Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 16 of 39
On June 18, 2004, Administrative Chief Janet Schneider wrote a memo to Mayor McLaughlin and the City Council summarizing a Contra Costa County Clean Water Program study showing “higher levels of PCBs in storm drain sediments in two drainage areas located in Richmond than any other site in Contra Costa County.” The study concluded that “street sweeping does remove 1.0 kg of PCBs annually.” The 2009 Permit
On October 14, 2009, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco bay Region issued a new Order R2-2009-0074, NPDES Permit No. CA612008.
The order prohibited discharge of other than stormwater:
A. DISCHARGE PROHIBITIONS A.1. The Permittees shall, within their respective jurisdictions, effectively prohibit the discharge of non-stormwater (materials other than stormwater) into, storm drain systems and watercourses. NPDES-permitted discharges are exempt from this prohibition. Provision C.15 describes a tiered categorization of non -stormwater discharges based on potential for pollutant content that may be discharged upon adequate a ssurance that the discharge contains no pollutants of concern at concentrations that will impact beneficial uses or cause exceedances of water quality standards. A.2. It shall be prohibited to discharge rubbish, refuse, bark, sawdust, or other solid wastes into surface waters or at any place where they would contact or where they would be eventually transported to surface waters, including flood plain areas.35
The 2015 Permit
On November 19, 2015, a new permit was issued.
The order prohibited discharge of other than stormwater:
B. The Water Board finds stormwater discharges from urban and developing areas in the San Francisco Bay Region to be significant sources of certain pollutants that cause or may be causing or threatening to cause or contribute to water quality impairment in waters of the Region. Furthermore, as delineated in the CWA section 303(d) list, the Water Board has found that there is a reasonable potential that municipal stormwater discharges cause or may cause or contribute to an excursion above water quality standards for the following pollutants: mercury, PCBs, furans, dieldrin, chlordane, DDT, trash, and selenium in San Francisco Bay segments; pesticide associated toxicity, and trash in urban creeks; and trash and low dissolved oxygen in Lake Merritt, in Alameda County. In accordance with CWA section 303(d), the Water Board is required to establish Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for these pollutants to these waters to gradually eliminate impairment and attain water quality standards. Therefore, pollutant control actions and further pollutant impact assessments by the Permittees are warranted and required pursuant to this Order. 36 C. DISCHARGE PROHIBITIONS A.1. The Permittees shall, within their respective jurisdictions, effectively prohibit the discharge of non-stormwater (materials other than stormwater) into storm drain systems and watercourses. NPDES-permitted discharges are exempt from this
35 California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco bay Region issued a new Order R2 -2009-0074, NPDES Permit No. CA612008, page 8
36 California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco bay Region issued a new Order R2-2015-049, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008, pahge 3
Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 17 of 39
prohibition. Provision C.15 describes a tiered categorization of non -stormwater discharges based on potential for pollutant content that may be discharged upon adequate assurance that the discharge contains no pollutants of concern at concentrations that will impact beneficial uses or cause exceedances of water quality standards. A.2. It shall be prohibited to discharge rubbish, refuse, bark, sawdust, or other solid wastes into surface waters or at any place where they would contact or where they would be eventually transported to surface waters, including flood plain areas.37
D. The Permittees shall comply with Discharge Prohibitions A.1 and A.2 and Receiving Water Limitations B.1 and B.2 through the timely implementation of control measures and oth er actions as specified in Provisions C.2 through C.15. Compliance with Provisions C.9 through C.12 and C.14 of this Order, which prescribe requirements and schedules for Permittees identified therein to manage their discharges that may cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards (WQS) for pesticides, trash, mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and bacteria, shall constitute compliance during the term of this Order with Receiving Water Limitations B.1 and B.2 for the pollutants and th e receiving waters identified in the provisions. Compliance with Provision C.10, which prescribes requirements and schedules for Permittees to manage their discharges of trash, shall also constitute compliance with Discharge Prohibitions A.1 and A.2 during the term of this Order for discharges of trash. If exceedance(s) of (WQS), except for exceedances of water quality standards for pesticides, trash, mercury, PCBs, and bacteria that are managed pursuant to Provisions C.9 through C.12 and C.14, persist in receiving waters notwithstanding the implementation of the required controls and actions, the Permittees shall comply with the following procedure: a. Upon a determination by either the Permittee(s) or the Water Board that discharges are causing or contributing to an exceedance of an applicable (WQS), the Permittee(s) shall notify, within no more than 30 days, and thereafter submit a report to the Water Board that describes controls or best management practices (BMPs) that are currently being implemented, and the current level of implementation, and additional controls or BMPs that will be implemented, and/or an increased level of implementation, to prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants that are causing or contributing to the exceedance of water quality standards. The report may be submitted in conjunction with the Annual Report, unless the Water Board directs an earlier submittal, and shall constitute a request to the Water Board for amendment of this NPDES Permit. The report and application for amendment shall include an implementation schedule. The Water Board may require modifications to the report and application for amendment; and b. Submit any modifications to the report required by the Water Board within 30 days of notification. 38 Proposed 2020 Street Sign Installation Reignites Controversy The City Council Minutes of May 26, 2020:
I-7. The matter to approve the installation of 575 street sweeping parking restriction signs in the Richmond Annex and Panhandle Annex Neighborhoods was introduced by Public Works Director Yader Bermudez. Discussion ensued. The Council requested the documents that tied this matter to environmental guidelines. The following speakers gave comments via email, eComments, or telephone: Caroline Johnson, Grover G, Lee Huo, Sara Sunstein, Tally Craig, Gayle McLaughlin, Kirk Essler, Madalyn Law, Monica Olivares, Stefanie Silvia, Naomi Williams, and Margaret Child.
37 Ibid, page 5
38 Ibid, page 6
Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 18 of 39
(At approximately 11:03 p.m., a motion made by Councilmember Willis, seconded by Councilmember Johnson, extended the meeting to complete the discussion for item I-7 by the unanimous vote of the City Council). Further discussion ensued for item I -7. The Council requested that the industrial areas documented as the highest in pollutants, such as Sims Metal and Levin Terminal, be swept more often and verified. On motion of Councilmember Willis, seconded by Councilmember Martinez, continued the matter for 90 days to allow staff time to work with the residents to develop a reasonable compromise regarding street sweepi ng signage to reach compliance passed by the unanimous vote of the City Council.
The following is from Richmond Standard:
City Council gives Annex 90 days on street sweeping compliance May 28, 2020
https://richmondstandard.com/richmond/2020/05/28/city-council-gives-annex-90-days-on- street-sweeping-compliance/
Figure 3 - In May 2020, Richmond city staff presented several photos, including this one, of vehicles blocking street sweeping ability in the Annex neighborhoods of Richmond.
By Kathy Choutea
The Richmond City Council voted unanimously during its Tuesday meeting to g ive Richmond Annex and Panhandle Annex neighborhoods 90 days to comply with the citywide Street Sweeping Volunteer Program.
Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 19 of 39
The City Council discussed whether or not to approve $30,000 in funding for the installation of 575 street sweeping parking restriction signs in those neighborhoods—as well as enforcement of the restrictions.
Currently, the Richmond Annex and Panhandle Annex are exempted from the citywide Street Sweeping Program in lieu of the Volunteer Program, under the agreement that residents will move their vehicles in a timely manner to allow for street sweeping of their neighborhoods. Per the agreement, parking restriction signs have not been installed and enforcement have not been performed, according to the Public Works Department.
According to Public Works Director Yader Bermudez, the neighborhoods have not been abiding by the agreement, causing street sweepers to have to navigate around cars and not be able to sufficiently clean the streets. The increased amount of debris has not only increase d blight in these areas, but also has entered the storm water system.
Concurrently, the department is working to meet the city’s National Pollutant Discharge System (NPDS) permit requirements. The permit calls for cities adopting best practices for keeping pollutants out of the storm drain system and out of the bay, per Mayor Tom Butt. “In regard to the environment, we are out of compliance in those two neighborhoods because we’re not able to sweep the gutter,” said Bermudez. “It is a compliance issue.” And so the city proposed using parking restriction signs and enforcement to gain compliance.
Residents took issue with that plan. Mayor Tom Butt said a number of people sent him emails in protest.
During the City Council’s discussion, Councilmember Eduardo Martinez, who said he lives in the Richmond Annex, noted that he believes the need for stop signs, particularly on Carlson Blvd., is a more pressing issue.
“People want to know why we’re not getting stop signs and we are getting street sweeping signs instead,” he said. Bermudez indicated that his department is working on it.
The discussion also touched on costs and the issue of equity regarding how these neighborhoods are exempt from the street sweeping program while others aren’t. “You can’t have a program without moving cars. And if people don’t move their cars voluntarily, then you have enforcement,” said the mayor during the meeting. “It’s inequitable for all of the neighborhoods in Richmond to be in the program and abiding with it and the Richmond Annex and Richmond Panhandle get a free ride,” he added.
In the end, the City Council moved forward with an idea initially suggested by Mayor Butt as a compromise: giving the residents of the Richmond Annex and Panhandle Annex a timetable for compliance with the aforementioned agreement, set at 90 days.
Councilmember Melvin Willis made the motion for a continuance that encompassed the neighborhood outreach and 90 day timetable, Councilmember Eduardo Martinez seconded it and a roll call vote was made with all councilmembers voting in favor of it.
Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 20 of 39
Watch the video of the City Council’s street sweeping decision here.
Over the last few months of 2020, the Public Works Department has provided multiple photos showing substantial non-compliance with vehicle removal on street sweeping days.
Figure 4 - 8/27/2020, Santa Cruz and San Mateo Sweeping 4th Thursday
Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 21 of 39
Figure 5 - 8/27/2020 San Mateo and Santa Cruz Sweeping 4th Thursday
Figure 6 - 8/27/2020, Plumas and Mendocino Sweeping 4th Thursday
Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 22 of 39
Figure 7 - 8/27/2020, Huntington and Santa Clara Sweeping 4th Thursday
Figure 8 - 8/27/2020, Carlson and Sutter Sweeping 4th Thursday,
Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 23 of 39
Figure 9 - 8/27/2020, Carlson and Sutter Sweeping 4th Thursday
Figure 10 - 8/27/2020, Carlson and Santa Cruz Sweeping 4th Thursday
Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 24 of 39
Figure 11 - 8/27/2020, Carlson and Santa Clara Sweeping 4th Thursday
Figure 12 - 8/27/2020, Shasta and Carlson Sweeping 4th Thursday
Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 25 of 39
Figure 13 - 11/30/2020
Figure 14 - 11/30/2020
Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 26 of 39
Figure 15 - 11/30/2020
Figure 16 - 11/30/2020
Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 27 of 39
Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 28 of 39
Figure 17 - 11/30/2020
Figure 18 - 11/30/2020
Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 29 of 39
Figure 19 - 11/30/2020
The following is from the September 17, 2020, Richmond Standard:
Richmond to resume street sweeping citations Oct. 1
September 17, 2020
https://richmondstandard.com/richmond/2020/09/17/richmond -to-resume-street-sweeping- citations-starting-oct-1/
Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 30 of 39
In May
2020, Richmond city staff presented several photos, including this one, of vehicles blocking street sweeping ability in the Annex neighborhoods of Richmond.
Starting October 1, the Richmond Police Department Parking Unit will resume issuing citations to vehicles that are not moved for street sweeping, police announced today.
Residents and visitors are asked to move their vehicle during designated street sweeping dates and times. “Even if it appears the street sweeper has already passed by, you may be issued a citation” as parking enforcement officers won’t know when the vehicle wa s parked there, police said.
“We are resuming issuing citations due to numerous complaints of trash and debris accumulating on the street,” police said. “This is due to the street sweepers not being able to access the streets due to vehicles being parked on them.”
On November 30, 2020, Public Works Director Yader Bermudez emailed the City Council:
From: Yader Bermudez <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 12:06 PM
To: Tom Butt <[email protected]>; Nat Bates <[email protected]>; Ben Choi <[email protected]>; Ben Choi <[email protected]>; Demnlus Johnson <[email protected]>; Eduardo Martinez
<[email protected]>; Jael Myrick <[email protected]>; Jael Myrick <[email protected]>; Melvin Willis <[email protected]> Cc: Laura Snideman <[email protected]>; Robert Chelemedos <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Annex
Please find additional pictures related to next Council Meeting o n December 1, 2020, Item J-2, APPROVE the installation of 575 street sweeping parking restriction signs in the Richmond Annex and Panhandle Annex Neighborhoods and in regard to Mr. Grover’s email to Councilmembers dated November 29, 2020, which provided some selected pictures that relate to ONLY the Panhandle Annex Neighborhood.
Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 31 of 39
The pictures attached represent the whole Richmond Annex and Panhandle Annex Neighborhoods.
Additionally, the San Francisco Regional Water Board concerns about the City needs to increase reduction of PCBs/Mercury loads to be in compliance with the reissua nce of the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES permit (MRP). The Francisco Regional Water Board is in the process of implementing more stringent requirements as condition for the new City’s Stormwater NPDES permit (MRP) renewal. Therefore, Public Works D epartment recommends that Council approve the installations of these 575 street sweeping parking restriction signs.
From: Robert Chelemedos
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 11:12 AM
To: Yader Bermudez <[email protected]>
Cc: Carlos Castro <[email protected]>
Subject: Annex
Here are some streets that are not moving their cars in September, the last month of the trial period.
First 6 are on September 24th (Annex)
7,8,and 9 South/West Annex September 24th
Robert Chelemedos
Streets Superintendent
City of Richmond
Engineering and CIP
#6 – 13th Street
Richmond, CA 94801
(510) 231-3007 – Ofc
(510) 231-3013 – Fax
After a multi-month hiatus due to COVID-19, the Public Works Department notified the public that citations would again be issues beginning October 1, 2020.
Is street sweeping still happening during this time? Do we need to move our cars? Yes, street sweeping is still occurring. Starting October 1, 2020, citations will be issued for vehicles not moved during their designated street sweeping times. Residents requiring special consideration can contact Sgt. D. Decious at 510-621-1578 for additional assistance.
City Council Halts Signs and Citations
An agenda item on the December 1, 2020 City Council Agenda requested approval to install 575 street sweeping signs in the Richmond Annex and Panhandle Annex. It appeared again on the December 22, 2020, Agenda. It was continued both times.
The item was again agendized for the January 19, 2021, City Council meeting, along with an additional item on the same subject.
DISCUSS and DIRECT staff to suspend ticketing during the COVID -19 Shelter-in-Place Order and come back to the Council in three months with options to modify the Street Sweeping Program
Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 32 of 39
for ALL interested neighborhoods - Councilmember McLaughlin (620-6636) and Councilmember Martinez (620-6593).
On January 19, 2021, The City Council majority voted to suspend ticketing and come back to the City Council in three months with options for all neighborhoods.
H-3. The matter to discuss and direct staff to suspend ticketing during the COVID -19 Shelter-in- Place Order and come back to the Council in three months with options to modify the Street Sweeping Program for ALL interested neighborhoods was introduced by C ouncilmembers McLaughlin and Martinez. Discussion ensued. The Council requested staff to verify that the proposed alternatives to street sweeping signs described with item H-3 complied with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit requirements described with item H-2; and to provide the cost for such alternatives. The following speakers gave comments via teleconference: Franco DeMarinis, Garland Ellis, Naomi Williams, Karen Franklin, Kathleen Erwin, Roberta Boucher, Michele Rappaport, and Tarnel Abbott. Further discussion ensued. A motion was made by Councilmember Willis approving item H-3, seconded by Councilmember McLaughlin. Further discussion ensued. The council recommended staff start working on a neighborhood street sweeping notification system immediately to help all neighborhoods begin compliance. The motion suspended ticketing in all neighborhoods with current signage at least until the shelter-in-place was lifted; directed staff to research revisions to the City of Richmond’s Street Sweeping Program that included: use of city reminder notifications by email, phone, and/or text to all interested residents on street sweeping days; allowed ALL interested neighborhoods to opt into a voluntary compliance process (with potential removal o f signage); ceased any plans to install new signage in any neighborhood while modifications were under study by staff and the Council; explore making temporary signs available to interested residents; and return to the Council in three months with options to consider for modification of the Street Sweeping Program by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Jimenez, Johnson, Martinez, McLaughlin, Willis, and Vice Mayor Bates. Noes: Mayor Butt. Absent: None. Abstained: None.
Inaction 2020-2022
After the December 19, 2021, vote by the City Council, nothing happened until April 19, 2022, when Councilmember Willis agendized a somewhat confusing item addressing street sweeping: “Reinstate the Issuance of Citations in the Street Sweeping Program.”
The Agenda Report stated:
During the Shelter in Place Order, the City Council voted to suspend ticketing of vehicles that were not moved on Street Sweeping days. The City Council took this position because the pandemic created many hardships for residents in Richmond and residents were confined to their homes. Suspending the ticketing process provided a sense of relief for residents because they wouldn’t receive a citation on Street Sweeping days. During the Shelter in Place Order, it was appropriate to suspend components of the program; however, the Order has been lifted and the streets are extremely blighted with debris. Complaints of the unsightly condition of the streets have increased. In order AGENDA REPORT32 Page 2 of 2 April 19, 2022, for the Street Sweeper to effectively clean the streets, cars need to be moved on designated streets according to the schedule. In order to prepare residents for the reinstatement of ticketing, a 90 -day notification/warning period is recommended. In addition, the City Council needs infor mation from the Parking Enforcement Division of the Richmond Police Department regarding their
Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 33 of 39
capacity to provide warning notices of the reinstatement of ticketing within 90 days of reinstating this component of the program. The City Council also needs in formation from the Streets Division, Public Works Department, on their ability to reinstate the Street Sweeping program to its full capacity to clean our streets and prevent debris from entering the San Francisco Bay. The effective date of the reinstatement should be in accordance with the Parking Enforcement Division’s and the Streets Division’s capacity to do so.
DISCUSS and APPROVE reinstating the citation component of the Street Sweeping Program with a 90- day notification/warning period – (Councilmember Melvin Willis 510-412-2050).
There followed a rather circular argument about signage. It was pointed out that in order to motivate residents to move vehicles, there need to be consequences, such as citations and towing. In order to cite or tow, state law requires warning signs.
Ultimately, the City Council again kicked the can down the road and requested staff to figure it out and report back sometime in the future.
Human Health, Road Dust, Coho Salmon and Street Sweeping From a health and environmental standpoint, the most important result of street sweeping is the debris you cannot see.
Recent research has revealed that a chemical found in car tire debris kills coho salmon returning to spawn.39 For the first time in years, endangered Coho salmon have been spotted in tributaries of San Francisco Bay.40
High levels of organic and inorganic contaminants in street dust represent a source of dual potential risk to stormwater and air quality.
Further, studies have indicated that as much as 85 % of ambient airborne particulate matter (PM 10), exposure to which is associated with several adverse health effects, can arise from accumulated street dust (Amato et al. 2010a). 41
39 https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/presspacs/2022/acs -presspac-march-2-2022/substance- derived-from-tire-debris-is-toxic-to-two-trout-
species.html#:~:text=Every%20time%20it%20rains%2C%20fish%20living%20downstream%20of,of%20coho%20sal mon%20across%20the%20U.S.%20West%20Coast.
40 https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/Nearly-extinct-coho-salmon-spawns-in-Bay-Area- 16761425.php#:~:text=Spawning%20season%20typically%20happens%20in%20December%20and%20January%2C ,to%20SPAWN.%20Even%20those%20numbers%20are%20encouraging%2C%20however . 41 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267815452_Street_Dust_Implications_for_Stormwater_and_Air_Qualit y_and_Environmental_Management_Through_Street_Sweeping
Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 34 of 39
Parked cars pose a significant interference to street sweeping.
Parked car interference can have a significant negative effect on the ability of street sweepers to pick up accumulated particulate material. Since it is reasonable to assume that all street dirt accumulation essentially occurs within the width of a parked car, access to the curb is denied for the entire length of the parked cars along with the additional distance it takes for the sweeper to maneuver around parked cars. The most skilled sweeper operators can minimize this additional interference to a distance of approximately the length of a single car on both sides of one or more parked cars. So a good program minimizes parked car interference by sweeping at night in commercial or industrial areas and during the day for residential areas. It also uses and e nforces residential parking restrictions where they are warranted.42 The AB 61743-driven Community Emissions Reduction Plan44 is providing surprising and compelling evidence that marine and rail operations, along with vehicles and trucks, are the source of most of the hazardous PM 2.5 particulates in Richmond.45 This is counterintuitive from the widely held belief that Chevron is the biggest threat. While Chevron remains a significant source of PM2.5 particulates, its impact on health is relatively small compared to other sources.
42 https://www.tymco.com/street-sweeping-101/
43 AB 617, which passed in 2017, mandates that the state improve air quality in disadvantaged communities like Richmond & includes grants for improving community-based monitoring and emissions reduction plans. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/community-air-protection-program/communities/richmond-north- richmond-san-pablo
44 In 2021, at the recommendation of CARB staff, the CARB Board selected the Richmond, San Pablo Community to transition and develop a community emissions reduction program, in addition to continued implementation of the 2018 Community Monitoring Plan.
https://www.baaqmd.gov/community-health/community-health-protection-program/richmond-area-community- health-protection-program
45 http://www.tombutt.com/pdf/path%20to%20clean%20air.pdf
Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 35 of 39
Figure 20 – While Chevron emissions as a source of PM2.5 far exceed that of road dust, the impact of road dust on human health is far higher. Source: Richmond – North Richmond – San Pablo Community Path to Clean Air, Community Emissions Reduction Plan (CERP) Community Steering Committee Meeting #154, May 16, 2022, presentation. (http://www.tombutt.com/pdf/path%20to%20clean%20air.pdf)
Figure 21 - As a source contribution to cancer risk, Vehicles and Trucks (including road dust) and marine and dominate, far exceeding that of Chevron. Source: Richmond – North Richmond – San Pablo Community Path to Clean Air, Community Emissions Reduction Plan (CERP) Community Steering Committee Meeting #154, May 16, 2022, presentation. (http://www.tombutt.com/pdf/path%20to%20clean%20air.pdf)
Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 36 of 39
Figure 22 - Of the vehicle and truck sources of PM2.5, road dust makes up 68 percent. Source: Richmond – North Richmond – San Pablo Community Path to Clean Air, Community Emissions Reduction Plan (CERP) Community Steering Committee Meeting #154, May 16, 2022, presentation. (http://www.tombutt.com/pdf/path%20to%20clean%20air.pdf) Of the Vehicle and Trucks component, road dust contributes 68 percent of the total PM 2.5 particulates.
Road dust represents a growing portion of on-road emissions inventories due to recent reductions in vehicle exhaust emissions; this category is currently the subject of a study by CARB, Caltrans and EPA.46
One of the recommended strategies for reduction is street sweeping:
Control road dusts trough street sweeping and/or reducing trackout from construction projects and industrial sites.
46 Ibid
Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 37 of 39
Figure 23 - Street sweeping is recommended as a way to control road dust. Source: Richmond – North Richmond – San Pablo Community Path to Clean Air, Community Emissions Reduction Plan (CERP) Community Steering Committee Meeting #154, May 16, 2022, presentation. (http://www.tombutt.com/pdf/path%20to%20clean%20air.pdf) General Plan 2030
The Richmond General Plan supports best management practices to improve water quality. Although street sweeping is not specifically identified, it is a well establish best management practice.
Finding 3: The City is making efforts to improve water quality in creeks and Bays, but stormwater runoff and long-term viability of the watersheds remains a concern. Federal, state and local regulations protect water quality, recharge areas and the overall watershed. To meet these regulations, the City is continually evolving and adapting best management practices. Ways to reduce impacts from urban and stormwater runoff include:
• Integrating stormwater management techniques to minimize runoff; • Encouraging water conservation efforts by residents, businesses and industry. • Working with regional stakeholders to protect and restore watershed viability and protect the health of wildlife and natural habitat; and
• Creating an integrated watershed management approach and best management practices aligned with local, state and federal priorities. 47
Policy CN3.2 Water Quality Work with public and private property owners to reduce stormwater runoff in urban areas to protect water quality in creeks, marshlands a nd water bodies and the bays. Promote the use of sustainable and green infrastructure design, construction and maintenance techniques on public and private lands to protect natural resources. Incorporate
47 http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/8812/70-Conservation-Natural-Resources-and-Open- Space?bidId=
Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 38 of 39
integrated watershed management techniques and to improve surface water and groundwater quality, protect habitat and improve public health by coordinating infrastructure and neighborhood planning and establishing best practices for reducing non-point runoff. See also:
HW9.3
Action CN3.A NPDES Compliance and Permit Continue to comply with the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and continue to implement the following action steps:
• Maintain municipal infrastructure (sewer systems, roads, corporation yards, buildings) to reduce pollutants that flow into water courses;
• Require development to comply with the Contra Costa Clean Water Program Stormwater Guidebook;
• Work with developers to ensure compliance with the City’s minimum standards and NPDES requirements;
• Encourage all projects to use pervious pavements, cluster structures, disconnect downspouts, minimize land disturbance and utilize micro- detention such as low impact development (LID); • Require adequate source control measures to limit pollution generation in businesses including draining non-stormwater discharges such as swimming pools, trash and food compactor racks, vehicle outdoor storage, fire sprinkler test water and equipment washing; • Require businesses that may be susceptible to polluting stormwater to implement best management practices (BMPs) including covering drains and storage precautions for outdoor material storage, loading docks, repair and maintenance bays and fueling areas; • Inspect contamination sites to prevent illicit discharges;
• Inspect municipal storm drains to eliminate illicit discharges and prevent illegal dumping; • Educate the public about stormwater pollution prevention methods and provide incentives for public participation;
• Adopt an integrated pest management (IPM) policy or ordinance and advocate IPM through public education;
• Manage waste generated from the cleaning and treating of copper architectural featur es including copper roofs; and
• Adopt a local ordinance for installing a sanitary sewer connection and prohibiting discharges of copper-based chemicals or other fungicides from pools, spas and fountains. See also: HW9.L.
Conclusion
In the last 20 years, the Richmond City Council has continued to waffle over street cleaning policy, pondering whether moving vehicles on sweeping days should be mandatory or voluntary. Most of the City’s neighborhoods have been signed for years with violators at least threatened with citations and/or towing.
Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 39 of 39
There is a clear resentment from neighborhoods that have embraced street sweeping against those neighborhoods that have arm wrestled certain City Council members to exempt them from mandatory compliance for moving vehicles on street sweeping days, Although there are at least two neighborhoods without signs (Richmore Village and Carriage Hills South) that appear to generally respect the requirement to move vehicles, there are only two other neighborhoods (Richmond Annex and Annex Panhandle) that are generally not in compliance and continue to resist signs and citations.
Whether street sweeping is legally required, and further, whether signs and citations are legally required by regulatory agencies enforcing the Clean Water Act remains murky.
What is becoming increasingly clear, however, is that street sweeping is a critical component of improving human health and keeping pollutants out of creeks and San Francisco Bay. Among the best practices of an effective streety sweeping program is the motivation provided by signs and citations to move vehicles on sweeping days.
It is ironic that members of the City Council who hold themselves up as protectors of the environment are leading the charge to make vehicle removal on sweeping days voluntary, reducing the effectiveness of the program, increasing pollution of waterways and San Francisco Bay and posing a significant human health hazard, all to simply cater to the convenience of residents in a few selected neighborhoods.
June 7, 2022
Police Department
DATE: June 7, 2022
TO: Mayor Butt and Members of the City Council
FROM:
Louie Tirona, Acting Chief of Police
Subject:
Resolution Authorizing a Sole Source Procurement
Process for Selected Specialized Police Department
Services
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The Police Department contracts with Contra Costa County and the State of California for reoccurring
services related to police operations. These services and the estimated funds required to be encumbered are listed in the proposed Police Department operating budget for
each of the fiscal years. The Police Department budget
and associated contract line items are subject to annual review and approval by the City Council. The annual
aggregate amount of these contracts is $1,955,724
(01191021-400201/01191021-400209/01191021-
400501).
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
December 1, 2020, approved Resolution 138-20
approving the reoccurring contracts listed below, with the exception of the costs adjustments for inflation and/or population-based rates.
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
Each fiscal year, the Richmond Police Department
budget includes line-item contracts for services provided by state and county agencies. The proposed resolution
authorizes the City Manager to execute the contracts
associated with these annual line items approved in the budget by City Council. Approving the resolution will
expedite the contract process and improve overall
efficiency.
AGENDA
REPORT
June 7, 2022
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
ADOPT a resolution authorizing the City Manager to
execute reoccurring contracts for fiscal years 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 with Contra Costa County and the State
of California at an aggregate annual amount of
$1,955,724. Services contracted with Contra Costa
County include the following: California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS) - $11,000;
California Identification Division (CAL ID) - $145,000; Automated Regional Information Exchange System
(ARIES) - $50,000; All County Criminal Justice
Information System (ACCCJIN) - $23,500; Martinez
Detention Facility intake fees - $46,000; alcohol/toxic drug and crime scene evidence analysis - $365,000;
Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) examinations-
$41,000; annual jail inspection and audit - $1,000;
Coroner & Gunshot Residue (GSR) examination and
analysis - $10,000; out of state inmate extradition -
$4,000; Law Enforcement Training Center - $21,000;
Animal Services - $1,004,724; Department of Information Technology - $29,500; East Bay Regional
Communication System Authority (EBRCS) - $182,500.
The State of California contracted services including Live Scan fingerprinting - $16,500 and University of California Regents - $5,000 – Police Department (Acting Chief of
Police, Louie Tirona, 621-1802).
DISCUSSION:
Each fiscal year, the City of Richmond Police Department enters into various contracts with Contra Costa County and the State of California for services related to police operations. The costs of these services are based on fee schedules, Memoranda of Understandings, and/or legislative action(s). Each contract, and the estimated annual expense, is listed as a line item in the Richmond Police Department fiscal year operating budget. These contracts are for mandatory operating expenses associated with the day-to-day operations of the Police Department and include access to Department of Justice and County records, fingerprint identification, forensic lab analysis, booking fees, jail access, inmate extradition, radio maintenance, recruit officer training, animal control services, and police canine emergency veterinary services.
To improve administrative efficiency, City staff is requesting City Council adoption of a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute specific contracts listed in the resolution provided the contract amounts do not exceed the amounts listed for each
June 7, 2022
fiscal year. Other than the adjustments made to rates affected by population increases (i.e., Animal Control Services), or minimal annual increases, this resolution is identical to Resolution 158-20 approved for fiscal years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022. The contracts and estimated expenses are as follows:
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY:
CLETS SHARED COST - CONTRA COSTA COUNTY $11,000
CAL ID FORENSIC DIV - CONTRA COSTA COUNTY $145,000
ARIES MAINTENANCE - CONTRA COSTA COUNTY $50,000
ACCJIN SHARED COST - CONTRA COSTA COUNTY $23,500
BOOKING FEES - CONTRA COSTA COUNTY $46,000
CRIME LAB EXAMS - CONTRA COSTA COUNTY $365,000
SART EXAMS - CONTRA COSTA COUNTY $41,000
ANNUAL JAIL INSPECTION - CONTRA COSTA COUNTY $1,000
CORONER/GSR EXAMS - CONTRA COSTA COUNTY $10,000
INMATE EXTRADITION - CONTRA COSTA COUNTY $4,000
POLICE TRAINING CENTER- CONTRA COSTA COUNTY $21,000
ANIMAL SERVICES - CONTRA COSTA COUNTY $1,004,724
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY - CONTRA COSTA COUNTY $29,500
COMMUNICATIONS (EBRCS) -CONTRA COSTA COUNTY $182,500
STATE OF CALIFORNIA:
LIVE SCAN FINGERPRINTING- STATE OF CALIFORNIA $16,500 UC REGENTS - STATE OF CALIFORNIA $5,000
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. ________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
AUTHORIZING A SOLE SOURCE PROCUREMENT PROCESS FOR SELECTED
SPECIALIZED POLICE DEPARTMENT SERVICES
WHEREAS, there are certain specialized services performed by certain specified vendors for the Richmond Police Department which occur every year; and
WHEREAS, the vendors that provide these specialized services are the only vendors that can provide said service; and
WHEREAS, the specialized services and the specified vendors are each year set forth in the Police Department budget as line items for budgetary approval purposes; and
WHEREAS, having the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute the contracts associated with the annual line items set forth and approved by the budget will expedite the contract approval process thereby increasing efficiency and reducing paperwork; and
WHEREAS, the annual line items that are specifically to be addressed in this manner are listed as follows:
CLETS SHARED COST - CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
CAL ID FORENSIC DIV - CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
ARIES MAINTENANCE - CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
ACCJIN SHARED COST - CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
BOOKING FEES - CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
ALCOHOL/TOXIC DRUG and CRIME EVIDENCE - CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
SART EXAMS - CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
ANNUAL JAIL INSPECTION - CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
CORONER & GUNSHOT RESIDUE EXAMS - CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
INMATE EXTRADITION - CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER- CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
ANIMAL SERVICES - CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
DEPT. OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY - CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS (EBRCS) -CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
LIVE SCAN FINGERPRINTING- STATE OF CALIFORNIA
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA REGENTS - STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Richmond that the City Manager is hereby authorized, for fiscal years 2022-2023 and 2023-2024, to execute the contracts listed below provided that the contract dollar amounts do not exceed the
amounts listed for each fiscal year:
CLETS SHARED COST - CONTRA COSTA COUNTY $11,000
CAL ID FORENSIC DIV - CONTRA COSTA COUNTY $145,000
ARIES MAINTENANCE - CONTRA COSTA COUNTY $50,000
ACCJIN SHARED COST - CONTRA COSTA COUNTY $23,500
BOOKING FEES - CONTRA COSTA COUNTY $46,000
CRIME LAB EXAMS - CONTRA COSTA COUNTY $365,000
SART EXAMS - CONTRA COSTA COUNTY $41,000
ANNUAL JAIL INSPECTION - CONTRA COSTA COUNTY $1,000
CORONER/GSR EXAMS - CONTRA COSTA COUNTY $10,000
INMATE EXTRADITION - CONTRA COSTA COUNTY $4,000
POLICE TRAINING CENTER- CONTRA COSTA COUNTY $21,000
ANIMAL SERVICES - CONTRA COSTA COUNTY $1,004,724
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY - CONTRA COSTA COUNTY $29,500
COMMUNICATIONS (EBRCS) -CONTRA COSTA COUNTY $182,500
LIVE SCAN FINGERPRINTING- STATE OF CALIFORNIA $16,500 UC REGENTS - STATE OF CALIFORNIA $5,000
*****************************
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:
____________________________
Interim City Attorney