unloading, cleaning of mechanical toilets, deliveries, truck idling, backup beeps, yelling, and radios also are limited to these construction noise hours.

1. No noise producing construction activities shall be permitted outside of these hours or on Sundays and federal holidays unless a temporary waiver is granted by the Building Official or his or her authorized representative.

2. More restrictive construction noise hours may be established as a conditional of approval of an administrative use permit or a conditional use permit when appropriate, given the surrounding neighborhood, the type of noise, or other unique factors.

3. Trucks, vehicles, and equipment that are making or are involved with material deliveries, loading, or transfer of materials, equipment service, maintenance of any devices or appurtenances for or within any construction project in the City shall not be operated or 689
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

166 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx driven on City streets outside of these hours or on Sundays and federal holidays unless a temporary waiver is granted by the Building Official.

4. Any waiver granted shall take the potential noise impacts upon the surrounding neighborhood and the larger community into consideration.

5. No construction or agricultural activity shall be permitted outside of these hours that creates construction noise, except in emergencies, including maintenance work on the City right-of-way that might be required.

B. Deliveries to or pickups from any commercial use sharing a lot line with any residential use may occur between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. daily. No deliveries to or pickups from any such use shall occur outside of these hours unless specifically authorized by a conditional use permit.

C. Maintenance of real property operations may exceed the noise standards between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on any day except Sundays and between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Sundays or a federal holiday.

As noted previously, the proposed project would be required to comply with MM 3.10-1 of the General Plan EIR, which requires development of a site-specific construction noise mitigation plan which must address high-noise construction activities and must address outdoor construction activities occurring outside normal weekday business hours. Therefore, implementation of the project-specific IM NOI-1, which includes site-specific noise reduction measures would ensure construction noise impacts would comply with MM 3.10-1 and potential construction noise impacts would be reduced to less than significant.

Therefore, the effects of the proposed project were anticipated in the General Plan EIR and there are no project-specific effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project would not result in any new or more severe impacts related to temporary construction operational noise impacts for the proposed project beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

Operational/Stationary Source Noise Impacts
Mechanical Equipment Noise
At the time of this analysis, details were not available pertaining to proposed rooftop mechanical ventilation systems for the project; therefore, a reference noise level for typical mechanical ventilation systems was used. Noise levels from typical residential mechanical ventilation equipment range from 50 dBA to 70 dBA L
eq at a distance of approximately 3 feet.

Proposed mechanical ventilation systems could be located as close as 35 feet from the nearest off- site sensitive receptor, the single-family residence located east of the project site on Flagship Place.

Therefore, noise generated by proposed mechanical ventilation equipment would attenuate to less than 49 dBA Leq at the nearest off-site residential receptor. Therefore, noise generated by mechanical ventilation equipment operation would not exceed the City’s noise performance standard of 65 dBA Lmax for 30 minutes within an hour as measured at the exterior of this multi-family residential development. Therefore, the effects of the proposed project were anticipated in the General Plan 690
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 167
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx EIR and there are no project-specific effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to mechanical equipment operation noise impacts beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

Operational/Mobile Source Noise Impacts
A significant impact would occur if implementation of the proposed project would result in a substantial increase in traffic noise levels compared with traffic noise levels existing without the project. Typically, a doubling of the average daily traffic (ADT) hourly volumes on a roadway segment is required in order to result in an increase of 3 dBA in traffic noise levels; which, as discussed in the characteristics of noise discussion above, is the lowest change that can be perceptible to the human ear in outdoor environments. Therefore, for purposes of this analysis, a doubling of the existing ADT volumes would result in a substantial permanent increase in traffic noise levels.

Based on the traffic analysis prepared for the project, the proposed project is expected to generate an average of 677 trips per day, including 45 trips during the AM peak-hour and 54 during the PM peak-hour. The documented existing traffic volumes on Brickyard Cove Road on the segment adjacent to the project site average approximately 1,200 trips per day, including 75 trips during the AM peak-hour and 116 during the PM peak-hour. Therefore, the project’s average daily and peak- hour trips would not result in a doubling of the average daily trips along Brickyard Cove Road or any other project access roadway segment in the project vicinity. Therefore, the increase in hourly average or daily traffic noise levels resulting from project operations would not be perceptible along any roadway segment in the project vicinity. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in traffic noise levels compared with traffic noise levels existing without the project.

The proposed project would not result in any project-specific effects and would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts related to short-term construction-related noise impacts, temporary construction operational noise impacts, mechanical equipment operation noise impacts, stationary operation noise impacts, or proposed project-related traffic noise levels beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
b) Groundborne Vibration
Would the project result in: Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that implementation of General Plan Policies (SN4.1, SN4.2, and SN4.3) and Actions (SN4.A, SN4.B, and SN4.C) and a revised MM 3.10-1 and 3.10-2 would reduce construction-related groundborne noise and vibration impacts to less than significant.

The General Plan EIR did not evaluate impacts at the project level, and noted that any project for which noise and vibration impacts are not reduced to a less than significant level requires appropriate environmental review and further feasible project-level mitigation. Therefore, the 691
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

168 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx following analysis provides an evaluation of potential project-level impacts with respect to groundborne vibration.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
Short-term Construction Vibration Impacts
The nearest off-site structure to the project site construction footprint is a single-family residence east of the project site on Flagship Place. Of the variety of equipment used during construction, the small vibratory rollers that are anticipated to be used in the site preparation phase of construction would produce the greatest groundborne vibration levels closest to sensitive receptors. Small vibratory rollers produce groundborne vibration levels ranging up to 0.101 inch per second (in/sec) peak particle velocity (PPV) at 25 feet from the operating equipment. The façade of the nearest off- site structure would be located approximately 30 feet from the nearest construction footprint where the heaviest construction equipment would potentially operate. At this distance, groundborne vibration levels would range up to 0.07 in/sec PPV from operation of the types of equipment that would produce the highest vibration levels.50 This is well below the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Construction Vibration Impact Criteria of 0.2 in/sec PPV for buildings of non-engineered timber and masonry construction. In addition, these noise levels would not exceed the 85 VdB threshold for human annoyance as measured inside this closest receiving sensitive land use.

Therefore, the effects of the proposed project were anticipated in the General Plan EIR and there are no project-specific effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project would not result in any new impacts related to short-term groundborne vibration associated with construction to off-site receptors beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

Operational Vibration Impacts
Implementation of the proposed project would not include any permanent sources of vibration that would expose persons in the project vicinity to groundborne vibration levels that could be perceptible without instruments at any existing sensitive land use in the vicinity of the project site.

Therefore, the effects of the proposed project were anticipated in the General Plan EIR and there are no project-specific effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project would not result in any new or more severe impacts related to short-term groundborne vibration or operational groundborne vibration beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. c) Airport or Private Airstrip Noise
Would the project result in: For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

50 This calculation is based on the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) recommended formula in their Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, dated September 2018. PPV = PPVref * (25/D)^1.5 (in/sec), where PPVref = reference measurement at 25 feet from vibration source, D = distance from equipment to property line. 692
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 169
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR identified the City is served by two airports, the San Francisco International Airport and Oakland International Airport, and stated that the City is located outside of the 65 dBA Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise impact areas of these airports.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
The nearest public airport to the project site is the San Rafael Airport, located approximately 11 miles northwest of the project site. As noted in the General Plan EIR, the City is located outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise impact area of this airport, therefore there would be no impact related to airport noise for the project. Therefore, the effects of the proposed project were anticipated in the General Plan EIR and there are no project-specific effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project would not result in any peculiar effects and would not result in new or more severe impacts related to airport noise beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project MM 3.10-1 Future projects shall incorporate project-specific mitigation measures to reduce the impact of construction noise.
a) As part of its discretionary approval and environmental review process for future projects, the City will require a noise and vibration construction activity minimization and mitigation plan for any multi-story development project located within a residential neighborhood, or located adjacent to a residence, school, or hospital or other sensitive receptor. The plan must address high-noise or vibration construction activities such as pile driving, and must address outdoor construction activities occurring outside normal weekday business hours. The plan must also address construction-related noise and vibration from current and concurrently with project-related construction activities to address potential cumulative noise and vibration impacts. Excessive noise and vibration impacts from such construction-related activities (defined as noise and vibration impacts that would not occur from similar construction-related activities) shall be avoided or minimized to the extent feasible, and high-noise or vibration construction activities shall not occur during evenings or weekends adjacent to occupied residential units.
b) The City will compile and periodically update best management practices ("BMPs") for minimizing and mitigating noise and vibration impacts from construction activities, for use as appropriate in noise and vibration plans required under MM 3.10-1(a) above.
c) The City will consider and may adopt appropriate modifications to the Noise Ordinance to establish criteria for construction-related noise and vibration impacts during daytime weekday hours, and will consider and include feasible conditions in building, demolition and grading permits to avoid or minimize excessive noise and vibration from construction activities. 693
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

170 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx d) This mitigation measure does not eliminate or supersede any other applicable legal requirement, including but not limited to the Noise Ordinance included in the Municipal Code.

This plan shall outline the project’s required compliance with General Plan Action SN4.E which requires preparation of construction traffic plans that mitigate noise, traffic, and dust during construction. This plan shall also outline the project’s required compliance with Article

15.04.605.060 of the Municipal Code which limits general construction activities to weekdays from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and limits pile driving and similar loud equipment activity to weekdays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Project-Specific Adopted Mitigation Implementation Measures The following uniformly applied measure ensures compliance with the adopted General Plan EIR MM 3.10-1, described above, and is included as an implementation measure for the proposed project, and shall be implemented in compliance with the General Plan:

IM NOI-1 In compliance with adopted General Plan EIR MM 3.10-1, the following project- specific construction noise minimization and mitigation plan shall be implemented during all phases of construction where off-road construction equipment would be operating on the project site. In addition, all of the following measures shall be printed on the project construction documents prior to issuance of building permits. a) All equipment driven by internal combustion engines shall be equipped with mufflers, which are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. b) The construction contractor shall utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists. c) At all times during project grading and construction, stationary noise-generating equipment shall be located as far as practicable from sensitive receptors and placed so that emitted noise is directed away from residences. d) Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be prohibited. e) Construction staging areas shall be established at locations that will create the greatest distance between the construction-related noise sources and noise- sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction activities, to the extent feasible.
f) The required construction-related noise mitigation plan shall also specify that haul truck deliveries are subject to the same hours specified for construction equipment.
g) Neighbors located adjacent to the construction site shall be notified of the construction schedule in writing.
h) The construction contractor shall designate a “noise disturbance coordinator” who will be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator shall be responsible for determining the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, poor muffler, etc.) and instituting reasonable measures as warranted to correct the 694
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 171
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx problem. A telephone number for the disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site.
i) Noise-generating construction activities, including truck traffic coming to and from the construction site for any purpose, shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays. No noise-generating construction shall occur on weekends or City holidays.
j) No impact pile driving shall be permitted.

Implementation of this project-specific implementation measure would ensure that project-related construction noise impacts would be reduced to the extent technically and economically feasible and would be less than significant.

Conclusion
The conclusions from the General Plan EIR regarding noise impacts remain unchanged.

Further environmental analysis is not required because:
• No peculiar impacts have been identified as a result of the proposed project or its site.

695
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

172 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Environmental Issues
CEQA Section 15168 Criteria
Prior General
Plan EIR
Determination
Effect
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-site,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More Severe
Adverse
Impact?

4.14 Population and Housing
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
None
identified
No No No No
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
None
identified
No No No No

a) Growth Inducement
Would the project: Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR did not analyze Population and Housing as a separate resource area, however, population and job growth was discussed in the Section 3.2, Demographics, and throughout the General Plan EIR. It concluded that because of the goal to stimulate higher intensity development within the City, the City will capture a regional population growth of 13 percent. This would result in an increase in population of 30,147 over the next 20 years (Findings for Certification of the General Plan EIR, Page 17). It is also estimated that the General Plan would add approximately 15,548 housing units within the City. In approving the General Plan, the City Council found that implementation of the General Plan could result in physical impacts due to population growth; however, implementation of the adopted General Plan MM 3.2-1, which requires the City to track the development of new housing, and MM 3.2-2, which similarly tracks job growth to determine whether the City exceeds the development assumed by the General Plan, would ensure there would be a less than significant cumulative impact related to population growth by requiring the City to track addition of new jobs to ensure consistency with projected growth.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
The General Plan designates the project site for residential development and the project is within the density anticipated by the General Plan for the project site. The anticipated population growth resulting from the proposed project would be within General Plan EIR projections. Therefore, the 696
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 173
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx impact of population growth proposed by new housing would be within the impacts disclosed in the General Plan EIR and no project-specific mitigation is needed. b) Displacement of Persons or Housing
Would the project: Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR did not analyze Population and Housing as a separate resource area, and therefore, did not identify any impacts related to displacement of people or housing. However, the General Plan EIR discussed population growth throughout the document. It concluded that population is expected to increase by 30,147 with an additional 22,488 jobs over the next 20 years (Findings for Certification of the General Plan EIR, page 17). It is also estimated that the General Plan would add approximately 15,548 housing units within the City. These housing units would accommodate the projected increase in population.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
The proposed project would include construction of 94 dwelling units. The proposed project would provide housing for the growing population and would not displace any people or housing because the project site is currently vacant. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts related to displacement of substantial numbers of existing people or housing than what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

General Plan EIR Conclusion
The conclusions from the General Plan EIR regarding population and housing remain unchanged.

Further environmental analysis is not required because:
• No peculiar impacts have been identified as a result of the proposed project or its site.

174 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx • No substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the certified General Plan EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. • No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the certified General Plan EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
• There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the certified General Plan EIR was certified as complete.

698
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 175
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Environmental Issues
CEQA Section 15168 Criteria
Prior General Plan
EIR Determination
Effect
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-site,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More Severe
Adverse
Impact?

4.15 Public Services
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
b) Police protection? Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
c) Schools? Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
d) Parks? None identified No No No No
e) Other public facilities? Less than
significant
impact
No No No No

a) Fire Protection
Would the project: Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
According to the General Plan EIR, new development under the General Plan would not cause the Richmond Fire Department (RFD) to travel farther or require additional time to reach the new development; the new development within the change areas would occur as infill. To further reduce the impact of new development on the existing RFD facilities, equipment, and personnel, the City requires that the proposed structures, access, and water supply meet the California State Fire Code and City building requirements. In addition, project developers would be required to pay development impact fees as established by City ordinance. The City would mitigate impacts on the existing RFD facilities, equipment, and personnel by imposing development impact fees to fund public facilities, including fire facilities. Therefore, impacts to fire protection were determined to be 699
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

176 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx less than significant with implementation of applicable policies and actions contained in the General Plan.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
The proposed project would likely increase residency population in the area. The closest fire station, Station 61 located at 140 West Richmond Avenue, is approximately 2.5 miles north of the project site at 1065 7th Street Richmond, CA. As new development under the General Plan would not cause the RFD to travel farther or require additional time to reach the new development, the proposed project would not increase fire protection travel time. The proposed project would meet the California State Fire Code and City building requirements. In addition, the project developers would pay development impact fees as established by City ordinance. With adherence to General Plan Policies for the City, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to fire protection than what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. b) Police Protection
Would the project: Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Police protection?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
According to the General Plan EIR, impacts on police protection services are considered significant if an increase in population would result in inadequate staffing levels (as measured by the ability of the Richmond Police Department to respond to call loads) and/or increased demand for services would require the construction or expansion of new or altered facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Richmond Police Department prepares annual reports outlining the department’s performance and personnel-to-population ratio. Currently, there are 1.6 sworn officers per every 1,000 City residents, and the Richmond Police Department currently maintains an acceptable level of service. Projected growth under the General Plan would result in an additional 30,147 residents by 2030. Based on current personnel-per-capita ratios, this population growth would require 48 additional sworn officers. The General Plan would increase the intensity of development in the change areas, but these areas are already currently served by police protection services and thus would not result in an increase in response times for various calls for service.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
The nearest police station is located at 1701 Regatta Boulevard, approximately 4.1 miles southwest of the project site. Proposed growth resulting from the proposed project would not increase response times for various calls for service as the proposed project is located in an area already currently served by police protection services with sufficient capacity to serve the project. In addition, the proposed project would adhere to General Plan Policies to further reduce potential impacts on police protection services. Thus, the proposed project would not result in new or 700
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 177
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx substantially more severe impacts related to police protection than what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
c) Schools
Would the project: Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Schools? Summary of the General Plan EIR
According to the General Plan EIR, the General Plan could add as many as 15,548 housing units in the City by 2030. Using West Contra Costa Unified School District (WCCUSD) student generation factors, the General Plan could result in a student population increase of approximately 10,448 students by 2030. Impacts due to increases in school enrollment would be reduced through the payment of school impact fees, required for all new development. These fees would be based on the use and size of a project. Additionally, the General Plan contains policies and implementing actions that require adequate school infrastructure be provided as new development occurs, which would further reduce the potential for impact on school facilities.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
The proposed project would likely increase the residential population in the area. The WCCUSD serves the project site. The closest elementary school, Washington Elementary School, is located

1.40 miles northeast of the project site at 565 Wine Street. The nearest middle school, Lovonya DeJean Middle School, is located at 3400 Macdonald Avenue approximately 2.75 miles northeast of the project site. The proposed project is with the residential density anticipated by the General Plan and would not require development of additional school facilities. Potential impacts resulting from the proposed project would be reduced through the payment of school impact fees in addition to compliance with General Plan Policies and Actions. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts related to school facilities than what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
d, e) Parks and Other Public Services?
Would the project: Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Parks? Other public services?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
According to the General Plan EIR, impacts to library resources are considered significant if the proposed project would result in the need for new or physically altered library facilities, the 701
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

178 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for library services. The City of Richmond currently has no standard for library services. Increased development in the City does not necessarily equate to an increased need for total volumes or square feet of library space. The City determined that General Plan Policies and Implementing Actions would reduce potential impacts on library services.

The Draft General Plan EIR analyzed potential impacts to parks under the heading of “Parks and Recreation.” The General Plan EIR determined that the implementation of the proposed General Plan would increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities but would not substantially accelerate or result in substantial physical deterioration of the facilities, a less than significant impact.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
The proposed project would likely increase the residential population in the area. The project site is served by the Richmond Public Library and the library closest to the project site is the Main Branch Library, located approximately 0.6 mile south of the project site at 325 Civic Center Plaza. Proposed project development would not result in an increase in the need for library space. Because the proposed project is consistent with the land use and density assumed for the site in the General Plan, and with adherence to General Plan Policies and Actions, the proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts related to library services than what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project None.

Conclusion
The conclusions from the General Final Plan EIR regarding public services remain unchanged.

Further environmental analysis is not required because:
• No peculiar impacts have been identified as a result of the proposed project or its site.

Implementation of uniformly applied General Plan policies and standards along with regulations of the City of Richmond ensure impacts are below the level of significance. • There are no potentially significant impacts that were not analyzed as significant in the certified General Plan EIR. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts that were not discussed by the Certified General Plan EIR. 702
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 179
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx • No substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the certified General Plan EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. • No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the certified General Plan EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
• There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the certified General Plan EIR was certified as complete.

703
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

180 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Environmental Issues
CEQA Section 15168 Criteria
Prior General
Plan EIR
Determination
Effect
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-site,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More Severe
Adverse
Impact?

4.16 Recreation
Would the project:
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities, which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No

a, b) Existing Neighborhood and Regional Parks and Recreational Facilities Would the project: a) increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated; or
Does the project: b) include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that the resulting increase in population from General Plan buildout would increase demand for parks and that the City would need to acquire 90.4 acres of additional parkland in the year 2030 to meet its standard of 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents.

The Findings for the Certification of the General Plan EIR (page 68) concluded that implementation of General Plan Policies, payment of in lieu fees or dedication of land consistent with Chapter

15.08.400 of the Municipal Code, and surrounding regional and State Parks would ensure the City would have adequate park facilities to serve future residents and impacts would be less than significant.

Furthermore, the General Plan EIR determined that implementation of General Plan Policies and payment of impact fees consistent with the Municipal Code would ensure sufficient recreational facilities are provided to meet City standards. It was noted that the parks that serve the City, including regional parks, far exceed the City’s per resident parkland standard. Thus, the City would be adequately served in the future and impacts would be less than significant. 704
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 181
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
Because of the nature of the proposed project, it is likely that the population will increase and therefore, may increase the demand for park facilities in the surrounding area. The nearest parks are Miller-Knox Regional Shoreline Park located to the north and west of the project site, and Judge George D. Carroll Park, located approximately 1.5 miles northwest of the project site at Cutting Boulevard/South Gerrard Boulevard. As the General Plan EIR stated that a population increase would be expected in the City, surrounding regional and State Parks would ensure the City would have adequate park facilities to serve future residents through payment of in lieu fees or dedication of land consistent with Chapter 15.08.400 of the Municipal Code. As a result, impacts would be less than significant.

Additionally, the proposed project includes a clubhouse with a game room and a pool for residents, and would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities outside of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts related to park facilities beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project None.

Conclusion
The conclusions from the General Plan EIR regarding recreation remain unchanged.

Further environmental analysis is not required because:
• No peculiar impacts have been identified as a result of the proposed project or its site.

Implementation of uniformly applied General Plan policies and standards along with regulations of the City of Richmond and incorporation of identified project design features ensure impacts are below the level of significance.
• There are no potentially significant impacts that were not analyzed as significant in the certified General Plan EIR. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts that were not discussed by the Certified General Plan EIR. • No substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the certified General Plan EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. • No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the certified General Plan EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
705
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

182 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx • There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the certified General Plan EIR was certified as complete.

706
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 183
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Environmental Issues
CEQA Section 15168 Criteria
Prior General
Plan EIR
Determination
Effect
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-site,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More Severe
Adverse
Impact?

4.17 Transportation
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or
policy of the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities?
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
incorporated
No No No No
b) Would the project conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.3, subdivision (b)?
None
identified
No No No No
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
incorporated
No No No No

a) Con flict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy.

Would the project: Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy of the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Summary of the General Plan EIR
This checklist question did not exist when the General Plan EIR was published. However, the General Plan EIR determined that the General Plan would improve mobility and safety for all modes through planned roadway improvements, which would fulfill the General Plan’s proposed goals and policies regarding safety and provision of a multimodal circulation system. It also included a discussion of potential conflict with the applicable congestion management plans, the City of Richmond’s traffic Level of Service (LOS) standard (LOS D), and the Contra Costa County Transportation Authority (CCTA) and the West Contra Costa County Transportation Advisory Commission (WCCTAC) LOS and Multimodal Transportation Service Objectives (MTSO) standards. With the City’s projected population increase under full buildout of the General Plan, the General Plan includes policies that would reduce traffic associated with development. It was determined that impacts would be less than significant.
707
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

184 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
Information in this section is based on the Transportation Impact Study (TIS) completed by W-Trans on December 20, 2022 (Appendix G).

Program Plan
CCTA serves as the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for Contra Costa County. CCTA adopted the county’s first Congestion Management Program (CMP) in October 1991. The CMP requires and analysis of CMP-managed facilities for any project that is expected to generate more than 100 peak- hour vehicle trips. The proposed project would generate fewer than the 100 peak-hour trip threshold and an analysis of CMP facilities in the study area was therefore not conducted. Therefore, the project would not result in new or more sever impacts related to a Program Plan than was analyzed in terms of the CMP in the General Plan EIR.

Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian signal phases, curb ramps, curb extensions, and various streetscape amenities such as lighting, benches, etc. In general, a network of sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian signals, and curb ramps provide access for pedestrians in the vicinity of the proposed project site. Currently, a multiuse path is provided on the northern side of Brickyard Cove Road and Seacliff Drive between Dornan Drive and Canal Boulevard. A continuous sidewalk also exists on the southern side of Brickyard Cove Road between Dornan Drive and 230 feet east of Seaview Drive. Lighting is provided by overhead streetlights.

Given the proximity of commercial and recreational uses surrounding the site, it is reasonable to assume that some project residents will want to walk and/or use transit to reach the project site. As part of the proposed project, a network of sidewalks would be constructed throughout the project site as well as along the project frontage with Brickyard Cove Road, connecting the site to the existing pedestrian network. A crosswalk across the project street would be marked to accommodate the existing shared use path. Since the proposed project would provide an adequate network of sidewalks and crosswalks throughout the site and along the project frontage with Brickyard Cove Road, no potential safety issues for pedestrians associated with the project were identified. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts related to pedestrian facilities beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

Bicycle Facilities
The Caltrans Highway Design Manual51 classifies bikeways into four categories:
• Class I Multiuse Path–a completely separated right-of-way for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with cross flows of motorized traffic minimized. • Class II Bike Lane–a striped and signed lane for one-way bike travel on a street or highway.

51 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans.) July 2020. Highway Design Manual. Chapter 1000 – Bicycle Transportation Design. Website: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/design/documents/chp1000-a11y.pdf. Accessed August 24, 2022. 708
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 185
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx • Class III Bike Route–signing only for shared use with motor vehicles within the same travel lane on a street or highway.
• Class IV Bikeway–also known as a separated bikeway, a Class IV Bikeway is for the exclusive use of bicycles and includes a separation between the bikeway and the motor vehicle traffic lane. The separation may include, but is not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible physical barriers, or on-street parking.

Class I multiuse path and some Class II bike lanes exist along Brickyard Cove Road at the project site, in addition to nearby bicycle trails such as the Shipyard 3 Trail and Ferry Point Loop Trail. Bicyclists ride in the roadway and/or on sidewalks along all other streets near the project site. No other bicycle routes are planned in the vicinity of the project site according to the City’s Bicycle Master Plan. 52 Existing bicycle facilities, including the multiuse path along the site frontage on Brickyard Cove Road, together with shared use of minor streets provide adequate access for bicyclists. The proposed crosswalk across the project street would facilitate use of the multiuse path along Brickyard Cove Road. Furthermore, since the proposed project would facilitate the use of existing bicycle facilities on Brickyard Cove Road, since no potential safety issues for bicyclists associated with the project were identified, the proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts related to bicycle facilities beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

Transit Facilities
There are no transit facilities within a quarter mile of the project site as the nearest bus stop is located 1.7 miles away. The proposed project is not expected to generate significant transit trips as there are no existing stops within an acceptable walking distance. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to transit facilities beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
b) I nconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3
Would the project: Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
This checklist question did not exist when the General Plan EIR was published. No determination was made in the General Plan EIR related to the City’s consistency with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 (b).

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
Information in this section is based on the TIS prepared by W-Trans on July 1, 2022 (Appendix G).

52 City of Richmond. October 2011. City of Richmond Bicycle Master Plan. Chapter 6. Proposed Bicycle Network. Website:
https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/27060/6-Proposed-Bike-Network?bidId=. Accessed August 24, 2022. 709
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

186 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx The potential for the project to conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) was evaluated based the project’s anticipated VMT.

According to the Contra Costa County Travel Demand Model estimates, the Countywide VMT per resident is 17.3 miles. Based on both City and Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) guidance, a project generating a VMT that is 15 percent or more below this value, or 14.7 miles per resident, would have a less than significant VMT impact. The Contra Costa County model estimates that the City of Richmond has a VMT per capita of 10.4 miles. Because this per capita VMT rate is lower than the OPR-based significance threshold of 14.7 miles, the proposed project would be located within a low-VMT area and is presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact.

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to consistency with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
c) Roadway Safety Hazards
Would the project: Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR evaluated rail, roadway, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities updates for potential safety conflicts and determined that General Plan Policies and Actions would improve safety and mobility. It was concluded that impacts related to roadway safety hazards would be less than significant.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
Information in this section is based on the TIS prepared by W-Trans on July 1, 2022 (Appendix G).

Sight Distance
The project site would be accessed via a new private street connecting to Brickyard Cove Road approximately 200 feet east of Brickyard Cove Road/Old Kiln Way. The existing median on Brickyard Cove Road would be modified to include a left-turn lane into the project site.

Sight distance to the east of the project access point is adequate, but sight lines to the west are currently obstructed by landscaping on the median. Brickyard Cove Road has a speed limit of 25 mph, which corresponds to a minimum stopping sight distance of 150 feet, according to the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. At the proposed new street location sight lines to the east extend over 200 feet. To the west, sight lines are obstructed by heavy brush and the above-ground pump facility in the median. If the landscaping were cleared, as it is expected to be during construction of a left-turn lane, sight lines would still be obstructed by the pump facility. Trail Crossing signs are proposed on Brickyard Cove Road and Street A to alert motorists to the Bay Trail crossing Street A.

An acceleration lane at the location of the existing median on Brickyard Cove Road is proposed to allow motorists to make two-stage left turns out of the site and merge with eastbound through traffic on Brickyard Cove Road.
710
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 187
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx A speed feedback sign for eastbound vehicles on Brickyard Cove Road should be posted along with signage warning motorists that vehicles may be merging from the left. A pavement legend conveying the speed limit in the eastbound direction should also be included to the west of the proposed intersection. This signage is included as a condition of approval.

Sight lines that are currently clear should be kept free of signs, structures, and tall landscaping, and any trees associated with the project should be carefully located to avoid truncating sight distance.

This is included as a condition of approval.

Access Analysis
A left-turn lane is proposed on Brickyard Cove Road at the location of the existing median. The feasibility of a left-turn lane was evaluated in the TIS. A 50-foot left-turn lane with the capacity of two vehicles would be adequate to accommodate left turns and not interfere with the existing above-ground pump facility on the median. It was determined that there is adequate space to provide the proposed turn lane at the location of the existing median. Therefore, the proposed project and would not result in new impacts related to roadway hazards due to design feature or incompatible uses beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

Construction Activity
As described in the project description, the number of truck trips needed to transport fill and other materials to the project site was estimated for purposes of air quality analysis. Up to 153 trucks per day could be scheduled to bring fill to the site, although the number of trips would vary from day to day. Truck trips related to the construction of a project are not typically evaluated as part of a traffic analysis since these trips are temporary in nature and will cease once construction has been completed. Prior to the start of construction activities, the contractor will prepare and submit a detailed construction management plan for City approval. The construction management plan will indicate the days and time of construction, the duration of each phase of construction, where workers will park, truck haul routes, the number and type of truck that will access the site during each phase, and other details including traffic control provisions. This allows the City to coordinate traffic from concurrent projects and ensure that traffic flow is not impeded on roadways or at railroad crossings. The City will require that adequate access for all transportation modes, especially emergency vehicles, be maintained during construction.
d) Emergency Access
Would the project: Result in inadequate emergency access? Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that population growth projected under General Plan buildout would substantially increase traffic congestion and therefore, delays for emergency vehicles would be increased as well. The General Plan EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant, with the implementation of adopted Final General Plan MM 3.14-6.

Richmond City CouncilMarch 5, 2024

Richmond City Council
March 5, 2024