(D) Offer of dedication for street and highway purposes may be terminated and right to accept offer may be abandoned pursuant to the Street Vacation provisions below, in Part 5.
(E) The above procedure shall be alternative to any other procedure authorized by law.
(2) Ordinance.
(A) The City Council may adopt an ordinance pursuant to Government Code Section 65870, et seq., imposing a private covenant for a public Easement as follows:
(1) Recording a covenant of Easement made by an owner of real property to the City.
(2) At the time of the recording, all real property benefited or burdened by the covenant shall be in common ownership.
(3) Covenant shall be effective when recorded and shall act as an easement pursuant to Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 801) of Title 2 of Part 2 of Division 2 of the California Civil Code, except that it shall not merge into any other interest in the real property.
Section 1104 of the Civil Code shall be applicable to conveyance of the affected real property.
(4) A covenant of Easement so recorded shall describe the real property subject to the easement and the real property benefited thereby. The covenant of Easement shall also identify the approval, permit, or designation granted which relied upon or required the covenant.
(5) A covenant executed pursuant to this section shall be enforceable by the City. Covenants shall run with the land and shall be equitable servitudes. The City’s interest may include the streets and highways and other interests abutting the burdened property.
(6) The creation or release of the interests may require review by the Planning Commission for conformity with the General Plan under California Government Code Section 65402.
(7) Ordinance shall provide a procedure for the release of the covenant. The procedure shall require a public hearing by the agency designated by the ordinance for that purpose. The hearing shall be held at the request of any person whether or not that person has title to the real property.
(8) Upon a determination that the restriction of the property is no longer necessary to achieve the City’s land use goals, a release shall be recorded by the City in the county where the restricted property is located.
(9) The ordinance may provide for the imposition of fees to recover the reasonable costs of processing the release from those persons requesting the release pursuant to this section.
PART 5 – STREET VACATIONS
12.30.220 – Street Vacations
(a) Under certain conditions, an existing public Easement may no longer be necessary due to a variety of reasons such as changed conditions, topography, etc. The property owner can seek a vacation of an Easement by submitting an application and paying the applicable fees. The City typically only has Easement-holder status in the ROW of public streets, alleys, or walks, and the adjoining property owners have the underlying fee interest. Applicant should contact a title company to perform a title search of the underlying fee interest of the proposed vacation area prior to submitting application. If the City owns the underlying fee interest, a request for purchase of the City-owned property must be processed through the appropriate City department. (b) Applications may be obtained from City Engineer. Requirements include payment of filing fees as listed in the Master Fee Agreement, signature of the Applicant, a legal description, and a scaled plot plan.
12.30.230 – Summary Vacations
(a) Pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code section 8300, et seq., if the vacation affects a street or highway, the following circumstances will qualify for a summary vacation:
(1) The street or highway has been superseded by relocation, and the vacation would not terminate all access to another person’s property or terminate a public service Easement; or
(2) For a period of five (5) consecutive years, the street or highway has been impassable for vehicular travel, and no public money was expended for maintenance purposes during the same period; or
(3) The street or highway is excess ROW and not required for street or highway purpose(s); or
(4) The portion of a street or highway to be vacated lies within property under one (1) ownership and does not continue through such ownership or end touching property of another.
(b) If the vacation would affect a public service Easement, the following circumstances would qualify for summary vacation:
(1) The Easement has not been used for its dedicated purpose for five (5) consecutive years immediately preceding the proposed vacation; or
(2) The date of dedication or acquisition is fewer than five (5) years, but more than one (1) year, immediately preceding the proposed vacation, and the Easement was not used continuously since that date; or
(3) The Easement has been superseded by relocation, and there are no public facilities located within the Easement.
12.30.240 – General Vacations
If the proposed vacation does not meet any of the criteria in Section 12.30.230 it is a General vacation.
(a) City Council may, on its own initiative, may hold a public hearing on the street vacation whose process shall follow Streets and Highway Code Section 8300, et seq. and as amended from time to time.
(b) City Council’s decision is final and not subject to appeal. City Council may conditionally approve a vacation and thus any conditions must be complied with prior to the vacation becoming effective.
(c) Once the City Council adopts its Resolution of Vacation, which is then recorded with the County, the vacation shall be complete.
PART 6 – VIOLATIONS—Revocation and other penalties., REVOCATIONS,
OTHER PENALTIES, AND APPEALS
12.30.250 – Violations and Other Penalties.
Any violation of this Chapter may be enforced either as an infraction or as a, misdemeanor, or by any remedy available to the City under this Code or under State law.this Code or state or federal law(s). These provisions are equally applicable to enforcement action(s), including of Permits and Encroachment Agreements. Potential enforcement measures include but are not limited to the following::
(1a) Fine. Whenever a City Inspector finds that a video service provider, utilityanyone or special districtany entity subject to this Chapter is placing, or has placed or is placing, an encroachment in the public right-of-wayROW without the appropriate Permit, the video service provider, utility or special district shall be required toCity Inspector will require (1) stop work, if construction is on-going,ongoing; (2) applyapplication for a Permit,; and (3) pay both thepayment of Permit fee and a fine equal to the permit feesame;
(2)
(b) Violations and Penalties.
(1) Working without a Permit may result in an Administrative Citation, a Stop Work Order, and a mandate to apply and pay for the required Permit. (2) The following violations may result in an administrative citation:
(A) General.
(i) Failure to abide by the requirements of Chapter 12.30. (ii) Violation of any Permit condition(s).
(iii) Failure apply for and obtain a Permit.
(iv) Failure to maintain a Permit on-site.
(v) Improper public notice.
(B) Excavation (Streets and Paving).
(i) Failure to hold a pre-construction meeting in advance of a “Major Project.”
(ii) Improper site protection (e.g., improper plating, path of travel, barricading, etc.)
(iii) Improper trench trimming.
(iv) Trenches left open after allowed work hours when not backfilled and covered.
(v) Failure to comply with trench restoration requirements. (vi) Improper housekeeping (e.g., failure to remove spoil, dirty site, no sweeping, etc.).
(vii) Failure to provide notice will result in an Administrative Citation and a Stop Work Order.
(viii) Any other excavation code violations.
(c) Suspension. Whenever the
When City Engineer finds that a suspension of an encroachment permit is necessary to protect the protection of public health or safety from imminent danger, the necessitates suspension of Encroachment Permit, City Engineer may immediately suspend any such permitthe Permit immediately, pending a hearing for remedial action or revocation. The Engineer shall, within three (3) working days of the emergency suspension, give written notice of such .
12.30.260 – Procedures for Suspension or Revocation.
(a) Within three (3) working days of the emergency suspension to the permittee, by or revocation, City Engineer will give Permittee written notice of same. Notice shall be delivered to Permittee’s last known address by personal service or by first-class mail, postage prepaid, to the last known address of the permittee. The permittee may,.
(b) Within fifteen (15) days afterfollowing service of such a written notice offor either suspension, or revocation, Permittee may file with the City Manager a request for hearing regarding the suspension.with the City Manager or his or her designee . City Manager shall schedule a hearing on the suspension or revocation within five (5) working days of receipt of a request for hearing. If the City Manager or his or her designee,
(c) After the hearing, if City Manager finds that the public health or safety requires correction or alteration of any condition caused by, or existing on the site of, the encroachment, he or sheCity Manager shall issue one or more of the following:
(A) An1) Order to correct any particular noncompliance, (B) A;
(2) Revocation of the encroachment permit,
(C) A Permit;
(3) Continued suspension of the encroachment Encroachment Permit, until such time as the dangerous condition is corrected, (D) A;
(4) Modification or reinstatement of the encroachment Encroachment Permit, with necessary conditions as necessary to prevent public harm to the public.
The City Manager or his or her designee shall, within ten (10) days of the hearing, render a written opinion, stating the findings upon which the decision is based, and the action taken. The decision of the City Manager or his or her designee shall be final, except a decision to revoke the permit which may be appealed to the City Council in accordance with Section
12.30.060(b) of this chapter;
(3) Revocation. The Engineer may recommend that the City (d) City Manager revoke a permit where she or he finds that:
(A)The permittee has violated any provision of this Code or condition of the permit,
(B) The permittee has failed to pay any required fees, or to post or maintain any bond or insurance required by this chapter, or
(C) The encroachment for which the permit was granted adversely affects the safety, capacity or integrity of the City's public right-of-way or increases the City's liability exposure,
(D) The encroachment is causing the City to incur substantial additional maintenance costs, or
(E) Material misrepresentations, omissions or inaccuracies were made in the application for the permit.
The Engineer shall give the permittee at least ten (10) days' written notice of a hearing before the City Manager or his or her designee on the proposed revocation of a permit issued pursuant to this chapter, setting forth the grounds for such action. If, after reviewing all evidence presented before or at the public hearing, the City Manager or his or her designee makes any one of the five findings set forth above, he or she may revoke the permit. The City Manager or his or her designee shall, within ten (10) days after the close of the hearing, shall render a written opinion, stating the findings upon which the decision is based, and the action taken. TheCity Manager’s decision of the City Manager or his or her designee may be appealed to the City Council in accordanceby filing a written appeal with Section 12.30.060(b) of this chapter the City Clerk within ten (10) business days of the date notice of the decision is mailed to the Permittee.
(Source: Ordinance No. 21-08 N.S.)
12.30.270 – Revocation.
(a) City Engineer may recommend that City Manager revoke a Permit or Encroachment Agreement when:
(1) Permittee has violated any provision of this Code or any Permit condition; or (2) Permittee fails to pay any required fees or to post or maintain any bond or insurance this Chapter requires; or
(3) Encroachment for which the Permit was granted adversely affects safety, capacity or integrity of City’s ROW or increases City’s liability exposure; or (4) Encroachment causes City to incur substantial additional maintenance costs; or
(E) Permit application contained material misrepresentations, omissions, or inaccuracies.
12.30.280 – Appeals.
(a) Decisions on Permits and Encroachment Agreements.
(1) Denial. City Engineer shall put their decision to grant or to deny a Permit in writing and deliver it to Applicant within five (5) calendar days following the decision. Notice of a decision to deny the Permit shall enumerate the reason(s) for denial.
(2) Approval. City shall post a notice of decision to approve a Permit at its Engineering Services’ public counter beginning on the date of the decision. The approval notice shall be posted at the site of the encroachment for no fewer than ten (10) calendar days beginning within five (5) calendar days from the date of City Engineer’s the decision. This cumulative period of 10 days shall be known as the “appeal period.”
(b) Appeal Period.
No Permit shall be issued until after the ten (10)-day appeal period expires. If City does not receive a timely filed appeal, it may issue the Permit after the appeal period expires.
If City receives a timely filed appeal, it shall not issue a permit until the appeal’s final resolution.
12.30.290 – Appeals and Hearings.
(a) Any person aggrieved by City Engineer’s decision may appeal by submitting a written appeal to City Clerk within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. Appeal fee shall be remitted as listed in the City's Master Fee Schedule at the time of appeal submission.
(b) City Council shall hold a hearing on the appeal at a regularly scheduled meeting not fewer than fourteen (14) days and not greater than forty-five (45) days after City receives the appeal. City shall provide appellant at least ten (10) days’ written notice of the hearing’s date and time. City Council’s decision on the appeal shall be final and binding.
Chapter 12.30 - VIDEO SERVICE PROVIDER, UTILITY AND SPECIAL
DISTRICT ENCROACHMENTS
12.30.010 - Purpose.
The public rights -of-way are unique public resources held in trust for the benefit of the public. These physically limited resources require proper management to maximize their efficiency and minimize the costs to taxpayers, to protect against foreclosure of future economic expansion because of premature exhaustion of the public rights -of-way, and to minimize the inconvenience to and negative effects on the public from use of the public rights -of-way by video service providers, utilities and special districts.
12.30.020 - Definitions.
As used in this chapter:
"Agency" means the Richmond Community Redevelopment Agency, a public body corporate and politic.
"Arterial street" means any street with a traffic volume of 7,500 to 15,000 vehicles per day, including B arrett Avenue, Castro Ranch Road, Garrard Boulevard, Harbor Way, Macdonald Avenue, Pennsylvania Avenue, Potrero Avenue, Rheem Avenue, Seventh Street, Solano Avenue and Thirty- Seventh Street.
"City" means the government of the City of Richmond, a chartered city and a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California, and all departments, divisions and offices thereof. "Communications service equipment" and "communications service facilities" mean the equipmen t and facilities used by a video service provider to provide cable or video service.
"Encroach" means constructing or placing temporary or permanent structures, improvements, facilities or materials in, on, over, or under any public right-of-way or using any right -of-way so as to prevent, obstruct, or
interfere with the normal use of that way, including, but not limited to, the performance of any of the following acts:
(1) Excavating or disturbing the public right -of-way;
(2) Erecting or maintaining any post, sign, pole, fence, guard -rail, wall, pipe, conduit, cable, wire, communication service equipment, or other facility or structure on, over, or under a public right- of-way; (3) Planting any tree, shrub, grass or other growing thing within the public right-of-way;
(4) Placing or leaving on the public right -of-way any rubbish, brush, earth or other material;
(5) Constructing, placing, or maintaining on, over, under or within a public right-of-way any pathway, sidewalk, driveway or other surfacing; any culvert or other surface drainage or subsurface drainage facility; or any pipe, conduit, wire, communication service equipment or facilities, or cable;
(6) Constructing, placing, planting or maintaining any structure, embankment, excavation, tree or other object adjacent to the public right-of-way which causes or may cause an encroachment. "Engineer" means the City Engineer, or his or her designee. "Facility" means any fiber -optic, co-axial, or copper cable; communication service equipment; telephone, telecommunications, electric or other wire, line or equipment; utility structure; oil, gas, or other pipeline; duct; conduit; cabinet; tunnel; vault; drain; manhole; splice box; surface location marker; pole; subsurface tiebacks; soil nails; stairs; access ramps; subsurface foundations; landscape features, including curbs around planter areas; planter boxes; clocks; bus shelters; phone booths; bike racks; fencing; retaining walls; benches; stockpiles; building materials; and other appurtenances or tangible thing located in, upon, above, beneath, or across any public right -of-way.
"Major arterial stre et" means any street with a traffic volume of more than 15,000 vehicles per day, including Carlson Boulevard, Central Avenue,
Cutting Boulevard, Hilltop Drive, May Road, R.H. Miller Drive, San Pablo Avenue, San Pablo Dam Road, Thirteenth Street, Twenty -Second Street and Twenty-Third Street.
"Permittee" means any person, video service provider, utility or special district that has been issued a permit pursuant to this chapter, including any lawful successor, transferee, or assignee of the original permittee. All obligations, responsibilities, and other requirements of the permittee shall be binding on successors in interest of the original permittee. "Person" means any natural person, firm, joint venture, joint stock company, partnership, association, club, c ompany, corporation, business trust, organization, or the manager, lessee, agent, servant, officer or employee of any of them or any other entity which is recognized by law as the subject of rights or duties, not including the City of Richmond, the Richmond Community Redevelopment Agency, or the City's or Agency's officers, employees or agents.
"Public right-of-way" means the area in, upon, above, beneath, or across any land or interest therein which by deed, conveyance, agreement, easement, dedication, usa ge or process of law is reserved for or dedicated to the use of the general public for travel, and includes any public street, road, highway, freeway, bridge, lane, court, alley, boulevard, sidewalk, median, parkway or emergency vehicle easement.
"Public street" means the full width of the surfaced or traveled portion, including shoulders, of any road, street, path, lane or alley dedicated to, reserved for or used by or for the general public when those roads, streets, paths, lanes and alleys have been accepted as and declared to be part of the city system of public streets, except highways forming a part of the State highway system.
"Special district" means any agency of the State for the local performance of governmental or proprietary functions within lim ited boundaries, and includes a county service area, a maintenance district or area, an improvement district or improvement zone, or any other zone or area formed for the purpose of designating an area within which a property tax rate will be levied to pay for a service or improvement benefitting that area.
"Structure" means any physical alteration or improvement, including, but not limited to, a building, post, cabinet, fence, vault, sign, pole, guard -rail, wall, facility, pedestrian walking path, sidewalk , driveway, track, surfacing, culvert, drainage facility, pipe, embankment or excavation. "Underground utility district" has the meaning set forth in Chapter 12.48 of this Code.
"Utility" means any person or entity providing electricity, gas, telephone, telecommunications, water, or other services to customers, and which pursuant to State law or local franchise is entitled to install its facilities in the public rights -of-way.
"Video service" has the meaning set forth in California Public Utilities Code Section 5830(s).
"Video service provider" has the meaning set forth in California Public Utilities Code Section 5830(t) and, in addition, refers collectively to any cable operator as defined in Public Utilities Code Section 5830(b), or open -video system operator as defined in Public Utilities Code Section 5830(n).
12.30.030 - Applicability.
(a) Except as specified in subsection (b), below, before placing any encroachment in, on, over, or under any public right -of-way within the City, a video service provider, utility , or special district must obtain a permit in accordance with this chapter.
(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a), above, no permit shall be required pursuant to this chapter for any of the following:
(1) The actions of any officer or employee of the City or Agency engaged in the discharge of official duties;
(2) The performance of work under contracts to the City or Agency, including work for City or Agency projects;
(3) Encroachments existing prior to the effective date of this chapter; provided, however, that nothing in this chapter shall preclude the Engineer from requiring an appropriate permit or license for or
removal of any such preexisting encroachment where the Engineer determines the encroachment adversely affects the safety, capacity or integrity of the City's public right-of-way;
(4) Maintenance or repair by a video service provider, utility or special district of existing pipes, facilities, conduits or other structures lawfully on or under a public right-of-way where such maintenance or repair work will not disrupt traffic in an arterial or major arterial street; (5) The making of an emergency street cut or excavation in the public right-of-way by a video service provider, utility or special district to repair a broken or defective pipe, facility or conduit lawfully on or under a public arterial street, as may be necessary for the preservation of life and property when an urgent necessity therefor arises and the offices of the City are closed, provided that reasonable vehicular and pedestrian barriers or other traffic controls shall be provided during the performance of any such repairs. The video service provider, utility or special district performing the repair work shall notify the City's Engineering Department and Police Department by telephone at the time any such repair work is commenced and must apply for a permit within one calendar day after the offices of the City are again opened; (6) Tree work, including, but not limited to, planting, trimming, or removal of any new or existing tree within the public right-of-way where a permit has been issued for such work pursuant to Chapter
10.08 of this Code, and no traffic lane closure is anticipated; (7) Sidewalk cafes and restaurants, which shall be governed by the provisions and requirements of Chapter 15.04 of this Code; (8) Street closures for special events specifically approved by the City Council.
(c) Any video service provider, utility or special district encroachment that requires but does not have a permit shall be deemed a violation of this chapter and a public nuisance, which may be abated by the City pursuant to any applicable provision of law including, but not limited to, Chapter 9.22 of this Code.
12.30.040 - Application.
(a) An application for a video service provider, utility or special district encroachment permit, including renewal of an existing permit, shall be on a form prescribed by the Engineer, shall be signed by the applicant, and shall include all of the following materials unless the submittal is waived in writing by the Engineer:
(1) The name, address and telephone number of the applicant; (2) The name, address and telephone number of the contractor(s) if any proposed work is to be done by a contractor(s);
(3) The location, purpose, extent and nature of the proposed work; (4) The period of time when the proposed work will be performed; (5) A traffic and pedestrian control plan for the location of the proposed work; (6) A certificate of insurance from the applicant and contractor's insurance carrier in a form satisfactory to the City, and naming the City as additional insureds;
(7) A key map and detailed improvement plan showing all facilities to be located in the public right- of-way, including the material of construction and horizontal and vertical locations with respect to the property lines and grade lines, existing utilities and all other pertinent facilities and information required by the Engineer. Unless exempted by State law, the detailed improvement plan shall be prepared by a California Registered Professional Civil Engineer;
(8) Any other specifications, analyses or materials the Engineer may require to describe the work, its location in and its effect on the right-of-way, including the mode of operation, maintenance and use;
(9) Current maps and records of the underground facilities at the site; (10) The encroachment permit fee set forth in the City's Master Fee Schedule.
(b) For those applications where an aboveground encroachment is proposed, the Engineer shall provide written notice by first class mail to occupants and to owners (as shown on the County Assessor's latest tax roll) of properties located within 300 feet of the proposed encroachment, and to the Neighborhood Council and any homeowners' association in the neighborhood of the proposed encroachment, advising of the filing of an application for approval of an encroachment into the public right-of-way, describing the proposed encroachment and its location, and providing an opportunity to submit written comments regarding the application to the Engineer within fifteen (15) days from the date of the letter and prior to the
Engineer's action on the application. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no notice shall be required for any application limited to installation of utility poles, anchors or small cabinets less than four (4) cubic feet in size or for any underground excavations or related work.
(c) In signing the application, the applicant attests that all information provided in support of the application is true and correct. When the applicant has submitted a completed and signed application form, all supporting documents and information, and the required fee, the application will be complete. The Engineer shall act upon an application for a video service provider, utility or special district encroachment permit within sixty (60) days after the application is complete.
(d) A renewal application, supporting materials, and fee must be submitted at least sixty (60) days prior to the termination date of a video service provider, utility or special district encroachment permit or the permit may lapse. A lapsed permit may be deemed a violation of this chapter and the unpermitted encroachment may be considered a public nuisance, subject to abatement by the City pursuant to any applicable provision of law including but not limited to Chapter 9.22 of this Code.
12.30.050 - Findings and conditions.
A video service provider, utility or special district encroachment permit shall be approved by the Engineer upon making the following findings, and shall be subject to all requirements of this chapter and to all of the following conditions:
(1) Findings.
(A) The proposed encroachment has no potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.
(B) The application is complete and all of the necessary supporting information has been provided.
(C) The applicant has made reasonable efforts to erect, construct, use, operate, and maintain facilities underground; provided, however, from and after the effective date of the establishment of any underground utility district, the applicant shall erect, construct, use, operate, and
maintain its facilities underground. Where undergrounding is not feasible (except in any area declared to be an underground utility district), the applicant has made reasonable efforts to co-locate facilities on existing poles or other aboveground structures. (D) The proposed location of the facilities is the best available option to minimize adverse impacts on the use of the public right-of-way and on adjoining properties.
(E) If the application is for a renewal of an existing permit, the permittee is in compliance with the current permit and conditions. (F) With the conditions imposed, the proposed encroachment shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. (2) Conditions.
(A) All application materials are incorporated into the permit by reference and all representations made in the application are conditions of permit approval.
(B) The permittee and all of its contractors performing work in the public right-of-way shall secure a policy of broad form commercial general liability insurance naming the City as additional insured in an amount not less than two million dollars ($2,000,000.00) per occurrence, or as approved by the City's risk manager, unless permittee is exempt by law from having to procure such insurance before establishing or maintaining any works or facilities in, on, under or above the public right-of-way. All contractors' policies secured in compliance with this condition shall be in effect for the duration of the contractor's work in the public right-of-way; all permittees' policies secured in compliance with this condition shall be in effect for as long as the encroachment remains in the public right-of-way. (C) The permittee and all of its contractors performing work in the public right-of-way shall furnish to the City, and file with the City Clerk, a corporate surety bond to guaranty the faithful performance of the construction of such work and a separate bond to secure payment of the claims of laborers, mechanics, and material suppliers employed in the construction of such work. The performance bond and payment
bond shall each be in an amount equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the total amount of the cost of construction of the work to be performed in the public right-of-way. All bonds shall be issued by a corporate surety admitted in the State of California and shall name the City as a co-obligee.
(D) All work done under the permit shall conform to standard specifications or, in the absence of standard specifications, to recognized standards of design, construction and practices in placing encroachments in, on, under or above the public right-of-way. (E) All facilities shall be constructed, operated, and maintained in the time, place and manner that cause the least interference with the public's use of the public right-of-way, the City's management and use of the right-of-way, and the rights or reasonable convenience of property owners who adjoin the public right-of-way.
(F) Except when emergency repairs are required, at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to commencing any work that will obstruct or impede the flow of vehicular and/or pedestrian traffic, the permittee shall post the area that will be affected with notifications satisfactory to the Engineer.
(G) During construction, the permittee shall keep a copy of the permit issued pursuant to this chapter at the job site.
(H) During construction and maintenance, the permittee shall provide appropriate traffic warnings, safeguards and controls, as approved by the Engineer.
(I) During construction and maintenance, the permittee shall provide temporary pedestrian access facilities as necessary to comply with local, State and Federal law, including the Americans with Disabilities Act, and with the written direction of the Engineer, if any. (J) The permittee shall maintain all structures, facilities, and landscaping within the encroachment area in a safe and clean manner, and shall at all times observe and enforce all applicable local, State, and Federal safety orders, rules and regulations.
(K) The permittee shall promptly remove all graffiti on any structure or facility within the encroachment area.
(L) The permittee shall notify the Richmond Police Department and the Engineer and shall promptly repair any damage to structures or facilities caused by criminal activity, including, but not limited to, theft of copper.
(M) As may be required by Section 4216 et seq. of the California Government Code, the permittee shall contact Underground Service Alert (USA) prior to commencing, and as appropriate during, any permitted work.
(N) Upon the request of any person who has contracted to perform work on a public right-of-way, the permittee shall provide accurate detailed information regarding the location of its existing and proposed structures in the public right-of-way.
(O) To the maximum extent allowed by law, permittee shall indemnify, defend, release, and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, employees, boards, commissions and contractors ("Indemnitees") against any and all liabilities, losses, claims, actions, causes of action or demands whatsoever against any of them, including claims for any injury to or death of any person or damage to property or other liability of any nature, including, but not limited to, Attorney's and expert fees and court costs, arising out of or connected in any way with the installation, operation and maintenance of any facilities in, or the use of any public right-of-way by, permittee or permittee's employees, officers, officials, agents, transferees, contractors or subcontractors pursuant to the permit or agreement issued under this chapter; provided, that the obligation to indemnify the City under this subsection shall not apply to any liabilities, losses, claims, actions, causes of action or demands caused by indemnitee's sole negligence, willful misconduct or criminal acts.
(P) To the maximum extent allowed by law, permittee shall indemnify, defend, release, and hold harmless Indemnitees against any claim, action or proceeding brought to attack, set aside, void or annul the environmental review process for and/or approval of a permit issued pursuant to this chapter.
(Q) The City reserves the right to inspect any structure or facility installed in the public right-of-way and to demand of the permittee timely correction of any deficiencies in operation or maintenance. The City further reserves the right to demand at any time that within ten (10) business days the permittee produce current, complete and accurate maps, plans, diagrams, and records pertaining to any structure or facility installed in the public right-of-way. (R) Installation or construction of structures and facilities in the public right-of-way shall be completed and all construction-related damage to the public right-of-way shall be repaired within two (2) years from the date the encroachment permit is issued, unless for good cause the Engineer grants a written extension of the time to complete installation, construction or repair.
(S) The permittee shall operate and use the structures and facilities placed in the public right-of-way solely and exclusively for the purposes and uses expressly stated in the application. A change in purpose, use, or operator of the structures and facilities requires approval of a transfer in accordance with Section 12.30.080 of this chapter.
(T) The Engineer reserves the right to suspend
the encroachment permit if necessary to protect the public from imminent danger and to take such action as is necessary to correct the condition posing the danger. In the event of an emergency suspension, the Engineer shall notify the permittee and provide an opportunity for a hearing in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 12.30.090 of this chapter.
(U) If placement of structures and/or facilities in the public right-of-way conflicts with the City's construction, reconstruction or maintenance work in the public right-of-way, the permittee shall, at its own expense, relocate the structures and/or facilities in accordance with Section
12.30.070 of this chapter.
(V) When the facilities and/or structures encroaching in the public right-of-way are removed and/or abandoned, the permittee shall, at its own expense, restore the public right-of-way to a condition the same as or better than its condition before the facilities and/or structures
were installed. Failure to so restore the public right-of-way may be deemed a violation of this chapter and a public nuisance, subject to abatement by the City pursuant to any applicable provision of law including, but not limited to, Chapter 9.22 of this Code. (W) Such other reasonable conditions, including installation of facilities or structures to address accessibility and drainage, as may be deemed necessary by the Engineer to protect the public health, safety and welfare.
(X) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Section 12.30.050(1)(C) of this chapter, whenever any area of the City is declared to be an underground utility district, it shall be unlawful for any video service provider, utility or special district to erect, construct, use, operate or maintain their facilities aboveground.
(3) Where the insurance and indemnification conditions stated in subsection (2), above, conflict with the provisions of a franchise or other agreement between a video service provider, utility or special district and the City or State, the provisions of such franchise or other agreement shall apply. (4) A video service provider, utility or special district encroachment permit shall terminate on the date specified therein, or upon abandonment of the facilities and/or structures constructed pursuant to such permit. If no date is specified in the encroachment permit, it shall be considered to be of indeterminate duration.
12.30.060 - Posting and appeal.
(a) Posting of Decision. The Engineer's decision to grant or to deny a permit shall be in writing and shall be delivered to the applicant within five (5) calendar days of the decision. Notice of a decision to deny a permit shall specify the reason(s) for denial. Notice of a decision to approve a permit shall be posted at the City of Richmond Engineering Services public counter commencing on the date of the decision and shall be posted at the site of the approved encroachment for a period of not less than ten (10) calendar days commencing within five (5) calendar days from the date of the decision (cumulatively, the "appeal period"). No permit shall be issued until after the expiration of the appeal period, if no appeal is timely filed, or until the final resolution of any appeal.
(b) Appeal. Any person aggrieved by the Engineer's decision on a video service provider, utility or special district encroachment permit application may appeal by submitting a written appeal to the City Clerk, along with the applicable appeal fee as provided in the City's Master Fee Schedule, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. The City Council shall hold a hearing on the appeal at a regularly scheduled meeting not less than fourteen (14) days and not more than forty-five (45) days after receipt of the appeal, and shall give the applicant and the appellant at least ten (10) days written notice of the date and time of the hearing. The decision by the City Council on the appeal shall be final.
12.30.070 - Relocation of facilities.
(a) If any future construction, reconstruction or maintenance work is required by the City or Agency in the public right-of-way that necessitates the relocation, removal or abandonment of an encroachment, the permittee shall relocate, remove or abandon the encroachment at the permittee's sole expense, unless such requirement is in conflict with any applicable State or local statute or franchise.
(b) When relocation is required, the Engineer shall make written demand of the permittee that the encroachment be relocated within the public right-of- way to a satisfactory location provided by the Engineer, and shall designate a reasonable time for such relocation or removal. In determining what is a reasonable time under this section, the Engineer shall take into consideration the nature of the encroachment, the urgency of the need for its removal, the cost of its removal, the difficulty of its removal, the value of the property to the owner, and other facts peculiar to the particular situation.
12.30.080 - Transfer.
No video service provider, utility or special district encroachment permit may be transferred by the permittee to another person or entity without the express written consent of the Engineer, at his or her sole discretion.
12.30.090 - Violations—Revocation and other penalties.
Any violation of this Chapter may be enforced either as an infraction or as a misdemeanor, or by any remedy available to the City under this Code or
under State law. Potential enforcement measures include but are not limited to the following:
(1) Fine. Whenever a City inspector finds that a video service provider, utility or special district subject to this chapter has placed or is placing an encroachment in the public right-of-way without the appropriate permit, the video service provider, utility or special district shall be required to (1) stop work, if construction is on-going, (2) apply for a permit, and (3) pay both the permit fee and a fine equal to the permit fee;
(2) Suspension. Whenever the Engineer finds that a suspension of an encroachment permit is necessary to protect the public health or safety from imminent danger, the Engineer may immediately suspend any such permit pending a hearing for remedial action or revocation.
The Engineer shall, within three (3) working days of the emergency suspension, give written notice of such suspension to the permittee, by personal service or by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the last known address of the permittee. The permittee may, within fifteen (15) days after service of such a written notice of suspension, file with the City Manager a request for hearing regarding the suspension. The City Manager or his or her designee shall schedule a hearing on the suspension within five (5) working days of receipt of a request for hearing. If the City Manager or his or her designee, after the hearing, finds that the public health or safety requires correction or alteration of any condition caused by, or existing on the site of
the encroachment, he or she shall issue one or more of the following:
(A) An order to correct any particular noncompliance,
(B) A revocation of the encroachment permit,
(C) A continued suspension of the encroachment permit, until such time as the dangerous condition is corrected,
(D) A modification or reinstatement of the encroachment permit, with conditions as necessary to prevent harm to the public.
The City Manager or his or her designee shall, within ten (10) days of the hearing, render a written opinion, stating the findings upon which the
decision is based, and the action taken. The decision of the City Manager or his or her designee shall be final, except a decision to revoke the permit which may be appealed to the City Council in accordance with Section
12.30.060(b) of this chapter;
(3) Revocation. The Engineer may recommend that the City Manager revoke a permit where she or he finds that:
(A)The permittee has violated any provision of this Code or condition of the permit,
(B) The permittee has failed to pay any required fees, or to post or maintain any bond or insurance required by this chapter, or (C) The encroachment for which the permit was granted adversely affects the safety, capacity or integrity of the City's public right-of-way or increases the City's liability exposure,
(D) The encroachment is causing the City to incur substantial additional maintenance costs, or
(E) Material misrepresentations, omissions or inaccuracies were made in the application for the permit.
The Engineer shall give the permittee at least ten (10) days' written notice of a hearing before the City Manager or his or her designee on the proposed revocation of a permit issued pursuant to this chapter, setting forth the grounds for such action. If, after reviewing all evidence presented before or at the public hearing, the City Manager or his or her designee makes any one of the five findings set forth above, he or she may revoke the permit. The City Manager or his or her designee shall, within ten (10) days after the close of the hearing, render a written opinion, stating the findings upon which the decision is based, and the action taken. The decision of the City Manager or his or her designee may be appealed to the City Council in accordance with Section 12.30.060(b) of this chapter.
(Source: Ordinance No. 21-08 N.S.)
Richmond, CA Code of Ordinances about:blank
1 of 16 11/18/2021, 12:36 PM
Chapter 12.29 - STREET OPENING AND PAVEMENT RESTORATION REGULATIONS
12.29.010 - Purpose.
The public right-of-way is a unique public resource held in trust for the benefit of the public. This physically limited resource requires proper management to maximize its efficiency and minimize the costs to taxpayers, to protect against foreclosure of future economic expansion because of premature exhaustion of the public right-of-way, and to minimize the inconvenience to and negative effects on the public from use of the public right-of-way by contractors and utility companies.
To achieve the purpose of this chapter, the City of Richmond shall endeavor to coordinate its Capital Improvement Programs with those of utility companies and franchisees with facilities in, on, under or above the public right-of-way. Information about any planned work in the right-of-way shall be shared at the earliest possible time. Utility owners and franchisees are encouraged to coordinate their street excavations so that all work is done simultaneously and the street is not excavated more than once within a twelve-month period.
(Ord. No. 39-09 N.S., § I, 12-1-2009)
12.29.020 - De�nitions.
As used in this chapter:
"Agency" means the Richmond Community Redevelopment Agency, a public body corporate and politic.
"Arterial street" means any street with a traffic volume of 7,500 to 15,000 vehicles per day, including Barrett Avenue, Castro Ranch Road, Garrard Boulevard, Harbour Way, MacDonald Avenue, Pennsylvania Avenue, Potrero Avenue, Rheem Avenue, Seventh Street, Solano Avenue, and Thirty-Seventh Street.
"Asphalt concrete" or "AC" means blend of aggregate and asphalt binder meeting the specifications set forth in the City of Richmond Standard Specifications Section 39, "Asphalt Concrete" and the Caltrans Standard Specifications Section 39, "Asphalt Concrete."
"Chip seal" (see the definition of "Slurry seal").
"City" means the City of Richmond, a charter city and a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California, and all departments, divisions, and offices thereof.
"Encroach" means constructing or placing temporary or permanent structures, improvements, facilities or materials in, on, over, or under any public right-of-way or using any right-of-way so as to
Richmond, CA Code of Ordinances about:blank
2 of 16 11/18/2021, 12:36 PM
prevent, obstruct, or interfere with the normal use of that way, including but not limited to the
performance of any of the following acts:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Excavating or disturbing the public right-of-way;
Erecting or maintaining any post, sign, pole, fence, guard-rail, wall, pipe, conduit, cable, wire, communication service equipment, or other facility or structure on, over, or under a public right-of-way;
Planting any tree, shrub, grass, or other growing thing within the public right-of-way; Placing or leaving on the public right-of-way any rubbish, brush, earth, or material; Constructing, placing, or maintaining on, over, under, or within a public right-of-way any pathway, sidewalk, driveway, or other surfacing; any culvert or other surface drainage or
subsurface drainage facility; or any pipe, conduit, wire, communication service equipment or facility, or cable;
Constructing, placing, planting, or maintaining any structure, embankment, e xcavation, tree, or other object adjacent to the public right-of-way which causes or may cause an encroachment.
"Engineer" means the City Engineer, his or her designee.
"Excavation" means any trench cuts within the street right-of-way to access or install a utility line or any related facility in excess of four (4) square feet or four (4) feet long, whichever is smaller. All such excavations shall require an encroachment permit.
"Excavator" means the applicant/permittee to whom an encroachment permit is issued for the purposes of e xcavation.
"Facility" means any fiberoptic, coaxial, or copper cable; communication service equipment; telephone, telecommunications, electric or other wire, line or equipment; utility structure; oil, gas, or other pipeline; duct; conduit; cabinet; tunnel; vault; drain; manhole; splice box; surface location marker; pole; subsurface tiebacks; soil nails; stairs; access ramps; subsurface foundations; landscape features, including curbs around planter areas; planter boxes; clocks; bus shelters; phone booths; bike racks; fencing; retaining walls; benches; stockpiles; building materials; and other appurtenances or tangible things located in, upon, above, beneath, or across any public right-of-way.
"Major arterial street" means any street with a traffic volume of more than 15,000 vehicles per day, including Carlson Boulevard, Central Avenue, Cutting Boulevard, Hilltop Drive, May Road, Robert H. Miller Drive, San Pablo Avenue, San Pablo Dam Road, Thirteenth Street, Twenty-Second Street, and Twenty- Third Street.
"Major defects" means any defects greater than the deficiency tolerances specified in the City of
Richmond, CA Code of Ordinances about:blank
3 of 16 11/18/2021, 12:36 PM
Richmond Standard Plans and Details; the Caltrans Standard Specifications and Details; or Individual
Contract Plans and Specifications.
"Micro paving" (see the definition of "Slurry seal").
"Micro surfacing" (see the definition of "Slurry seal"). "Permittee" means any person, contractor, utility or special district that has been issued a permit pursuant to this chapter, including any lawful successor, transferee, or assignee of the original permittee.
All obligations, responsibilities, and other requirements of the permittee shall be binding on successors in interest of the original permittee.
"Person" means any natural person, firm, joint venture, joint stock company, partnership, association, club, company, corporation, business trust, organization, or the manager, lessee, agent, servant, officer, or employee of any of them or any other entity which is recognized by law as the subject of rights or duties, not including the City of Richmond, the Richmond Community Redevelopment Agency, or the City's or Agency's officers, employees, or agents.
"Prohibition street" means streets that have been reconstructed or resurfaced within the past three to five years (see Section 12.29.030.A, below).
"Public right-of-way" means the area in, upon, above, beneath, or across any land or interest which by deed, conveyance, agreement, easement, dedication, usage, or process of law is reserved for or dedicated to the use of the general public for travel, and includes any public street, road, highway, freeway, bridge, lane, court, alley, boulevard, sidewalk, median, parkway, or emergency vehicle easement.
"Public street" means the full width of the surfaced or travel portion, including shoulders, of any road, street, path, lane, or alley dedicated to, reserved for, or used by or for the general public when those roads, streets, paths, lanes, and alleys have been accepted as and declared to be part of the City system of public streets, except highways forming a part of the State highway system.
"Slurry seal" means a mixture of polymer modified asphalt emulsion, mineral aggregate, mineral filler, water, and other additives, properly proportioned, mixed, and spread in accordance with the City of Richmond Standard Plans and Details and the Caltrans Standard Specifications; usually less than ½ inches in thickness.
"Special district" means any agency of the State for the local performance of governmental or proprietary functions within limited boundaries, and includes a county service area, a maintenance district or area, an improvement district or improvement zone, or any other zone or area within which a property tax or assessment will be levied to pay for a service or improvement benefitting that area.
"Street overlay" means one or more courses of asphalt construction on an existing pavement; usually
Richmond, CA Code of Ordinances about:blank
4 of 16 11/18/2021, 12:36 PM
greater than ½ inches in thickness; generally includes an asphalt leveling course to correct the contour of the old pavement.
"Structure" means any physical alteration or improvement, including but not limited to a building,
post, cabinet, fence, vault, sign, pole, guard rail, wall, facility, pedestrian walking path, sidewalk, driveway, track, surfacing, culvert, drainage facility, pipe, embankment, or excavation.
"Underground utility district" has the meaning set forth in Chapter 12.48 of the Richmond Municipal
Code.
"Utility" means any person or entity providing electricity, gas, telephone, telecommunications, water, or other services to customers, and which pursuant to State law or local franchise is entitled to install its facilities in the public right-of-way.
"Wearing surface defects" mean the defects in the surface of a roadway that is in direct contact with traffic and that resists the resulting abrading, crushing, or other disintegrating action.
(Ord. No. 39-09 N.S., § I, 12-1-2009)
12.29.030 - Prohibition period.
(a) Newly constructed or resurfaced streets shall be termed "prohibition streets" within this section. Permission to excavate in prohibition streets will not be granted for five (5) years after the completion of street overlays. An overlay consists of at least a ½-inch thick layer of asphalt.
For those streets with chip seal, slurry seal coating, or micro paving with less than ½ inch of new pavement, the prohibition period shall be for three (3) years. Utilities shall plan well enough in advance to determine alternate methods of making necessary repairs to avoid excavating in newly resurfaced streets. Exceptions to the above policy are as follows:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Emergencies that endanger life or property.
Interruption of essential utility service.
Work that is mandated by City, State, or Federal law.
Service for buildings where no other reasonable means of providing service e xists.
Situations in which no alternative course of action exists, as determined by the engineer in writing setting forth the facts giving rise to the conclusion that no alternative exists.
(b) To excavate in a prohibition street a waiver must be obtained.
(1) To request a waiver, the applicant must submit a written request to the engineer. The
request must include:
(A)
(B)
The location of the excavation.
Description of the work to be performed.
Richmond, CA Code of Ordinances about:blank
5 of 16 11/18/2021, 12:36 PM
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
The reason(s) the work was not performed before the street was paved.
The reason(s) the work cannot be deferred until after the prohibition p eriod.
The reason(s) the work cannot be performed at another location.
The reason(s) it is justified to excavate the prohibition street.
(2) Any excavation in prohibition streets will be repaired with full lane width paving on the
street as follows (refer also to Section 12.29.070, Paving):
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
Overlaid or reconstructed streets: All lanes that are affected shall be ground down 2 inches and repaved with 2 inches of asphalt concrete, OR all lanes that are affected shall be resurfaced per Section 12.29.070, Paving.
Slurry sealed, chip sealed, or micro surfaced streets: All lanes that are affected shall be resurfaced per Section 12.29.070, Paving.
A minimum of one (1) feet on either side of the trench shall be resurfaced if the excavation is a lateral cut. For longitudinal trenches the entire length plus one (1) foot on either end shall be resurfaced.
Exception: Full lane width restoration shall not be required if either of the following
conditions apply:
(i)
(ii)
The work is not considered an excavation as defined in Section 12.29.020.
The work is being performed on behalf of a low-income household in order to bring an owner-occupied single-family residence into compliance with sanitary sewer regulations at any time other than as part of the sale of the residence. Low- income is defined as 80% of area median family income. The purp ose of this exception is to prevent hardship to property owners of limited means and it shall be interpreted and applied solely to achieve that purpose.
(3) Before issuing a permit for work in a prohibition street, the engineer will verify that the applicant has analyzed all feasible alternatives to make the necessary repairs using a trenchless method in prohibition streets to avoid e xcavating a newly resurfaced street whenever possible.
(Ord. No. 39-09 N.S., § I, 12-1-2009)
12.29.040 - Permits.
(a) Any and all construction work within the public right-of-way shall require an e ncroachment permit. Anyone doing excavation work within the City of Richmond public right-of-way shall obtain a street cut permit for the purpose of excavation in addition to any other required permits. The contractor performing the work shall apply for the permit.
Richmond, CA Code of Ordinances about:blank
6 of 16 11/18/2021, 12:36 PM
(b)
(c)
The permit application may be obtained from the City of Richmond Engineering Services
Department.
Prior to applying for a street cut permit, the excavator must register with the City of Richmond.
The contractor performing the work shall apply for the permit. The following must be provided to register for an excavation permit:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
A cash deposit equal to five hundred dollars ($500) or 25% of the value of the work (whichever is greater) as a warranty bond. Companies working under a franchise agreement that includes a bond are not required to post the cash deposit unless/until they have been issued a notice or citation for a violation by the City of Richmond standards or permit requirements.
A current City of Richmond Business License.
Current evidence of insurance.
24-hour phone number for e mergencies.
The name, telephone number, and mailing address (fax number, cell phone, and e -mail address if available) of the person who will receive all office correspondence from the City of Richmond.
(d) All applications shall include plans indicating the following:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Name of the street to be excavated and the nearest cross street.
Distance of proposed excavation from the face of curb.
Distance of proposed excavation from the intersection.
The size of the excavation (length and width).
The location of any above ground facilities to be installed, showing:
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
Distance from curb and any street facilities/furnishings.
Purpose of the facility.
Size of the facility.
Location of doors and door swings.
(6) The location of any existing underground facilities and the location of underground
facilities to be installed showing:
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
Conduit vaults, maintenance holes, pipes, e tc.
Structural detail and additional information for structures to be installed such as vaults and maintenance holes.
The construction method of the structure to be installed.
Construction detail, location, size, design criteria and the purpose of the facility to be
Richmond, CA Code of Ordinances about:blank
7 of 16 11/18/2021, 12:36 PM
installed.
(7) Cross section of a typical trench indicating:
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
The approximate depth of the facility to be installed.
Trench backfill depth, compaction and layer depths.
Pavement section detail (type and depths).
Plans, structural details, and trench cross section must be signed and stamped by a
licensed civil engineer, when legally required.
(8)
(9)
The plan may show the approximate location of the excavation provided that on an "as- built" plan, the exact location of the excavation is shown. The "as-built" plan shall be submitted prior to the permit being finalized.
A traffic control plan.
(e) All excavation permit fees are due at the time the permit is issued. These fees represent the
value of staff time in processing a permit application and are non-refundable.
(1)
(2)
All past due fees, fines and penalties owed by the applicant must be paid before a permit will be issued.
If a permit violation occurs no other application will be processed until the fines and
penalties have been paid and all permit conditions are met.
(f)
(g)
(h)
If an account is past due or not in good standings, a permit cannot be issued until the account is brought into good standing. To bring the account to good standing, all fees and fines must be paid.
As a condition of the permit to excavate, the applicant shall provide evidence of an inquiry identification number issued by a regional notification center (Underground Service Alert, USA) pursuant to Section 4216, California Government Code.
Permittees and excavators shall pay close attention to the location and alignment of all U SA markings while performing their work.
USA Codes are:
Electric Red
Gas-Oil Yellow
Communication-CATV Orange
Water Blue
Richmond, CA Code of Ordinances about:blank
8 of 16 11/18/2021, 12:36 PM
Sewer Green
Temporary Survey Markings Pink
Proposed Excavation White
(i)
(j)
(k)
(l)
If an excavator damages other facilities during their excavation work the excavator will need an additional street cut permit if additional excavation and trenches are needed to repair the damaged facility. The original permittee shall maintain the site and restore the pavement and any affected signage or striping.
Except in an emergency, street cut permits shall be taken out in advance of excavation work.
An emergency is considered to exist only when life or property is endangered or when an essential utility service is or may be interrupted during weekends, holidays, or between 5:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. of normal working days.
In the event of an emergency, the excavator shall notify the City of Richmond and apply for a street cut permit for "emergency work" within four (4) hours after the City of Richmond's office opens.
Pre-construction meeting:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
A pre-construction meeting shall be held for all projects that are scheduled to take longer than 15 working days to complete.
The owner, contractor, any other agency that is involved and the City of Richmond shall attend this meeting.
For projects that are supposed to be completed within 15 days, and are not completed within the allowed time, the City may issue administrative citations if a pre-construction meeting was not held.
The traffic control plan shall be approved prior to the pre-construction meeting.
(m) Permit duration shall be indicated on the permit:
(1)
(2)
(3)
All permits shall include estimated start and completion dates. A permit is valid from the construction start date specified on the approved permit until the specified completion date.
Excavation permits are not valid if other required permits are not obtained or required notifications are not given.
No disruption of traffic is allowed after 4:00 p.m. and before 8:00 a.m. unless specifically
Richmond, CA Code of Ordinances about:blank
9 of 16 11/18/2021, 12:36 PM
approved for these hours.
(4) Some permits may be valid on specific dates. They may be approved with special
conditions specifying dates:
(A)
(B)
(C)
When work shall be done.
When work shall be completed.
Before which work shall not start.
(5) Permits expire and become void, unless otherwise amended:
(A)
(B)
(C)
Sixty (60) days after the start date, if no work has begun.
If the work is not diligently proceeding and there are delays of more than four (4) working days after the work has started, unless the delays are caused by weather or other circumstances beyond the permittee's control.
When the excavation, including the trench restoration, is completed or on the date
specified on the permit as the expiration date.
(6) The work is determined to be proceeding diligently if:
(A)
(B)
After a project begins, work continues on a regular basis, except for weekends, holidays, inclement weather, labor disputes, or any emergency beyond the control of the permittee.
The permittee ensures that all necessary materials and supplies are on hand and ready for use so as not to delay the excavation and the prompt restoration of the public right-of-way.
(n)
(o)
A valid permit may be extended be requesting an extension prior to the expiration date by specifying the dates that need to be changed and explaining the reason for the extension. The engineer reserves the right to deny a request for e xtension.
If an application has been withdrawn or an approved permit is cancelled prior to the start of work the applicant or permittee may request a refund of the bond funds; all other permit fees are non-refundable.
(1)
(2)
To request a refund, submit a written request to the engineer.
The request shall include:
(A)
(B)
The reason for cancellation or withdrawal.
The permit number.
(p) By accepting a street cut and/or encroachment permit, the permittee and the owner of the
facility(ies) for which the permit has been issued agree:
(1)
(2)
To follow all laws, rules, regulations, and permit conditions.
To assure that their employees, contractors, and subcontractors, comply with all laws,
Richmond, CA Code of Ordinances about:blank
10 of 16 11/18/2021, 12:36 PM
rules, regulations, and permit conditions.
(3) To indemnify the City of Richmond against all claims for personal injury or property
damage that may arise in connection with the work.
(q)
(r)
The street cut and/or encroachment permit shall be available during work periods at the excavation site, until the project is completed and approved by the engineer. Permit(s) shall be shown to the City of Richmond employees upon request.
The excavator shall provide public notifications when e xcavating in the public right-of-way.
(1) Minor projects lasting longer than 48 hours but less than 15 working days shall provide 11″ × 17″ posters with 1-inch minimum letters at the beginning and end of the project and every 300 feet between the beginning and the end of the project. Notes must contain:
(A)
(B)
The names, address, and telephone number of the owner and the permittee.
The start and completion dates of the project.
(2) Major projects lasting 15 working days or longer, the excavator shall:
(A) After the permit has been issued and at least five but no more than 30 calendar days
before the anticipated start date of work, mail or deliver written notice to:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Residents and occupants along the affected street.
Schools, churches, and other assembly uses within 300 feet of the affected street.
The City of Richmond Engineering Services and Public Works De partments.
(B) At least five calendar days but not more than 15 calendar days prior to starting work, post and maintain 11″ × 17″ notices in accordance with paragraph (r)(1) above. The
notices must contain:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
The name, address, and telephone number of the owner and the permittee.
A description of the project.
The start and completion dates of the project.
The name, address and 24-hour telephone number of a contact person.
(Ord. No. 39-09 N.S., § I, 12-1-2009)
12.29.050 - Excavation material.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Pavement shall be cut to a straight, neat, vertical line prior to excavation.
All excavated material shall be removed from the job site within twenty-four (24) hours.
Every trench must be backfilled or covered by trench plates the same day. The City may issue administrative citations or pursue any other legal remedy if the trenches are not properly covered or backfilled in a timely manner. Backfill must meet the requirements specified in
Richmond, CA Code of Ordinances about:blank
11 of 16 11/18/2021, 12:36 PM
Section 12.29.060 of this chapter.
(Ord. No. 39-09 N.S., § I, 12-1-2009)
12.29.060 - Back�ll.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Trenches shall be backfilled with Class 2 Aggregate Base as specified in the Caltrans Standard Specifications Section 26, "Aggregate Base" or suitable material as required by the City of Richmond Standard Plans and Specifications. Compaction of backfill shall be in accordance with the City of Richmond Standards.
When undermining occurs, remove existing pavement as required to compact the backfill and restore the pavement.
Compaction tests shall be certified by an independent laboratory and submitted to the engineer, who may require the contractor to recompact and retest until the test results show that proper compaction is being achieved.
(Ord. No. 39-09 N.S., § I, 12-1-2009)
12.29.070 - Paving.
(a) Trenches shall be paved in accordance with the City of Richmond Standard Plans and Specifications. After the trench has been backfilled, and immediately prior to placing asphalt concrete, the existing asphalt concrete shall be saw cut, or milled according to City of Richmond Standards, to a vertical face. The cut shall be a "T-Cut" according to City of Richmond Standards and the new asphalt concrete paving shall be butt joined to the existing asphalt concrete vertical face. No feathering of new paving to existing paving is allowed. The vertical faces shall be tack coated. In prohibition streets, placement of the final two (2) inches of asphalt concrete wearing surface shall be done by a paving machine or spreader box.
Asphalt concrete shall be delivered and compacted in accordance with the City of Richmond Standard Plans and Specifications.
To allow for proper placement of the new pavement section, damaged pavement outside of the original trench cut lines shall be removed by cutting in lines perpendicular to or parallel to the original trench lines. No diagonal cuts are to be made. Undamaged pavement of three (3) feet or less between two damaged areas shall also be removed.
(b)
Richmond, CA Code of Ordinances about:blank
12 of 16 11/18/2021, 12:36 PM
For trenches in recently paved prohibition streets, the entire lane shall be key-cut two (2) inches deep, and repaved with asphalt concrete unless the engineer gives written authorization to resurface with a polymer modified slurry seal instead. Authorization from the engineer to use slurry seal instead of asphalt concrete shall set forth the reasons for the authorization.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
For trenches in recently slurry sealed prohibition streets, the entire lane shall be resurfaced with polymer modified slurry seal.
Trenches in concrete streets shall be repaved with concrete. The thickness of the new pavement shall be equal to the thickness of the existing pavement with the minimum thickness to be six (6) inches in the roadway.
Trenches in arterial and collector streets shall be paved with not less than six (6) inches asphalt concrete or match the existing pavement thickness (whichever is greater).
Pavement shall be restored within fourteen (14) working days from the time the entire trench is backfilled, unless delay is excused due to circumstances beyond the contractor's control, such as inclement weather. For minor excavations such as service installations, the pavement shall be restored with in thirty (30) working days from the time the entire trench is backfilled, unless delay is excused due to circumstances beyond the contractor's control, such as inclement weather.
Asphalt pavement shall be compacted to obtain a minimum of ninety-five percent (95%)
relative compaction. The asphalt concrete wearing surface shall have no irregularity greater than five-sixteenths of an inch ( 5/16 ″) in ten feet (10′) in any direction.
On all streets steel plates shall be used to facilitate traffic flow and to protect the excavation until finish pavement is restored. Steel plates used to bridge a street opening shall be ramped to the elevation on the adjacent pavement and secured against movement in any direction.
Temporary ramps shall be constructed of asphalt and shall have a gradual 30:1 slope or flatter using asphalt cutback.
All painted USA markings shall be removed by the permittee after the work has been completed.
All damaged pavement markings and striping shall be replaced and restored by the permittee.
(Ord. No. 39-09 N.S., § I, 12-1-2009)
12.29.080 - Defects.
(a) Depressed trench pavement shall be repaired as follows:
(1)
(2)
Wearing surface defects—Remove and restore wearing surface.
Major defects—Excavate, remove and restore surface and base.
Richmond, CA Code of Ordinances about:blank
13 of 16 11/18/2021, 12:36 PM
The permit inspector will determine the severity of the defect.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Work not in compliance with the above requirements shall be rejected, removed, and redone by the permittee to the satisfaction of the engineer.
The owner of the facility/utility company is responsible for any roadway defects in the area over and adjacent to the trench appearing after the permittee restores the trench. The owner is responsible for maintenance, repair or reconstruction of the excavation site's affected area until the City of Richmond reconstructs, repaves, or resurfaces the street.
If there is a trench-related failure after the City of Richmond reconstructs, repaves, or resurfaces the street, the owner of the facility/utility company is responsible for its repair if the failure occurs within 1 year of a trench repair.
When the City of Richmond determines that an excavation or a defect is hazardous or constitutes a public nuisance or other imminent threat to public health, safety, or welfare, the engineer may order the responsible party to remedy the condition immediately.
If the responsible party refuses or fails to make the needed repairs immediately, the City of Richmond
will make the repairs and:
(1)
(2)
(3)
The responsible party will be charged all the actual costs including administration, construction, consultant fees, equipment, inspection, notification, and remediation made necessary by the action or inaction of the permittee.
The repair or restoration by the City of Richmond does not relieve the responsible party from liability for future pavement failures.
If the responsible party fails or refuses to pay the restoration cost, the City may use any legal means to recover the costs, including but not limited to property liens and/or court action.
(Ord. No. 39-09 N.S., § I, 12-1-2009)
12.29.090 - Violations—Revocation and other penalties.
Any violation of this chapter may be enforced either as an infraction or as a misdemeanor, or by any remedy available to the City under this Code or under State law. Potential enforcement measures include but are not limited to the following:
(a) Fine. If a City inspector finds that a contractor has committed any of the following violations then the contractor may be required to pay a fine or penalty for his or her actions. The penalties for violations are listed in the City's Master Fee Schedule.
Richmond, CA Code of Ordinances about:blank
14 of 16 11/18/2021, 12:36 PM
VIOLATIONS PENALTIES
(Not to exceed amount shown)
1. Working without a permit. Administrative
citation, stop work, and apply and pay for
the required permit
2. Excavation without providing public
notice.
Administrative
citation and stop work
3. Beginning a
"Major Project" without having a pre-
construction meeting.
Administrative
citation
4. Violation of
permit conditions.
Administrative
citation
5. Improper site
protection: improper plating, path of travel,
barricading, etc.
Administrative
citation
6. No permit on site. Administrative
citation
7. Improper trimming of trench. Administrative
citation
8. Any trench left open after the allowed
work hours that is
not back�lled and covered.
Administrative
citation
9. Improper public notice: no notice sign,
wrong information on sign/notice.
Administrative
citation
Richmond, CA Code of Ordinances about:blank
15 of 16 11/18/2021, 12:36 PM
10. Non-compliance with trench restoration
requirements.
Administrative
citation
11.Improper housekeeping: failure to
remove spoil, dirty site, no sweeping, etc.
Administrative
citation
12. Other excavation code violations. Administrative
citation
The above fines, when assessed, shall be deducted from the cash deposit required by 12.29.040(e)(1)
of this section or will be paid by the applicant if there is not a cash deposit.
(b) Suspension. Whenever the engineer finds that a suspension of an encroachment permit is necessary to protect the public health or safety from imminent danger, the engineer may immediately suspend any such permit pending a hearing for remedial action or revocation.
The engineer shall, within three (3) working days of the emergency suspension, give a written notice of such suspension to the permittee, by personal service or by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the last known address of the permittee. The permittee may, within fifteen (15) days after service of such a written notice of suspension, file with the City Manager a request for hearing regarding the suspension. The City Manager or his or her designee shall schedule a hearing on the suspension within five (5) working days of receipt of a request for hearing. I f the City Manager or his or her designee, after the hearing, finds that the public health or safety requires correction or alteration of any condition caused by, or existing on the site of the encroachment, he or she shall issue one or more of the following:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
An order to correct any particular noncompliance.
A revocation of the encroachment permit.
A continued suspension of the encroachment permit, until such time as the dangerous condition is corrected.
A modification or reinstatement of the encroachment permit, with conditions as necessary
to prevent harm to the public.
The City Manager or his or her designee shall, within ten (10) days of the hearing, render a written opinion, stating the findings upon which the decision is based, and the action taken. The decision of the City Manager or his or her designee shall be final, except a decision to revoke the permit which may be appealed to the City Council in accordance with Section 12.30.060.B of this Code.
Richmond, CA Code of Ordinances about:blank
16 of 16 11/18/2021, 12:36 PM
(c) Revocation. The engineer may recommend that the City Manager revoke a permit where he or
she finds that:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
The permittee has violated any provision of this Code or conditions of the permit; or
The permittee has failed to pay any required fees, or to post or maintain any bond or insurance required by this chapter; or
The encroachment for which the permit was granted adversely affects the safety, capacity, or integrity of the City's public right-of-way or increases the City's liability exposure; or The encroachment is causing the City to incur substantial additional maintenance costs; or Material misrepresentations, omissions, or inaccuracies were made in the application for the permit.
The engineer shall give the permittee at least ten (10) days' written notice of a hearing before the City Manager or his or her designee on the proposed revocation of a permit issued pursuant to this chapter, setting forth the grounds for such action. If, after reviewing all evidence presented before or at the public hearing, the City Manager or his or her designee makes any one of the five findings set forth above, he or she may revoke the permit. The City Manager or his or her designee shall, within ten (10) days after the close of the hearing, render a written opinion, stating the findings upon which the decision is based, and the action taken. The decision of the City Manager or his or her designee may be appealed to the City Council in accordance with Section 12.30.060.B of this Code.
(Ord. No. 39-09 N.S., § I, 12-1-2009)
Chapter 12.29 - STREET OPENING AND PAVEMENT RESTORATION REGULATIONS
12.29.010 - Purpose.
The public right-of-way is a unique public resource held in trust for the benefit of the public. This physically limited resource requires proper management to maximize its efficiency and minimize the costs to taxpayers, to protect against foreclosure of future economic expansion because of premature exhaustion of the public right-of-way, and to minimize the inconvenience to and negative effects on the public from use of the public right-of-way by contractors and utility companies.
To achieve the purpose of this chapter, the City of Richmond shall endeavor to coordinate its Capital Improvement Programs with those of utility companies and franchisees with facilities in, on, under or above the public right-of-way. Information about any planned work in the right-of-way shall be shared at the earliest possible time. Utility owners and franchisees are encouraged to coordinate their street excavations so that all work is done simultaneously and the street is not excavated more than once within a twelve-month period.
(Ord. No. 39-09 N.S., § I, 12-1-2009)
12.29.020 - De�nitions.
As used in this chapter:
"Agency" means the Richmond Community Redevelopment Agency, a public body corporate and politic.
"Arterial street" means any street with a traffic volume of 7,500 to 15,000 vehicles per day, including Barrett Avenue, Castro Ranch Road, Garrard Boulevard, Harbour Way, MacDonald Avenue, Pennsylvania Avenue, Potrero Avenue, Rheem Avenue, Seventh Street, Solano Avenue, and Thirty-Seventh Street. "Asphalt concrete" or "AC" means blend of aggregate and asphalt binder meeting the specifications set forth in the City of Richmond Standard Specifications Section 39, "Asphalt Concrete" and the Caltrans Standard Specifications Section 39, "Asphalt Concrete." "Chip seal" (see the definition of "Slurry seal").
"City" means the City of Richmond, a charter city and a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California, and all departments, divisions, and offices thereof.
"Encroach" means constructing or placing temporary or permanent structures, improvements, facilities or materials in, on, over, or under any public right-of-way or using any right-of-way so as to Richmond, CA Code of Ordinances about:blank
1 of 16 11/18/2021, 12:36 PM
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
prevent, obstruct, or interfere with the normal use of that way, including but not limited to the performance of any of the following acts:
Excavating or disturbing the public right-of-way;
Erecting or maintaining any post, sign, pole, fence, guard-rail, wall, pipe, conduit, cable, wire, communication service equipment, or other facility or structure on, over, or under a public right-of-way;
Planting any tree, shrub, grass, or other growing thing within the public right-of-way; Placing or leaving on the public right-of-way any rubbish, brush, earth, or material; Constructing, placing, or maintaining on, over, under, or within a public right-of-way any pathway, sidewalk, driveway, or other surfacing; any culvert or other surface drainage or subsurface drainage facility; or any pipe, conduit, wire, communication service equipment or facility, or cable;
Constructing, placing, planting, or maintaining any structure, embankment, excavation, tree, or other object adjacent to the public right-of-way which causes or may cause an encroachment.
"Engineer" means the City Engineer, his or her designee. "Excavation" means any trench cuts within the street right-of-way to access or install a utility line or any related facility in excess of four (4) square feet or four (4) feet long, whichever is smaller. All such excavations shall require an encroachment permit.
"Excavator" means the applicant/permittee to whom an encroachment permit is issued for the purposes of excavation.
"Facility" means any fiberoptic, coaxial, or copper cable; communication service equipment; telephone, telecommunications, electric or other wire, line or equipment; utility structure; oil, gas, or other pipeline; duct; conduit; cabinet; tunnel; vault; drain; manhole; splice box; surface location marker; pole; subsurface tiebacks; soil nails; stairs; access ramps; subsurface foundations; landscape features, including curbs around planter areas; planter boxes; clocks; bus shelters; phone booths; bike racks; fencing; retaining walls; benches; stockpiles; building materials; and other appurtenances or tangible things located in, upon, above, beneath, or across any public right-of-way. "Major arterial street" means any street with a traffic volume of more than 15,000 vehicles per day, including Carlson Boulevard, Central Avenue, Cutting Boulevard, Hilltop Drive, May Road, Robert H. Miller Drive, San Pablo Avenue, San Pablo Dam Road, Thirteenth Street, Twenty-Second Street, and Twenty- Third Street.
"Major defects" means any defects greater than the deficiency tolerances specified in the City of Richmond, CA Code of Ordinances about:blank
2 of 16 11/18/2021, 12:36 PM
Richmond Standard Plans and Details; the Caltrans Standard Specifications and Details; or Individual Contract Plans and Specifications.
"Micro paving" (see the definition of "Slurry seal").
"Micro surfacing" (see the definition of "Slurry seal"). "Permittee" means any person, contractor, utility or special district that has been issued a permit pursuant to this chapter, including any lawful successor, transferee, or assignee of the original permittee.
All obligations, responsibilities, and other requirements of the permittee shall be binding on successors in interest of the original permittee.
"Person" means any natural person, firm, joint venture, joint stock company, partnership, association, club, company, corporation, business trust, organization, or the manager, lessee, agent, servant, officer, or employee of any of them or any other entity which is recognized by law as the subject of rights or duties, not including the City of Richmond, the Richmond Community Redevelopment Agency, or the City's or Agency's officers, employees, or agents.
"Prohibition street" means streets that have been reconstructed or resurfaced within the past three to five years (see Section 12.29.030.A, below).
"Public right-of-way" means the area in, upon, above, beneath, or across any land or interest which by deed, conveyance, agreement, easement, dedication, usage, or process of law is reserved for or dedicated to the use of the general public for travel, and includes any public street, road, highway, freeway, bridge, lane, court, alley, boulevard, sidewalk, median, parkway, or emergency vehicle easement.
"Public street" means the full width of the surfaced or travel portion, including shoulders, of any road, street, path, lane, or alley dedicated to, reserved for, or used by or for the general public when those roads, streets, paths, lanes, and alleys have been accepted as and declared to be part of the City system of public streets, except highways forming a part of the State highway system. "Slurry seal" means a mixture of polymer modified asphalt emulsion, mineral aggregate, mineral filler, water, and other additives, properly proportioned, mixed, and spread in accordance with the City of Richmond Standard Plans and Details and the Caltrans Standard Specifications; usually less than ½ inches in thickness.
"Special district" means any agency of the State for the local performance of governmental or proprietary functions within limited boundaries, and includes a county service area, a maintenance district or area, an improvement district or improvement zone, or any other zone or area within which a property tax or assessment will be levied to pay for a service or improvement benefitting that area. "Street overlay" means one or more courses of asphalt construction on an existing pavement; usually Richmond, CA Code of Ordinances about:blank
3 of 16 11/18/2021, 12:36 PM
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(b)
(1)
(A)
(B)
greater than ½ inches in thickness; generally includes an asphalt leveling course to correct the contour of the old pavement.
"Structure" means any physical alteration or improvement, including but not limited to a building, post, cabinet, fence, vault, sign, pole, guard rail, wall, facility, pedestrian walking path, sidewalk, driveway, track, surfacing, culvert, drainage facility, pipe, embankment, or excavation. "Underground utility district" has the meaning set forth in Chapter 12.48 of the Richmond Municipal Code.
"Utility" means any person or entity providing electricity, gas, telephone, telecommunications, water, or other services to customers, and which pursuant to State law or local franchise is entitled to install its facilities in the public right-of-way.
"Wearing surface defects" mean the defects in the surface of a roadway that is in direct contact with traffic and that resists the resulting abrading, crushing, or other disintegrating action. (Ord. No. 39-09 N.S., § I, 12-1-2009)
12.29.030 - Prohibition period.
Newly constructed or resurfaced streets shall be termed "prohibition streets" within this section. Permission to excavate in prohibition streets will not be granted for five (5) years after the completion of street overlays. An overlay consists of at least a ½-inch thick layer of asphalt.
For those streets with chip seal, slurry seal coating, or micro paving with less than ½ inch of new pavement, the prohibition period shall be for three (3) years. Utilities shall plan well enough in advance to determine alternate methods of making necessary repairs to avoid excavating in newly resurfaced streets. Exceptions to the above policy are as follows:
Emergencies that endanger life or property.
Interruption of essential utility service.
Work that is mandated by City, State, or Federal law.
Service for buildings where no other reasonable means of providing service exists.
Situations in which no alternative course of action exists, as determined by the engineer in writing setting forth the facts giving rise to the conclusion that no alternative exists.
To excavate in a prohibition street a waiver must be obtained.
To request a waiver, the applicant must submit a written request to the engineer. The request must include:
The location of the excavation.
Description of the work to be performed.
Richmond, CA Code of Ordinances about:blank
4 of 16 11/18/2021, 12:36 PM
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
(2)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(i)
(ii)
(3)
(a)
The reason(s) the work was not performed before the street was paved.
The reason(s) the work cannot be deferred until after the prohibition period.
The reason(s) the work cannot be performed at another location.
The reason(s) it is justified to excavate the prohibition street.
Any excavation in prohibition streets will be repaired with full lane width paving on the street as follows (refer also to Section 12.29.070, Paving):
Overlaid or reconstructed streets: All lanes that are affected shall be ground down 2 inches and repaved with 2 inches of asphalt concrete, OR all lanes that are affected shall be resurfaced per Section 12.29.070, Paving.
Slurry sealed, chip sealed, or micro surfaced streets: All lanes that are affected shall be resurfaced per Section 12.29.070, Paving.
A minimum of one (1) feet on either side of the trench shall be resurfaced if the excavation is a lateral cut. For longitudinal trenches the entire length plus one (1) foot on either end shall be resurfaced.
Exception: Full lane width restoration shall not be required if either of the following conditions apply:
The work is not considered an excavation as defined in Section 12.29.020.
The work is being performed on behalf of a low-income household in order to bring an owner-occupied single-family residence into compliance with sanitary sewer regulations at any time other than as part of the sale of the residence. Low- income is defined as 80% of area median family income. The purpose of this exception is to prevent hardship to property owners of limited means and it shall be interpreted and applied solely to achieve that purpose.
Before issuing a permit for work in a prohibition street, the engineer will verify that the applicant has analyzed all feasible alternatives to make the necessary repairs using a trenchless method in prohibition streets to avoid excavating a newly resurfaced street whenever possible.
(Ord. No. 39-09 N.S., § I, 12-1-2009)
12.29.040 - Permits.
Any and all construction work within the public right-of-way shall require an encroachment permit. Anyone doing excavation work within the City of Richmond public right-of-way shall obtain a street cut permit for the purpose of excavation in addition to any other required permits. The contractor performing the work shall apply for the permit.
Richmond, CA Code of Ordinances about:blank
5 of 16 11/18/2021, 12:36 PM
(b)
(c)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(d)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(6)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
The permit application may be obtained from the City of Richmond Engineering Services Department.
Prior to applying for a street cut permit, the excavator must register with the City of Richmond.
The contractor performing the work shall apply for the permit. The following must be provided to register for an excavation permit:
A cash deposit equal to five hundred dollars ($500) or 25% of the value of the work (whichever is greater) as a warranty bond. Companies working under a franchise agreement that includes a bond are not required to post the cash deposit unless/until they have been issued a notice or citation for a violation by the City of Richmond standards or permit requirements.
A current City of Richmond Business License.
Current evidence of insurance.
24-hour phone number for emergencies.
The name, telephone number, and mailing address (fax number, cell phone, and e-mail address if available) of the person who will receive all office correspondence from the City of Richmond.
All applications shall include plans indicating the following:
Name of the street to be excavated and the nearest cross street.
Distance of proposed excavation from the face of curb.
Distance of proposed excavation from the intersection.
The size of the excavation (length and width).
The location of any above ground facilities to be installed, showing:
Distance from curb and any street facilities/furnishings.
Purpose of the facility.
Size of the facility.
Location of doors and door swings.
The location of any existing underground facilities and the location of underground facilities to be installed showing:
Conduit vaults, maintenance holes, pipes, etc.
Structural detail and additional information for structures to be installed such as vaults and maintenance holes.
The construction method of the structure to be installed.
Construction detail, location, size, design criteria and the purpose of the facility to be Richmond, CA Code of Ordinances about:blank
6 of 16 11/18/2021, 12:36 PM
(7)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(8)
(9)
(e)
(1)
(2)
(f)
(g)
(h)
installed.
Cross section of a typical trench indicating:
The approximate depth of the facility to be installed.
Trench backfill depth, compaction and layer depths.
Pavement section detail (type and depths).
Plans, structural details, and trench cross section must be signed and stamped by a licensed civil engineer, when legally required.
The plan may show the approximate location of the excavation provided that on an "as- built" plan, the exact location of the excavation is shown. The "as-built" plan shall be submitted prior to the permit being finalized.
A traffic control plan.
All excavation permit fees are due at the time the permit is issued. These fees represent the value of staff time in processing a permit application and are non-refundable.
All past due fees, fines and penalties owed by the applicant must be paid before a permit will be issued.
If a permit violation occurs no other application will be processed until the fines and penalties have been paid and all permit conditions are met.
If an account is past due or not in good standings, a permit cannot be issued until the account is brought into good standing. To bring the account to good standing, all fees and fines must be paid.
As a condition of the permit to excavate, the applicant shall provide evidence of an inquiry identification number issued by a regional notification center (Underground Service Alert, USA) pursuant to Section 4216, California Government Code.
Permittees and excavators shall pay close attention to the location and alignment of all USA markings while performing their work.
USA Codes are:
Electric Red
Gas-Oil Yellow
Communication-CATV Orange
Water Blue
Richmond, CA Code of Ordinances about:blank
7 of 16 11/18/2021, 12:36 PM
(i)
(j)
(k)
(l)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(m)
(1)
(2)
(3)
Sewer Green
Temporary Survey Markings Pink
Proposed Excavation White
If an excavator damages other facilities during their excavation work the excavator will need an additional street cut permit if additional excavation and trenches are needed to repair the damaged facility. The original permittee shall maintain the site and restore the pavement and any affected signage or striping.
Except in an emergency, street cut permits shall be taken out in advance of excavation work.
An emergency is considered to exist only when life or property is endangered or when an essential utility service is or may be interrupted during weekends, holidays, or between 5:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. of normal working days.
In the event of an emergency, the excavator shall notify the City of Richmond and apply for a street cut permit for "emergency work" within four (4) hours after the City of Richmond's office opens.
Pre-construction meeting:
A pre-construction meeting shall be held for all projects that are scheduled to take longer than 15 working days to complete.
The owner, contractor, any other agency that is involved and the City of Richmond shall attend this meeting.
For projects that are supposed to be completed within 15 days, and are not completed within the allowed time, the City may issue administrative citations if a pre-construction meeting was not held.
The traffic control plan shall be approved prior to the pre-construction meeting.
Permit duration shall be indicated on the permit:
All permits shall include estimated start and completion dates. A permit is valid from the construction start date specified on the approved permit until the specified completion date.
Excavation permits are not valid if other required permits are not obtained or required notifications are not given.
No disruption of traffic is allowed after 4:00 p.m. and before 8:00 a.m. unless specifically Richmond, CA Code of Ordinances about:blank
8 of 16 11/18/2021, 12:36 PM
(4)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(5)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(6)
(A)
(B)
(n)
(o)
(1)
(2)
(A)
(B)
(p)
(1)
(2)
approved for these hours.
Some permits may be valid on specific dates. They may be approved with special conditions specifying dates:
When work shall be done.
When work shall be completed.
Before which work shall not start.
Permits expire and become void, unless otherwise amended:
Sixty (60) days after the start date, if no work has begun.
If the work is not diligently proceeding and there are delays of more than four (4) working days after the work has started, unless the delays are caused by weather or other circumstances beyond the permittee's control.
When the excavation, including the trench restoration, is completed or on the date specified on the permit as the expiration date.
The work is determined to be proceeding diligently if:
After a project begins, work continues on a regular basis, except for weekends, holidays, inclement weather, labor disputes, or any emergency beyond the control of the permittee.
The permittee ensures that all necessary materials and supplies are on hand and ready for use so as not to delay the excavation and the prompt restoration of the public right-of-way.
A valid permit may be extended be requesting an extension prior to the expiration date by specifying the dates that need to be changed and explaining the reason for the extension. The engineer reserves the right to deny a request for extension.
If an application has been withdrawn or an approved permit is cancelled prior to the start of work the applicant or permittee may request a refund of the bond funds; all other permit fees are non-refundable.
To request a refund, submit a written request to the engineer.
The request shall include:
The reason for cancellation or withdrawal.
The permit number.
By accepting a street cut and/or encroachment permit, the permittee and the owner of the facility(ies) for which the permit has been issued agree:
To follow all laws, rules, regulations, and permit conditions.
To assure that their employees, contractors, and subcontractors, comply with all laws, Richmond, CA Code of Ordinances about:blank
9 of 16 11/18/2021, 12:36 PM
(3)
(q)
(r)
(1)
(A)
(B)
(2)
(A)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(B)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(a)
(b)
(c)
rules, regulations, and permit conditions.
To indemnify the City of Richmond against all claims for personal injury or property damage that may arise in connection with the work.
The street cut and/or encroachment permit shall be available during work periods at the excavation site, until the project is completed and approved by the engineer. Permit(s) shall be shown to the City of Richmond employees upon request.
The excavator shall provide public notifications when excavating in the public right-of-way.
Minor projects lasting longer than 48 hours but less than 15 working days shall provide 11″ × 17″ posters with 1-inch minimum letters at the beginning and end of the project and every 300 feet between the beginning and the end of the project. Notes must contain:
The names, address, and telephone number of the owner and the permittee.
The start and completion dates of the project.
Major projects lasting 15 working days or longer, the excavator shall:
After the permit has been issued and at least five but no more than 30 calendar days before the anticipated start date of work, mail or deliver written notice to:
Residents and occupants along the affected street.
Schools, churches, and other assembly uses within 300 feet of the affected street.
The City of Richmond Engineering Services and Public Works Departments.
At least five calendar days but not more than 15 calendar days prior to starting work, post and maintain 11″ × 17″ notices in accordance with paragraph (r)(1) above. The notices must contain:
The name, address, and telephone number of the owner and the permittee.
A description of the project.
The start and completion dates of the project.
The name, address and 24-hour telephone number of a contact person. (Ord. No. 39-09 N.S., § I, 12-1-2009)
12.29.050 - Excavation material.
Pavement shall be cut to a straight, neat, vertical line prior to excavation.
All excavated material shall be removed from the job site within twenty-four (24) hours.
Every trench must be backfilled or covered by trench plates the same day. The City may issue administrative citations or pursue any other legal remedy if the trenches are not properly covered or backfilled in a timely manner. Backfill must meet the requirements specified in Richmond, CA Code of Ordinances about:blank
10 of 16 11/18/2021, 12:36 PM
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
Section 12.29.060 of this chapter.
(Ord. No. 39-09 N.S., § I, 12-1-2009)
12.29.060 - Back�ll.
Trenches shall be backfilled with Class 2 Aggregate Base as specified in the Caltrans Standard Specifications Section 26, "Aggregate Base" or suitable material as required by the City of Richmond Standard Plans and Specifications. Compaction of backfill shall be in accordance with the City of Richmond Standards.
When undermining occurs, remove existing pavement as required to compact the backfill and restore the pavement.
Compaction tests shall be certified by an independent laboratory and submitted to the engineer, who may require the contractor to recompact and retest until the test results show that proper compaction is being achieved.
(Ord. No. 39-09 N.S., § I, 12-1-2009)
12.29.070 - Paving.
Trenches shall be paved in accordance with the City of Richmond Standard Plans and Specifications. After the trench has been backfilled, and immediately prior to placing asphalt concrete, the existing asphalt concrete shall be saw cut, or milled according to City of Richmond Standards, to a vertical face. The cut shall be a "T-Cut" according to City of Richmond Standards and the new asphalt concrete paving shall be butt joined to the existing asphalt concrete vertical face. No feathering of new paving to existing paving is allowed. The vertical faces shall be tack coated. In prohibition streets, placement of the final two (2) inches of asphalt concrete wearing surface shall be done by a paving machine or spreader box.
Asphalt concrete shall be delivered and compacted in accordance with the City of Richmond Standard Plans and Specifications.
To allow for proper placement of the new pavement section, damaged pavement outside of the original trench cut lines shall be removed by cutting in lines perpendicular to or parallel to the original trench lines. No diagonal cuts are to be made. Undamaged pavement of three (3) feet or less between two damaged areas shall also be removed.
Richmond, CA Code of Ordinances about:blank
11 of 16 11/18/2021, 12:36 PM
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(a)
(1)
(2)
For trenches in recently paved prohibition streets, the entire lane shall be key-cut two (2) inches deep, and repaved with asphalt concrete unless the engineer gives written authorization to resurface with a polymer modified slurry seal instead. Authorization from the engineer to use slurry seal instead of asphalt concrete shall set forth the reasons for the authorization.
For trenches in recently slurry sealed prohibition streets, the entire lane shall be resurfaced with polymer modified slurry seal.
Trenches in concrete streets shall be repaved with concrete. The thickness of the new pavement shall be equal to the thickness of the existing pavement with the minimum thickness to be six (6) inches in the roadway.
Trenches in arterial and collector streets shall be paved with not less than six (6) inches asphalt concrete or match the existing pavement thickness (whichever is greater).
Pavement shall be restored within fourteen (14) working days from the time the entire trench is backfilled, unless delay is excused due to circumstances beyond the contractor's control, such as inclement weather. For minor excavations such as service installations, the pavement shall be restored with in thirty (30) working days from the time the entire trench is backfilled, unless delay is excused due to circumstances beyond the contractor's control, such as inclement weather.
Asphalt pavement shall be compacted to obtain a minimum of ninety-five percent (95%) relative compaction. The asphalt concrete wearing surface shall have no irregularity greater than five-sixteenths of an inch ( 5/16 ″) in ten feet (10′) in any direction.
On all streets steel plates shall be used to facilitate traffic flow and to protect the excavation until finish pavement is restored. Steel plates used to bridge a street opening shall be ramped to the elevation on the adjacent pavement and secured against movement in any direction.
Temporary ramps shall be constructed of asphalt and shall have a gradual 30:1 slope or flatter using asphalt cutback.
All painted USA markings shall be removed by the permittee after the work has been completed.
All damaged pavement markings and striping shall be replaced and restored by the permittee. (Ord. No. 39-09 N.S., § I, 12-1-2009)
12.29.080 - Defects.
Depressed trench pavement shall be repaired as follows:
Wearing surface defects—Remove and restore wearing surface.
Major defects—Excavate, remove and restore surface and base.
Richmond, CA Code of Ordinances about:blank
12 of 16 11/18/2021, 12:36 PM
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
The permit inspector will determine the severity of the defect.
Work not in compliance with the above requirements shall be rejected, removed, and redone by the permittee to the satisfaction of the engineer.
The owner of the facility/utility company is responsible for any roadway defects in the area over and adjacent to the trench appearing after the permittee restores the trench. The owner is responsible for maintenance, repair or reconstruction of the excavation site's affected area until the City of Richmond reconstructs, repaves, or resurfaces the street.
If there is a trench-related failure after the City of Richmond reconstructs, repaves, or resurfaces the street, the owner of the facility/utility company is responsible for its repair if the failure occurs within 1 year of a trench repair.
When the City of Richmond determines that an excavation or a defect is hazardous or constitutes a public nuisance or other imminent threat to public health, safety, or welfare, the engineer may order the responsible party to remedy the condition immediately.
If the responsible party refuses or fails to make the needed repairs immediately, the City of Richmond will make the repairs and:
The responsible party will be charged all the actual costs including administration, construction, consultant fees, equipment, inspection, notification, and remediation made necessary by the action or inaction of the permittee.
The repair or restoration by the City of Richmond does not relieve the responsible party from liability for future pavement failures.
If the responsible party fails or refuses to pay the restoration cost, the City may use any legal means to recover the costs, including but not limited to property liens and/or court action.
(Ord. No. 39-09 N.S., § I, 12-1-2009)
12.29.090 - Violations—Revocation and other penalties.
Any violation of this chapter may be enforced either as an infraction or as a misdemeanor, or by any remedy available to the City under this Code or under State law. Potential enforcement measures include but are not limited to the following:
Fine. If a City inspector finds that a contractor has committed any of the following violations then the contractor may be required to pay a fine or penalty for his or her actions. The penalties for violations are listed in the City's Master Fee Schedule.
Richmond, CA Code of Ordinances about:blank
13 of 16 11/18/2021, 12:36 PM
VIOLATIONS PENALTIES
(Not to exceed amount shown)
1. Working without a permit. Administrative
citation, stop work, and apply and pay for
the required permit
2. Excavation without providing public
notice.
Administrative
citation and stop work
3. Beginning a
"Major Project" without having a pre-
construction meeting.
Administrative
citation
4. Violation of
permit conditions.
Administrative
citation
5. Improper site
protection: improper plating, path of travel,
barricading, etc.
Administrative
citation
6. No permit on site. Administrative
citation
7. Improper trimming of trench. Administrative
citation
8. Any trench left open after the allowed
work hours that is
not back�lled and covered.
Administrative
citation
9. Improper public notice: no notice sign,
wrong information on sign/notice.
Administrative
citation
Richmond, CA Code of Ordinances about:blank
14 of 16 11/18/2021, 12:36 PM
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
10. Non-compliance with trench restoration
requirements.
Administrative
citation
11.Improper housekeeping: failure to
remove spoil, dirty site, no sweeping, etc.
Administrative
citation
12. Other excavation code violations. Administrative
citation
The above fines, when assessed, shall be deducted from the cash deposit required by 12.29.040(e)(1) of this section or will be paid by the applicant if there is not a cash deposit.
Suspension. Whenever the engineer finds that a suspension of an encroachment permit is necessary to protect the public health or safety from imminent danger, the engineer may immediately suspend any such permit pending a hearing for remedial action or revocation.
The engineer shall, within three (3) working days of the emergency suspension, give a written notice of such suspension to the permittee, by personal service or by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the last known address of the permittee. The permittee may, within fifteen (15) days after service of such a written notice of suspension, file with the City Manager a request for hearing regarding the suspension. The City Manager or his or her designee shall schedule a hearing on the suspension within five (5) working days of receipt of a request for hearing. If the City Manager or his or her designee, after the hearing, finds that the public health or safety requires correction or alteration of any condition caused by, or existing on the site of the encroachment, he or she shall issue one or more of the following:
An order to correct any particular noncompliance.
A revocation of the encroachment permit.
A continued suspension of the encroachment permit, until such time as the dangerous condition is corrected.
A modification or reinstatement of the encroachment permit, with conditions as necessary to prevent harm to the public.
The City Manager or his or her designee shall, within ten (10) days of the hearing, render a written opinion, stating the findings upon which the decision is based, and the action taken. The decision of the City Manager or his or her designee shall be final, except a decision to revoke the permit which may be appealed to the City Council in accordance with Section 12.30.060.B of this Code.
Richmond, CA Code of Ordinances about:blank
15 of 16 11/18/2021, 12:36 PM
(c)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Revocation. The engineer may recommend that the City Manager revoke a permit where he or she finds that:
The permittee has violated any provision of this Code or conditions of the permit; or The permittee has failed to pay any required fees, or to post or maintain any bond or insurance required by this chapter; or
The encroachment for which the permit was granted adversely affects the safety, capacity, or integrity of the City's public right-of-way or increases the City's liability exposure; or The encroachment is causing the City to incur substantial additional maintenance costs; or Material misrepresentations, omissions, or inaccuracies were made in the application for the permit.
The engineer shall give the permittee at least ten (10) days' written notice of a hearing before the City Manager or his or her designee on the proposed revocation of a permit issued pursuant to this chapter, setting forth the grounds for such action. If, after reviewing all evidence presented before or at the public hearing, the City Manager or his or her designee makes any one of the five findings set forth above, he or she may revoke the permit. The City Manager or his or her designee shall, within ten (10) days after the close of the hearing, render a written opinion, stating the findings upon which the decision is based, and the action taken. The decision of the City Manager or his or her designee may be appealed to the City Council in accordance with Section 12.30.060.B of this Code. (Ord. No. 39-09 N.S., § I, 12-1-2009)
Richmond, CA Code of Ordinances about:blank
16 of 16 11/18/2021, 12:36 PM
June 21, 2022
City Council
DATE: June 21, 2022
TO: Mayor Butt and Members of the City Council
FROM:
Councilmember Nathaniel Bates
Subject:
Private Landowner Encroachments into the public Right-
of-Way
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The financial impact relative to this item includes staff time associated with this matter.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
April 19, 2022
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
The City Council should receive a legal opinion for the City Attorney’s Office regarding the legality of staff
awarding and transferring city property without approval from the City Council.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
RECEIVE a report from the City Attorney regarding the
legality of staff awarding and transferring city property without approval from the City Council - Councilmember
Nathaniel Bates (510-620-6743). This item was
continued from the May 17, 2022, May 24, 2022, and
June 7, 2022, meetings.
DISCUSSION:
At its April 19, 2022, meeting, the City Council considered an ordinance amending RMC Chapter 12.30 (“Video Service Provider, Utility and Special District Encroachments”) by incorporating Chapter 12.29 (“Street Opening and Pavement Restoration Regulations”); adding provisions that address private landowner encroachments into the public Right- AGENDA
REPORT
June 21, 2022
of-Way (ROW); easements; and street vacations; retitling Chapter 12.30 “Encroachments and Easements,” and rescinding Chapter 12.29 in its entirety.
The City Council should receive a report from the City Attorney’s Office regarding the legality of staff awarding and transferring city property without approval from the City Council.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
NONE
June 21, 2022
Mayor's Office
DATE: June 21, 2022
TO: Mayor Butt and Members of the City Council
FROM:
Mayor Tom Butt
Subject:
The Segal Group Inc., Classification and Compensation
Study
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
April 21, 2020, January 18, 2022
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
The City contracted with The Segal Group, Inc., to
conduct a Class and Compensation Study. The end date
of the contract was June 30, 2022, but the submitted
schedule anticipated completion in 7 months, which
would have been December 2020. The results of the
study have yet to be released to the City Council or the public.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
DIRECT the City Manager to release the Class and
Compensation Study to the City Council – Mayor’s Office (Mayor Tom Butt 510-620-6503). This item was
continued from the May 17, 2022, May 24, 2022, and
June 7, 2022, meetings.
DISCUSSION:
The objective of the Class and Compensation Study was to provide information about comparable classifications and compensation in public agencies similar in size and AGENDA
REPORT
June 21, 2022
complexity to Richmond. It was intended to be used as a tool to evaluate practices in Richmond, ensure that Richmond is competitive in the labor marketplace, and plan for future budgets.
The results of the study have been available to staff for a significant period, but the City Council continues to be told that “there are questions.”
If there are questions or continuing issues, they can continue to be pursued, and can be flagged by staff, but this study needs to be released.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – Contract with The Segal Group, Inc.
June 21, 2022
Mayor's Office
DATE: June 21, 2022
TO: Members of the City Council
FROM:
Mayor Tom Butt
Subject:
Street Sweeping
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The proposed policy direction will require budget appropriations for signs, enforcement staff, and possibly street sweeping equipment.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
The City Council has been struggling with this subject for over 20 years, most recently April 19, 2022.
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
Recent research has found that road dust is a significant source of PM2.5 pollution in Richmond and poses a major risk to both public health and health of San Francisco
Bay
RECOMMENDED ACTION: DIRECT the city manager to incorporate into the 2022-23 budget funding to provide: new street
sweeping signage in neighborhoods that have not
previously been signed; repairs/replace existing
deteriorated signage in neighborhoods that have
previously been signed; sufficient staff and
equipment to perform scheduled street sweeping
operations in all neighborhoods; sufficient
enforcement staff to issue citations for vehicles not
moved on designated street sweeping days and
times. AUTHORIZE vehicle towing operations in
areas where citations have not provided sufficient
AGENDA
REPORT
June 21, 2022
motivation for residents to move vehicles –
Mayor’s Office (Mayor Tom Butt 510-620-6503).
This item was continued from the May 24,
2022, and June 7, 2022, meetings.
DISCUSSION:
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.
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.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – Street Sweeping in Richmond, May 15, 2022
Street Sweeping in Richmond
Mayor Tom Butt
May 15, 2022
Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 2 of 39
Contents
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Why Sweep Richmond Streets? .................................................................................................................... 3 History of Street Sweeping in Richmond .................................................................................................... 10 A Regulatory Issue ................................................................................................................................... 10 Street Sweeping Begins in 2000 .............................................................................................................. 11 The Richmond Annex and Panhandle Annex Complain .......................................................................... 12 Panhandle Annex Signs Removed ........................................................................................................... 13 Citywide Neighborhood Votes on Street Sweeping ................................................................................ 14 Three Neighborhoods Approved for Voluntary Program ....................................................................... 15 The 2009 Permit ...................................................................................................................................... 16 The 2015 Permit ...................................................................................................................................... 16 Proposed 2020 Street Sign Installation Reignites Controversy .............................................................. 17 City Council Halts Signs and Citations ..................................................................................................... 31 Inaction 2020-2022 ................................................................................................................................. 32 Human Health, Road Dust, Coho Salmon and Street Sweeping ............................................................. 33 General Plan 2030 ................................................................................................................................... 37 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 38
Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 3 of 39
Executive Summary
For over twenty years, the Richmond City Council has struggled with polices related to street sweeping, mostly whether moving parked vehicles on sweeping days should be voluntary or mandatory.
Mandatory parked vehicle moving, with signs and citations, has been the practice in most of the city for years with apparent acceptance and effectiveness.
The most visible holdouts have been the Richmond Annex and Annex Panhandle neighborhoods (home of Councilmembers McLaughlin and Martinez), which have once again flexed their political muscles to keep signs and citations out of their neighborhoods. They insist that voluntary compliance has been effective or will be with the use of additional notification strategies, although the historical evidence suggests otherwise.
Ultimately, street sweeping is most importantly about reducing significant human health hazards and reduction of pollutants in waterways and San Francisco Bay. Will the environment win, or will the convenience of residents prevail?
Why Sweep Richmond Streets?
Street sweeping has been a contentious subject in Richmond for decades, and Richmond is not alone.
Streets are swept for two primary reasons (1) remove visible trash and improve the appearance of the neighborhood, and (2) remove stormwater pollutants before they drain into creeks and then San Francisco Bay. The latter is prohibited by the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq. (1972).1 The State of California also regulates pollutants in stormwater via the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne)(California Water Code (Wat. Code§ 13000 et seq.) In 1969, the Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter -Cologne) (California Water Code (Wat. Code§ 13000 et seq.) was adopted as the principal law governing water quality in California.
Porter-Cologne institutes a comprehensive program to protect the quality and “beneficial uses”(or “designated uses” under federal parlance) of the state’s water bodies. Beneficial uses include, but are not limited to, “domestic, municipal, agricultural, and industrial supply; power generation; recreation; aesthetic enjoyment; navigation; and preservation and enhancement of fish, wildlife , and other aquatic resources or preserves” (Wat. Code §13050, subd. (f)). Regulatory protection of beneficial uses is carried out, in part, through water quality objectives established in each regional water quality control plan (basin plan) (Wat. Code § 13241). Under Porter -Cologne, the regional water quality control boards (regional water boards) adopt basin plans in which they designate the beneficial uses of the waters of the region and establish water quality objectives to protect those beneficial uses. Basin plans are required to include a plan of implementation to ensure that waters achieve the water quality objectives.2
1 The official text of the CWA continues to be available in the United States Code from the US Government Printing Office
2 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/trash_control/docs/01_final_sed.pdf , page 3
Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 4 of 39
Many pollutants are liquids or fine particles that are not readily visible, including mercury, PCBs, furans, dieldrin, chlordane, DDT, selenium, copper, zinc, microplastics3 and 6PPD, which is essentially a preservative to keep car tires from breaking down too quickly.4,5 The term pollutant is defined in CWA section 502(6) and defines pollutant very broadly and includes any type of industrial, municipal, or agricultural waste (including heat) discharged in to water. For regulatory purposes, pollutants are grouped into three categories: conventional, toxic, and nonconventional.
• Conventional pollutants are those defined in CWA section 304(a)(4) and include Biological Oxygen Demand, Total Suspended Solids, fecal coliform, pH, and oil and grease. • Toxic (priority) pollutants are those defined in CWA section 307(a)(1) and include 126 metals and manmade organic compounds.
• Nonconventional pollutants are those that do not fall under either of the above categories (conventional or toxic pollutants) and include parameters such as chlorine, ammonia, nitrogen, phosphorus, chemical oxygen demand (COD), and whole effluent toxicity (WET). 6 In 2005, the Richmond Public Services Department wrote:
Street sweeping is one of the most visible aspects of the Public Services Department for the citizens and the traveling public. Clean streets and gutters not only give the city an overall clean appearance, but aids in helping reduce traffic accidents and pollution in our byways and waterways. Street Sweeping is an important part of the wo rk done by the City’s Public Services Department. These efforts are vital in maintaining compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) provisions of the Clean Water Act. Under these provisions the Environmental Protection Age ncy (EPA) in coordination with the state, the regulated community, and the public, implements and conducts oversight of the NPDES permit. The permit provisions are designed to control point sources of pollution within the city. Since its introduction in 1972, the NPDES permit program is responsible for significant improvements to water quality. 7 In order to effectively clean streets, street sweepers must be able to clean the gutters where pollutants collect, pushed by gravity, wind and water. It is pretty well demonstrated that voluntary vehicle moving on street sweeping days, at least in Richmond, does not work. People are, however, more motivated by citations and fines, and the law requires a sign in order for the police to cite. The size of the sign is not discretionary; it is dictated by the California Vehicle Code.
The Environmental Protection Agency notes:
Street sweeping services are provided by either municipal or contracted personnel. The overall effectiveness of a street cleaning program is primarily a function of the frequency and regularity of the cleanings. The frequency of street sweeping is determined by need, the number of miles to be served, and local budget constraints. Other factors for consideration include climatic conditions (e.g. rainfall frequency and season), the size of particles captured by the cleaning, and
3 https://www.sfei.org/projects/microplastics
4 https://www.sfei.org/news/toxic-tire-contaminant-found-bay-area-stormwater#sthash.a0JfZluh.dpbs 5 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/371/6525/185.abstract 6 https://www.epa.gov/trash-free-waters/clean-water-act-and-trash-free-waters 7 Street Sweeping Update, March 25, 2005, http://www.tombutt.com/forum/2005/050325.htm
Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 5 of 39
street-parking regulations. Because parked cars prohibit the streetcleaner from removing curbside litter, enforcement of parking regulations is essential.8
One of the disputes about street sweeping is whether it is mandatory, and if so, by whom, and what the penalties are for not sweeping or not sweeping effectively.
See the summary from “San Francisco Stormwater Permit9” below. Permittees, including the City of Richmond, are required to “implement trash controls in all areas, except 'Low' trash generating areas, using a combination of trash capture devices and institutional controls.10” Much of Richmond, falls into the Medium (yellow) or high (red) trash generation categories.
Figure 1 - Bay Area Trash Generation by Area (San Francisco Bay Stormwater Permit (California))
8 United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, D.C.EPA 832-F-99-038September 1999Combined Sewer Overflow Management Fact Sheet Pollution Prevention, https://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/pollutna.pdfal
9 https://www.epa.gov/trash-free-waters/clean-water-act-and-trash-free-waters 10 “institutional controls,” includes street sweeping
Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 6 of 39
Goal: 0% trash by 2022
Area: 2,576 Square Miles
Population: 7 million people
Baseline trash load: ~1.3 - 2.5 million pounds per year Links: 2009 Municipal Regional Permit (PDF) | 2015 Municipal Regional Permit Exit In the San Francisco Bay Area, portions of the Bay and most of its tributaries had been 303(d) listed for trash. Rather than establishing individual TMDLs, in 2009 trash provisions were included in the Phase 1 Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit, which covers 76 MS4 permittees. Using land use data, areas were categorized into 'Low' 'Medium', 'High' and 'Very High' trash generating areas on the basis of gallons of trash produced (for example, Medium Trash Generation areas produce 5-10 gallons/acre/year). Permittees are required to implement trash controls in all areas, except 'Low' trash generating areas, using a combination of trash capture devices and institutional controls.
The permit requires at least 5,700 acres to be treated by full capture devices. By 2015, over 25,000 acres were covered by these systems, demonstrating that trash capture can be an effective solution. A unique feature of this permit is a 'hotspots' requirement that applies to creek or shoreline areas with the most trash. Each permittee must identify one 'hotspot' for every 30,000 residents and do at least one cleanup of each hotspot every year. Hotspot cleanups are particularly effective in removing trash from non-point sources such as illegal dumping. In addition, permittees may claim percentage reductions for reducing the sources of trash through measures like street-sweeping.
Below is the California Statewide Trash Policy:11
11 https://www.epa.gov/trash-free-waters/clean-water-act-and-trash-free-waters
Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 7 of 39
Figure 2 - California Statewide Trash Policy
Goal: 0% trash by 2030
Area: 164,000 square miles
Population: 39 million people
Baseline trash load: Unknown
Links: Policy Document | Video Exit
Statewide, 73 water bodies are listed for trash or debris impairments. Based on lessons learned in Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area, California adopted a statewide policy to address trash uniformly in areas without trash TMDLs and/ or permits. The policy establishes a narrative water quality standard for trash that applies to all state waters and requires all stormwater permits to be modified or reissued to include trash provisions. Stormwater permittees, like cities and counties, will create a trash implementation plan to reach zero trash within 10 years of the newly adopted permits, but no later than 2030.
Each plan must address high trash-generating areas such as 1) high-density residential areas (10+ dwelling/acre), 2) industrial and commercially-zoned land, 3) mixed urban, 4) public transit corridors, 5) on- and off- ramps in high trash areas, and 6) rest areas and park-and-rides. The policy will apply to approximately 17,000 permittees and will require treatment and control of trash for more than 600 square miles. Compliance may be demonstrated through either 1) use of trash capture devices on an entire stormwater system, or 2) some combination of trash capture devices and institutional controls like
Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 8 of 39
street sweeping, sufficient to reach reductions equivalent to full capture. The policy also allows local regulators the option to require trash controls for non-point sources of trash, such as heavily used campgrounds, picnic areas, beaches and marinas. This approach is more efficient since it doesn't require a TMDL for each water body, which can be time consuming and expensive. It does require immediate action for controlling stormwater sources of trash, which are the main transport pathway.
The San Francisco Bay Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit does not have prescriptive language that requires street sweeping, except for corporation yards and construction sites. Rather, the trash-related receiving water limitations identified in the San Francisco Bay MRP do not place numeric targets on trash but uses the 2009 permit required that permittees reduce trash from their storm sewer systems by 40 percent by July 1, 2014.12
The 2015, Final Staff Report Including the Substitute Environmental Documentation Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Ocean Waters of California to Control Trash and Part 1 Trash Provisions of the Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California had recommendations for a future permit that included references to street sweeping:
Require the sole use of institutional controls. In this option, NPDES storm water permits would contain requirements that permittees comply with the prohibition of discharge through the sole use of institutional controls (such as street sweeping, clean-up events, education programs, additional public trash cans and increased collection frequency expanded recycling and composting efforts, and adoption of regulatory source controls). This option would meet the goal of preventing trash from entering state waters and provide statewide consistency. However, permittees should have flexibility to determine the most effective means of controlling trash because of particular conditions of sites, types of trash, and the resources available for maintenance and operation. Therefore, this approach is not recommended
5.2.2 Street Sweeping An institutional control that would likely to be used for compliance with the final Trash Amendments would be continuation of or increasing street sweeping. Street sweeping minimizes trash loading to storm drain systems and water bodies by removing trash from streets and curbs. Maintaining a regular street sweeping schedule reduces the buildup of trash on streets and prevents trash from entering catch basins and the storm drain system.
Street sweeping can also improve the appearance of roadways and urban ar eas. There are three types of street sweepers expected to be utilized for compliance with the final Trash Amendments: mechanical, vacuum filter, and regenerative air sweepers (U.S. EPA2012b).
• Mechanical sweepers use a broom to remove particles from the st reet curb and a water spray to control dust. The removed particles are carried by a cylindrical broom to a conveyor belt and into a storage hopper (Federal Highway Administration 2012). • Vacuum-assisted sweepers also use brooms to remove particles. The removed particles, however, are saturated with water and transported by a vacuum intake to the hopper.
Vacuum-assisted dry sweepers use a specialized brush that allows the vacuum system to recover almost all particulate matter. A continuous filtration system p revents very fine
12 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/trash_control/docs/01_final_sed.pdf , page 8
Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 9 of 39
particulate matter from leaving the hopper and trailing on the street behind the sweeper (Federal Highway Administration 2012).
• Regenerative air sweepers blow air onto the pavement and immediately vacuum it back to entrain and capture accumulated sediments. A dust separation system regenerates air for blowing back onto the pavement (Federal Highway Administration 2012).
No definitive independent studies have yet been staged to determine the best sweeping system (U.S. EPA2012b). It is expected, however, that local agencies may use a combination of types of street sweeper to maximize efficiency (CASQA 2003a). In the Los Angeles Region, use of certain sweeper types is dictated by South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1186, whic h requires local agencies to acquire or use only respirable particulate matter certified sweepers beginning January 1, 2000. Furthermore, Rule 1186.1 requires local agencies to acquire alternative fuel or less polluting street sweepers beginning July 1, 20 02 (South Coast Air Quality Management District 2006).
Increasing the frequency of street sweeping in areas with high traffic volume and trash accumulation would further reduce trash loading to the waterways. Increases in street sweeping are expected before the rainy season begins. A successful street sweeping program would be expected to include accurate recordkeeping of curb-miles swept, proper storage and disposal of street sweepings, regular equipment maintenance, and parking policies that restrict parking in problematic areas and notify residents of sweeping schedules (CASQA 2003a).
Using modern and efficient street sweepers may reduce the need for other structural storm water controls and may prove to be more cost-effective than certain structural controls, especially in more urbanized areas with greater areas of pavement (U.S. EPA2012b). 13
In summary, there appears to be no prescriptive order for street sweeping in Richmond, but a street sweeping program has been adopted as an effort to comply with the trash reduction goals of the regional permit.
Richmond, however, is not the only city struggling to meet trash reduction goals.
Oakland isn’t the only city struggling to comply with the regulations, which apply to the labyrinth of curbside drains, gutters, underground concrete channels, pipes and catch basins that take water off city streets and direct it toward the sea.
Last July, 26 of the 70 cities and other municipalities in Alameda, Contra Costa, Santa Clara, San Mateo and Solano counties fell short of the reduction target, which was then 60 percent.
Oakland had cut its output 44.6 percent by last year. Collectively, the Bay Area had achieved a 50 percent reduction compared with 2009 — the equivalent of a million gallons of trash.
The goals were set eight years ago after the water quality board required local agencies to measure the garbage flowing from storm drains. Regulators were concerned about the 2 million gallons of trash found bobbing in Bay Area waterways, about half of it plastic groc ery bags, candy wrappers, lids, straws and chip bags.
For each city, compliance is calculated by measuring how much detritus local cleanup programs pull off the streets or out of the drains. More weight is given to the most effective measures, like
13 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/trash_control/docs/01_final_sed.pdf , pages 97-98
Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 10 of 39
installing hydrodynamic separators, which capture all garbage flowing down a drain. The amounts cleaned are subtracted from the 2009 baseline.
The crackdown is important, conservationists say, because the waste leaches toxins, flows into the bay and winds up in the ocean, where the plastic breaks down into tiny pieces that are ingested by marine mammals, fish and birds.
It was an indifferent attitude about litter, experts say, that created the enormous floating garbage patch in the North Pacific, a stew that marine biologists consider an ecosystem catastrophe.
In Oakland, where 8,000 storm drain inlets dump into a myriad of creeks, channels and the Oakland Estuary, one of the trashiest waterways is Damon Slough near the Coliseum complex.
The muddy banks were strewn last week with aerosol cans, juice bags, hypodermic needles, straws, tennis balls, liquor bottles, candy wrappers and numerous plastic bags.
“All of the trash in here is from storm drains at the Coliseum or wind blown from the parking lot,” said David Lewis, executive director of the nonprofit Save the Bay, as he stood next to the foul - smelling slough. “There are five or six creeks that all empty into this area here. It is the pathway, the water column, and it circulates all over.”
The stepped-up mandate this year is likely to trip up at least as many cities and agencies as last year, including San Jose, Richmond, Vallejo, San Leandro and Berkeley. 14
History of Street Sweeping in Richmond
A Regulatory Issue
Street sweeping became a regulatory issue in Richmond in 1999 with the issuance of California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region Order No. 99-058, NPDES Permit No. CA0029912 for Contra Costa cities and county, including the City of Richmond.
The permit required implementation of Best Management Practices (BMP) to “reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable.”15 In the Contra Costa Clean Water Program Stormwater Management Plan, 1999-2004, which implements Order No. 99-058, NPDES Permit No. CA0029912, street sweeping is listed as one of “The following activities will be conducted during the next five-year period.” Performance standards included four pages of detailed requirements, including:16
• MUNI-8: Each agency will discourage allowing residents to “opt out” of its street sweeping program. • MUNI-16: Each agency will take appropriate measures to keep curbed areas clear during street sweeping.
Measures may include but are not limited to posting “no stopping,” “no parking,” assigns in business
14 Oakland targeted in Bid to Cut Trash Flow into SF Bay, May 31, 2017, https://savesfbay.org/oakland-targeted-in- bid-to-cut-trash-flow-into-sf-bay
15 California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region Order No. 99-058, NPDES Permit No.
CA0029912, page 9
16 Contra Costa Clean Water Program Stormwater Management Plan, 1999-2004, Table5.1, pages 1-4
Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 11 of 39
districts, near large apartment complexes, etc., posting street sweeping signs on streets where appropriate, and, distributing newsletters and other public education materials notifying residents and business es of street sweeping schedules.
In order to be in compliance, the Richmond Public Works Department ramped up street sweeping, ordering two new sweepers and increasing sweeping to twice a month in six neighborhoods.17 Street Sweeping Begins in 2000
On April 28, 2000, Assistant City Manager Leveron Bryant, provided a memo to Isiah Turner, City Manager, summarizing progress on street sweeping to begin on May 15, 2000, beginning with North Richmond, Santa Fe, Belding Woods, Coronado, Cortez/Stege and Pullman. The service was to be expanded to include “twice-per-month sweeping…to include all neighborhood council areas,” “The Hilltop/Fairmede, Richmond Annex, Parchester and Carriage Hills neighborhood council areas will be targeted for September 2000”18
The plan called for installation of signs, and citations after a 30-day grace period.19 The Office of Neighborhood Services initiated a comprehensive public education program at the beginning of 2001 with a presentation to the City Council.20 The public education program included:21 • Present street sweeping plan/schedules at 39 neighborhood council meetings • Present street sweeping plan/schedules at Richmond Coordinating Council meetings • Police cadets will distribute fliers to homes, libraries • Seek placement of notices in Richmond Sanitary billings • Place feature story in neighborhood newsletters
• Send news releases to the press and neighborhood newsletter editors • Mail community notices in advance of sign posting (English, Spanish and Laotian) • 3-minute video will illustrate streets being swept with and without parked vehicles, to be shown at community meetings and KCRT
• KCRT interview with Isiah Turner and Ray Lambert
On March 16, 2001, City Council members were provided a packet of meeting notices.22 The initial contract for sign installation was awarded to Bay Hawk, Inc. on December 10, 2001, with a Notice to Proceed on January 9, 2002.
On September 5, 2001, officers of the Panhandle Neighborhood Council wrote to Richmond City Council members with several criticism of the program, including:
17 Memo dated October 19, 1999, from Arlanders Etheley, Public Works Superintendent to Mayor and Councilmembers
18 Memo, April 28, 2000, Assistant City Manager Leveron Bryant, to Isiah Turner, City Manager 19 ibid
20 Public Services Street Sweeping, Street Sweeping Awareness Program, presented by Raymond Lambert, February 13, 2001.
21 Study Session, City Council meeting of February 23, 2001 22 Memo dated March 16, 2001, “Town hall Meetings re: Street Sweeping – Information Only,” from Leveron Bryant to Mayor and City Council
Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 12 of 39
• Not coordinating with garbage pickup
• Sweeping both sides of streets on the same day, making parking compliance difficult The group noted:
Finally, the City Council must have the will to devise a plan to have cars ticketed that do not observe the street sweeping signs. Citing cars that fail to follow this ordnance is simply a part of city life that has been ignored in Richmond for far too long. Perhaps the revenue from the tickets could be put back in the street sweeping program.
The Richmond Annex and Panhandle Annex Complain
On May 2, 2002, the same group of Panhandle Neighborhood Council officers complained again about sweeping both sides of streets on the same day and failure to coordinate garbage pickup with street sweeping.23
On June 6, 2002, the City of Richmond distributed additional educational materials, including the advice, “Your neighborhood council area is scheduled for posted street sweeping signs in the near future. You will be notified via your neighborhood council meeting, newsletter and the City web site.” By July of 2002, Richmond Annex and Panhandle Annex residents were beginning to revolt, writing letters objecting to signs as “ugly,” complaining that there was insufficient parking available to allow moving of cars, questioning the regulatory basis and advocating for a voluntary program like that in El Cerrito.
On June 17, 2002, Raymond lambert wrote to Jeff Jones, President of the Richmond Annex Neighborhood Council, clarifying the regulatory and statutory basis for signs and ticketing:24 The street sweeping sign installation program is part of the City of Richmond’s Joint Municipal National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Our Storm Water Permit is CA0029912, Order No. 93-105.
Street Sweeping is a NPDES Program under Section 22507.6 of the California Vehicle Code, which states:
22507.6. Local authorities may, by ordinance or resolution, prohibit or restrict the parking or standing of vehicles on designated streets or highways, or portions thereof, for the purpose of street sweeping. No ordinance or resolution relating to the parking or standing of commercial vehicles in a residential district shall be effective with respect to any commercial vehicle making pickups or deliveries of goods, wares, or merchandise from or to any building or structure located on the restricted street or highway, or for the purpose of delivering materials to be used in the repair, alteration, remodeling, or reconstruction of any building or structure for which a building permit has previously been obtained. No such ordinance or resolution shall be effective until the street or highway, or portion thereof, has been sign-posted in accordance with the uniform standards and specifications of the Department of Trans portation, or local authorities have caused to be posted in a conspicuous place at each entrance to the street a notice not less than 17 inches by 22 inches in size, with lettering not less than one inch in height, setting forth
23 Letter dated May 2, 22002, from seven Panhandle Neighborhood Council officers to Rich McCoy 24 Letter dated June 17, 2002, from Raymond lambert to Jeff Jones, President, Richmond Annex Neighborhood Council
Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 13 of 39
the day or days and hours parking is prohibited. As used in this section, “entrance” means the intersection of any street or streets comprising an area of restricted parking for street -sweeping purposes on the same day or days and hours with another street or highway not subject to such a parking restriction, or subject to parking restrictions on different days and hours. (Amended by Stats. 1982, Ch. 466, Sec. 115.)
On June 24, 2002, 16 Richmond Annex residents submitted a petition against street sweeping signs.
With political pressure building from the Richmond Annex, the City Council on July 16, 2002, approved a 90-day moratorium on street sweeping signs. I was the only member opposing.25 The matter came up again at the September 10, 2002 City Council meeting. Following a failure to adopt a motion the item was continued for two weeks.26
On September 18, 2002, Jeff Jones, Richmond Annex Neighborhood Council President wrote Mayor Anderson and the City Council opposing the street sweeping sign program and advocating the El Cerrito voluntary program.
On September 21 through September 24, 2002. City Council members received multiple letters from Richmond Annex residents protesting street sweeping signs.
On September 24, 2002, the City Council took up the issue again, approving a voluntary street sweeping program for the entire city and no tickets for one year with the results to be evaluated in six months.27 Panhandle Annex Signs Removed
At the same meeting, the City Council voted to remove the street sweeping signs already installed in the Richmond Annex.28,29
On September 26, 2002, City Manager Isiah Turner directed Director of Public Services Rich McCoy to implement a voluntary street sweeping program.
On October 8, 2002, Councilmember Penn placed an item on the Agenda to “Consider the Matter of a Comprehensive Street Sweeping Program for the City of Richmond.” Penn was concerned that the Council has adopted a citywide program change without input from anyone outside the Richmond Annex.
There were many speakers concerned about a city-wide voluntary program. The Council did not take a vote, but City Manager Isiah Turner committed to present the Council with a plan for consideration in two weeks.30
25 Summary of City Council Actions Regarding Street Sweeping 26 ibid
27 Resolution 127-02
28 Ibid
29 Resolution 128-02
30 City Council Minutes of October 8, 2002.
Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 14 of 39
On October 22, 2002, the Council considered a “Proposed Citywide Street Sweeping Program” that had both mandatory and voluntary options. The mandatory option had signs and full enforcement. The voluntary option had no signs and no enforcement.
Citywide Neighborhood Votes on Street Sweeping
In order to qualify for the voluntary option, a neighborhood had to show 2/3 consent and require 80% compliance, based on warning citations issues. There was to be a one-year monitoring period.31 The item passed on a 7-2 vote.32
The residents of every neighborhood were polled as to which option they wanted, and the results were presented to the Public Safety Committee on June 12, 2003. Option1, mandatory installation of signs and full enforcement was the default and did not require return of ballots. Option 2, voluntary with no signs and no enforcement required a 2/3 vote. 40,885 ballots were mailed, and 1,386 returned. Carriage Hills South was the only neighborhood that qualified for Option 2, the volunteer program. However, the Committee recommended making an exception and adding Richmore Village and the Richmond Annex to the voluntary program.33
On March 23, 2003, I wrote in my E-FORUM:34
A Clean Sweep?
I have forwarded all comments received in response to the March 9, 2003, E -FORUM “Street Sweeping Ballot Hits the Streets.” to the Richmond Public Services Department. Meanwhile, I have attempted to craft a general response to those who have offered their opinions and to propose some program guidelines and policy modifications that may render the overall program palatable to a majority of residents.
The recently circulated ballot generated a lot of criticism, and it probably would have been wise to have run it up the flagpole before mailing it. However, the program appears to be salvageable with some changes. Here are my comments and suggestions:
NEIGHBORHOOD STREET CLEANING AND VOLUNTARY PARKING MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS Some citizens and neighborhood groups have maintained that their streets are not dirty enough to require sweeping or that the neighbors, themselves, keep the streets clean The cleanliness of a street may be more perception than fact. Everyone knows what a trashy street looks like, but the most damaging pollutants that originate on streets are those not readily observable, including such things as tire dust, brake dust and oil drippings from vehicles. One study claims that each tire loses about 6 pounds of rubber each year. Richmond has about 35,000 households, and if each household had only one vehicle that loses half its rubber in Richmond, that would produce 420,000 pounds of rubber annually that ends up in San Francisco Bay. This is known as “non -point source” (NPS) pollution, but when the runoff carrying it enters a storm drain system, it eventually becomes a “point source” that is regulated by the Federal Clean Water Act and Richmond’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program.
31 Agenda Report and attachments, October 22, 2002,
32 City Council Minutes, October 22, 2002.
33 Staff Report for June 12, 2003, Public Safety Committee meeting 34 http://www.tombutt.com/forum/2003/030323b.htm
Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 15 of 39
Citizens have legitimate concerns about many inconveniences related to a street sweeping programs, but we have to remember that, in the end, it's not about aesthetics, parking, or personal convenience; it's about the environment. If a voluntary parking management plan can achieve the same resul ts as a mandatory one, then the objective is achieved. If not, then some neighborhoods may have opted for environmental degradation while others make the required sacrifices.
The administration’s benchmark of 80 percent compliance to maintain a voluntary p arking management program seems reasonable.
ELECTION
The requirement for a 2/3 “protest” vote to opt out of mandatory parking management seems excessive. I recommend that it be reduced to 51 per cent. This is consistent with state law relating to the establishment of a benefit district, and it was the method used to ballot Richmond’s wastewater rate increases. There were many complaints about the appearance of the ballot -- how it resembled junk mail -- about the effectiveness of the distribution, and so forth. Sure, perhaps it could have been done better, but those neighborhoods that have strong feelings on the subject are well -organized and can probably compensate for any shortcomings through outreach, activism and community organizations. It doesn't make sense to me to go through the time and expense of doing it all over again at this point.
SIGNS
The administration’s program for small signs on neighborhood streets and larger signs on arterials seems reasonable, as does the plan to utilize existing utility or other poles for mounting. If three signs per block on each side of the street is not a legal requirement for enforcement, then a reduction to two signs, one near each end of the block, would seem reasonable where residents appear to be offended by the signs.
SWEEPING LOGISTICS
Streets in neighborhoods with any significant level of on-street parking should be swept on alternate days for each side of the street. In some neighborhoods, parking flexibility to sweep both sides of the street simultaneously simply doesn't exist. In others, such as some of the newer El Sobrante Valley developments, this will probably not be a problem.
Also, in older neighborhoods with dense on-street parking, sweeping should take place only between the hours of 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM, preferably within a four-hour block. This is a pattern used by many cities, and it seems to work well. This is a period when the maximum number of people will be at work, at school or doing errands and when people who stay home should be able to find a parking place somewhere besides in front of their home once a month.
Ideally, sweeping schedules should coincide with garbage collection.
Three Neighborhoods Approved for Voluntary Program
At its June 17, 2003, meeting, the City Council approved three neighborhoods for the volunteer program: Richmore Village, Carriage Hills South and the Richmond Annex, approved the mandatory program for the remainder of the city, and requested a progress report in six months.
Because of a citizen complaint about lack of enforcement in September of 2004, Interim City Manager Batchelor asked if there was enforcement. Willie Haywood responded, “Ticketing will begin mid-October ’04 (gratis ticketing), formal ticketing will begin Jan. ’05. Delay was due to being short staffed.” At the Public Safety and Public Services Committee Standing Committee meeting of March 10, 2005, staff reported a plan to commence courtesy ticketing for 60 days, then commence formal parking citations.
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 21, 2022
City Council
DATE: June 21, 2022
TO: Mayor Butt and Members of the City Council
FROM:
Councilmembers Gayle McLaughlin and Melvin Willis
Subject:
Collaborative approach between Safe Organized Spaces
Richmond (SOS), the Richmond Rotary Club Housing
First Initiative, and various related partners to assist the unhoused.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Cost of implementing this collaboration with various partners will be approximately $2,399,100. Staff has
stated there are sufficient and appropriate funds available and will be identifying distinct funding sources when the contracts come back to City Council.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
SOS (with Rebuilding Together East Bay North as fiscal
sponsor) is currently contracted by the City of Richmond with said contract due to expire in July 2022. This
contract is funded as part of the Reimagining Public
Safety initiatives. The Rotary Club Housing First program is a relatively new program initiated by Mayor Butt funded currently by the Mayor’s Office Golf Tournament Fund.
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
There is a need to collaborate on providing opportunities for our unhoused population in Richmond. There is a
natural fit for collaboration to service the various needs of the unhoused community while providing them with safe
spaces for interim housing and access to permanent
housing.
AGENDA
REPORT
June 21, 2022
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
DIRECT staff to create two contracts that outline a
collaborative approach between Safe Organized Spaces
Richmond (SOS), the Richmond Rotary Club Housing
First Initiative, and various related partners and bring back the contracts to the City Council for approval before the August break. The fiscal sponsor for both contracts will be the Richmond Community Foundation –
Councilmembers Gayle McLaughlin and Melvin Willis
(510) 620-6581.
DISCUSSION:
Richmond’s unhoused population has doubled during COVID, and these numbers will continue to grow in the coming months. Immediate and longer-term remedies are critically needed. Multiple approaches must address the ongoing housing crisis and growing number of unhoused individuals and families. A collaboration between Safe Organized Spaces (SOS) Richmond and the Richmond Rotary Club’s Housing First Initiative, along with other partner organizations, is a positive step toward creating a “Community of Care” that provides alternatives to unsafe curbside living.
Overwhelmingly, Richmond residents who are currently unhoused have informed council members that they want to secure stable housing as their goal. Clearly, as demonstrated by ongoing abatements of unsupported homeless encampments, it is also essential that existing encampment conditions are improved, and interim off-street housing remedies made available.
This agenda report provides a basic description of the proposed collaborative work of SOS’ mobile encampment services and Richmond Rotary’s Housing First program, and their integrated partners. The emerging collaborative of Unhoused Interventions will invest in institutionalizing a creative set of approaches that demonstrate a model for collective impact on homelessness in Richmond and inform the city’s new strategic planning process.
The collaboration represents an essential and holistic model for Unhoused Interventions with a two-edged strategy of complementary approaches and shared resources:
“Streets Team and Safe Spaces” will continue an existing city-funded strategy for mitigating unsafe encampments and developing safe off-street interim housing in neighborhoods. The collaborative team is led by Safe Organized Spaces Richmond and program partners, such as Rebuilding Together East Bay North, Collaborising, Tacos And Roses, Faith In Action, Housing Consortium of the East Bay, NeighborAid, La Familia Family Services, Rising Sun Center For Opportunity, and others.
“Housing First and Services” will deepen this recent initiative for tracking vulnerable households into immediate housing pathways. The collaborative team
June 21, 2022
is led by Richmond Rotary Club and its program partners, such as the Richmond Community Foundation (RCF) and its SparkPoint program, Greater Richmond Interfaith Program (GRIP), and others.
Individual group responsibilities will be identified for each of the partners in this overall teamwork approach. It is important to put political differences aside in this effort to truly address the needs of our unhoused residents in ways that advance the community’s diverse interests. Together, we will more efficiently and comprehensively develop pathways to secure housing and sustainable lives.
Basic budgets are outlined in this agenda item. City staff will create the contracts with SOS and Richmond Rotary that spells out responsibilities for each organization and its partner groups, based on this agenda report and subsequent conversations with the organizations involved.
The overall team will also work with Contra Costa County Health, Housing and Homeless (H3) Services to connect unhoused residents to various programs and services that the County provides.
Additionally, the City of Richmond needs to provide some truly affordable housing, so as people get on their feet, they can transition to and sustain long-term permanent housing. This priority goes beyond the scope of what this item addresses, but it is important to encourage us all (city staff and elected officials) to work simultaneously on truly affordable housing solutions that will more permanently provide secure housing opportunities.
Safe Organized Spaces Richmond
SOS Richmond, with its fiscal sponsor Rebuilding Together East Bay North (RTEBN), is in contract with the City of Richmond. This $983,975 contract was executed in September 2021 and is set to expire in July 2022. Six activities are currently provided by SOS:
1. Cleanup of encampment trash and adjacent illegal dumping;
2. Delivery of mobile showers to encampment and neighboring locations;
3. Additional portable amenities deployed to encampments, such as trash storage, toilets and drinking water;
4. Workforce development for encampment residents who volunteer and subsequently become employed;
5. Local engagement that focuses on safety, problem-solving, and personal welfare; and,
6. Development and support to near-future interim housing locations, such as in off- street parking lots of faith organizations in neighborhoods across Richmond.
Twenty-three unhoused individuals are actively employed at an average of 22 hours per week as they improve their own wellness, work toward full-time employment, attainment
June 21, 2022
of housing and improved self-sufficiency. This diverse team operates three teams: the Streets Team for trash reduction and to improve safety and stability at encampments and neighborhoods overall; Shower Power for mobile showers and improved dignity and health; and Mobile Amenities for deepened engagement as basic needs are met.
They support a neighborhood-based change model that builds relationship and trust with unhoused and housed neighbors alike to evolve acceptance for new strategies of homelessness intervention. This work involves building cooperation with public agencies and engagement with neighborhood anchors, and it seeks to build collaboration with other community-based organizations.
Richmond Rotary Club Housing First Initiative
The Richmond Rotary Club’s Housing First Initiative started in January 2022 by the Mayor of Richmond in collaboration with the Richmond Rotary Club to transition people from homeless encampments into housing for a year. Since that time the initiative has placed seven families or individuals in apartments or house-shares with a full year rent paid in advance.
Mayor Tom Butt, a Rotary member, arranged payment for this program through the Mayor’s Community Fund which is administered by the Richmond Community Foundation. Volunteers from Rotary screened applicants, recruited landlords, arranged payments, collected donations of furniture and household goods, and arranged follow- up social services from public agencies. Rotary Club members are well-connected and play an advocacy role so that participants can access all available services needed to transition to self-sufficiency.
That fund is currently running out and more funding is needed. One goal of the program is to build self-sufficiency for the families when they leave the program. Additional funding would pay for housing placements and to develop a more robust process for providing support for the families. It has been difficult for Rotary to provide follow-up services such as access to appropriate government support programs, financial counseling, mental health services, job readiness training, and job placement. Such services are needed to ensure that while a one-year rent guarantee can provide a platform of security and safety for transitioning out of homelessness. Much more support is needed to ensure that families do not fall back into homelessness after the rent subsidy is over.
The Housing First program has established a working relationship with SOS, which helps to identify appropriate families ready to be relocated through the Housing First program and to prepare such families for self-sufficiency. An integral collaboration with SOS Richmond would help to provide a more efficient and comprehensive approach to the Housing First program.
June 21, 2022
Collaboration between SOS Richmond and Rotary Club Housing First An integration of these two community-based efforts, SOS Richmond and the Rotary Club’s Housing First Initiative, will improve support to vulnerable families and individuals in the environments where they currently live and will expedite access to housing.
Currently there is no such direct pathway to housing for unhoused residents of Richmond.
SOS will continue its encampment-based work and will identify appropriate unhoused families and individuals for the Housing First program and provide workforce development, when needed, for unhoused families transitioning through Housing First (HF), as well provide additional services as appropriate to those families participating in the HF program. The Housing First program will coordinate with SOS as needed to successfully house appropriate families and members of the unhoused community.
This collaboration will have Richmond Community Foundation (RCF) as fiscal agent.
Staff will outline separate program deliverables for SOS and the Housing First Program, along with sub-contracts for partner organizations.
Two main contracts will be needed. One contract will be the extension of the SOS contract through June 30, 2023, with RCF as the new fiscal sponsor. Expanded deliverables and budgetary needs will be outlined. The other contract will be for Rotary Club Housing First program through June 30, 2023, also with RCF as the fiscal sponsor and deliverables outlined.
Rough Budgets
To continue its work, SOS Richmond needs funding reallocation for year two of this work with a budget of $1,429,000 for FY ’22/’23 (this includes remaining funds from prior contract and funding for program partners):
$108,000 Program Administration
$260,000 Operational Management (currently/formerly unhoused) $276,000 Program Expenses (non-staff)
$470,000 Streets Team employees (unhoused)
$315,000 Program Partners (e.g. Rebuilding Together East Bay North, Collaborising, Tacos and Roses, Faith In Action, NeighborAid, La Familia Family Services, and Rising Sun Center For Opportunity)
Total = $1,429,000
The Rotary Club’s Housing First Initiative seeks $752,000 to expand its program (this includes funding for Rydin-specific needs and program partners):
June 21, 2022
$100,000 Program management and outreach to landlords. Rotary will set up 1 year agreements (for full year rent paid in advance through this program and free to unhoused residents) between participating landlords and appropriate unhoused families. Funds will be distributed through the Richmond Community Foundation (RCF).
Additional agreements between landlord and unhoused families will provide responsibilities to be upheld by both landlord and the household. $252,000 1-year rent for 14 families at $18,000 per household
$150,000 Rydin Rd-specific Housing First funds
$150,000 Rydin ongoing operations and navigation toward encampment resolution (expanding upon on the current work of Housing Consortium of the East Bay)
$100,000 Housing and resource navigation and case management services with Greater Richmond Interfaith Program (GRIP) and other partners Total = $752,000
Overall Collaboration Total
$1,429,000 SOS and partners’ expenses
$ 752,000 Housing First expenses
TOTAL = $2,181,000 plus 10% RCF Fiscal sponsor fee ($218,100) $ 2,399,100 = OVERALL TOTAL
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
None
June 21, 2022
Rent Program
DATE: June 21, 2022
TO: Mayor Butt and Members of the City Council
FROM:
Nicolas Traylor, Rent Program Executive Director
Comments by Interim City Attorney (in red)
Subject:
Resolution Establishing the Fiscal Year 2022-23
Residential Rental Housing Fee
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The Rent Program budget is funded by the Rental Housing Fee. The amount of the Fiscal Year 2022-2023
Residential Rental Housing Fee recommended by the
Rent Board is $226.00 per Controlled Rental Unit and
$127.00 per Partially Covered Unit. As the Residential
Rental Housing Fee is the only source of revenue for
Rent Program operations for the foreseeable future, the fiscal impact to the City will depend upon both the dollar amount of the fees adopted by the City Council, and fee payment compliance rates. To compel compliance,
Ordinance 21-18 N.S., amended by the City Council on
July 17, 2018, establishes penalties for late payment and authorizes the Rent Board to commence collection
actions at any time for nonpayment of the Rental Housing Fee (Attachment 3).
However, Rent Program has paid $106,000 to $130,000
annually for General Fund liability and administrative
charges. This budget discontinues any payments so that
the General Fund is subsidizing the program.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
Various including July 25, 2017, June 26, 2018, May 21, 2019, June 16, 2020, and May 4, 2021
AGENDA
REPORT
June 21, 2022
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
The purpose of the Fair Rent, Just Cause for Eviction,
and Homeowner Protection Ordinance is to promote
housing stability and affordability for Richmond renters to the greatest extent allowable under California law while providing Landlords a fair return. In accordance with
Section 11.100.060(l) of the Richmond Fair Rent, Just
Cause for Eviction, and Homeowner Protection
Ordinance, after receiving the Rent Board’s
recommendation on the amount of the Residential Rental
Housing Fee, the City Council shall determine the
amount of the fee by voting on the Rent Board’s
recommendation. The Rent Board is requesting the
adoption of a resolution amending the Master Fee
Schedule by establishing the Residential Rental Housing Fee for Fiscal Year 2022-2023.
City Manager and City Attorney recommended payment
from Rent Program at past levels while a new cost study was performed as mutually agreed upon by the parties.
The Rent Board has not concurred with that
recommendation.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
ADOPT a resolution establishing the Fiscal Year 2022-
2023 Residential Rental Housing Fee in the amount of
$226.00 per Controlled Rental Unit and $127.00 per
Partially Covered Rental Unit – Rent Program (Nicolas
Traylor 620-6564).
Consider if budget should be modified to provide General Fund support at historic level and if revised cost study should be performed by parties.
DISCUSSION:
Background
The Rent Program is funded by a Residential Rental Housing Fee, paid by all Landlords of Rental Units in the City of Richmond in accordance with Section 11.100.060(l)(1) of the Fair Rent, Just Cause for Eviction, and Homeowner Protection Ordinance (“Rent Ordinance”). The amount of the Rental Housing Fee is determined annually when the City Council votes on the Rent Board’s recommendation of the amount of the fee.
Under Section 50076 of the California Government Code, fees charged for any service or regulatory activity must not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the service.
Those fees must be approved by the City Council, as the legislative body, in a public
June 21, 2022
session. Therefore, a fee study is necessary to ensure that the Residential Rental Housing Fee recommended by the Rent Board and charged to Landlords is commensurate to the level of services provided by the Rent Program.
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Rental Housing Fee Study
The fee study is designed to allow the Rent Program Department to recover costs of all budgeted operations, including, but not limited to:
Personnel costs of staff, benefits, and overtime;
Risk management and supplemental liability insurance plan (SLIP); Charges allocated to City Departments to reimburse the General Fund for administrative services by central service departments (i.e., City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, Finance, Human Resources, etc.) Allocations still under review and consultants will be engaged to validate methodology;
Information Technology (IT) expenses associated with a property and rent-tracking database and maintenance of computer hardware and software;
Legal costs to support enforcement and defense of legal challenges to the Rent Ordinance;
Costs of education and outreach, including the printing and distribution of print materials and hosting of community workshops and seminars; Contracts for translation and other professional services; Mileage and attendance at conferences and trainings; and An operating reserve to fund unanticipated costs and variations in collection of the Rental Housing Fee.
Proposed Structure of the Rental Housing Fee
Consistent with direction from the Rent Board in 2017, its first year of existence, the Fiscal Year 2016-2017 and FY 2017-2018 Rental Housing Fees were established as “flat fees,” applicable to all units regardless of partial or full applicability under the Rent Ordinance. This approach was utilized during the first 1.5 years of program startup since the tasks and associated benefits of the agency’s startup were reasonably shared among Rental Units regardless of status.
For the 2018-2019 Fiscal Year, the Rent Board adopted a tiered fee, much like that contemplated in the 2017 Fee Study prepared by Management Partners. Under this approach, costs of program administration are allocated among three components or layers: a general “program” layer (calculated at 55% of costs), a “just cause” layer (20% of total costs), and a “rent control” layer (25% of costs). Such allocations correspond with the amount of resources spent administering each component of the program. Rent Program staff members recommend the Board continue to utilize a tiered-fee approach in its determination of the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Rental Housing Fee to ensure the requirements of Section 50076 of the California Government Code are met.
June 21, 2022
The amount of the Rental Housing Fee applicable to a particular Rental Unit depends on its status. Units applicable to the Just Cause for Eviction requirements but exempt from the Rent Control provisions of the Rent Ordinance (such as properties with only one dwelling unit on the parcel, governmentally subsidized units, condominiums, and permitted units built after February 1, 1995), are responsible for payment of Program and Just Cause for Eviction layers. Units subject to the Just Cause for Eviction and Rent Control provisions of the Rent Ordinance would be responsible for payment of all three layers. Units that are fully exempt from the Rent Ordinance are not responsible for payment of the Rental Housing Fee.
Comparison of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Fee to Prior Year Fees
The Rental Housing Fee for the 2022-2023 fiscal year is recommended to be: $226 for Fully Covered Rental Units and $127 for Partially Covered Rental Units. The table below compares the proposed Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Rental Housing Fee to prior year fees.
Table 1. Comparison of Proposed FY 2022-2023 Rental Housing Fee to Prior Year Fees
Fiscal Year Fully Covered
Rental Units
Partially
Covered Rental
Units
Governmentally
Subsidized
Rental Units
2017-18 $145 $145 N/A
2018-19 $207 $100 $50
2019-20 $212 $112 N/A
2020-21 $219 $124 N/A
2021-22 $218 $123 N/A
2022-23 $226 $127 N/A
Next Steps
Following adoption of the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Residential Rental Housing Fee by the City Council, the fee will be incorporated into the Master Fee Schedule and charged to all Richmond Landlords in accordance with the Rent Ordinance.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – Resolution
Attachment 2 – Approved Rent Program Fiscal Year 2023-23 Budget and Rental Housing Fee Study
Attachment 3 – Ordinance 21-18 N.S.
Reso. No. XX-2
RESOLUTION NO. _____ - 2
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND ESTABLISHING THE FISCAL YEAR 2022-23 RESIDENTIAL RENTAL HOUSING
FEE IN THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR SERVICES RENDERED BY THE CITY
OF RICHMOND RENT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, Section 11.100.060(l) of the Municipal Code of the City of Richmond provides that the Rent Board of the City of Richmond shall finance its reasonable and necessary expenses by charging Landlords annual registration fees in amounts deemed reasonable by the Rent Board; and
WHEREAS, Section 11.100.060(l)(1) of the Municipal Code of the City of Richmond provides that all Landlords shall pay a business license fee if required by the Richmond Municipal Code plus a Residential Rental Housing Fee, the amount of which shall be determined by the City Council after a recommendation by the Rent Board is provided to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, at its meeting on July 25, 2017, the City Council of the City of Richmond adopted Ordinance 16-17 N.S., establishing (1) the Residential Housing Fee in the Master Fee Schedule; (2) a late penalty of 10% of the Residential Rental Housing Fee (“Fee”) for Fees paid 1-30 days late, 25% of the Fee for those paid 31-60 days late, and 50% of the Fee for those paid over 60 days late; and (3) provisions to allow liens to be placed on properties owned by Landlords who fail to pay the Residential Rental Housing Fee; and
WHEREAS, following the Rent Board’s approval of the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Residential Rental Housing Fee Study, and following the Board’s adoption of the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Rent Program budget, the Rent Board, at its meeting on May 31, 2022, adopted a motion recommending to the City Council that the City Council adopt for Fiscal Year 2022-23 a Residential Rental Housing Fee in the amount of $226.00 per Controlled Rental Unit and $127.00 per Partially Covered Rental Unit: and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richmond that the Master Fee Schedule is hereby amended to change the Residential Rental Housing Fee from $218.00 per Controlled Rental Unit and $123.00 per Partially Covered Rental Unit for Fiscal Year 2021-22 to the following: $226.00 per Controlled Rental Unit and $127.00 per Partially Covered Rental Unit for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 as further described and attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference.
*****************************
Reso. No. XX-2
I certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting thereof, held on ___________, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
____________________________________
City Clerk of the City of Richmond
(SEAL)
Approved:
_________________________
Mayor
Approved as to form:
_________________________
City Attorney
Reso. No. XX-2
EXHIBIT A
Commencing with the effective date of this Resolution ___-2 the fee established in Ordinance 16-17 N.S., Section 1, shall be as follows:
Description Current Fee Proposed Fee
RMC 6.38.110 Section 5 allows the City to collect fees solely to defray actual cost. RMC
6.02.180
RENT PROGRAM
RESIDENTIAL RENTAL HOUSING FEE
Administration of
the Fair Rent, Just
Cause for Eviction,
and Homeowner
Protection
Ordinance
(RMC 11.100)
Fiscal Year 2021-22
(Per Controlled Rental
Unit):
$218.00
(Per Partially Covered
Rental Unit):
$123.00
Fiscal Year 2022-23
(Per Controlled Rental Unit):
$226.00
(Per Partially Covered Rental Unit):
$127.00
FY 2022-23 BUDGET
& RENTAL HOUSING
FEE STUDY
CITY OF RICHMOND RENT PROGRAM
ADOPTED: MAY 31, 2022
Boardmembers
Virginia Finlay
Shiva Mishek
Alana Grice Conner
Carole Johnson
Michael Vasilas
City of Richmond Rent Program
440 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
Richmond, CA 94804
(510) 234-RENT [7368]
www.richmondrent.or
g
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Rent Program Department Team
Nicolas Traylor Charles Oshinuga Paul Cohen
Executive Director General Counsel Hearing Examiner
Fred Tran Palomar Sanchez Cynthia Shaw
Deputy Director Staff Attorney Administrative Analyst
Monica Bejarano Ramona Howell Moises Serano
Services Analyst Administrative Aide Administrative Aide
Abraham Gonzalez Christopher Villalta
Administrative Intern Administrative Intern
Special Thanks to the below City staff and departments:
IT Department Human Resource s Department Finance Department
Sue Hartman Sharrone Taylor Mubeen Qader Director Principal Personnel Analyst Budget Administrator
Randall Narron Delmy Cuellar
Senior Programmer Finance Manager
(Interim)
Vrenesia Ward
S r . B u d g e t A n a l y s t
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Rent Program Organization and Goals………………………………………………………………3 a. Mission Statement……………………………………………………………………………………..3 b. Organizational Chart and Labor Summary …..……….……………………………………..3 c. Progress towards the achievement of Fiscal Year 2021-22 Goals…………………5 d. Proposed Fiscal Year 2022-23 Goals………….……………………………………………….7
II. Proposed 2022-2023 Budget ……………. ………………………………………………….………..9 a. Budget …………………………………………………………………….………………………..….…..9
b. Line Item Descriptions……………………………………………………………………………...11
III. Expense and Revenue Projections
a. Expense and Revenue Summary……………………………………………………………….19
IV. 2022-2023 Rental Housing Fee Study……………………………………….…………………. 20 a. Introduction and Background……………………………………………………………………20 b. Structure of the Rental Housing Fee………………………………………………………....20 c. Applicable Unit Counts and Database Development…………………..………………22 d. Proposed Rental Housing Fees………………………………………………………………….25 e. Comparison to Previously Adopted Rental Housing Fee and Peer Jurisdictions……………………………………………………………………………………..………25
f. Conclusion and Recommended Actions.………………………………………………..….27
V. Unit Descriptions………..…………………………………………….……………………………………28
VI. Appendices………………………………………………………………………….……………..…………30
I. RENT PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND GOALS
Mission Statement
The mission of the Rent Program is to promote neighborhood and community stability, healthy housing, and affordability for Richmond Tenants through the regulating of those Landlord/Tenant matters that reasonably relate to rents and evictions, while maintaining a Landlord’s right to a fair return.
Proposed Fiscal Year 2022-23 Organizational Chart and Labor Summary
The Richmond Rent Program was established following the adoption of the Fair Rent, Just Cause for Eviction, and Homeowner Protection Ordinance (Rent Ordinance) by a majority of Richmond voters in 2016. In accordance with the Rent Ordinance, an Executive Director appointed by a five-member Rent Board comprised of Richmond residents leads the Rent Program.
The following figures illustrate how the proposed staffing plan for the upcoming year compares to prior years. Of particular note is the proposed addition of two new personnel classifications, including that of a General Counsel and a Senior Rent Program Services Analyst, as well as the consolidation of the Public Information and Billing and Registration Units into one combined Public Information and Enrollment Unit (PIE). The rationale for these proposed changes to the organizational chart is described in further detail below.
Figure 1 contains the proposed organizational chart for the 2022-23 fiscal year, and Figures 2 and 3 provide a summary of full-time equivalents (FTEs) since Fiscal Year 2020-21.
Figure 1. FY 2022-23 Rent Program Organizational Chart
Figure 2. Proposed Fiscal Year 2022-23 Labor Summary
Authorized
Positions
2020/2021
Authorized
Positions
2021/2022
Proposed
Positions
2022/2023
Amount of
Change
21/22 -
22/23
Unit
Management 2.25 2.25 2.25 0
Legal 1.75 2.25 2.25 0
Public Information 4.6 N/A N/A N/A
Billing & Registration 2.9 N/A N/A N/A
Public Information & Enrollment N/A 6.75 6.75 0
Hearings 1.5 1.75 1.75 0
TOTAL 13 13 13 0
Figure 3. Proposed Fiscal Year 2021-22 Permanent Staff by Classification
Authorized
Positions
2020/2021
Authorized
Positions
2021/2022
Proposed
Positions
2022/2023
Amount
of
Change
21/22 -
22/23
Classification
Administrative Aide 3 3 3 0
Administrative Student Intern 1 1 1 0
Assistant Administrative Analyst 1 1 0 -1
Deputy Director 1 1 1 0
Executive Director 1 1 1 0
General Counsel N/A 1 1 0
Hearing Examiner 1 1 1 0
Rent Program Services Analyst I/II 3 2 2 0
Senior Rent Program Services /
Administrative Analyst N/A 1 2 1
Staff Attorney 2 1 1 0
Total 13 13 13 0
Proposed Reclassification for a Senior Administrative Analyst
The proposed Fiscal Year 2022-23 budget includes a reclassification from an Assistant Administrative Analyst position to a Senior Administrative Analyst (1 FTE). The reclassification would require approval from both the Personnel Board and City Council. This role will assist with managing the Hearings Unit, provide administrative support to the Executive Director, and the Legal Unit. This role will receive direction from the Executive Director and oversees the petition process for the Hearings Unit. The Senior Administrative Analyst will also take direction from the General Counsel, Hearing Examiner, and Staff Attorney in a supportive capacity, but does not direct, the legal work of the agency.
Furthermore, the position will manage and work closely with all phases of the Rent Board, including the coordination of meetings and communications with all Board Members and the public. This proposed change would not increase the overall number of full-time equivalents (FTEs) employed by the agency.
Consolidation of Public Information and Billing and Registration Units
The organizational chart for Fiscal Year 2021-22 includes a “Public Information and Enrollment Unit” that replaces the existing Public Information and Billing and Registration Units. This new organizational structure is anticipated to be advantageous to the agency for the following reasons:
Improved compliance with enrollment, registration, and fee payment requirements In their conversations with community members, Rent Program Services Analysts (housing counselors) frequently discover rental units that are not in compliance with
the Rent Program in terms of property enrollment, tenancy registration, and fee payment requirements. Coordination between housing counselors and staff who oversee enrollment, registration, and fee payment operations is important, and the new organizational structure will support closer communication and collaboration to ensure that there is follow up after a rental unit found to be noncompliant.
Greater efficiency in serving members of the public
Distinct units can create unnecessary silos. The Rent Program is a relatively small agency and will be better equipped to face surges in demand or unforeseen circumstances if all Public Information and Enrollment Unit staff have a foundational understanding of both the Rent Ordinance and its requirements, as well as internal policies and procedures regarding property enrollment, tenancy registration, and payment of the Rental Housing Fee. Under the previous organizational structure, staff members in the Billing and Registration Unit would not typically assist with preparation for community workshops, and staff in the Public Information Unit may not have been familiar enough with Billing and Registration processes to fully assist community members with a billing issue. The new proposed structure would provide greater flexibility and redundancy among staff roles.
Promotes collaboration on large outreach projects
With 6.75 FTE, the new consolidated Public Information and Enrollment Unit will be the largest unit in the agency and better able to manage completion of large projects, such as mailing the Guide to Rent Control, rent validation reports, and Rental Housing Fee invoices to thousands of Landlords and Tenants. Mass-mailing projects also present opportunities to share information that community members may not otherwise seek out; for example, mailing of Rental Housing Fee invoices to all Landlords is an opportunity to share information about other aspects of the Rent Ordinance.
Progress Towards the Achievement of Fiscal Year 2021-22 Goals
As part of the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Rent Program budget development process, staff members identified a series of goals that the proposed budget would support. As was the case for the greater City of Richmond and the nation as a whole, the Covid-19 pandemic forced a reconsideration of goals and objectives for the 2021-22 fiscal year. Table 1, on the following page, provides a status update on the goals established for the 2021-22 fiscal year and notes the impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Table 1. Progress towards achievement of Fiscal Year 2021-22 Goals Fiscal Year 2021-22 Goal Progress Towards Achievement
Develop a training schedule for Rent
Program Services Analysts (but
accessible to all staff), to ensure
housing counselors remain
knowledgeable on the requirements of
the Rent Ordinance and apprised of
any changes to Rent Board
Regulations and related State and
Federal laws.
Nearly complete.
Rent Program Services Analysts received
regular and ongoing support and training from the managing Staff Attorney on the Rent Ordinance and related laws and regulations. Senior staff members provided specific trainings on new regulations and processes as needed. Rent Program Services Analysts provided weekly informational sessions to support staff in the Public Information Unit to keep them apprised of changes to the law and current topics of
relevance. Rent Program Services Analysts also develops collateral to communicate updates to the community.
Continue to implement the mediation
program to provide free formal and
informal mediation services to
Landlords and Tenants as a means of
resolving disputes that have a
reasonable nexus to the Rent
Ordinance through the assistance of a
trained mediator.
Nearly complete
, but significantly impacted by the Covid-19
pandemic, work is ongoing. With mediation guidelines and administrative procedures in place, staff members continue to assess the bandwidth of the Public Information Unit to determine how many mediations may be scheduled per
month. The Covid-19 pandemic delayed the process of filling vacancies in the Public Information Unit and eliminated the possibility of in-person mediations. The Executive and Deputy Directors facilitated mediations as necessary, but the
mediation program has yet to be fully launched.
Continue to develop an online filing
system for the submission of Property
Enrollment and Tenancy Registration
Progress is ongoing.
Online submission of forms and notices
has yet to be fully launched; staff members anticipate
systems will continue to be developed in the 2022-23 fiscal
forms, as well as the filing of rent
increase and termination of tenancy
notices on the City’s e-TRAKiT website.
year. There is also consideration to upgrade to more a
modern system that is suited for Rent Programs.
Publish and distribute the Guide to
Rent Control in Richmond and one-
page fact sheets on common topics
such as Just Cause for Eviction, Owner
Move-In evictions, the Ellis Act, and the
Relocation Ordinance.
Nearly complete
but significantly impacted by the Covid-19
pandemic. The Guide to Rent Control has been completed
and is slated to be distributed to Landlords and Tenants concurrent with the mailing of Rent Validation Reports for Fully Covered Rental Units. Landlords and Tenants of partially- covered Rental Units are anticipated to receive the Guide to Rent Control as well, in the absence of a Rent Validation Report. Originally planned to be completed during the 2020- 21 fiscal year, the distribution of such materials was
significantly delayed by the transition to remote work
necessitated by the Covid-19 pandemic. Staff members
anticipate completion of this task during the 2021-22 and 2022-23 fiscal year as the severity of the pandemic
decreases and restrictions lessen.
One-page fact sheets pertaining to Just Cause for Eviction, Owner Move-In evictions, the Ellis Act, and the Relocation Ordinance have been drafted and are in the process of being displayed on the Rent Program website.
Fiscal Year 2021-22 Goal Progress Towards Achievement
Develop and Execute a Comprehensive
Outreach Plan that includes, but is not
limited to, continuing to bolster our
social media presence, producing
informational, infographic, and/or
testimonial videos to highlight aspects
of the Rent Ordinance and services
provided by the Rent Program and
expanding outreach efforts to local
businesses, schools, non-profits,
neighborhood councils, and other
community stakeholders.
Progress is ongoing but was significantly impacted by
the
Covid-19 pandemic. During the 2020-21 fiscal year, the
Executive Director, in partnership with Public Information Unit staff members, spearheaded an outreach strategy to conduct site visits and make connections with local businesses, churches, and community centers. While the initiative gained momentum in the preceding fiscal year, progress was
severely stunted in Fiscal Year 2021-22 due to the risks of in- person contact remained during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Instead, outreach was primarily conducted through the
agency’s social media accounts, which proved to be an
effective means of sharing information. Informational
webinars were conducted, comprehensive fact sheets
created, podcasts recorded, and instruction videos were produced to be posted to the Rent Program website.
Launch Tenancy Registration Outreach
by beginning to mail out Notices of the
Maximum Allowable Rent (MAR) (sent
to Landlords and Tenants when
Tenancy Registration Forms are
submitted) and create a database
accessible to the public where
community members can research the
MAR for a particular Rental Unit.
Progress is ongoing
due to the limitations of remote work
during the Covid-19 pandemic. Over three-fourths of all rent- controlled tenancies have been registered to date; however, thousands of forms still need to be entered into the database.
Billing and Registration unit staff developed template forms and continue to work closely with the City’s IT department staff to ensure notices can be automatically generated and mailed to Landlords and Tenants to educate them about the Maximum Allowable Rent for their specific unit. Originally planned to be completed during the 2020-21 fiscal year, generating, and mailing of such reports was significantly delayed by the transition to remote work necessitated by the Covid-19 pandemic. Staff members anticipate initiation of this task during the 2021-22 fiscal year as the severity of the pandemic decreases and restrictions lessen. Staff is also considering a new database to transition the registration online.
Continue to improve collection of the
Rental Housing Fee (greater than 90%
compliance) through investing in
effective compliance and outreach
projects to ensure that all Rental Units
subject to the Rent Ordinance are
assessed the Rental Housing Fee and
all Landlords who should be paying the
Rental Housing Fee receive an invoice
and are made aware of their financial
obligation to the Rent Program.
On Track to Complete and compliance is ongoing. Revenue is continuously being collected. Total Rental Housing Fee
revenue is projected to approach 80% by the close of the fiscal year.
Continue to work collaboratively with
other City Departments to improve
rental housing inspection options,
seismic safety policy, enforcement of
the Relocation Ordinance, the
Richmond Rapid Response Fund (R3F)
Rent Assistance Program for
Displacement and Homelessness
Prevention, and the collection of other
City fees, such as the Business License
Tax, Fire Prevention Services Fee, and
Rental Inspection Program fee.
Progress is ongoing.
Rent Program staff continue to host
monthly meetings with the Richmond Police Department,
Code Enforcement, Richmond Housing Authority, and
Community Development Department to foster open
communication about issues pertaining to the Rent
Ordinance. In addition to monthly meetings, staff members in the Public Information and Billing and Registration Unit are frequently in communication with the Finance and Community Development Departments to streamline operations and
improve customer service provided to community members
by facilitating information sharing and identifying
opportunities for collaboration. The Finance Department currently updating their systems to invoice and credit fees for Measure U.
Continue to implement the
recommendations provided by Kevin
Harper CPA and Associates, including
monitoring budgeted versus actual
expenses and providing quarterly
reports to the Rent Board, updating the
Board’s 10-year financial projection,
and proposing budgetary policies for
the Board’s consideration.
Ongoing. Rent Program staff completes a variance report and compares budgeted revenues and expenditures monthly. The financing is currently in line with the 10-year financial projection. The Program is requesting to purchase an annual subscription to a system that’s custom to the Program’s needs. The solution will offer functions of CRM,
Billing/Invoice, Interaction Log, Registration, and Petition Management.
Proposed Fiscal Year 2022-23 Goals
The proposed Fiscal Year 2022-23 budget has been prepared for the Board’s consideration in acknowledgement of the following goals in three broad categories: Program Development, Outreach, and Program Sustainability and Compliance.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT:
1. Continue to invest in staff training and professional development to ensure staff members are knowledgeable on the requirements of the Rent Ordinance, Rent Board Regulations, and related State and Federal laws.
2. Continue to develop online services (e.g., filing system for the submission of Property Enrollment and Tenancy Registration forms, online appointment scheduling system, increasing Zoom counseling sessions, as well as the filing of rent increase and termination of tenancy notices).
OUTREACH:
1. Increase awareness of the Rent Ordinance by publicizing and distributing the comprehensive Guide to Rent Control in Richmond and continue to develop online outreach services (e.g., fact sheets, webinars, and podcasts on new pandemic related laws and other common topics such as Just Cause for Eviction, Owner Move- In Evictions, Rent Increases, the Rent Adjustment Petition process, the Ellis Act, and the Relocation Ordinance).
2. Expand education efforts through targeted outreach to specific groups, such as (but not limited to) tenants and providers of affordable housing, realtors, monolingual Spanish speaking households, small property owners, and problem properties (those with code violations).
3. Develop systems to produce Notices of the Maximum Allowable Rent (MAR) (sent to Landlords and Tenants when Tenancy Registration Forms are submitted), including a database accessible to the public where community members can research the MAR for a particular rental unit.
PROGRAM SUSTAINABILITY AND COMPLIANCE:
1. Provide highest level of service to the rental community. To properly administer these services, the Rent Program must continually collect the Rental Housing Fees to support the necessary operations.
2. Improve and focus on sustainability of the agency. The success of the Program is tied to the ability to retain, develop, and effectively deploy staff resources in the most effective and efficient manner possible.
3. Continue to work collaboratively with other City departments to improve rental housing inspection options, Richmond’s Rent Assistance Program, enforcement of the Relocation Ordinance, and the collection of other City fees (e.g., Business License Tax, Fire Prevention Services Fee, and Rental Inspection Program fee).
4. Continue to develop and refine the Rent Program’s database, transitioning from using the City’s TRAKiT database, to a new database solution designed to work specifically for the needs of the Rent Program. A more effective and efficient database will allow for more accurate billing, enhancing the Program’s collection rate, and improving the Program’s ability to accurately track lawful rents, Hearing’s decisions, eviction trends, etc. The anticipated long-term impact should be a decrease in overall long-term staff costs, by reducing the number of positions necessary to perform the work of the agency.
II. PROPOSED FY 2022-23 BUDGET
The figure below contains the revised Fiscal Year 2022-23 budget based on feedback provided by the Rent Board at its May 31, 2022, Special meeting. Detailed descriptions of the components within each line item are contained in the sections that follow.
Budget Notes
(1) Assumes a Fiscal Year 2021-22 Rental Housing Fee of $226 for Fully Covered units and $127 for Partially Covered units.
(2) See page 11 for detailed salary and wage assumptions. (3) The Rent Program is seeking the City to cap Total Fringe Benefits at 62% of Total Salaries and Wages.
(4) Includes $100,000 for cloud-based solution – IT charge, $20,000 for consultants to complete Cost Pool and Fringe Benefits analysis, $2,205 TRAKiT annual fee, $4,000 for a property information subscription, $3,000 for a legal research subscription, $8,000 for scheduled interpretation, $6,000 for written translation, and $250 for on-demand interpretation services.
(5) Includes $125,000 contract with the Eviction Defense Center to assist with Unlawful Detainer cases, $75,000 for a contract with Bay Area Legal Aid for the weekly Housing Rights Clinics, and $10,000 for legal filing fees in the event of litigation. (6) In accordance with City personnel policies, eligible employees may receive reimbursement of up to $800 for higher education tuition. (7) Anticipated cost of Bar Association dues for three attorneys ($550 per Attorney). (8) Budgeted amount includes funds to satisfy the requirement to publish notices in the newspaper for public hearings as part of the budget adoption process, social media promotions, and promotional materials.
(9) Budgeted amount includes the cost of email accounts for Rent Board Members, business cards, and videoconference/webinar accounts.
(10) Budgeted amount reflects anticipated postage costs for Rental Housing Fee invoices, tenancy registration mailings, and the Guide to Rent Control. (11) Budgeted amount reflects anticipated printing costs for Rental Housing Fee invoices, tenancy registration mailings, and the Guide to Rent Control. (12) Lease of copy machines including a cost-per-copy amount. 36-month lease ends in 2022.
(13) Stipends for 2 UC Berkeley Public Service Center interns, ranging from $1,000 -$1,500 per intern.
(14) Rent Program is working with the City to determine the proper methodology of Cost Pool allocation, new methodology is under review.
(15) Budgeted reserve is equal to 18 percent of total operating expenses consistent with the Rent Board's proposed Reserve Policy.
SALARIES AND WAGES
400001 – 400006
Permanent Employees
Proposed Allocation:
$1,287,802
The allocation reflects salary-related costs for all filled positions and includes a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for all non-exempt staff as set forth in the collective bargaining agreements with the City’s employee unions. The Deputy Director and General Counsel positions are proposed to forfeit cost-of-living adjustments in Fiscal Year 2022-23.
Position
Fiscal Year
2021-22
Salary
Fiscal Year
2022-23
Salary
Notes
Executive Director $153,336 $165,603 COLA for prior 3 fiscal years Hearing Examiner $145,380 $149,596 COLA – partial
General Counsel (formerly Staff
Attorney)
$145,380 $152,649 Reclassified from Staff
Attorney – December 2021
Deputy Director $120,000 $140,000 Hired August 2021
Staff Attorney $113,702 $117,000 COLA - partial
Subtotal Executive Staff $677,798 $724,848
Rent Program Services Analyst II $92,208 $83,724 Budgeted at Step 3 of Analyst II
Senior Administrative Analyst
(pending Personnel Board and
Council approval; budgeted
amount reflects 50% Senior
Administrative Analyst salary
schedule, Step I)
$74,244 $80,982 Reclassification from
Assistant Administrative
Analyst: Third Quarter
Rent Program Services Analyst I $70,968 $74,244 Budgeted at Step 5 of Analyst II
Senior Analyst (Personnel Board
and Council approved FY2021-22;
budgeted amount reflects Senior
Management Analyst salary
schedule)
$47,208
(50% annual
salary)
$85,896 Reallocate from Rent
Program Services Analyst
and reclassify as Senior
Analyst
Subtotal Local 21 Management
Staff
$284,628 $324,846
Administrative Aide $70,476 $70,476
Administrative Aide $32,160
(50% annual
salary)
$61,380
Hire March 2022
Administrative Aide $67,224 $70,476 Anticipated to receive regular step increase
Subtotal SEIU 1021 Staff $169,860 $202,332
Administrative Student Intern $21,518 $17,888
Administrative Student Intern $21,518 $17,888
Subtotal Part Time/Temp Staff $43,036 $35,776
TOTAL SALARIES $1,175,322 $1,287,802
SALARIES AND WAGES
400031
Overtime
Proposed Allocation:
$2,500
The allocation accounts for $2,500 for the Public Information and Enrollment Unit for work that cannot be completed during regularly scheduled hours. Most overtime hours are anticipated to be incurred during billing and registration periods, when there is a high volume of inquiries and thousands of mailers to print and assemble. The proposed allocation also accounts for overtime hours utilized during weekend or evening outreach events.
SALARIES AND WAGES
400048
Bilingual Pay
Proposed Allocation:
$11,172
The allocation accounts for the two percent (2%) salary premium granted to seven (6) bilingual staff members employed by the Rent Program. These staff members include:
Staff Attorney (1 FTE)
Hearing Examiner (1 FTE)
Rent Program Services Analysts (1 FTE)
Senior Rent Program Services Analyst (1 FTE)
Administrative Aides (2 FTE)
SALARIES AND WAGES
400049
Auto Allowance
Proposed Allocation:
$4,200
The allocation accounts for an automobile allowance for the Executive Director, in the amount of $350 per month.
BENEFITS
400103 - 400151
Fringe Benefits
Proposed Allocation:
$809,518
The allocation accounts for benefits provided to full-time employees. Individual plan changes and/or actual rate changes during the fiscal year may affect the amount actually expended.
These benefits include:
Health Benefits
o Health Insurance ($232,291)
o Dental Insurance ($17,520)
o Vision Insurance ($2,052)
o Employee Assistance Program ($216)
Professional Development funds – 9 permanent employees are eligible for reimbursement of up to $750 for eligible expenses ($6,750) Medicare Taxes ($18,207)
Life Insurance ($4,139)
Long-Term Disability Insurance ($12,342)
Unemployment Insurance ($5,472)
Workers’ Comp Insurance1
o Clerical staff ($24,001)
o Professional staff ($0)
Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) ($40,723)2
Public Agency Retirement System (PARS) Benefits ($102) Miscellaneous Benefits ($443,555)3
PROFESSIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
400201
Professional Services
Proposed Allocation:
$143,455
The allocation accounts for professional services provided by contractors. These services include:
Cloud-based Solution suited for the Program’s critical needs and goals. The system will improve the efficiency, accuracy, and reliability of the critical data. The available modules consist of a CRM/Database to store all the rental unit data such as property addresses, landlord information, and activity/interaction log, which would include the history and summary of all submissions and notices filed with the Rent Program.
The system would also integrate billing/invoicing.
This will also allow online submissions of Property Enrollment forms, Tenancy Registration forms, and Rent Adjustment petitions.
1 The Rent Program is seeking for the City to cap Total Fringe Benefits at 62% of Total Salaries and Wages. No charge will be included in the budget for Worker’s Compensation for Professional staff and Worker’s Compensation for Clerical staff had been adjust for the cap. 2 According to the California Department of Human Resources, through the collective bargaining process and under the authority of Government Code 22944.5, OPEB (Other Post-Employment Benefits) is the method by which the State of California, as the employer, and its employees jointly prefund health benefits that active employees will receive as state retirees. All employees in positions that are eligible for health benefits, whether or not currently enrolled, prefund OPEB. The state prefunds a matching contribution. 3 Miscellaneous benefits refer to the employer portion of CalPERS pension costs for miscellaneous (non-sworn) staff. CalPERS costs are remitted in two parts—one being a percentage of p ayroll each pay period (object code 400149) and the other being a flat dollar amount per FTE for the unfunded liability (object code 400151).
CalPERS provides an annual valuation report that specifies these rates/dollar amounts.
Finally, the solution will allow for comprehensive counseling and petition case management. Start-up costs and first year annual subscription (estimate $100,000).
Consultants to review and analyze Cost Pool Allocation methodology provided by the City. A proper mechanism for charging overhead costs to the Rent Program needs to be established for the administrative support provided by the City of Richmond. The Rent Program and City will mutually solicit a new consultant to prepare a separate joint study to be used for cost allocation between the two parties (estimated $20,000).
Translation Services
o Written translation ($8,000)
o Scheduled verbal interpretation ($6,000)
o On-demand verbal interpretation ($250)
Property Information subscription ($250 per month, plus $1,000 annually for special reports, for a total of $4,000)
Legal Information subscription ($250 per month, for a total of $3,000) TRAKiT End User license for Citywide database ($2,205)
PROFESSIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
400206
Legal Services
Proposed Allocation:
$210,000
The allocation accounts for legal services provided by contractors for community members.
More specifically, the allocation includes funds for two categories of legal services:
1. Community Services Agency Contracts
o The Rent Program contracts with Bay Area Legal Aid in the amount of $75,000 to offer weekly legal service clinics for both Landlords and Tenants who are Richmond residents
o The Rent Program contracts with the Eviction Defense Center in the amount of $125,000 to provide legal referrals to individuals who need assistance with responding to Unlawful Detainer (eviction) lawsuits.
2. Legal costs
o The additional costs for legal filing fees in the event of litigation.
TRAVEL AND TRAINING
400245
Tuition Reimbursement
Proposed Allocation:
$800
The allocation accounts for reimbursement for tuition reimbursement, consistent with the City’s personnel policies ($800).
DUES AND PUBLICATIONS
400261
Memberships & Dues
Proposed Allocation:
$1,650
The allocation accounts for California BAR Association dues for three attorneys ($550 per attorney).
ADVERTISING AND PROMOTION
400271
Advertising & Promotional Materials
Proposed Allocation:
$800
The allocation accounts for newspaper announcements as required as part of the budget adoption process ($200) and monthly promotion on social media accounts ($600).
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
400280
Program Supplies
Proposed Allocation:
$5,380
The allocation includes funds for supplies not classified as office supplies, including:
Emails for Rent Board Members ($100 per month, for a total cost of $1,200) Business cards for staff members ($50 per order, for an estimated 12 orders, for a total cost of $600)
Zoom Accounts
o 8 Standard Accounts ($1,313)
o 3 Webinar Accounts ($2,267)
OFFICE EXPENSES
400231
Postage and Mailing
Proposed Allocation:
$17,300
The allocation includes funds for mailing invoices, letters, and the Guide to Rent Control to Tenants and Landlords. Specifically, the allocation accounts for the following projects and assumes a postage rate of $0.58 per envelope for all projects, with the exception of the Guide to Rent Control mailing, which assumes a postage rate of $0.50 per envelope:
Rental Housing Fee invoices to 5,716 Landlords: $3,315 Late Rental Housing Fee invoices to 1,905 Landlords: $1,105 Sending the Notice of Apparent Lawful Rent Ceiling to 1,000 Tenants and Landlords:
$580
Sending Rent Validation Reports to 1,000 Tenants and Landlords: $580 Mailing the Guide to Rent Control to 23,439 Tenants and Landlords: $11,719
OFFICE EXPENSES
400232 – 400233
Printing and Binding
Proposed Allocation:
$24,904
The allocation includes funds for printing resources for community members, as well as invoices, letters, and the Guide to Rent Control for Tenants and Landlords. Specifically, the allocation accounts for the following projects:
General print materials: $4,000 (includes $500 in account string 400233) Rental Housing Fee invoices to 5,716 Landlords: $286
Late Rental Housing Fee invoices to 1,905 Landlords: $95 Printing the Notice of Apparent Lawful Rent Ceiling for 1,000 Tenants and Landlords:
$50
Printing Rent Validation Reports for 1,000 Tenants and Landlords: $50 Printing the Guide to Rent Control for 23,439 Tenants and Landlords: $19,923
OFFICE EXPENSES
400304
Equipment Rental
Proposed Allocation:
$9,000
The allocation provides for funding for the lease of combination printers, scanners, copiers, and fax machines at City Hall. In 2019, the Rent Program, in partnership with the Richmond Promise, Arts and Culture, and Department of Infrastructure, Maintenance, and Operations, entered into a 36-month lease for two machines for the second floor of 440 Civic Center Plaza building. The cost of the lease is shared equally among participating entities, while the cost-per-copy is charged to each entity. The cost to the Rent Program is approximately $666 per month, which includes $558 for the lease of two machines and approximately $108 for cost-per-copy charges ($0.0055 per page for black and white copies; $0.048 for color.)
MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES
400321 - 400322
Miscellaneous Contributions and Expenses
Proposed Allocation:
$4,000
The allocation provides for the Rent Program to continue to partner with the UC Berkeley Public Service Center to retain a student intern for the 2021-22 academic year. The estimated cost is approximately $2,000 per intern. The allocation also includes $2,000 for miscellaneous expenses based on minor unforeseen program needs throughout the year.
OFFICE SUPPLIES
400341
Office Supplies
Proposed Allocation:
$5,000
The Rent Program purchases office supplies through the City’s purchasing division which contracts with an office supply vendor. This allocation covers traditional office supplies necessary to maintain daily professional operations.
UTILITIES
400401
Telephone
Proposed Allocation:
$500
The allocation covers the cost of the Executive Director’s work cell phone service. During the Covid-19 pandemic, the Executive Director’s cell phone has been utilized by program staff to handle incoming calls to the main Rent Program phone line.
SUPPLEMENTAL INSURANCE
400552
General Liability Insurance
Proposed Allocation:
$9,300
The allocation covers the cost of a supplemental liability insurance policy (SLIP) for the Rent Program. More specifically, the policy accounts for Errors and Omissions and General Liability coverage.
COST POOL
400574 – 400591
General Liability, Admin Charges, Space
Proposed Allocation:
$48,217
The allocation covers General Liability, Administrative Charges, and space at City Hall for the Rent Program.
The Rent Program has been in discussions with the City of Richmond to evaluate the new methodology and accuracy of the allocation that covers General Liability and Administrative Charges. Staff reviewed the allocation for Gene ral Liability and Administrative Charges from the Finance (Budget) Department since being advised by the Finance Department that the Cost Pool amounts were anticipated to increase significantly.
The City’s new methodology must align with California law which requires fees charged for any service or regulatory activity must not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the service of the Rent Program.
Rent Program leadership are engaged in on-goin g discussions with the City Attorney’s, City Manager, Human Resources, and Finance Department regarding the budgeted Cost Pool and Fringe Benefits amounts. Rent Program st aff have reached a tentative solution and understanding with the City to hire consultants to review and analyze the Cost Pool Allocation methodology provided by the City. A proper me chanism for charging overhead costs to the Rent Program needs to be established for the ad ministrative support provided by the City of Richmond. The Rent Program and City will mutually solicit a new consultant to prepare a separate joint study to be used for cost a llocation between the tw o parties (Professional Services estimated $20,000).
General Liability and Workers’ Compensation at a total cost of $0. The City’s new methodology must align to Section 50076 of the California Government Code which requires fees charged for any service or regulatory activity must not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the service of the Rent Program. Until this methodology has been researched and validated by consultants hired jointly with the City, no charge will be included in the budget.
Administrative Charges (previously referred to as “Indirect Costs”) are allocated to City Departments to reimburse the General Fund for administrative services performed by central service departments (e.g. Information Technology (IT), Human Resources, Finance Department, City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, and City Council.) Allocations are determined in the City’s Cost Allocation Plan (CAP) which is conducted by an external consultant on a periodic basis. The Rent Program was not included in the most recent Cost Allocation Plan. The City Manager’s Office was used as the basis for the original figure in prior years. The new CAP was conducted by NBS, and the latest report dated April 25, 2022, requires further research and validation on the consultant’s findings. The City’s new methodology must align to Section 50076 of the California Government Code which requires fees charged for any service or regulatory activity must not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the service of the Rent Program. Until this methodology has been researched and validated by consultants hired jointly with the City, no charge will be included in the budget. The cost allocated in the budget is $0.
Civic Center Allocation refers to the cost of space at 440 Civic Center Plaza. The cost of this space is based on the percentage of total occupied square footage at City Hall.
This percentage is then applied to the total annual debt service. Based on the most recent assessment conducted in 2017, the Rent Program is presumed to occupy
0.9% of the total square footage at City Hall. Since the Rent Program’s square footage has increased each year since 2017, the budgeted allocation has increased accordingly. The City anticipates conducting a new assessment in the near future, and as such, the cost of these charges may increase or decrease depending on their findings. The cost allocated in the budget is $48,217.
III. EXPENSE AND REVENUE PROJECTIONS
Overview
In accordance with the Rent Ordinance, the Rent Program’s budget is funded by a Residential Rental Housing Fee, paid by all Richmond Landlords. Table 2, below, contains a summary of funds expended and collected for departmental operations since the Program’s establishment in 2017. Collection efforts for all assessed fees are ongoing. In 2019, the Rent Board entered into a contract with a collection services agency to recover unpaid fees.
To date, the agency has collected approximately $50,000 in outstanding fee revenue. This figure is expected to grow as collection efforts continue.
Table 2. Expense and Revenue Summary
FISCAL YEAR BUDGETED
AMOUNT
FUNDS
EXPENDED
FEE REVENUE
COLLECTED
4 COLLECTION
RATE
2017-185
FY 16-17 (partial):
$1,150,433 $1,967,834 $2,753,3516 77% FY 17-18:
$2,425,338
2018-19 $2,804,925 $2,047,186 $2,192,672 78%
2019-20 $2,923,584 $2,264,738 $2,684,140 92%
2020-21 $2,896,242 $2,137,638 $2,778,234 96%
2021-22 $2,893,854 $2,178,4197 $2,362,6268 80%9 +
PROJECTED
Source: City of Richmond Rent Program, 2022 (reports generated using eTRAKiIT and MUNIS software systems.)
10-Year Financial Projection
A ten-year financial projection of revenue, expenses, and reserves is contained in Appendix B of this report. The projected Rental Housing Fee collection rate for the 2021-22 fiscal year is expected to be above 80 percent. There may be a slight decrease in the collection rate from prior years primarily attributable to the challenges posed by the Covid-19 pandemic.
Not only have many property owners experienced financial hardship because of the effects of the pandemic, but the Rent Program and City of Richmond’s ability to collect revenue has also been negatively impacted by the shift to remote work, which has significantly reduced staff time in the office and eliminated the possibility for property owners to pay the Rental Housing Fee in person at City Hall.
4 Includes revenue collected by the collection agency.
5 Includes the FY 2016-17 Rental Housing Fee (December 2016 – June 2017) 6 Includes revenue collected in FY 2017-18 for both the FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 fees. 7 Represents projected total expenses through the end of FY 2021-22. 8 Represents projected total revenues through the end of FY 2021-22, excluding interest. 9 Represents a collection rate based on projected expenses and revenues through the end of FY 2021-22.
IV. FISCAL YEAR 2022-23 RENTAL HOUSING FEE
STUDY
Introduction and Background
Section 11.100.060(l)(1) of the Rent Ordinance provides all Landlords shall pay a Residential Rental Housing Fee to fund the Rent Program budget. The amount of the Rental Housing Fee is established annually by the Richmond Rent Board and approved by the City Council.
Under Section 50076 of the California Government Code, fees charged for any service or regulatory activity must not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the service. Those fees must be approved by the City Council, as the legislative body, in public session.
The fee study is designed to allow the Rent Program to recover costs of all budgeted operations, including, but not limited to:
Personnel costs of staff, benefits, and overtime;
Risk management of general and supplemental liability insurance; Charges allocated to City Departments to reimburse the General Fund for administrative services by central service departments (i.e. City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, Finance, HR, etc.); Information Technology (IT) expenses associated with a property and rent- tracking database and maintenance of computer hardware and software; Legal costs to support enforcement and defense of legal challenges to the Rent Ordinance;
Costs of education and outreach, including the printing and distribution of print materials and hosting of community workshops and seminars; Contracts for translation and other professional services; An operating reserve to fund unanticipated costs and variations in collection of the Rental Housing Fee.
Structure of the Rental Housing Fee
Consistent with direction from the Rent Board in 2017, its first year of existence, the Fiscal Year 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 Rental Housing Fees were established as “flat fees,” applicable to all units regardless of partial or full applicability under the Rent Ordinance. This approach was utilized during the first 1.5 years of program startup since the tasks and associated benefits of the agency’s startup were reasonably shared among Rental Units regardless of status.
For the 2018-19 Fiscal Year, the Rent Board adopted a tiered fee, much like that contemplated in the 2017 Fee Study prepared by Management Partners. Under this approach, costs of program administration are allocated among three components or layers:
a general “program” layer (calculated at 55% of costs), a “just cause” layer (20% of total costs), and a “rent control” layer (25% of costs). Such allocations correspond with the
amount of resources spent administering each component of the program. Staff members recommend the Board continue to utilize a tiered-fee approach in its determination of the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Rental Housing Fee to ensure the requirements of Section 50076 of the California Government Code are met. The figure on the following page illustrates this concept and identifies key example tasks associated with each program component. This list is not exhaustive; the tasks below are identified for illustrative purposes only.
Figure 2. Fee Layers and Associated Tasks
The amount of the Rental Housing Fee applicable to a particular Rental Unit depends on its status. Units applicable to the Just Cause for Eviction requirements but exempt from the Rent Control provisions of the Ordinance (such as properties with only one dwelling unit on the parcel, governmentally subsidized units, condominiums, and permitted units built after February 1, 1995), are responsible for payment of Program and Just Cause for Eviction layers. Units subject to the Just Cause for Eviction and Rent Control provisions of the Rent Ordinance would be responsible for payment of all three layers. Units that are fully exempt from the Rent Ordinance are not responsible for payment of the Rental Housing Fee. Figure 3, below, identifies the types of units within each of these categories and the proposed fee.
Program Layer (55%)
•Agency administration and management
•Legal defense of the Rent Ordinance and agency policies •Preparing studies, regulations, and reports as directed by the Rent Board •Database development and maintenance
•Billing and collection of the Rental Housing Fee
•Website maintenance
•Development of informational materials
•Interdepartmental coordination
Just Cause for Eviction Layer (20%)
•Public education and outreach (i ncludes counseling on evictions) •Legal services referrals to community services agencies •Administration of Relocation Ordinance
•Administration of eviction-related complaints
•Evictions intervention mediations (payme nt plan agreements and mediations to avoid breach of lease/nuisance etc.)
•Processing of termination of tenancy notices and development of templates Rent Control Layer (25%)
•Public education and outreach (includes counseling)
•Legal services referrals to community services agencies •Administration of petition and hearings to adjudicate Rent Adjustment Petitions and Excess Rent Complaints
•Rent Registration and tracking of the Maximum Allowable Rent •Processing of rent increase notice s and courtesy compliance letters
Figure 3. Proposed Fees Applicable to Fully Covered, Partially Covered, and Fully Exempt Rental Units
Applicable Unit Counts and Database Development
The number of applicable Rental Units within each category is a critical input in the calculation of the Rental Housing Fees for partially and Fully Covered units. The Fiscal Year 2016-17 and 2017-18 Fee Study utilized data provided by the Contra Costa County Assessor’s Office to identify suspected Rental Units. While County Assessor data may be used to arrive at an estimated number of total Rental Units, it cannot produce an exact figure. Nevertheless, County Assessor data was the best and most readily available data at the time of the Fiscal Year 2016-17 and 2017-18 Fee Study.
Since the first iteration of the Rental Housing Fee Study in Fiscal Year 2017-18, staff have continued to refine the database of Rental Units in the City of Richmond, most notably through the completion of an exemption verification project of single-family homes in the City to accurately identify units that are truly rented. This project involved mailing an introductory letter and policy information to all single-family homes and condominiums possessing one of the following characteristics in the County Assessor database:
(1) No Homeowner’s Tax Exemption was claimed
(2) The site address of the property did not match the owner on record’s mailing address Approximately 15,500 properties met the above criteria. To confirm applicability under the Rent Ordinance, Rent Program staff members mailed information about the requirements of the Rent Ordinance to all the owners of properties that met the criteria above. Owners of $226
per Unit
$127
per Unit
$0
per Unit
properties in the City of Richmond that did not contain any Rental Units (for example, owners of condominiums that are owner-occupied) were required to complete and submit a Declaration of Owner Occupancy and/or Exemption form and submit documentation to allow staff members to approve the exemption. Rent Program staff members received and processed approximately 1,731 Declaration of Owner Occupation and/or Exemption forms.
Additional sources of data, including the identification of Rental Units not identified in the previous fee study, include:
Rental Units enrolled in the Rent Program online at www.richmondrent.org/enroll Rental Units identified by the Rental Inspection Program Rental Units participating in the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Rental Units with an active business license
Rental Units in subsidized housing developments, such as those built with Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC), based on the inventory of deed-restricted affordable housing prepared by Rent Program staff members in 2017 Unknown Rental Units identified through Tenant inquiries and other sources to the Rent Program
Since the adoption of last year’s Rental Housing Fee, staff members have continued to refine the database of Rental Units through processing of Property Enrollment and Owner Declaration forms. These processes have further unveiled suspected Rental Units that are not truly rented, decreasing the total number of applicable Rental Units among which the Rent Program budget is divided to calculate the Rental Housing Fee. For example, the processing of Property Enrollment forms has unearthed many multifamily properties where an owner may occupy one unit. In such case, the status of a unit would be changed from “Compliant” or “Noncompliant” [Partially or Fully Covered Rental Unit] to “Owner Occupied.” The table on the following page summarizes these changes as of February 2021. In total, records indicate that the Rent Program is aware of 18,150 Rental Units applicable to the Rent Ordinance.
According to the 2019 American Community Survey (Table DP04), the number of renter- occupied housing units in Richmond is reported as 20,467 units, with a margin of error of 1,767. The American Community Survey is a sample, not a complete count, which is why the margin of error is reported. This means that there is estimated to be between 18,700 and 22,234 renter-occupied housing units in Richmond. This data suggests that there could be at least one thousand Rental Units absent from the Rent Program’s database. Rent Program staff are committed to dedicating resources to compliance and outreach projects to ensure that all Rental Units subject to the Rent Ordinance are assessed the Rental Housing Fee and all Landlords who should be paying the Rental Housing Fee receive an invoice and are made aware of their financial obligation to the Rent Program.
Table 3. Unit Status Counts, 2020 – 2022
NOTE: These numbers are continuously being verified and all figures are subject to change.
STATUS 2020
TOTAL
2021
TOTAL
2022
TOTAL
CHANGE
BETWEEN
2021
AND
2022
SUSPECTED FULLY COVERED
RENTAL UNITS 8 31 33 +2
FULLY COVERED RENTAL UNITS 7,425 7,484 7,632 +148
SUBTOTAL – FULLY COVERED UNITS 7,433 7,515 7,665 +150
SUSPECTED PARTIALLY COVERED
RENTAL UNITS (EXCLUDING GOV
SUBSIDIZED RENTAL UNITS)
120 203 124 -79
PARTIALLY COVERED RENTAL UNITS
(EXCLUDING GOV SUBSIDIZED RENTAL
UNITS)
5,568 5,497 5,863 +366
SUBTOTAL – PARTIALLY COVERED
UNITS (EXCLUDING GOV SUBSIDIZED
RENTAL UNITS)
5,688 5,700 5,987 +287
SUBTOTAL - GOVERNMENTALLY
SUBSIDIZED RENTAL UNITS 4,512 4,508 4,498 -10
TOTAL APPLICABLE UNITS 17,633 17,723 18,150 +427
OWNER OCCUPIED 5,463 5,625 5,759 +134
RENT FREE 250 259 250 -9
NOT AVAILABLE FOR RENT 317 315 265 -50
NOT APPLICABLE10 682 805 533 -272
TOTAL NON-APPLICABLE OR
CONDITIONALLY EXEMPT UNITS 6,712 7,004 6,807 -197