Agenda — Richmond City Council, October 25, 2022 (part 1 of 3)

MEETING(S) ARE VIRTUAL

REGULAR RICHMOND CITY COUNCIL AGENDA

Tuesday, October 25, 2022, 4:30 p.m.

Community Services Building
440 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
Members:

Thomas K. Butt, Mayor
Demnlus Johnson III, Councilmember at Large
Nathaniel Bates, Councilmember at Large
Claudia Jimenez, Councilmember District 6
Eduardo Martinez, Vice Mayor at Large
Melvin Willis, Councilmember District 1
Gayle McLaughlin, Councilmember District 5
***REGISTER TO VOTE HERE!!***
https://registertovote.ca.gov/

Link to City Council Agendas/Packets
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/4157/City-ofRichmond-Council-Meetings Register to receive notification of new agendas, etc.
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/list.aspx

CORONAVIRUS DISEASE (COVID-19) ADVISORY

PURSUANT to the Governor of the State of California’s Assembly Bill 361 and in the interest of the public health and safety, attendance at the City of Richmond City Council meeting will be limited to Council members, essential City of Richmond staff, and members of the news media. Public comment will be confined to items appearing on the agenda and will be limited to the methods provided below.

How to watch the meeting from home:

KCRT – Comcast Channel 28 or AT&T Uverse Channel 991.

Livestream online at http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/3178/KCRT-Live2.

Public comment may be submitted by mail, eComment, email and/or Zoom video conference in the manner that follows, provided that no member of the public may submit more than one verbal comment per agenda item.

Via mail: received by 1:00 p.m. the day of the meeting, sent to 450 Civic Center Plaza, 3rd Floor, Office of the Clerk, Richmond, CA 94804.

Via eComments: eComments are available once an agenda is published. Locate the meeting in "upcoming meetings" and click the comment bubble icon. Click on the item you wish to comment on. eComments can be submitted when the agenda is published and until the conclusion of public comments for the agenda item. eComments can be viewed by the City Council and members of the public as they are submitted.

Email your comment to [email protected] should you have difficulty submitting an eComment during a meeting.

Via email: to [email protected] by 1:00 p.m. the day of the meeting.

Emails MUST contain in the subject line 1) public comments – Open Session prior to Closed Session; 2) public comments – Open Forum; or 3) public comments agenda item #__ [include the agenda item number]. All such email with correctly labeled subject lines will be posted on-line and emailed to the City Council before the meeting is called to order. Email received after 1:00 p.m. will be posted on-line following the meeting as part of the supplemental materials attached to the meeting minutes.

Via Zoom by video conference: for Open Session and City Council: Please click the link below to join the webinar:
https://zoom.us/j/99312205643?pwd=MDdqNnRmS2k4ZkRTOWhlUldQOUF1Zz09 Passcode: ccmeeting

By iPhone one-tap: US: +16699006833,,99312205643# or +13462487799,,99312205643# By Telephone: Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1 669 900 6833 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 929 205 6099 or +1 301 715 8592 Webinar ID: 993 1220 5643
International numbers available: https://zoom.us/u/aehrwCgISx

To comment by video conference: click on the Participants button at the bottom of your screen and select 10-25-22 CC MTG

Page 2 of 327 ends

the “Raise Your Hand” button to request to speak when Public Comment is being asked for. When called upon, press the unmute button. After the allotted time, you will then be re-muted. **

To comment by phone: you will be prompted to “Raise Your Hand” by pressing “*9” to request to speak when Public Comment is asked for. When called upon, you will be asked to unmuted by pressing *6. After the allotted time, you will then be re-muted. Instructions of how to raise your hand by phone are available at:
https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/201362663 -Joining-a-meeting-by-phone. **

**The mayor will announce the agenda item number and open public comment when appropriate.

The City cannot guarantee that its network and/or the site will be uninterrupted. To ensure that the City Council receives your comments, you are strongly encouraged to submit your comments in writing in advance of the meeting.

AB 361 Procedures in the Event of Technical Difficulties: In the event the meeting broadcast is disrupted, or if a technical issue on the agency's end disrupts public participation, the legislative body board cannot take any further action on the agenda until the technical issue is resolved.

Properly labeled public comments will be considered a public record, put into the official meeting record, available after the meeting as supplemental materials, and will be posted as an attachment to the meeting minutes when the minutes are posted: http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/Archive.aspx?AMID=31.

Procedures for Removing Items from the Consent Calendar: Members of the public who request to remove an item from the consent calendar must first discuss the item with a staff member by phone or a back-and- forth email discussion, and state the name of the staff member when requesting removal of the item from the consent calendar (by 2 p.m. the day of the meeting).

Any member of the City Council who would like to remove an item from the consent calendar must notify the appropriate staff person and the City Clerk’s Office prior to the meeting. Although members of the City Council are encouraged to ask questions and share concerns with staff ahead of the meeting, they are not required to do so.

The Clerk’s Office must be informed of any requests to remove items from the Consent Calendar. Items removed from the Consent Calendar shall be placed at the end of the agenda for consideration.

Accessibility for Individuals with Disabilities: Upon request, the City will provide for written agenda materials in appropriate alternative formats, or disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services and sign language interpreters, to enable individuals with disabilities to participate in and provide comments at/related to public meetings. Please submit a request, including your name, phone number and/or email address, and a description of the modification, accommodation, auxiliary aid, service or alternative format requested at least two days before the meeting. Requests should be emailed to [email protected] or submitted by phone at 510-620-6513, ext. 9, or 510-620-6509.

Requests made by mail to City Clerk’s Office, City Council meeting, 450 Civic Center Plaza, Richmond, CA 94804 must be received at least two days before the meeting. Requests will be granted whenever possible and resolved in favor of accessibility.

10-25-22 CC MTG

Page 3 of 327 ends

Effect of Advisory on In-person public participation: During the pendency of Assembly Bill 361, the language in this Advisory portion of the agenda supersedes any language contemplating in-person public comment.

Disclaimer: The City Clerk's Office translates agendas to enhance public access. Translated agendas are provided as a courtesy and do not constitute legal notice of the meeting or items to be discussed. In case of discrepancy, the English agenda will prevail.

Pages
10-25-22 CC MTG

Page 4 of 327 ends

A. OPEN SESSION TO HEAR PUBLIC COMMENT BEFORE CLOSED SESSION 4:30 p.m.

B. ROLL CALL
C. CLOSED SESSION
.

C.1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION (paragraph (1) of Subdivision [d] of Government Code Section 54956.9) Nagita v. City of Richmond •
City of Long Beach v. Monsanto Company et al.•
Richmond Shoreline Alliance v. City of Richmond•
C.2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION (initiation of litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of Subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9)
Riggers Loft Wine Company•
C.3. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (Government Code Section 54956.8)
Property: South 45th Street to the west, Wall Avenue to the south, Interstate 80 to the east, and the BART tracks to the north Agency negotiators: Anita Luck, Lina Velasco, and Jesus Morales Negotiating parties: Miraflores Community Devco, LLC
Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment
•
C.4. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Government Code Section 54957.6)
Agency Representatives: Jaclyn Gross and Sharrone Taylor Employee organizations:

SEIU Local 1021 Full Time Unit and Part Time Unit1.

IFPTE Local 21 Mid-Level Management Unit and Executive
Management Units

2. Richmond Police Officers Association RPOA3.

Richmond Police Management Association RPMA4.

IAFF Local 1885.

Richmond Fire Management Association RFMA6.

D. PUBLIC COMMENT BEFORE CLOSED SESSION
E. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION
________________________________________________________ 10-25-22 CC MTG

Page 5 of 327 ends

F. REGULAR MEETING OF THE RICHMOND CITY COUNCIL
6:30 p.m.

G. ROLL CALL
H. PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONAL VIDEO
I. STATEMENT OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
J. AGENDA REVIEW
K. REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY OF FINAL DECISIONS MADE DURING

CLOSED SESSION
L. REPORT FROM THE CITY MANAGER (public comment allowed under Open Forum) M. CRIME REPORT FROM POLICE CHIEF - 4th Tuesday (public comment allowed under Open Forum)
N. OPEN FORUM FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
O. CITY COUNCIL CONSENT CALENDAR
O.1. Amending the Eviction Moratorium to Allow for Owner Move-ins in Residential Units
9 ADOPT an ordinance (second reading) amending Urgency Ordinance No. 02- 21 entitled “Eviction Moratorium” to allow for owners of residential rental property within the City of Richmond to move in during the remainder of the Eviction Moratorium – City Attorney’s Office (Dave Aleshire/Shannon Moore 510-620-6505).

O.2. Environmental Justice Issues Pertaining to Richmond San Rafael Bridge Traffic Congestion
25 ADOPT a resolution in support of addressing environmental justice issues pertaining to the Richmond San Rafael Bridge traffic congestion – Councilmembers Demnlus Johnson III (510-620-6568) and Melvin Willis (510- 412-2050).

O.3. Booker T. Anderson Community Center Fire Restoration Second Contract Award
30 APPROVE contract with Arntz Builders, Inc. for the Booker T. Anderson Community Center Fire Restoration project, located at 960 South 47th Street, Richmond, in an amount not to exceed $3,302,178 including $2,933,200 low bid, plus $43,780 Alternate #1, plus copper vandalism $25,000, plus $300,198 contingency – Public Works Department (Nickie Mastay 510-620-6609). 10-25-22 CC MTG

Page 6 of 327 ends

P. STUDY AND ACTION SESSION
P.1. Richmond Industrial Safety Ordinance 2021 Annual Report by Contra Costa Health Services
57 RECEIVE a presentation by Contra Costa Health Services of the 2021 Annual Richmond Industrial Safety Ordinance report pursuant to Richmond Municipal Code Section 6.43.160 – Community Development Department (Lina Velasco 510-620-6841). This item was continued from the July 26, 2022, meeting.

P.2. Receive a Quarterly Update from PG&E 143
RECEIVE a quarterly presentation from Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) – Public Works Department/City Manager’s Office (Nickie Mastay/Samantha Carr 510-620-5407). This item was continued from the July 26, 2022, meeting.

P.3. Recommendation from the Community Police Review Commission 145 RECEIVE a report from the Community Police Review Commission Council Liaison on recommendations to the City Council – Councilmember Claudia Jimenez (510-620-6565). This item was continued from the July 26, 2022, meeting.

P.4. Resolution in Support of Police Chief French and the Richmond Police Department
147
ADOPT a resolution by the Mayor and City Council expressing our appreciation and total support for Chief of Police Bisa French and the entire police department of men and women in blue for their outstanding services to our community – Councilmember Nathaniel Bates (510-620-6743).

P.5. Report on Police and Fire Department Recruitment 151 RECEIVE a status report on the police department and fire department recruitment efforts – Human Resources Department (Sharrone Taylor 510-620- 6803).

P.6. Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan Study Session 152 RECEIVE a presentation of the DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan and provide feedback – Community Development Department (Lina Velasco 510- 620-6841).

P.7. West County Wastewater District Update 280
RECEIVE an update on the West County Wastewater District – Councilmember Claudia Jimenez (510-620-6565).

P.8. 2019-20/2020-21 Rent Program Annual Report 302
RECEIVE the 2019-20/2020-21 Rent Program Annual Report infographic video - Richmond Rent Program (Nicolas Traylor 510-620-6564)
Q. REPORTS OF OFFICERS: REFERRALS TO STAFF, AND GENERAL REPORTS (INCLUDING AB 1234 REPORTS)
R. ADJOURNMENT
10-25-22 CC MTG

Page 7 of 327 ends

________________________
10-25-22 CC MTG

Page 8 of 327 ends

Page 1 of 2 ends

October 25, 2022

City Attorney's Office

DATE: October 25, 2022
TO: Mayor Butt and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Dave Aleshire, City Attorney
Shannon Moore, Senior Assistant City Attorney

Subject:

Amending the Eviction Moratorium to Allow for Owner
Move-ins in Residential Units
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact related to this item.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

Urgency Ordinance No. 02-21 was adopted by City
Council on March 23, 2021; City Council directed City
staff to prepare amendments to allow for owner move-ins on September 20, 2022.

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

On September 20, 2022, City Council directed City staff to draft an amendment to the Eviction Moratorium
Urgency Ordinance by the end of October that allows for owner move-ins during the remainder of the moratorium.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

ADOPT an ordinance (second reading) amending
Urgency Ordinance No. 02-21 entitled “Eviction
Moratorium” to allow for owners of residential rental
property within the City of Richmond to move in during
the remainder of the Eviction Moratorium – City
Attorney’s Office (Dave Aleshire/Shannon Moore 510-
620-6505).

AGENDA
REPORT

Page 9 of 327 ends

Page 2 of 2 ends

October 25, 2022
DISCUSSION:

Eviction Moratorium
On March 10, 2020, the Director of Emergency Services declared a local emergency and this declaration was affirmed on March 17, 2020, by the City Council (Resolution No. 19-20). The local emergency is still in effect in Richmond and will remain in effect until the City Council votes to end the local emergency. On March 23, 2021, the Richmond City Council enacted Urgency Ordinance No. 02-21, entitled the “Eviction Moratorium.” Key provisions of the Urgency Ordinance are as follows:

During the Local Emergency and continuing for sixty (60) days afterward, a Landlord may not:

(1) Evict a Tenant or require a Tenant to vacate a Residential unit, including by seeking the entry of an eviction judgment or by causing or permitting a writ of possession to be executed; or

(2) Represent to a Tenant that the Tenant is required by law to move out of their unit.

The prohibitions 1-2 above do not apply where the sole grounds for eviction stated in the termination notice are:

(1) A nuisance poses an imminent health or safety threat, (2) the Tenant has failed to pay rent that came due between March 1, 2020, and June, 30, 2021 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1161(2), and/or (3) the termination is to remove the residential real property from the rental market, but only when authorized by Government Code section 7060 et seq. and performed consistent with Richmond Rent Board Regulation Chapter 5.

Proposed Amendment
At the September 20, 2022 City Council meeting, Councilmembers McLaughlin and Jimenez brought forth an item directing staff to draft amendments to the Eviction Moratorium to allow for owners of residential rental property within the City of Richmond to move in during the remainder of the Eviction Moratorium. This item was approved by a majority of the City Council. The attached amendments allow for owner move-ins during the remainder of the Eviction Moratorium.

Of note, tenants who are impacted by this change will be afforded relocation payments as outlined in Richmond Municipal Code Chapter 11.102 and should contact the Rent Program for further guidance.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Amendments to Eviction Moratorium (redlines) Attachment 2 – Amendments to Eviction Moratorium (clean)

Page 10 of 327 ends

Ord. No. 02-21 N.S.

Page 1 of 7 ends

ORDINANCE NO. ___

ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND AMENDING URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 2-21 ENTITLED “EVICTION MORATORIUM” TO ALLOW FOR OWNER MOVE INS
______________________________________________________________________________

WHEREAS, international, state, local health and governmental authorities are responding to an outbreak of a respiratory disease caused by the novel coronavirus named “SARS-CoV-2” and the disease it causes has been named “coronavirus disease 2019,” abbreviated COVID-19, (“COVID-19”); and

WHEREAS, COVID-19 is a respiratory disease that has spread across the globe, with 3,600,000 confirmed cases in California,, including 63,493 cases in Contra Costa County as of March 9, 2021; and
WHEREAS, many Richmond residents are experiencing substantial losses of income as a result of business closures, the loss of hours or wages, or layoffs related to COVID-19, hindering their ability to keep up with rent payments; and WHEREAS, many Richmond businesses are suffering economic losses related to COVID-19, in particular since the March 16, 2020 Shelter in Place Order and extensions thereof; and
WHEREAS, those residents financially impacted due to COVID-19 may not be able to make timely rent payments or may be forced to choose between making rent payments and having sufficient funds for food, medical care or other necessities for themselves and their families; and
WHEREAS, without sufficient and long-term eviction protections, many tenants “self- evict” and move out even without adequate replacement housing, rather than face future legal eviction that could impact their ability to find new housing; and WHEREAS, tenants who are forced to move out of their housing without adequate replacement housing may move into overcrowded living situations or become homeless; and WHEREAS, many Landlords charge late fees which can operate as unfair penalties if a tenant is unable to pay rent due to reasons related to COVID-19; and WHEREAS, because homelessness can exacerbate vulnerability to COVID-19, it is necessary to take measures to preserve and increase housing security for Richmond residents; and
WHEREAS, during this current state of emergency, and in the interest of protecting the public health and preventing transmission of the COVID-19, it is essential to avoid unnecessary displacement and homelessness; and
WHEREAS, an emergency ordinance restricting evictions during the COVID-19 crisis provides even greater eviction protections to Richmond tenants than the protections currently in place and helps to ensure that residents stay safely housed during the pandemic, thereby reducing opportunities for further transmission of the virus; and WHEREAS, on March 17, 2020, the City Manager, in her role as the Director of Emergency Services, proclaimed the existence of a local emergency pursuant to Chapter 2.20 of the Richmond Municipal Code to ensure the availability of mutual aid and assist the City's response to COVID-19, which was approved by Council through Resolution 18-20; and

WHEREAS, on March 17, 2020, the Director of Emergency Services also issued a First Supplemental Order (Resolution 20-20) by declaring a temporary moratorium on no-fault

Page 11 of 327 ends

Ord. No.

Page 2 of 7 ends

evictions and non-payment of rent by residential tenants impacted by COVID-19, which was approved by City Council on April 7, 2020; and
WHEREAS, on April 27, 2020, the Director of Emergency Services issued a Second Supplemental Order (Resolution 34 -20) that extended the prohibition on certain types of evictions to commercial tenants and also prohibit ed rent increases on residential properties through May 31, 2020 or any extension provided by the Director of Emergency Services based on the existence of a continuing Ci ty or County local emergency or shelter-in-place order; and

WHEREAS, on May 5, 2020, the Richmond City Council ratified the Director of Emergency Services’ Second Supplemental Order (Resolution No. 41 -20) that added protections for commercial properties for evictions and freezes residential rent increases through May 31, 2020 or to a date as determined by the Director of Emergency Services if Contra Costa County’s Urgency Ordinance No. 2020 -14 was extended; and

WHEREAS, on May 26, 2020, the Board of Supervisors passed Urgency Ordinance No. 2020-16 that continued an eviction moratorium for residential properties through July 15, 2020. The Urgency Ordinance also continued a temporary rent freeze for certain residential properties through July 15, 2020; and

WHEREAS, on May 19, 2020, the Richmond City Council adopted Resolution No. 44-20, which amended Resolution No. 41 -20 by extending the grace period to pay back rent for residential and commercial tenants financially impacted by COVID -19 to up to twelve months after the expiration of the Second Supplemental Order or any subsequent orders; and

WHEREAS, on May 26, 2020, the Director of Emergency Services for the City of Richmond advised the City of Richmond City Council that she would extend the timelines in Resolution 44-20 to July 15, 2020 per the City Council’s prior authorization that the Director of Emergency Services do so should Contra Costa County extend Urgency Ordinance No. 20-14; and

WHEREAS, on May 29, 2020, the Director of Emergency Services for the City of Richmond issued a Third Supplemental Order (Resolution No. 46 -20) which extended timelines to July 15, 2020 and any subsequent extensions authorized by the Director of Emergency Services for certain eviction issues related to COVID -19; and

WHEREAS, on September 29, 2020, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors passed Urgency Ordinance No. 2020-26, which authorizes a temporary prohibition on evictions of certain residential tenants impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Ordinance superseded Ordinance No. 2020-25 and provided additional eviction protections for certain residential tenants through January 31, 2021, including all Richmond residential tenants; and

WHEREAS, on September 30, 2020, the City of Richmond’s Third Supplemental Order lapsed and Contra Costa County’s Urgency Ordinance 2020-26 applied to all Richmond tenants and landlords. This Urgency Ordinance provided certain eviction protections to residential tenants by extending the moratorium on certain residential evictions through January 31, 2021 ; and
WHEREAS, on November 16, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom announced that California was experiencing its fastest increase in COVID-19 cases to date; and WHEREAS, on December 3, 2020 and December 6, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom signed regional stay-at-home orders that further expanded local shelter in place orders in regions where intensive care unit (ICU) capacity dropped below fifteen percent; and

WHEREAS, on February 2, 2021, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors passed Urgency Ordinance No. 2021 -04, which extends a temporary eviction moratorium on certain residential tenants and a moratorium on certain residential rent increases through June 30, 2021 and is retroactive to February 1, 2021 ; and

Page 12 of 327 ends

Ord. No.

Page 3 of 7 ends

WHEREAS, as of February 5, 2021, due to its COVID-19 case rate and positivity rate, Contra Costa County was restricted to the “purple” tier of the California Blueprint for a Safer Economy, the most restrictive statewide tier of COVID-19 restrictions; and WHEREAS, on August 31, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill 3088, the COVID-19 Tenant Relief Act of 2020 (the Act). The Act extends eviction protections for residential tenants, including mobile home tenants, who are experiencing financial hardship related to COVID-19; and
WHEREAS, the Act, codified in Code of Civil Procedure sections 1179.01 through 1179.07, prohibits residential tenants from being evicted for failure to pay rent because of a COVID-19 related hardship occurring between March 1 and August 31, 2020, as long as the tenant provides the landlord with a written declaration of hardship. Under the Act, residential tenants who experience a new COVID-19-related hardship between September 1, 2020 and January 21, 2021, were also protected from eviction for nonpayment of rent through this date as long as they paid 25 percent of the rent due by January 31, 2021; and WHEREAS, Senate Bill 91 extended these protections of the Act through June 30, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the Act only regulates rent-related evictions and leaves certain residential tenants unprotected from eviction, such as tenants who were unable to pay rent before the COVID-19 pandemic and tenants who are facing eviction for certain reasons other than nonpayment of rent; and
WHEREAS, the Contra Costa Superior Court continues to process new eviction filings, hold hearings on existing eviction cases, and enter eviction judgments during the City’s Local Emergency due to COVID-19; and
WHEREAS, following the entry of such judgments, the Contra Costa Sheriff’s Department has continued to physically evict tenants from their homes during the COVID-19 emergency; and
WHEREAS, a January 27, 2021 article from KQED reported that from March 19, 2020 to December 31, 2021, Contra Costa County had the second-highest number of sheriff evictions during the COVID-19 pandemic out of the nine Bay Area Counties and had more than fifteen times the number of evictions of Alameda County; and
WHEREAS, the January 27, 2021 KQED article also reported that from March 19, 2020 to December 31, 2021, 22 residential evictions took place in Richmond and 135 took place in Costa County, while during that same time period only 4 residential evictions occurred in Oakland and only 8 total throughout Alameda County; and WHEREAS, the January 27, 2021 KQED article highlighted that from March 19, 2020 to December 31, 2021, Richmond had 28 times more evictions than Oakland, with 118.2 evictions per 100,000 rental households in Richmond and only 4.2 evictions per 100,000 rental households in Oakland; and
WHEREAS, from April 2020 through January 2021, Richmond tenants have received 249 Notices of Termination for nonpayment of rent, 39 Notices of Termination based on breach of lease, 36 Notices of Termination based on nuisance and 8 Notices of Termination for owner move-ins; and
WHEREAS, the January 27, 2021 KQED article also reported that from March 19, 2020 to December 31, 2021, Black residential renters in the Bay Area were evicted at double the rate of other renters; and

Page 13 of 327 ends

Ord. No.

Page 4 of 7 ends

WHEREAS, in Contra Costa County, African American and Latino residents have been disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, and according to the Contra Costa County Health Department, the County’s African American and Latino residents have contracted COVID-19 at a higher rate than other racial and ethnic groups; and WHEREAS, there is an urgent need for the City to temporarily prohibit certain residential evictions to prevent an increase in the number of unhoused Richmond residents and to avoid a further increase in COVID-19 rates due to residential tenants who lack housing; and WHEREAS, this Urgency Ordinance will serve justice and promote racial and ethnic equity for African American and Latino renters who are otherwise more likely to be evicted and/or contract COVID-19; and
WHEREAS, the California Constitution, Article XI, Section 7, provides cities with the authority to enact ordinances to protect the health, safety and general welfare of their citizens; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 8550, the California Emergency Services Act, authorizes the governing bodies of cities, towns, and counties in the state of California to declare a state of emergency in order to “mitigate the effects of natural, manmade, or war-caused emergencies that result in conditions of disaster or in extreme peril to life, property, and the resources of the state, and generally to protect the health and safety and preserve the lives and property of the people”; and
WHEREAS, additionally, pursuant to Richmond Municipal Code Section 2.08.010, the City Council may introduce and adopt an emergency ordinance at the same meeting in cases of emergency; and
WHEREAS, an urgency ordinance that is effective immediately is necessary to avoid the immediate threat to public peace, health, and safety as failure to adopt this urgency ordinance would result in the avoidable displacement of Richmond residents from their homes or increase the City’s residents and community members exposure to COVID-19; and WHEREAS, it is deleterious to human life and society at large to allow the displacement of Richmond tenants during the pendency of the of the City’s local emergency and 60 days thereafter and it is within the Council’s basic police powers to implement and enforce this ordinance; and

WHEREAS, even after the State, County and City lift their states of emergency and other regulations are lifted, Richmond tenants will still need temporary additional protections from evictions because of the magnitude of their financial losses sustained as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic; and

WHEREAS, Urgency Ordinance No. 02-21 “Eviction Moratorium” was enacted on March 23, 2021, which prevents landlords from moving into residential units occupied by tenants during the period the urgency ordinance is in effect except when: (1) a nuisance poses an imminent health or safety threat, (2) the tenant has failed to pay rent that came due between March 1, 2020 and June, 30, 2021 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1161(2), and/or (3) the termination is to remove the residential real property from the rental market, but only when authorized by Government Code section 7060 et seq. and performed consistent with Richmond Rent Board Regulation Chapter 5; and

WHEREAS, several landlords have approached the City and expressed the need to move into residential units primarily for health-related reasons; and

WHEREAS, on September 20, 2022, City Council directed staff to prepare amendments to the Eviction Moratorium to allow for owners to terminate a tenancy when the owner wants to move in to the residential unit; and

Page 14 of 327 ends

Ord. No.

Page 5 of 7 ends

WHEREAS, if a landlord chooses to move into a residential unit, the existing tenant will be afforded permanent relocation payments in accordance Richmond Municipal Code section

11.102 entitled “Relocation Requirements for Tenants.”

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION I.

Ordinance No. 02 -21 entitled “Eviction Moratorium” is hereby amended as follows (strikeout text indicates deletion; underline text indicates insertion):

SECTION 2. Recitals. The City Council finds the foregoing recitals to be true and correct and hereby incorporates such findings into this ordinance.

SECTION 3. Purpose and Intent. The purpose and intent of this ordinance is to prevent displacement, reduce the transmission of COVID-19, respond adequately to the local emergency declared by the City of Richmond due to COVID-19, and to promote the stability and the health and safety of residential tenants.

SECTION 4. Definitions.

"Landlord" includes owners, lessors, or sublessors of residential rental property, and the agent, representative, or successor of any of the foregoing.

“Local Emergency” includes any period of local emergency declared by the City of Richmond in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Residential unit” is a unit that is occupied by a tenant as their place of residence, including but not limited to apartments, houses, rooms, and residential hotels. A unit is considered a residential unit if it is used for residential occupation regardless of its permitting status.

"Tenant" includes a tenant, subtenant, lessee, sublessee, or any other person entitled to use or occupancy of residential property, including occupants who are holding over after the expiration of the term of a written or oral lease and current occupants who occupied the property with the current or prior consent of the property’s landlord or a prior owner. This shall also include a prior homeowner residing in a residential unit post-foreclosure.

SECTION 5. Residential Eviction Moratorium.

(A) During the Local Emergency and continuing for sixty (60) days afterward, except as set forth in subsections (B) and (C) below, no Landlord may lawfully engage in any of the following behaviors with respect to a Tenant of a Residential unit:

(1) Evict a Tenant or require a Tenant to vacate a Residential unit, including by seeking the entry of an eviction judgment or by causing or permitting a writ of possession to be executed. This section does not apply to any writ of possession that was entered before this Ordinance took effect; or

(2) Represent to a Tenant that the Tenant is required by law to move out of their unit. (B) Nothing in subsection (A) above shall limit a Landlord from using the procedures outlined in Code of Civil Procedure sections 1179.01 through 1179.07 and any subsequent state statute regarding evictions related to a Tenant’s failure to pay rent.

(C) The prohibitions set forth in subsection (A)(1-2) above do not apply where the sole grounds for eviction stated in the termination notice are: (1) A nuisance poses an imminent health or safety threat, (2) the Tenant has failed to pay rent that came due between March 1, 2020 and June, 30, 2021 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1161(2), (3) the termination is to remove the residential real property from the rental market, but only when authorized by Government Code

Page 15 of 327 ends

Ord. No.

Page 6 of 7 ends

section 7060 et seq. and performed consistent with Richmond Ren t Board Regulation Chapter 5 , or (4) the owner intends to occupy the residential real property.

(D) A nuisance that creates an imminent health and safety threat within the meaning of subsection (C)(1) above cannot be the Tenant’s COVID-19-related illness or exposure to COVID-19, whether actual or suspected.

(E) Nothing in this section shall be construed to reduce or eliminate a Landlord’s duty to make reasonable accommodations for those with disabilities, including any duty to reinstate a terminated tenancy for failing to provide such reasonable accommodations.

(F) To the extent state law affords greater protections to Tenants than this Section 4, those state law provisions shall apply rather than the provisions of this Section 4. Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede any applicable requirements in Civil Code section 1946.2 pertaining to Tenant relocation assistance or rent waiver.

(G) Notice Requirements.

(1) Except as set forth in subsection G(2) below, any notice of termination of tenancy served on a tenant wit h respect to a Residential unit during the Local Emergency and sixty (60) days afterward shall include the following statement in bold underlined 12 -point font: “An Emergency Eviction Moratorium is currently in effect. Other than for failure to pay rent, an imminent health or safety threat , to remove the residential real property from the rental market, but only when authorized by Government Code section 7060 et seq., or when termination is necessary where the owner intends to occupy the residential real property, residential evictions are restricted during the Local COVID-19 Emergency declared by the City of Richmond. Residential tenants who are being evicted for failu re to pay rent may have additional protections under California law. You may contact the Richmond Rent Program at (510) 234 -RENT (7368) for additional info rmation and referrals or visit www.richmondrent.org.”

(2) The requirement of subsection (G) (1) shall not apply in case s of eviction for nonpayment of rent that came due between March 1, 2020 and June, 30, 2021.

SECTION 6. Additional Notice Requirements and Eviction Protections.

Obligatory notice statements required by this ordinance shall be written in all languages that the Landlord and/or the Landlord’s agents normally use for verbal communications with the Tenant as well as the language in which the lease or agreement was originally negotiated.

SECTION 7. No Waiver of Rights.

Any agreement to waive any rights under this ordinance, including a stipulation, settlement agreement, or lease agreement, shall be void as contrary to public policy.

SECTION 8. Remedies.

(A) In a ny action brought to recover possession of a Residential unit where the notice of termination was served during the Local Emergency or sixty (60) days after , a Landlord must allege and prove strict compliance with Section (4) and Section (5) of this Ordinance. Failure to do so shall result in the Landlord having failed to establish its prima facie case.

(B) Failure to strictly comply with any s ection of this Ordinanc e, including but not limited to Section (4), may be asserted as an affirmative defense in any action brought to recover possession of a Residential unit where the notice of termination was served during the Local Emergency or sixty (60) days after.

(C) In the event of a violation of this Ordinance, an aggrieved Tenant may institute a civil proceeding for injunctive relief, money damages of not less than three times actual damages

Page 16 of 327 ends

Ord. No.

Page 7 of 7 ends

(including damages for mental or emotional distress as specified below), and whatever other relief the court deems appropriate. In the case of an award of damages for mental or emotional distress, said award shall only be trebled if the trier of fact finds that the Landlord acted in knowing violation of or in reckless disregard of this ordinance. An aggrieved tenant who prevails shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to order of the court. The remedy available under this section shall be in addition to any other existing remedies which may be available to the Tenant under local, state or federal law.

SECTION 9. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaini ng portions of the Chapter.

The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each section, subsection, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that one or more other sections, subsections, clauses or phrases may be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

First introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Richmond held ______, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:

______________________________________

CLERK OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
(SEAL)
Approved:

______________________
Mayor

Approved as to form:

______________________
City Attorney

Page 17 of 327 ends

Ord. No. 02-21 N.S.

Page 1 of 7 ends

ORDINANCE NO. ___

WHEREAS, on March 17, 2020, the Director of Emergency Services also issued a First Supplemental Order (Resolution 20-20) by declaring a temporary moratorium on no-fault

Page 18 of 327 ends

Ord. No.

Page 2 of 7 ends

WHEREAS, on May 5, 2020, the Richmond City Council ratified the Director of Emergency Services’ Second Supplemental Order (Resolution No. 41-20) that added protections for commercial properties for evictions and freezes residential rent increases through May 31, 2020 or to a date as determined by the Director of Emergency Services if Contra Costa County’s Urgency Ordinance No. 2020-14 was extended; and

WHEREAS, on September 30, 2020, the City of Richmond’s Third Supplemental Order lapsed and Contra Costa County’s Urgency Ordinance 2020-26 applied to all Richmond tenants and landlords. This Urgency Ordinance provided certain eviction protections to residential tenants by extending the moratorium on certain residential evictions through January 31, 2021; and
WHEREAS, on November 16, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom announced that California was experiencing its fastest increase in COVID-19 cases to date; and WHEREAS, on December 3, 2020 and December 6, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom signed regional stay-at-home orders that further expanded local shelter in place orders in regions where intensive care unit (ICU) capacity dropped below fifteen percent; and

WHEREAS, on February 2, 2021, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors passed Urgency Ordinance No. 2021- 04, which extends a temporary eviction moratorium on certain residential tenants and a moratorium on certain residential rent increases through June 30, 2021 and is retroactive to February 1, 2021; and

Page 19 of 327 ends

Ord. No.

Page 3 of 7 ends

Page 20 of 327 ends

Ord. No.

Page 4 of 7 ends

WHEREAS, several landlords have approached the City and expressed the need to move into residential units primarily for health-related reasons; and

Page 21 of 327 ends

Ord. No.

Page 5 of 7 ends

WHEREAS, if a landlord chooses to move into a residential unit, the existing tenant will be afforded permanent relocation payments in accordance Richmond Municipal Code section

11.102 entitled “Relocation Requirements for Tenants.”

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION I.

Ordinance No. 02- 21 entitled “Eviction Moratorium” is hereby amended as follows (strikeout text indicates deletion; underline text indicates insertion):

SECTION 2. Recitals. The City Council finds the foregoing recitals to be true and correct and hereby incorporates such findings into this ordinance.

SECTION 3. Purpose and Intent. The purpose and intent of this ordinance is to prevent displacement, reduce the transmission of COVID -19, respond adequately to the local emergency declared by the City of Richmond due to COVID-19, and to promote the stability and the health and safety of residential tenants.

SECTION 4. Definitions.

"Landlord" includes owners, lessors, or sublessors of residential rental property, and the agent, representative, or successor of any of the foregoing.

“Local Emergency” includes any period of local emergency declared by the City of Richmond in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

SECTION 5. Residential Eviction Moratorium.

(1) Evict a Tenant or require a Tenant to vacate a R esidential unit, including by seeking the entry of an eviction judgment or by causing or permitting a writ of possession to be executed. This section does not apply to any writ of possession that was entered before this Ordinance took effect; or

(C) The prohibitions set forth in subsection (A)(1 -2) above do not apply where the sole grounds for eviction stated in the termination notice are: (1) A nuisance poses an imminent health or safety threat, (2) the Tenant has failed to pay rent that came due be tween March 1, 2020 and June, 30, 2021 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1161(2), (3) the termination is to remove the residential real property from the rental market, but only when authorized by Government Code

Page 22 of 327 ends

Ord. No.

Page 6 of 7 ends

section 7060 et seq. and performed consistent with Richmond Rent Board Regulation Chapter 5, or (4) the owner intends to occupy the residential real property.

(G) Notice Requirements.

(1) Except as set forth in subsection G(2) below, any notice of termination of tenancy served on a tenant with respect to a Residential unit during the Local Emergency and sixty (60) days afterward shall include the following statement in bold underlined 12- point font: “ An Emergency Eviction Moratorium is currently in effect. Other than for failure to pay rent, an imminent health or safety threat ,or to remove the residential real property from the rental market, but only when authorized by Government Code section 7060 et seq., or when termination is necessary where the owner intends to occupy the residential rea l property, residential evictions are restricted during the Local COVID -19 Emergency declared by the City of Richmond. Residential t enants who are being evicted for failure to pay rent may have additional protections under California law. You may contact t he Richmond Rent Program at (510) 234- RENT (7368) for additional info rmation and referrals or visit www.richmondrent.org.”

(2) The requirement of subsection (G) (1) shall not apply in case s of eviction for nonpayment of rent that came due between March 1, 2020 and June, 30, 2021.

SECTION 6. Additional Notice Requirements and Eviction Protections.

Obligatory notice statements required by this ordinance shall be written in all languages that the Landlord and/or the L andlord’s agents normally use for verbal communications with the T enant as well as the language in which the lease or agreement was originally negotiated.

SECTION 7. No Waiver of Rights.

Any agreement to waive any rights under this ordinance, including a stipulation, settlement agreement, or lease agreement, shall be void as contrary to public policy.

SECTION 8. Remedies.

(C) In the event of a violation of this Ordinance, an aggrieved Tenant may institute a civil proceeding for injunctive relief, money damages of not less than three times actual damages

Page 23 of 327 ends

Ord. No.

Page 7 of 7 ends

First introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Richmond held ______, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:

______________________________________

CLERK OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
(SEAL)
Approved:

______________________
Mayor

Approved as to form:

______________________
City Attorney

Page 24 of 327 ends

Page 1 of 2 ends

October 25, 2022

City Council

DATE: October 25, 2022
TO: Mayor Butt and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Demnlus Johnson III, Councilmember

Subject:

Environmental Justice Issues Pertaining to Richmond
San Rafael Bridge Traffic Congestion
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact related to this item.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

Solutions are needed to address environmental justice
problems associated with the Richmond San Rafael
Bridge
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

ADOPT a resolution in support of addressing
environmental justice issues pertaining to the Richmond San Rafael Bridge traffic congestion – Councilmember
Demnlus Johnson III (510-620-6568).

DISCUSSION:

The City of Richmond supports a new third lane on the lower deck for drivers coming from Marin on the Richmond San Rafael Bridge, as well as the new bike lane on the top deck as part of a four (4)-year pilot program. While a bike lane is a vital component of the Richmond San Rafael Bridge, it has come with unintended consequences.

The bike lane eliminated the shoulder on the top deck, making it impossible for cars to move out of traffic if they break down for any reason. The result is traffic backing up on AGENDA
REPORT

Page 25 of 327 ends

Page 2 of 2 ends

October 25, 2022
the freeway, particularly during the morning commute, into Richmond neighborhoods.

The traffic congestion results in increased particle matter pollution into Richmond neighborhoods, particularly lower income neighborhoods that are already disproportionately impacted by air emissions.

We support bikes as an alternative to cars, but not at the expense of our community’s health and well-being. Studies of air pollution in Richmond have shown that one of the primary sources of particulate matter emissions that affects residents’ health, comes from the freeway. This traffic congestion has made it even worse for our communities.

Air emission studies conducted by Ramboll through Groundwork Richmond shows clear impacts on Richmond neighborhoods around Interstate 580 with particular problems during the am peak. https://linktr.ee/groundworkrichmond

The Richmond and Marin Coalition for Transportation Justice was formed, made up of neighborhood council leaders, community leaders, the NAACP, labor unions, service workers and commuters, in both Richmond and Marin, who are tired of dealing with the additional traffic congestion and resulting environmental pollution in Richmond’s disproportionately impacted neighborhoods.

Richmond City Council respectfully requests that the Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA) help find a solution to this environmental justice problem by doing the following:

1. Hold a public hearing of the Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA) on the 4-year Bike Path pilot program, with a particular focus on air quality issues associated with traffic congestion on the Bridge;

2. Add to the 4-year Bike Path pilot study an analysis of air quality emissions and associated health impacts as a result of increased traffic congestion on Interstate 580 and in Richmond neighborhoods; and

3. Pursue funding for additional bridge improvements, including but not limited to a second bike path on the lower deck with a moveable barrier, to alleviate traffic congestion on Interstate 580 and in Richmond neighborhoods.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Resolution

Page 26 of 327 ends

Reso. No. XX-22

Page 1 of 3 ends

RESOLUTION NO. XX -22

RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA

SUPPORTING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ISSUES PERTAINING TO RICHMOND

SAN RAFAEL BRIDGE TRAFFIC CONGESTION

WHEREAS, when CalTrans opened a new third lane on the lower deck for drivers coming from Marin on the Richmond San Rafael Bridge, they also opened a new bike lane on the top deck as part of a 4-year pilot program; and, WHEREAS, while a bike lane is a vital component of the Richmond San Rafael Bridge, it has come with unintended consequences; and,
WHEREAS, the bike lane eliminated the shoulder on the top deck, making it impossible for cars to move out of traffic if they break down for any reason. The result is traffic backing up on the freeway, particularly during the morning commute, into Richmond neighborhoods; and,
WHEREAS, the traffic congestion results in increased particle matter pollution into Richmond neighborhoods, particularly lower income neighborhoods that are already disproportionately impacted by air emissions; and,
WHEREAS, studies of air pollution in Richmond have shown that one of the primary sources of particulate matter emissions that affects residents’ health, comes off the freeway. This traffic congestion has made it even worse for our communities; and WHEREAS, the Richmond and Marin Coalition for Transportation Justice was formed, made up of neighborhood council leaders, community leaders, the NAACP, labor unions, service workers and commuters, in both Richmond and Marin, who are tired of dealing with the additional traffic congestion and resulting environmental pollution in Richmond’s disproportionately impacted neighborhoods; and, WHEREAS, solutions are needed to address environmental justice problems associated with the Richmond San Rafael Bridge; and,
WHEREAS, Richmond should get the same “deal” Marin residents received - Richmond should have three lanes, during the morning commute, going from Richmond to Marin, easing the backup on the freeway and into Richmond neighborhoods; and, WHEREAS, we support bikes as an alternative to cars, but not at the expense of our community’s health and well-being; and,
WHEREAS, CalTrans should provide a new bike lane on the bottom deck that can be used by commuters during the morning commute, particularly since the third lane on the lower deck is not needed for cars in the morning; and,

Page 27 of 327 ends

Reso. No. XX-22

Page 2 of 3 ends

WHEREAS, CalTrans and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) has plans to improve the bridge, including removing the toll booths, and improving access on both sides of the bridge; and,
WHEREAS, a new bike lane with a moveable barrier, on the lower deck, should be added to the plans; and,
WHEREAS, MTC is two years into the bike pilot program and on average, there are only 77 bikes a day and over 80,000 cars using the Richmond Bridge every day, with less than 18 bikers during the morning commute, which has the worst impact on Richmond neighborhoods due to traffic congestion from over 18,000 cars; and, WHEREAS, air emission studies conducted by Ramboll through Groundwork Richmond shows clear impacts on Richmond neighborhoods around Interstate 580 with particular problems during the am peak; and,
WHEREAS, the am peak commute is primarily service workers, teachers, public employees, front line workers and other people who cannot afford to live in Marin but have to get to their Marin jobs at a certain time and have no other commute options; and,
WHEREAS, the am peak congestion is costing commuters valuable time with their families and adding to the stress of their day.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Richmond City Council respectfully requests that the Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA) help find a solution to this environmental justice problem by doing the following:

1. Hold a public hearing of the Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA) on the 4 year Bike Path pilot program, with a particular focus on air quality issues associated with traffic congestion on the Bridge;

2. Add to the 4 year Bike Path pilot study an analysis of air quality emissions and associated health impacts as a result of increased traffic congestion on Interstate 580 and in Richmond neighborhoods; and

**********************

Page 28 of 327 ends

Reso. No. XX-22

Page 3 of 3 ends

I certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting thereof held October 25, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:

PAMELA CHRISTIAN

CLERK OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
(SEAL)
Approved:

THOMAS K. BUTT
Mayor

Approved as to form:

DAVE ALESHIRE
City Attorney

State of California }
County of Contra Costa : ss.

City of Richmond }

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of Resolution No. XX-22, finally passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting held on October 25, 2022.

Page 29 of 327 ends

Page 1 of 3 ends

October 25, 2022

Public Works

DATE: October 25, 2022
TO: Mayor Butt and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Nickie Mastay, Deputy City Manager
Yader Bermudez, Retired Public Works Annuitant
Subject:

Booker T. Anderson Community Center Fire Restoration
Second Contract Award
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The proposed expenditure of $3,302,178 will be funded from the 2022-2023 Risk Management Budget. This
request includes $2,933,200 low bid, plus $43,780
Alternate #1, plus copper vandalism $25,000, plus
$300,198 contingency. Account String: 50182316-
400642-23008.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

February 1, 2022 and August 19, 2022

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

City staff is requesting authorization to contract with Arntz Builders, Inc. for the Booker T. Anderson Community
Center Fire Restoration project, located at 960 South
47th Street., Richmond.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

APPROVE contract with Arntz Builders, Inc. for the Booker T. Anderson Community Center Fire Rest oration project, located at 960 South 47th Street, Richmond, in an amount not to exceed $ 3,302,178 including $ 2,933,200 low bid, plus $43,780 Alternate #1, plus copper vandalism
$25,000, plus $300,198 contingency – Public Works
Department (Nickie Mastay 510-620-6609).

AGENDA
REPORT

Page 30 of 327 ends

Page 2 of 3 ends

October 25, 2022
DISCUSSION:

The Booker T. Anderson Community Center suffered extensive fire damage on October 28, 2020, as the result of homeless activity at the Park. This fire was concentrated on the West side of the building affecting the Library, Multi-Use Rooms, and Graphic Arts Room. The facility fire damage was abated including demolition and shoring of all affected materials, including non-salvageable or non-cleanable building materials such as, but not limited to, glue lam beams, shear walls, vertical load walls and removal of all damaged building materials such drywalls, floor coverings, insulation, windows, electrical, plumbing, etc.

On February 1, 2022, City Council awarded the contract to Angotii & Reilly, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $2,583,900 including $2,349,000 low bid plus $234,900 contingency with zero local participation. However, the City experienced numerous delays in getting contract documentation completed and getting the contractor to move forward. This timeline is documented in the City Council Agenda Report on August 19, 2022.

On May 20, 2022, Yader A Bermudez, Project Manager, delivered to the Contractor the project Noticed to Proceed (NTP) to start working on June 1, 2022. In the month of July 2022, numerous meetings and communications occurred trying to resolve insurance issues. The City attempted to work through the California Joint Powers Risk Management Authority. The City believed a solution was reached, but on July 19, the contractor again asked the City to provide the insurance. On August 11, through their legal counsel, the Contractor blamed vandalism for delays and insisted that the insurance was a City cost.

Given the long delay with issues still unresolved, on August 19, 2022, City staff recommended and the City Council terminated the Angotii & Reilly, Inc. contract due to failure to proceed with contractual work and submittal of their Builder’s Risk Insurance as required by Project Specifications Section 00 60 00 BOND AND INSURANCE FORMS and Executed Construction Agreement Section 1.9.c, Insurance and Bonds Requirements.

Thereafter, on September 20, 2022, the Contractor, Angotii & Reilly, Inc., submitted a claim for $385,784. The claim includes $188,567 which is their alleged profit on the contract; however, the contract does not allow profit as damages in the event of termination.

The community relies greatly on the Booker T. Anderson Community Center and has been harmed greatly by the eight-month delay in carrying out the project. To mitigate damages, in early September 2022, City staff contacted Arntz Builders, Inc., the next lowest bidder with a bid in the amount of $2,668,981, to submit a revised bid for same project based on the original scope of work for City consideration. On September 30, 2022, Arntz Builders Inc. submitted their revised bid in the amount of 2,933,200, with 36% local participation.

Page 31 of 327 ends

Page 3 of 3 ends

October 25, 2022
On October 4, 2022, City Council discussed in Closed Session the claims and need to mitigate damages and directed City staff to bring forward an alternative contractor to perform the work at the earliest possible time for City Council contract award.

The selected Contractor will be required to sign a First Source and Compliance Agreement with the City as part of the contract execution process to ensure the local employment ordinance goal is met.

The Arntz Builders Inc. contract is for a significantly higher amount as construction costs have risen as much as twenty-five percent (25%). However, due to their familiarity with the project, City staff believes this is the fastest way to proceed. The City will have to deal with the claims brought forth by Angotii & Reilly, Inc., but doing so will not delay the project.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Revised Bid
Attachment 2 – Contract Agreement

Page 32 of 327 ends

Page 33 of 327 ends

Page 34 of 327 ends

Page 35 of 327 ends

Page 36 of 327 ends

Page 37 of 327 ends

1 2018_Final Form

CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT

This Construction Agreement (“Agreement”) is made and entered into this ______ of ________ ___2022, by and between the City of Richmond, a municipal corporation and charter city (“City”) and Arntz Builders Inc. (“Contractor”), with reference to the following facts. The parties may be referred to in this Agreement individually as “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.”

RECITALS

A. On October 27, 2021, the City circulated an Invitation for Bids seeking contractors willing to undertake the restoration of the Booker T. Anderson Community Center, located at 960 S. 47th St., Richmond, CA (the “Project”).

B. Contractor submitted the lowest responsive bid and has been determined to be responsible.

C. City now desires to contract with Contractor to furnish construction and related services for the Project.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and agreements hereinafter set forth, and intending to be bound hereby, the Parties agree as follows:

ARTICLE I

CONSTRUCTION OF PROJECT

Section 1.1 Contract Documents.

Project Specifications – including the Notice to Prospective Bidders, Invitation for Bids, Instructions to Bidders, Special Provisions, Description of Work, Construction Details (including all plans and specifications), and Proposal Package, along with any Requests for Information (RFI), responses to RFI, and addenda issued prior to the deadline for submitting bids Contractor’s Proposal attached as Exhibit A, and this Agreement, constitute the “Contract Documents.”

Section 1.2 Construction.

Contractor shall furnish all labor, materials, methods, processes, implements, tools and machinery, within the time frames set, and do all the things necessary for the proper completion of the work shown and described in Contract Documents.

Section 1.3 Payments.

Page 38 of 327 ends

2 2018_Final Form
Contractor agrees to receive and accept the sums set forth in the Bid Schedule attached as part of the Proposal, as full compensation for furnishing all materials and doing all the work contemplated and required by this Agreement, and for all loss or damage arising out of the nature of the undertaking of the construction of the Project, or from the acts of the elements, or from any unforeseen difficulties or obstructions which may arise or be encountered in the prosecution of the construction of the Project until its completion and acceptance by the City, and for all expenses incurred by or in consequence of the suspension or discontinuance of the construction of the Project, and for well and faithfully performing the construction of the Project and the whole thereof, in the manner and according to the Contract Documents.

Section 1.4 Discovery of Hazardous Waste or Unusual Conditions.

(a) Promptly and before the following conditions are disturbed, the Contractor shall notify the City in writing of any:
(1) Material that the Contractor believes may be hazardous waste, as defined in Section 25117 of the Health and Safety Code, that is required to be removed to a Class I, Class II, or Class III disposal site in accordance with provisions of existing law.
(2) Subsurface or latent physical conditions at the site differing from those indicated by information about the site made available to bidders prior to the deadline for submitting bids.
(3) Unknown physical conditions at the site of any unusual nature, different materially from those ordinarily encountered and generally recognized as inherent in work of the character provided for in this Agreement. (b) The City shall promptly investigate the conditions, and if it finds that the conditions do materially so differ, or do involve hazardous waste, and cause a decrease or increase in the Contractor’s cost of, or the time required for, performance of any part of the work shall issue a Change Order under the procedures described in this Agreement. (c) In the event that a dispute arises between the City and the Contractor whether the conditions materially differ, or involve hazardous waste, or cause a decrease or increase in the Contractor’s cost of, or time required for, performance of any part of the work, the Contractor shall not be excused from any scheduled completion date provided for by this Agreement, but shall proceed with all work to be performed under this Agreement. The Contractor shall retain any and all rights provided either by contract or by law which pertain to the resolution of disputes and protests between the Parties.

Section 1.5 Laws and Regulations.

(a) The Project work shall proceed only after procurement of each permit, license, or other authorization that may be required by any governmental agency having jurisdiction, and Contractor shall be responsible to the City for the procurement and maintenance thereof.

(b) Contractor shall cause all work performed in connection with construction of the Project to be performed in compliance with (i) all applicable laws, ordinances, rules and

Page 39 of 327 ends

3 2018_Final Form
regulations now in force or that may be enacted hereafter; (ii) all conditions of Project approval and mitigation measures included in any adopted or certified environmental document prepared for the Project; and (iii) all directions, rules and regulations of any fire marshal, health officer, building inspector, or other officer of every governmental agency now having or hereafter acquiring jurisdiction, provided that such direction given during construction does not conflict with conditions of Project approval or mitigation measures.

(c) Contractor shall and shall cause its subcontractors to pay prevailing wages in the construction of the Project as those wages are determined pursuant to Labor Code Sections 1720 et seq., and implementing regulations of the Department of Industrial Relations, and to comply with all other applicable federal, State and local laws, regulations and ordinances pertaining to labor standards insofar as those laws, regulations and ordinances apply to the performance of this Agreement, including any applicable City of Richmond employment requirements, including but not limited to the City’s Living Wage Ordinance (Richmond Municipal Code Chapter 2.60), the City’s Business Opportunity Ordinance (Richmond Municipal Code Chapter 2.50), and the City’s Local Employment Program Ordinance (Richmond Municipal Code Chapter 2.56).

During the construction of the Project, Contractor shall post at the construction site the applicable prevailing rates of per diem wages. Contractor shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend, (with counsel reasonably acceptable to the City) the City against any claims for damages, compensation, fines, penalties or other amounts arising out of failure or alleged failure of any person or entity (including Contractor and its subcontractors) to pay prevailing wages in connection with construction of the Project. This Section 1.5(c) shall survive the termination of this Agreement.

(d) Contractor and all subcontractors shall maintain accurate payroll records showing the name, address, social security number, work classification, straight time and overtime hours worked each day and week, and the actual per diem wages paid to each journeyman, apprentice, worker and others employed on the Project. Each payroll record shall contain or be verified by a written declaration made under penalty of perjury, stating both of the following: (1) the information contained in the payroll record is true and correct, and (2) the employer has complied with the requirements of Labor Code Section 1771 (prevailing wage provisions), Section 1811 (eight-hour day, forty-hour week provisions), and Section 1815 (overtime compensation) for any work performed by his or her employees on the Project. The Contractor shall provide certified payroll records to the City each week, no later than ten (10) days after the end of a weekly pay period. Pay records shall be maintained and made available in accordance with Labor Code Section 1776. In addition, Contractor shall and shall cause its subcontractors promptly to deliver to the City, upon request, documents verifying compliance with the Living Wage Ordinance, which include documents which evidence that each affected employee has been notified regarding the wages required to be paid pursuant to the Living Wage Ordinance.

Such wages shall also be posted at the construction site. This Section 1.5(d) shall survive the termination of this Agreement.

Section 1.6 Inspections.

Page 40 of 327 ends

4 2018_Final Form
Contractor shall permit and facilitate, and shall require its subcontractors to permit and facilitate, observation and inspection of the Project by the City and by public authorities at all times for the purposes of determining compliance with this Agreement and permits issued to perform the Project work. In so doing, Contractor shall provide access for testing and inspections. Contractor shall coordinate and schedule all testing and inspections required on the Project with the required advance notice as defined in the Project Specifications.

Section 1.7 Equal Opportunity.

(a) During the construction of the Project there shall be no discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, or disability in the hiring, firing, promoting, or demoting of any person engaged in the construction work.

(b) In addition, Contractor agrees to observe the provisions of Section 2.28.030 of the Richmond Municipal Code, obligating Contractor and its subcontractors to refrain from discriminatory employment or subcontracting practices on the basis of race, color, sex, sexual orientation, religion, creed, national origin or ancestry of any employee, any applicant for employment or any potential subcontractor.

Section 1.8 Working Hours.

Eight hours of labor is a legal day’s work. Any worker’s time of service is restricted to eight hours during any calendar day, and 40 hours during a calendar week, unless overtime compensation is paid at not less than one and one-half times the basic rate of pay. The Contractor shall be assessed a penalty of twenty-five dollars ($25) for each day a worker is employed in violation of these requirements.

Section 1.9 Insurance and Bond Requirements.

(a) In accordance with California Labor Code Section 3700, Contractor must secure Workers’ Compensation coverage for its employees. Prior to performing any work, Contractor must execute a certification in the form set out at California Labor Code Section 1861. (b) Contractor shall submit to the City evidence of the insurance and payment and performance bond coverage meeting the requirements set forth in the Project Specifications. Proof of insurance and bonding related to the construction of the Project shall be provided to the City not more than (10) days after award of the contract. The City shall review and approve or disapprove of the evidence of insurance within twenty (20) days after submittal of complete information in the form required by the City. If the City disapproves the evidence of insurance, it shall specify in writing the reasons for such disapproval. Contractor shall resubmit the information required within ten (10) days. The review and submittal periods for resubmittals shall be reduced to a ten (10) day review period for the City and a five (5) day period for resubmittal by Contractor and shall continue to apply until the City approves the evidence of insurance coverage, but in no event shall the submittal and review period continue for more than forty-five (45) days. If, after forty-five (45) days the Contractor has not provided evidence of insurance and bond coverage meeting the

Page 41 of 327 ends

5 2018_Final Form
requirements of the City, the City shall terminate the contract and may either award the work to the next lowest responsive responsible bidder or issue a new request for bids. (If the City issues a new request for bids, the Contractor shall be disqualified from re-bidding the work because of the failure to provide timely proof of insurance and/or bond coverage.) No work shall be initiated on the Project prior to Contractor’s receipt of the City’s approval of evidence of insurance coverage related to the construction of the Project.
(c) Contractor shall require and verify that all subcontractors or other parties hired for the Project purchase and maintain coverage for indemnity and insurance at least as broad as specified in the Project Specifications to the extent they apply to the scope of the subcontractor’s work with the same certificate of insurance requirements and naming as additional insureds all parties to this Agreement. Contractor shall include the following language in their agreement with subcontractors: “Subcontractors hired by Contractor agree to be bound to Contractor and City in the same manner and to the same extent as Contractor is bound to City under the Contract Documents and provide a valid certificate of insurance and the required endorsements included in the agreement as proof of compliance prior to commencement of any work and to include this same requirement for any subcontractors they hire for this work. A copy of the insurance and indemnity requirements of the Contract Documents will be furnished to the subcontractor upon request.” Contractor shall have furnished the City with evidence of the insurance coverage meeting the insurance requirements set forth in Project Specifications for each subcontractor prior to initiating any work on the Project, including Builder’s Risk insurance with appropriate coverage for the cost of construction. The periods for submittal, review and approval shall apply as stated in subparagraph (b) above.

(d) The Parties agree that notwithstanding the time requirements set forth in this subsection for submittal and resubmittal to the City by the Contractor of the evidence of insurance and review and approval of the evidence of insurance by the City, Contractor is responsible for ensuring that the evidence of insurance in approvable form is submitted to the City in a timely manner.
(e) Any available insurance proceeds broader than or in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverage requirements and/or limits set forth in the Project Specifications shall be available to the City as an additional insured. Furthermore, the requirements for coverage and limits shall be (1) the minimum coverage and limits specified in the Project Specifications; or (2) the broader coverage and maximum limits of coverage of any insurance policy or proceeds available to the named insured, whichever is greater. No representation is made that the minimum insurance requirements set forth in the Project Specifications are sufficient to cover the obligations of the Contractor under this Agreement. (f) Contractor shall maintain the insurance requirements set forth in the Project Specifications for a minimum of five (5) years following the completion of the Project. In the event Contractor fails to obtain or maintain completed operations coverage as required by the Project Specifications, the City at its sole discretion may purchase the coverage required and the cost for the same shall be paid by Contractor upon demand by the City.

Section 1.10 Security In Lieu of Retention.

Page 42 of 327 ends

6 2018_Final Form
(a) The City shall retain five percent (5%) of the sum requested in each progress payment unless the Contractor elects to invoke the procedures set forth at California Public Contract Code 22300 to substitute securities to ensure performance under the contract.

1. At the request and the expense of the Contractor, securities equivalent to the amount withheld shall be deposited with the City, or with a state or federally chartered bank in the state as escrow agent, who shall then pay the retained funds to the Contractor. Upon satisfactory completion of the contract, the securities shall be returned to the Contractor.

2. Alternatively, the Contractor may request and the City shall make payment of retentions earned directly to the escrow agent at the expense of the Contractor. At the expense of the Contractor, the Contractor may direct the investment of the payments into securities and the Contractor shall receive the interest earned on the investments upon the same terms provided for in Public Contract Code 22300 for securities deposited by the Contractor. Upon satisfactory completion of this Agreement, the Contractor shall receive from the escrow agent all securities, interest, and payments received by the escrow agent from the owner, pursuant to the terms of this section.
(b) If the Contractor chooses to place securities in escrow, the escrow agreement to be used shall be substantially similar to the following form:

ESCROW AGREEMENT FOR SECURITY DEPOSITS IN LIEU OF RETENTION This Escrow Agreement is made and entered into by and between _________________________________________________ whose address is ________________________________ hereinafter called "Owner," ___________ whose address is ________________________________ hereinafter called "Contractor" and ___________ whose address is ________________________________ hereinafter called "Escrow Agent."
For the consideration hereinafter set forth, the Owner, Contractor, and Escrow Agent agree as follows:
(1) Pursuant to Section 22300 of the Public Contract Code of the State of California, Contractor has the option to deposit securities with Escrow Agent as a substitute for retention earnings required to be withheld by Owner pursuant to the Construction Contract entered into between the Owner and Contractor for ____ in the amount of ____ dated ____ (hereinafter referred to as the "Contract"). Alternatively, on written request of the Contractor, the Owner shall make payments of the retention earnings directly to the Escrow Agent. When the Contractor deposits the securities as a substitute for Contract earnings, the Escrow Agent shall notify the Owner within 10 days of the deposit. The market value of the securities at the time of the substitution shall be at least equal to the cash amount then required to be withheld as retention under the terms of the Contract between the Owner and Contractor. Securities shall be held in the name of ____, and shall designate the Contractor as the beneficial owner. (2) The Owner shall make progress payments to the Contractor for those funds which otherwise would be withheld from progress payments pursuant to the Contract provisions, provided that the Escrow Agent holds securities in the form and amount specified above.

Page 43 of 327 ends

7 2018_Final Form
(3) When the Owner makes payment of retentions earned directly to the Escrow Agent, the Escrow Agent shall hold them for the benefit of the Contractor until the time that the escrow created under this contract is terminated. The Contractor may direct the investment of the payments into securities. All terms and conditions of this agreement and the rights and responsibilities of the parties shall be equally applicable and binding when the Owner pays the Escrow Agent directly.
(4) Contractor shall be responsible for paying all fees for the expenses incurred by Escrow Agent in administering the Escrow Account and all expenses of the Owner. These expenses and payment terms shall be determined by the Owner, Contractor, and Escrow Agent. (5) The interest earned on the securities or the money market accounts held in escrow and all interest earned on that interest shall be for the sole account of Contractor and shall be subject to withdrawal by Contractor at any time and from time to time without notice to the Owner. (6) Contractor shall have the right to withdraw all or any part of the principal in the Escrow Account only by written notice to Escrow Agent accompanied by written authorization from the Owner to the Escrow Agent that Owner consents to the withdrawal of the amount sought to be withdrawn by Contractor.
(7) The Owner shall have a right to draw upon the securities in the event of default by the Contractor. Upon seven days' written notice to the Escrow Agent from the Owner of the default, the Escrow Agent shall immediately convert the securities to cash and shall distribute the cash as instructed by the Owner.
(8) Upon receipt of written notification from the Owner certifying that the Contract is final and complete, and that the Contractor has complied with all requirements and procedures applicable to the Contract, Escrow Agent shall release to Contractor all securities and interest on deposit less escrow fees and charges of the Escrow Account. The escrow shall be closed immediately upon disbursement of all moneys and securities on deposit and payments of fees and charges. (9) Escrow Agent shall rely on the written notifications from the Owner and the Contractor pursuant to Sections (5) to (8), inclusive, of this Agreement and the Owner and Contractor shall hold Escrow Agent harmless from Escrow Agent's release and disbursement of the securities and interest as set forth above.
(10) The names of the persons who are authorized to give written notice or to receive written notice on behalf of the Owner and on behalf of Contractor in connection with the foregoing, and exemplars of their respective signatures are as follows:

On behalf of Owner: On behalf of Contractor:
_______________________ _________________________
Title Title
_______________________ _________________________
Name Name
_____________________ _________________________
Signature Signature
_______________________ _________________________
Address Address
On behalf of Escrow Agent:
_______________________
Title
_______________________

Page 44 of 327 ends

8 2018_Final Form
Name
_______________________
Signature
_______________________
Address

At the time the Escrow Account is opened, the Owner and Contractor shall deliver to the Escrow Agent a fully executed counterpart of this Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement by their proper officers on the date first set forth above.

Owner Contractor
________________________ _________________________
Title Title
________________________ _________________________
Name Name
________________________ _________________________
Signature Signature

Section 1.11 Senate Bill 854 Notice Requirements.

As provided in SB 854 (Stats. 2014, ch. 28) : (a) no cont ractor or subcont ractor may be qualified to bid on, be listed in a bid proposal, subject to the requirem ents of Section 4104 of the California Public Contracts Code, or engage in the performance of any contract for public work, unless currently registered with DIR and qualified to perform public work pursuant to California Labor Code Section 1725.5 (Lab. Code §1771.1(a)); (b) no contractor or subcontractor may be awarded a public works contract unless registered with the DIR to p erform public work pursuant to Labor Code Section 1725.5 (Lab. Code §1771.1(b)); and (c) work performed on the project is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by DIR (Lab. Code §1771.4).

Section 1.12 Job Site Notices.

Contractor shall post at the job site notices in compliance with Title I California Code of Regulations Section 16451.

Section 1.13 Municipal Code Chapter 2.65 Requirements.

Contractor shall comply with Chapter 2.65 of the Richmond Municipal Code banning the requirement to provide information of prior criminal convictions on employment applications.

Page 45 of 327 ends

9 2018_Final Form

ARTICLE II

DEFAULT AND REMEDIES
Section 2.1 Events of Default.

In addition the remedies set forth in Section 2.2, below, in the event of default the Department Head reserves the right to stop work immediately if any action or inaction by the Contractor or any subcontractor creates a risk of imminent harm to the public or property.

Each of the following shall constitute a “Default” by Contractor under this Agreement:
(a) Breach of Covenants. Failure by Contractor or any subcontractor to duly perform, comply with, or observe any of the conditions, terms, or covenants of any of the Contract Documents. The City shall give Contractor written notice of the breach and specify a time in which to cure the breach. If the Contractor cures the breach within the time specified in the notice or, if the breach cannot be cured in the time specified but the Contractor has diligently pursued measures to cure the breach and to keep the City informed of its progress, then the breach shall not constitute a default provided that the breach is cured within thirty (30) days from the date of the City’s last notice and demand to cure.
(b) Disregard of Laws. Disregard of laws, rules, regulations, directions or instructions of City by Contractor or any subcontractor with respect to the performance of work.

(c) Insolvency. A court having jurisdiction shall have made or entered any decree or order (i) adjudging Contractor to be bankrupt or insolvent, (ii) approving as properly filed a petition seeking reorganization of Contractor or seeking any arrangement for Contractor under the bankruptcy law or any other applicable debtor’s relief law or statute of the United States or any state or other jurisdiction, (iii) appointing a receiver, trustee, liquidator, or assignee of Contractor in bankruptcy or insolvency or for any of their properties, (iv) directing the winding up or liquidation of Contractor if any such decree or order described in clauses (i) to (iv), inclusive, shall have continued unstayed or undischarged for a period of ninety (90) days; or (v) Contractor shall have admitted in writing its inability to pay its debts as they fall due or shall have voluntarily submitted to or filed a petition seeking any decree or order of the nature described in clauses (i) to (iv), inclusive.

(d) Suspension; Termination. Contractor shall have voluntarily suspended its business, or shall have voluntarily or involuntarily lost or terminated one or more of the licenses required to perform the work.

(e) Liens on Property and the Development. There shall be filed any claim of lien (other than liens approved in writing by the City) against the Project or the construction site or any part thereof, or any interest or right made appurtenant thereto and the continued maintenance of said claim of lien for a period of twenty (20) days without discharge or satisfaction thereof or provision therefore (including, without limitation, the posting of bonds) satisfactory to the City.

Page 46 of 327 ends

10 2018_Final Form
Section 2.2 Remedies.

The occurrence of any Default hereunder following the expiration of all applicable notice and cure periods will, either at the option of the City or automatically where so specified, relieve the City of any obligation to make or continue payments and shall give the City the right to proceed with any and all remedies set forth in the Contract Documents, including but not limited to the following:

(a) Specific Performance. The City shall have the right to mandamus or other suit, action or proceeding at law or in equity to require Contractor to perform its obligations and covenants under this Agreement or to enjoin acts on things which may be unlawful or in violation of the provisions of this Agreement.

(b) Right of Contest. Contractor shall have the right to contest in good faith any claim, demand, levy, or assessment the assertion of which would constitute a Default hereunder.

Any such contest shall be prosecuted diligently and in a manner unprejudicial to the City or the rights of the City hereunder.

(c) Remedies Cumulative. No right, power, or remedy given to the City by the terms of the Contract Documents is intended to be exclusive of any other right, power, or remedy; and each and every such right, power, or remedy shall be cumulative and in addition to every other right, power, or remedy given to the City by the terms of any such instrument, or by any statute or otherwise against Contractor and any other person. Neither the failure nor any delay on the part of the City to exercise any such rights and remedies shall operate as a waiver thereof, nor shall any single or partial exercise by the City of any such right or remedy preclude any other or further exercise of such right or remedy, or any other right or remedy.

Section 2.3 Waiver of Damages.

Contractor, in having tendered the Proposal, shall be deemed to have waived any and all claims for damages because of termination of this Agreement for any reason. Contractor shall not be entitled to any lost profit in the event of termination.

ARTICLE III

GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 3.1 Relationship of Parties.

Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be interpreted or understood by any of the Parties, or by any third persons, as creating the relationship of employer and employee, principal and agent, limited or general partnership, or joint venture between the City and Contractor or its agents, employees or subcontractors, and Contractor shall at all times be deemed an independent contractor and shall be wholly responsible for the manner in which it or its agents, or both, perform the services required of it by the terms of this Agreement. Contractor has and retains the right to exercise full control of employment, direction, compensation, and discharge of all persons assisting in the performance of services under the Agreement. In regards to the

Page 47 of 327 ends

11 2018_Final Form
construction of the Project, Contractor shall be solely responsible for all matters relating to payment of its employees, including compliance with Social Security, withholding, and all other laws and regulations governing such matters, and shall include requirements in each contract that subcontractors shall be solely responsible for similar matters relating to their employees.

Contractor shall be solely responsible for its own acts and those of its agents and employees.

Section 3.2 Change Orders.
(a) Changes affecting the time of performance, unit pricing, or total contract price shall be set forth in a written Change Order that shall specify:

1. The work performed in connection with the change to be made;

2. The amount of the adjustment to the Payment Limit, if any, and the basis for compensation for the work ordered; which adjustment may be a negotiated lump sum amount, agreed unit price, or paid under Section 9-1.04 “Force Account” of the 2015 State of California Department of Transportation Standard Specifications; and

3. The amount of time to be adjusted in the schedule for performance, if any. (b) A Change Order will become effective when signed by the Department Head, or his or her representative, notwithstanding that Contractor has not signed it. A Change Order will become effective without Contractor’s signature, provided the Department Head or his or her representative so indicates by noting thereon “unilateral change order.” (c) All changes in any plans and specification approved by any authority with jurisdiction over the Project may also require addenda or change orders approved by that authority.
(d) Where the City requests, a performance bond rider covering the changed work must be executed and delivered to the City before proceeding with the changed work, or shortly in time thereafter.
(e) The Department Head or his or her representative has the authority to approve Change Orders with a cumulative dollar value of up to ten percent (10%) of the contract price.

Section 3.3 Claims By Contractor.
(a) No Third-Party Claims. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall create or justify any claim against the City by any person that Contractor may have employed or with whom Contractor may have contracted relative to the purchase of materials, supplies or equipment, or the furnishing or the performance of any work or services with respect to the construction of the Project, and Contractor shall include similar requirements in any contracts entered into for the construction of the Project. Pursuant to Section 9204 (d)(5) of the Public Contract Code, however, Contractor may present a claim on behalf of a subcontractor for work which was performed by that subcontractor or lower tier subcontractor. Such claim shall have been reviewed and evaluated by Contractor prior to submission to the City.

Page 48 of 327 ends

12 2018_Final Form
(b) Obligation to File Claims for Disputed Work. Should it appear to the Contractor that the work to be performed or any of the matters relative to the Contract Documents are not satisfactorily detailed or explained therein, or should any questions arise as to the meaning or intent of the Contract Documents, or should Contractor have a claim against the City, as the term “claim” is defined in Section 9204 of the Public Contract Code, or should any dispute arise regarding the true value of any work performed, work omitted, extra work that the Contractor may be required to perform, time extensions, payment to the Contractor during performance of the work, construction of the Project, and/or compliance with procedures or standards set forth in the Contract Documents, or should Contractor otherwise seek extra time or compensation FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER (each, a “Claim”), then Contractor shall first follow the procedures set forth in this Agreement, including but not limited to Section 3.2, “Change Orders.” If a dispute remains, then Contractor shall give written notice by registered or certified mail with return receipt requested, and such Claim shall be resolved as set forth below. (c) Form and Contents of Claim. The Claim shall be submitted to the City within thirty (30) days of receiving the City’s written decision regarding the dispute, or the date the Contractor contends such decision was due, and in no event later than the date of final payment.

Contractor’s written claim must identify itself as a “Claim” under this Section 3.3 and must include the following: (1) a narrative of pertinent events; (2) citation to contract provisions; (3) theory of entitlement; (4) complete pricing of all cost impacts; (5) a time impact analysis of all time delays that shows actual time impact on the critical path; (6) documentation supporting items 1 – 5; and (7) verification under penalty of perjury of the claim’s accuracy. The Claim shall be priced like a Change Order, and must be updated every thirty (30) days as to cost and entitlement if it remains a continuing Claim. Routine contract materials, for example, correspondence, RFI, Change Order requests, or payment requests shall not constitute a Claim.

Contractor shall bear all costs incurred in preparation, submittal, and administration of a Claim. (d) Administration After Claim Submittal.

1. City may render a final decision based solely on the materials submitted in support of the Claim or may in its sole discretion conduct an administrative hearing on the Claim, in which case Contractor shall appear, participate, answer inquiries, and present any further evidence or analysis requested by City. Should City take no action on the Claim within forty-five (45) days (or any extension thereof mutually agreed upon by City and Contractor, or any such greater time to respond afforded City under Section 9204(d)(1)(C) of the Public Contract Code) of submittal, it shall be deemed denied.

2. If Contr actor disputes City’s written response, or if City fails to respond to a Claim within the time prescribed, Contractor may demand in writing an informal conference to meet and confer for settlement of the issues in dispute. Upon receipt of a dem and in writi ng sent by registered mail or certified mail, return receipt requested, City will schedule a meet and confer conference within thirty (30) days for settlement of the dispute.

3. Within ten ( 10) business days fo llowing the conclusion of the mee t and confer conference, if the Claim or any portion of the Claim remains in dispute, City will

Page 49 of 327 ends

13 2018_Final Form
provide Contractor a written statement identifying the portion of the Claim that remains in dispute and the portion that is und isputed. Any payment due on an undisputed por tion of the Claim will be processed and made within sixty ( 60) days after City issues its written statement. Any disputed portion of the Cl aim, as identified by Contractor in writing, shall be submitted to nonbi nding mediation, with City and Contractor sharing the associated costs equally. City and Contractor shall mutually agree to a mediator within ten (10) business days after the disputed portion of the Claim has been identified in writing. If City and Contractor cannot agree upon a mediator, each party shall select a mediator and those mediat ors shall select a qualified neutral third part y to mediate with regard to the disputed portion of the Claim. Each party shall bear the fees and costs charged by its respective mediator in connection with the selecti on of the neutral mediator. If mediation is unsuccessful, the parts of the Claim remain ing in dispute shall be subject to Section 3.3(f) of this Agreement.

4. Failure by City to respond to a Claim within the time periods described in Section 9204 of the Public Contract Code or to otherwise comply with the time requirements of that section shall result in the Claim being deemed rejected in its entirety. A Claim that is denied by reason of City’s failure to have responded to a claim, or its fai lure to othe rwise comply with the time requirements of Section 9204 of the Public Contract Code , shall not constitute an adverse finding with regard to the merits of the Claim or the responsibility or qualifications of the claimant filing the Claim.

5. Notwithstanding and pending the resolution of any Claim or dispute, Contractor shall diligently perform the disputed work to final completion in accordance with the City’s direction.

(f) Compliance

1. The provisions of this Section 3.3 constitute a non-judicial claim settlement procedure that, pursuant to California Government Code Section 930.2, shall constitute a condition precedent to the submittal of a valid claim under the California Government Code. Any Government Code claims alleging disputed work must affirmatively indicate prior compliance with this Section 3.3. In accordance with Richmond Municipal Code Section 1.10.010(b), all Government Code claims must be presented no later than the 100th day after the earlier of (i) the date the City actively or passively denied the Claim, or (ii) substantial completion or termination of the contract.

2. Failure to submit and administer Claims as required in Section 3.3 shall waive Contractor’s right to compensation for any disputed work not included in a timely Claim. Disputes not raised in a timely protest and timely Claim submitted under this Section 3.3 may not be asserted in any subsequent Government Code claim, administrative hearing, or civil action.

Page 50 of 327 ends

14 2018_Final Form

3. City shall not be deemed to waive any provision under this Section 3.3 if, at City’s sole discretion, a Claim is administered in a manner not in accord with this Section 3.3. Waivers or modifications of this Section 3.3 may only be made by signed Change Order approved as to form by legal counsel for both City and Contractor. Oral or implied modifications shall be of no force or effect.

Section 3.4 Indemnification.
(a) To the fullest extent permissible by law, Contractor shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless, and require its subcontractors to defend, indemnify and hold harmless, the City, its elected and appointed officials, and all of its employees, volunteers and agents (the “Indemnified Parties”), from all liability, penalties, costs, losses, damages, expenses, causes of action, claims or judgments, including attorney’s fees and other defense costs (collectively, “Actions”), resulting from injury to or death sustained by any person (including Contractor’s or any subcontractors’ employees), or damage to property of any kind, or any other injury or damage whatsoever, which Actions arise out of or are in any way connected with the construction of the Project, regardless of Contractor’s fault or negligence; provided, however, that Contractor’s, and Contractor’s subcontractors’ indemnity obligations hereunder shall not apply to the extent any Actions are caused by the active negligence or willful act or omission of an Indemnified Party. The indemnification obligations of Contractor and its subcontractors shall extend to Actions asserted after termination of this Agreement for whatever reason for the full period of time allowed by law.
(b) In Actions against any person or entity indemnified under Section 3.4(a) above by an employee of Contractor or its subcontractors, anyone directly or indirectly employed by any one of them or anyone for whose acts one of them may be liable, the indemnification obligation under Section 3.4(a) above shall not be limited by a limitation on amount or type of damages, compensation of benefits payable under workers’ compensation acts, disability benefit acts or other employee benefit acts.
(c) The defense and indemnification obligations set forth in Section 3.4(a) above are undertaken in addition to, and shall not in any way be limited by, the insurance obligations set forth in the Project Specifications.

Section 3.5 Non-Liability of City Officials, Employees and Agents.

No member, official, employee or agent of the City shall be personally liable to Contractor in the event of any default or breach by the City or for any amount which may become due to Contractor or its successor or on any obligation under the terms of this Agreement.

Section 3.6 No Third Party Beneficiaries.

There shall be no third party beneficiaries to this Agreement.

Page 51 of 327 ends

15 2018_Final Form
Section 3.7 Conflict of Interest.

(a) Except for approved eligible administrative or personnel costs, no person described in Section 3.7(b) below who exercises or has exercised any functions or responsibilities with respect to the activities funded pursuant to this Agreement or who is in a position to participate in a decision-making process or gain inside information with regard to such activities, may obtain a personal or financial interest or benefit from the activity, or have an interest in any contract, subcontract or agreement with respect thereto, or the proceeds thereunder, either for themselves or those with whom they have family or business ties, during, or at any time after, such person’s tenure. Contractor shall exercise due diligence to ensure that the prohibition in this Section 3.7(a) is followed.

(b) The conflict of interest provisions of Section 3.7(a) above apply to any person who is an employee, agent, consultant, officer, or elected or appointed official of the City of Richmond, and any immediate family member or dependent of such person.

Section 3.8 Notices, Demands and Communications.

If at any time after the execution of this Agreement it shall become necessary or convenient for one of the Parties hereto to serve any notice, demand or communication upon the other Party, such notice, demand or communication shall be in writing and shall be served personally or by depositing the same in the registered United States mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid or delivered by express delivery service, return receipt requested and

(1) if intended for the City shall be addressed to:

City of Richmond
450 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, California 94804
Attention: Director of Public Works

With copy to:

City of Richmond
450 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
Attention: City Attorney

Page 52 of 327 ends

16 2018_Final Form

(2) if intended for Contractor shall be addressed to:

Arntz Builders, Inc.
431 Payran Street,
Petaluma, CA 94952
Attn: David Arntz

Any notice, demand or communication shall be deemed given, received, made or communicated on the date personal delivery is affected or, if mailed in the manner herein specified, on the delivery date or date delivery is refused by the addressee, as shown on the return receipt. Any Party may change its address at any time by giving written notice of such change at least ten (10) days prior to the date such change is desired to be effective.

Section 3.9 Applicable Law.

This Agreement shall be governed by California law. This Agreement is made in Contra Costa County, California, and any action relating to this Agreement shall be instituted and prosecuted in the courts of Contra Costa County, California.

Section 3.10 Parties Bound.

Except as otherwise limited herein, the provisions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties and their heirs, executors, administrators, legal representatives, successors, and assigns. Any reference in this Agreement to a specifically named Party shall be deemed to apply to any successor, heir, administrator, executor, successor, or assign of such Party who has acquired an interest in compliance with the terms of this Agreement or under law. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, administrators, executors, successors in interest, and assigns of each of the Parties.

Section 3.11 Severability.

If any term of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of the provisions shall continue in full force and effect unless the rights and obligations of the Parties have been materially altered or abridged by such invalidation, voiding or unenforceability.

Section 3.12 Force Majeure.

Performance by either Party shall not be deemed to be in default when delays in performance are due to war, insurrection, strikes, lock-outs, riots, floods, earthquakes, fires, quarantine restrictions, freight embargoes, or court order, or any other similar causes (other than lack of funds of Contractor) beyond the control or without the fault of the Party claiming an extension of time to perform (“Force-Majeure Delays”). In no event shall any extension of any period of time be deemed to have occurred unless the Party claiming the Force-Majeure Delay gives written notice to the other Party within ten (10) days following the commencement of any such delay, setting forth the facts giving rise to the Force-Majeure Delay request, the expected

Page 53 of 327 ends

17 2018_Final Form
duration of the delay, and the steps the Party intends to take to minimize the Delay. During the Force-Majeure Delay, the Party whose performance is delayed shall keep the other Party reasonably informed of the situation and the steps taken by such Party to continue performance and minimize delay. After the Force-Majeure Delay is over, the Parties shall in good faith jointly prepare an accurate written record of the circumstances giving rise to delay, specifying the commencement date and duration of the Force-Majeure Delay and the cause thereof, which record shall be signed by each Party to confirm agreement with respect to its content. In no event shall the City be required to agree to cumulative Force-Majeure Delays in excess of sixty (60) days unless the City is the cause of such delay. In the event that the parties cannot agree upon a record of the circumstances giving rise to the Force-Majeure Delay, the procedures set forth in Section 3.3 of this Agreement shall apply.

Section 3.13 Waivers.

Any waiver by the City of any obligation or condition in this Agreement must be in writing. No waiver will be implied from any delay or failure by the City to take action on any breach or default of Contractor or to pursue any remedy allowed under this Agreement or applicable law. Any extension of time granted to Contractor to perform any obligation under this Agreement shall not operate as a waiver or release from any of its obligations under this Agreement. Consent by the City to any act or omission by Contractor shall not be construed to be consent to any other or subsequent act or omission or to waive the requirement for the City’s written consent to future waivers.

Section 3.14 Title of Parts and Sections.

Any titles of the sections or subsections of this Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only and shall be disregarded in interpreting any part of the Agreement’s provisions.

Section 3.15 Entire Understanding of the Parties.

The Contract Documents – along with any written change orders and dispute determinations that may be issued by the City in the course of performance – shall constitute the entire understanding and agreement of the Parties with respect to construction of the Project.

The Contract Documents, written change orders (if any), and dispute determinations (if any) are deemed complementary and should be interpreted together.

Section 3.16 Multiple Originals; Counterpart.

This Agreement may be executed in multiple originals, each of which is deemed to be an original, and may be signed in counterparts. A facsimile or electronic signature to this Agreement shall be as valid as an ink signed original.

[Signatures on following page]

Page 54 of 327 ends

18 2018_Final Form
WHEREAS, this Agreement has been entered into by the undersigned as of the date first above written.

Reviewed By:

_______________________
City Attorney

ATTEST:

_______________________________
City Clerk

CITY:

CITY OF RICHMOND, a municipal corporation and
charter city

By: _________________________________

Name: _________________________________
Its: __________________________________

CONTRACTOR:

Arntz Builders Inc.

By: _________________________________

Name: _________________________________
Its: _________________________________

Page 55 of 327 ends

19 2018_Final Form
Exhibit A
Proposal

Work to be done in accordance with Construction Plans for Richmond Booker T Anderson Community Center, Fire Damage Reconstruction Project, Dated October 20, 2021.

Page 56 of 327 ends

Page 1 of 3 ends

July 26, 2022

Community Development

DATE: July 26, 2022
TO: Mayor Butt and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Lina Velasco, Director of Community Development
Nicole A. Heath, Supervising Accidental Release
Prevention Engineer, Contra Costa Health Services
(CCHS)

Subject:

Richmond Industrial Safety Ordinance 2021 Annual
Report by Contra Costa Health Services
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact to the General Fund related to receiving this report.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

Pursuant to Richmond Municipal Code (RMC) Section

6.43.160, Contra Costa Health Services (CCHS) shall
provide an annual performance review and evaluation of
the previous year’s activities related to the Richmond
Industrial Safety Ordinance. CCHS will present the 2021 Annual Report.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

RECEIVE a presentation by Contra Costa Health
Services of the 2021 Annual Richmond Industrial Safety
Ordinance report pursuant to Richmond Municipal Code
Section 6.43.160 – Community Development (Lina
Velasco 620-6841). This item was continued from the
July 26, 2022, meeting.

DISCUSSION:

AGENDA
REPORT

Page 57 of 327 ends

Page 2 of 3 ends

July 26, 2022
Pursuant to Richmond Municipal Code (RMC) Section 6.43.160, Contra Costa Health Services (CCHS) shall annually review its activities to implement the Richmond Industrial Safety Ordinance (RISO) and to evaluate the effectiveness of the chapter in achieving its purpose and goals. The RISO specifies that the annual performance evaluation shall be provided to the City Council on or before October 31st of each year.

More specifically, RMC Section 6.43.160(b)(1)-(3) specifies that the annual performance review and evaluation shall contain the following:

(1) A brief description of how Contra Costa Health Services is meeting the requirements of this chapter as follows:
(A) Effectiveness of Contra Costa Health Services' program to ensure stationary source compliance with this chapter;
(B) Effectiveness of the procedures for records management; (C) Number and type of audits and inspections conducted by Contra Costa Health Services pursuant to this chapter;
(D) Number of root cause analyses and/or incident investigations conducted by Contra Costa Health Services;
(E) Contra Costa Health Services' process for public participation; (F) Effectiveness of the public information bank, including status of economic accessibility;
(G) Effectiveness of the hazardous materials ombudsperson; and (H) Other required program elements necessary to implement and manage this chapter;
(2) A listing of all stationary sources covered by this chapter, including for each:
(A) The status of the stationary sources' safety plan and program; (B) A summary of all stationary source safety plan updates and a listing of where the safety plans are publicly available;
(C) The annual accident history report submitted by the stationary source pursuant to Section 6.43.090(e)(2) of this chapter; (D) A summary, including the status, of any root cause analyses conducted or being conducted by the stationary source and required by this chapter, including the status of implementation of recommendations; (E) A summary, including the status, of any audits, inspections, root cause analyses and/or incident investigations conducted or being conducted by Contra Costa Health Services pursuant to this chapter, including the status of implementation of recommendations; (F) Description of inherently safer systems implemented by the stationary source;

Page 58 of 327 ends

Page 3 of 3 ends

July 26, 2022
(G) Legal enforcement actions initiated by Contra Costa Health Services, including administrative, civil, and criminal actions pursuant to this chapter;
(H) Process safety indicators reported by the stationary source as required under Section 6.43.090(a)(13)(D)(i) of this chapter; (3) Total penalties assessed as a result of enforcement of this chapter; (4) Total fees, service charges, and other assessments collected specifically for the support of this chapter;
(5) Total personnel and personnel years utilized by the jurisdiction to directly implement or administer this chapter;
(6) Comments from interested parties regarding the effectiveness of the local program that raise public safety issues;
(7) The impact of this chapter in improving industrial safety.

CCHS staff prepared their annual performance review and evaluation report for calendar year 2021 including facility metrics covering calendar year 2020 and County activities covering fiscal year 2020-2021. Ombudsman activities cover December 2020 through December 2021.

There are two facilities in Richmond covered by the RISO, Chevron Richmond Refinery and Chemtrade.

CCHS will be providing an overview of their annual report at the Richmond City Council meeting.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – 2021 Annual RISO Report
Attachment 2 – City of Richmond Presentation

Page 59 of 327 ends

RICHMOND INDUSTRIAL SAFETY

ORDINANCE ANNUAL PERFORMANCE

REVIEW AND EVALUATION REPORT
March 2022
By Contra Costa Health Services Hazardous Materials Programs Page 60 of 327 2 Table of Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... 3 Public Participation ..................................................................................................................... 3 Audits ......................................................................................................................................... 3 Major Chemical Accidents or Releases ........................................................................................ 3 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 3 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 4 County Industrial Safety Ordinance ....................................................................................................... 4 Ef
fectiveness of Contra Costa Hazardous Materials Programs’ Implementation of the Industrial Safety Ordinance .............................................................................................................................................. 6 Effectiveness of the Procedures for Records Management ........................................................... 7 Number and Type of Audits and Inspections Conducted ............................................................... 7 Root Cause Analyses and/or Incident Investigations Conducted by CCHMP Program ............... 8 CCHMP's Process for Public Participation .................................................................. 8 Effectiveness of the Public Information Bank ............................................................................... 8 Effectiveness of the Hazardous Materials Ombudsperson............................................................................. 8 Other Required Program Elements Necessary to Implement and Manage the Industrial Safety Ordinance .................................................................................................................................. 8 Regulated Stationary Sources Listing ...................................................................................................... 9 Status of Safety Plans and Programs ........................................................................................... 5 Locations of the Regulated Stationary Sources Safety Plans .......................................................... 6 Annual Accident History Report and Inherently Safer Systems Implemented as Submitted by the Regulated Stationary Sources ...................................................................................................... 9 Status of the I ncident Investigations, Including the Root Cause Analyses Conducted by the Regulated Stationary Sources .................................................................................................................... 10 Major Chemical Accidents or Releases ....................................................................................... 10 Legal Enforcement Actions Initiated by Contra Costa Hazardous Materials Programs .................. 12 Penalties Assessed as a Result of Enforcement ...................................................................................... 12 Total Fees, Service Charges and Other Assessments Collected Specifically for the Industrial Safety Ordinance .................................................................................................................................................. 12 Total Personnel and Personnel Years Used by Hazardous Materials Program to Implement the Industrial Safety Ordinance ................................................................................................................................. 12 Comments from Interested Parties Regarding the Effectiveness of the Industrial Safety Ordinance ......... 12 The Impact of the Industrial Safety Ordinance on Improving Industrial Safety ......................................... 12 Hazardous Materials Ombudsman Report ....................................................................................... 15—19 Attachment B-County Regulated Sources Annual Performance ....................................................... 20—33 Attachment C-Richmond Regulated Sources Annual Performance ................................................... 34—57

Page 61 of 327 ends

3 Executive Summary
In 2002, the City of Richmond adopted the Richmond Industrial Safety Ordinance (RISO) requiring regulated facilities to implement safety programs similar to those required in Contra Costa County. A multitude of safety programs are required to be developed that aims to prevent chemical accidents that could have detrimental impacts to the surrounding communities. The RISO’s requirements are some of the most stringent in the United States, if not the world. The goal is for facilities to implement comprehensive safety programs, instill a safety culture at the workplace and create management systems that prevent incidents that could have detrimental impacts to surrounding communities. The RISO also mandates outreach and participation from industries, agencies, elected officials, and the public.

Two facilities (one refinery and one chemical plant) within the City of Richmond are required to comply with the Richmond Industrial Safety Ordinance (RISO). Two major oil refineries and two chemical facilities are required to comply with ISO requirements, which mandates the same requirements from a separate municipal authority. Both ordinances are administered by Contra Costa County’s Health Hazardous Materials Programs (CCHHMP), a division of Contra Costa Health Services. Per RISO Section 6.43.160, CCHHMP annually evaluates and reports on RISO performance to the Board of Supervisors.

CCHHMP’s Accidental Release Prevention (ARP) Program engineers oversee the RISO and ISO programs and work with other agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal-OSHA), CSB and other local program agencies. This Interagency collaboration includes sharing of incident and inspection results, discussion of regulatory interpretations and joint training

Public Participation
CCHHMP has an established public outreach process and is continually looking for ways to improve it. Due to COVID 19 restrictions CCHHMP does not have any activities to report for 2021.

The Board of Supervisors also requested that staff provide copies of the annual report to communities through the Community Advisory Panels (CAP). This 2021 Annual Report is available on our website and will be sent to CAP representatives for distribution.

Audits*
Audits of regulated businesses are required at least once every three years to ensure that the facilities are implementing required programs. We completed no RISO and one ISO audits in 2021:
• Martinez Refining Company February 2021
*audits were conducted without on-site inspections due to COVID-19 health order precaution.

Major Chemical Accidents or Releases
There was one MCAR at a RISO -regulated facility (2/9/2021) and there were no MCAR events at ISO- regulated facilities in this reporting period and there.

Conclusion
The severity of MCAR events in Contra Costa County has declined since the implementation of the RISO, with a few minor irregularities in the trend. The RISO has improved regulated facilities’ safety programs and operations.

CCHHMP has sought assistance from stakeholders, including regulated facilities, workers, and community members, to include the CSB-recommended improvements to the ordinance that the City of Richmond adopted in 2014.

These further reduce likelihood of chemical accidents at these industrial facilities.

Page 62 of 327 ends

4 Introduction
The City of Richmond adopted the Richmond Industrial Safety Ordinance (RISO) after the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors passed the County Industrial Safety Ordinance (ISO) due to significant accidents that occurred at oil refineries and chemical plants in the county in the 1990s. The effective date of the RISO was January 7, 2002. The ordinance applies to oil refineries and chemical plants with specified North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes that were required to submit a Risk Management Plan to the U.S. EPA and are Program Level 3 Stationary Sources as defined by the U.S. EPA Risk Management Program. The timeline below shows the requirements of the ordinance and various changes to date:

Responsibilities
Stationary Sources CCHMP
1/1/2002 12/31/2014
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 • Perform Root Cause Analysis after an MCAR
• Consider Inherently Safer Systems for new and existing processes, expanded (2014 amendments) to include reviewing during major changes that could result in MCAR occur
• Submit Safety Plan every 3 years
• Perform Safeguard Protection Analysis (2014 Amendments) • Include Maintenance in the Human Factors and Management of Organizational Change Programs (2013 Amendments) • Perform Security Vulnerability Assessments and Safety Culture Assessments (2013 Amendments) • Develop and Track Performance Indicators (2014 Amendments) • May perform individual Root Cause Analysis after an MCAR • Develop and Maintain Safety Plan Guidance Document
• Review submitted Safety Plans
• Audit every three years after initial ISO/RISO audits • Create Safety Culture Guidance and update as needed
2013 - 2014

RISO AMENDMENTS
2012
RISO 2ND AMENDMENTS APPROVED
2003 - 2012

ISO/RISO EXECUTION
2002 - 2003

RISO INIT IA L

IMPLE MENTATION
2011
2013 RISO AME NDMENTS APPRO VED

County Industrial Safety Ordinance
The Contra Costa County ISO has been in effect since January 15, 1999. The County’s Industrial Safety Ordinance (ISO) mirrors the RISO, covering four stationary sources: Martinez Refining Company (MRC, formerly Shell), Phillips 66 Rodeo Refinery, Air Products at MRC, and Air Liquide Rodeo.

There was one audit conducted for ISO facilities in this reporting period. CCHHMP receives annual performance updates from these 4 facilities each June.

Regulated Stationary Sources Listing
There are a total of two stationary sources covered by the RISO and four stationary sources covered by RISO:

1. Chevron Richmond Refinery

2. Chemtrade West Richmond Works (formerly General Chemical Richmond)

3. Martinez Refining Company – MRC (formerly Shell Martinez Refinery) (ISO)

4. Phillips 66 Rodeo Refinery (ISO)

5. Air Liquide Rodeo Plant at P66 (ISO)

Page 63 of 327 ends

5 6. Air Products at MRC (formerly Shell Martinez Refinery) (ISO)

Status of Safety Plans and Programs
Stationary sources were required to initially submit safety plans in 2003 (RISO, ISO facilities submitted in 2000) and resubmit every 3 years. Audits have also been completed on the same schedule. The most recent status of each of the regulated stationary sources is given in Tables I and II and includes:
• When the latest updated safety plans were submitted
• Status of safety plans (complete/incomplete)
• When audits were last completed
• When public meetings were held on preliminary audit findings in last 3 years

A full summary of all Safety Plan Updates and audits is maintained via database at CCHHMP’s office.

Table I
Richmond Industrial Safety Ordinance Stationary Source Status (Most Recent)

Table II
Industrial Safety Ordinance Stationary Source Status
(Most Recent)

Name Safety Plan (SP)
Received
Safety Plan
Complete
Audit/
Inspection
Audit
Public
Meeting
Chevron 7/22/2021 No 6/03/19 5/05/19
Chemtrade 11/26/18 Yes 6/15/20 5/05/19
NAME Safety Plan (SP)
Received
Safety Plan
Complete
Audit/
Inspection
Audit
Public
Meeting
Air Liquide
Rodeo
12/01/19 Yes 1/22/19 10/12/2017
Air Products—
MRC
10/20/20 No 10/26/20 8/06/19
Phillips 66 Rodeo
Refinery
08/06/21 Yes 1/06/20 7/15/18
8/16/18
Martinez
Refining
Company – MRC
(formerly Shell Martinez
Refinery)
8/23/19 Yes 1/25/21 8/06/19

Page 64 of 327 ends

6 Locations of the Regulated Stationary Sources Safety Plans Regulated stationary sources are required to update their safety plans at least once every three years. These plans are available for public review at the Hazardous Materials Programs office, 4585 Pacheco Blvd., Suite 100, Martinez. When CCHHMP determines that a safety plan update is complete, prior to the required 45-day public comment period, staff places the updated plan in the Contra Costa Library branch or branches closest to the regulated stationary source so it is easily accessible for public review. Table III lists each safety plan location.

Table II
Location of Safety Plans—Libraries

Regulated Stationary
Source
Location 1 Location 2 Location 3
Chevron Richmond Refinery Hazardous Materials
Programs Office
Point Richmond
Library
Main Richmond
Library
Chemtrade Hazardous Materials
Programs Office
Point Richmond
Library

Main Richmond
Library

Air Liquide Large Industries Rodeo
Hydrogen Plant
Hazardous Materials
Programs Office
Rodeo Public Library Crockett Public Library
Air Products at MRC (formerly Shell) Hazardous Materials Programs Office
Martinez Public
Library

Martinez Refining Company – MRC (formerly
Shell Martinez Refinery)
Hazardous Materials
Programs Office
Martinez Public
Library

Phillips 66 Rodeo Refinery Hazardous Materials
Programs Office
Rodeo Public Library Crockett Public Library

Effectiveness of Implementation of the Industrial Safety Ordinance Contra Costa Hazardous Materials Programs has developed policies, procedures, protocols, and questionnaires to implement the California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program and the Industrial Safety Ordinance. The policies, procedures, protocols, and questionnaires for these programs are listed below:

• Audits/Inspections Policy
• Conducting the Risk
Management Plan/Safety Plan
Completeness Review Protocol
• Risk Management Plan
Completeness Review
Questionnaires
• Safety Plan Completeness
Review Questionnaires
• Conducting
Audits/Inspections Protocol
• Safe Work Practices
Questionnaires
• CalARP Program Audit
Questionnaires
• Safety Program Audit
Questionnaires
• Conducting Employee
Interviews Protocol
• Employee Interview
Questionnaires
• Field Verification Protocols
• Covered Process Modification Policy
• Public Participation Policy
• Dispute Resolution Policy
• Reclassification Policy
• CalARP Internal Performance
Audit Policy
• Conducting the Internal
Performance Audit
• CalARP Internal Audit
Performance Audit Submission
• Fee Policy
• Notification Policy
• Unannounced Inspection
Policy
•Risk Management Plan Public
Review Policy

Page 65 of 327 ends

7 Hazardous Materials Programs also developed the Contra Costa County CalARP Program Guidance Document and the Contra Costa County Safety Program Guidance Document, which was updated and reissued to regulated facilities on July 22, 2011. All policies, procedures, protocols and questionnaires are available through Hazardous Materials Programs office, and the guidance documents are available electronically at: http://cchealth.org/hazmat/calarp/ guidance-document.php and http://cchealth.org/groups/hazmat/industrial_safety_ordinance_guidance.php

CCHHMP staff is working with regulated facilities and labor representatives to revise the Safety Program Guidance Document based on audit results and set expectations for compliance with the ordinance.

Effectiveness of the Procedures for Records Management
CCHHMP has digital files for each stationary source. The files include:

1. Annual status reports

2. Audits & inspections

3. Communications

4. Completeness review

5. Emergency response

6. Incident investigation

7. Trade secret information

Digital copies of the files are stored on the Hazardous Materials Programs network and are accessible to the Accidental Release Prevention Program engineers, supervisor and the Hazardous Materials Director. Portable document format (PDF) versions of these files are also available for public viewing at the CCHHMP office. The Accidental Release Prevention Program files contain regulations, policies, information from the U.S. EPA, the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, CSB, and other information pertinent to the engineers. The risk management and safety plans are received in hard copy, scanned and kept at the CCHHMP office.

Number and Type of Audits and Inspections Conducted
Beginning in the fall of 2020, CCHHMP began its next round of required audits at each of the ISO and RISO facilities. This is the eighth round of audits since 2000. When the Health Order was issued on March 16, 2020, in response to the COVID-19, pandemic, CCHHMP adjusted the audit protocol to perform the audit remotely through file sharing records review, web conference and interviews with Subject Matter Experts and select employee and employee representatives and “live” navigation and query of selected databases . Procedure review was part of the audit but in-person procedure walkdown was not performed.

When CCHHMP ARP engineers review a safety plan, a notice of deficiencies is issued documenting any changes the stationary source must make before the plan is determined to be complete. The stationary source has 60 to 90 days to respond. The ARP engineer will work with the stationary source until the plan contains the required changes.

When the plan is complete, the ARP engineer will open a public comment period and make the plan available in a public meeting or venue as well as at the public library branch closest to the stationary source. The ARP engineer will respond to all written comments in writing and, when appropriate, use the comments in upcoming audit/inspections of the regulated stationary source.

An ARP engineer will issue a Preliminary Audit Findings report after each facility audit/inspection. The stationary source will have 90 days to respond, and the ARP engineer will review the response. The stationary source must submit an action plan to correct any uncovered ISO compliance issues, which the ARP Engineer will review. If the ARP Engineer agrees with the action plan, CCHHMP will issue the Preliminary Audit Findings for public comment and make them available in a public meeting or venue and at the public library branch closest to the stationary source.

The ARP engineer will consider comments received during the public comment period and may revise the

Page 66 of 327 ends

8 Preliminary Audit Findings report. When the public review process is complete, the ARP engineer will issue the Final Audit Findings report and respond in writing to any written public comments received. Table I lists the status of each stationary source’s safety plan, audit and inspections of their safety programs, and public meetings.

Root Cause Analyses and/or Incident Investigations Conducted by CCHHMP CCHHMP performed no root cause analyses or incident investigations in the past year. A historical listing of MCAR events starting in 1992 is available at http://cchealth.org/groups/ hazmat/accident_history.php. This list also includes major accidents that occurred prior to the adoption of the ISO/RISO.

CCHHMP’s Process for Public Participation
CCHHMP continues the practice of sharing results of safety plans and preliminary audit findings and receiving public comment about them at community events, as recommended by community members in 2005. Based on a 2012 recommendation from the Board of Supervisors, CCHHMP also shares RISO/ ISO annual reports and makes presentations to Community Advisory Panels.

Effectiveness of the Public Information Bank
The Hazardous Materials Programs section of the Contra Costa Health Services website (http://cchealth.org/hazmat) includes:

Programs
Incident Response and
Follow-up Resources
ISO and RISO HazMat Incident Response
Team Page
Links to Refinery Fenceline
Monitoring
Land Use Permitting List of recent Incidents HazMat Interagency Task Force CalARP (including P4) MCAR Accident History Chemical Safety Board Incident Search
Underground Storage Tanks Incident Search Database CCHHMP Guidance Documents Green Business Program Incident Notification Policy CalARP/ISO/RISO Regulations Unannounced Inspection
Program
72 hr. and 30- day Reports
Business Plan

Effectiveness of the Hazardous Materials Ombudsperson
The Hazardous Materials Ombudsperson is a conduit for the public to express their concerns about how CCHHMP personnel are performing their duties. Attachment A is a report from the Hazardous Materials Ombudsperson on the effectiveness of the position for this reporting period.

Other Required Program Elements Necessary to Implement and Manage the ISO The CalARP Program is administered in Contra Costa County by CCHHMP. Stationary sources are required to submit risk management plan similar and in addition to RISO safety plans. An ARP engineer reviews risk management plans and performs CalARP Program audits simultaneously with ISO audits.

CCHHMP staff also perform unannounced inspections of CalARP program stationary sources that are also required to submit a risk management plan to the U.S. EPA. These inspections aim to exercise how a facility will respond to an incident, including notifying emergency response agencies and CCHHMP.

Page 67 of 327 ends

9 Annual Accident History Report and Inherently Safer Systems Implemented as Submitted by the Regulated Stationary Sources
The ISO requires stationary sources to update their accident history in their safety plans and include how they have used inherently safer processes within the last year. Tables III and IV summarize Inherently Safer Systems that have been implemented during this reporting period. Attachment B includes individual reports from stationary sources that also include the required reporting of four common process safety performance indicators.

Table III
Inherently Safer Systems Richmond ISO Facilities
(July 2020-June 2021)

Regulated
Stationary source
Inherently Safer System Implemented Design
Strategy
Approach
Chevron
Richmond Refinery
Reduced the potential of exposure by equipment
design (2 times)
Inherent Moderate
Reduced potential of exposure and hazard by
equipment design (2 times)
Active Moderate
Reduced potential of exposure by updating
procedures to reduce human error
(1 time)
Procedural Simplify
Chemtrade West
Richmond Works
Eliminated chemicals in process (1 time) Inherent Eliminate

Page 68 of 327 ends

10 Table IV
Inherently Safer Systems Contra Costa ISO Facilities
(July 2020-June 2021)

Regulated
Stationary
Source

Inherently Safer System Implemented

Design
Strategy

Approach
Air Liquide Large
Industries Rodeo
Hydrogen Plant
No new inherently safer systems have been implemented N/A N/A Air Products at MRC Simplified equipment design by changing equipment metallurgy.

Passive Simplify
Phillips 66 Rodeo
Refinery
Reduced hazard by changing chemicals used in
process (2 times)

Inherent Substitute
Reduced potential of exposure by changing layout or
design of equipment (5 times)
Passive Moderate
Reduced potential unit upset by changing equipment
or adding alarms (5 times)
Active Moderate
Reduced potential of exposure by removing
equipment from service (2 times)
Inherent Eliminate
Martinez Refining
Company – MRC
(formerly Shell
Martinez
Refinery)
Reduced potential of error by changing service in
procedure (10 times)
Procedural Simplify
Reduced potential of exposure by repairing
equipment or adding/replacing equipment (6 times)
Passive Moderate
Reduced potential unit upset by adding alarms (1
time)
Active Moderate

Status of the Incident Investigations, including the Root Cause Analyses Conducted by the Regulated Stationary Sources
The RISO requires regulated stationary sources to conduct an incident investigation including a root cause analysis (RCA) after each MCAR incident. MCAR incidents meet the definition of a Level 3 or Level 2 incident in the Community Warning System incident level classification system defined in the Hazardous Materials Incident Notification Policy, as determined by Contra Costa Health Services; or result in the release of a regulated substance and meet one or more of the following criteria:
• Results in one or more fatalities
• Results in at least 24 hours of hospital treatment of three or more persons • Causes on- and/or off-site property damage (including cleanup and restoration activities) initially estimated at $500,000 or more. On-site estimates shall be performed by the regulated stationary source. Off-site estimates shall be performed by appropriate agencies and compiled by Health Services • Results in a vapor cloud of flammables and/or combustibles that is more than 5,000 pounds The regulated stationary source is required to submit a report to CCHHMP 30 days after the root cause analysis is complete. There was one MCAR incident that occurred within this reporting period in Contra Costa County at a RISO

Page 69 of 327 ends

11 facility. All RCA reports for MCAR incident reports are available at the CCHHMP office and website.

Major Chemical Accidents or Releases
CCHHMP analyzed the number and severity of MCARs that occurred since the implementation of the ISO:
• Severity Level III — Resulted in a fatality, serious injuries or major on-site and/or off-site damage • Severity Level II — Resulted in an impact to the community, or could easily have become a Level III incident if the situation was slightly different, or it is a recurring type of incident at that facility • Severity Level I — Resulted in no or minor injuries, no or slight impact to the community, and no or minor on-site damage

These charts show MCARs from January 1999 through December 2021 for all stationary sources in Contra Costa County.

The charts include MCARs at stationary sources only, none that occurred during transportation.

0 2
4 6
8 10
12Number of MCAR's
Year

MAJOR CHEMICAL ACCIDENTS AND

RELEASES
Severity Level III
Severity Level II
Severity Level I
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total MCARS vs ISO/RISO MCARS
Total MCARs Total ISO MCARs Total RISO MCARSPage 70 of 327 12 Legal Enforcement Actions Initiated by Contra Costa Hazardous Materials Programs As part of the enforcement of the ISO and CalARP Program, CCHHMP staff may issue notices of deficiency on the safety and risk management plans of ISO-regulated facilities and may issue audit findings detailing what a stationary source is required to change to come into compliance with the regulations. CCHHMP has taken no legal enforcement actions on the ISO facilities during this reporting period.

Penalties Assessed as a Result of Enforcement
No penalties have been assessed in this period for noncompliance with the ISO.

Total Fees, Service Charges and Other Assessments Collected Specifically for the RISO
Fees charged for the ISO cover the time ARP engineers use to enforce the ordinance, the position of the Hazardous Materials Ombudsperson, outreach material and to cover a portion of the overhead for CCHHMP.

Fees charged for administering this ordinance for fiscal year 2020–2021 total $ 575,404.

Total Personnel and Personnel Years Used by Hazardous Materials Program to Implement the Richmond Industrial Safety Ordinance
ARP engineers review resubmitted Safety Plans, prepare and present information for public meetings, perform audits of stationary sources for compliance with both the CalARP Program and RISO and do follow-up work after MCARs. During the current reporting period:
• Approximately 2,668 hours total of CCHHMP personnel time was spent on the ISO during the current reporting period. This includes hours spent performing on-site audit activities, reviewing, and updating information for the website, performing safety plan reviews, follow-up of deficiencies from audits or plan reviews, preparing materials for presentations and/or public meetings, and participating in investigations (including Root Cause Analysis). The total does not include Ombudsperson time spent preparing for public meetings, working with engineers on questions arising from the ISO, and answering questions from the public on the ISO.

Comments from Interested Parties Regarding the Effectiveness of the Richmond Industrial Safety Ordinance
No comments were received by CCHHMP regarding RISO or ISO during current reporting period.

Page 71 of 327 ends

13 The Impact of the RISO on Improving Industrial Safety The RISO is one of four programs that work together to reduce the risk of accidental release from a regulated stationary source that could impact communities in Contra Costa County. Those programs are:
• The Process Safety Management Program administered by Cal/OSHA • The federal Accidental Release Prevention Program administered by the U.S. EPA • The California Accidental Release Prevention Program administered by CCHHMP • The Richmond Industrial Safety Ordinance, also administered by CCHHMP

Each of the programs is very similar in requirements. On October 1, 2017, California petroleum refineries are required to comply with requirements of CalARP Program 4 and OSHA PSM for refineries. Both are based on the ISO.

CalARP Program 3 differs from the Federal Accidental Release Prevention Program in the following ways:
• The number of chemicals regulated
• The threshold quantity of these chemicals
• An external events analysis, including seismic and security and vulnerability analysis, is required • Additional information in the Risk Management Plan
• CCHHMP is required to audit and inspect stationary sources at least once every three years • The interaction required between the stationary source and CCHHMP

The ISO differs from CalARP Program 3, which the chemical facilities are required to follow, in the following ways:
• Stationary sources are required to include a root cause analysis with the incident investigations for Major Chemical Accidents or Releases
• The stationary sources are required to consider inherently safer systems for existing processes, in the development and analysis of recommended action items identified in a process hazard analysis, as part of a management of change review, as part of incident investigation or root cause analysis development of recommendation, and during the design of new processes, process units and facilities. • All of the processes at the regulated stationary sources are covered • The implementation of a Human Factors Program evaluation of latent conditions in existing units, operating and maintenance procedures and in root cause analysis
• Managing changes in the organization for operations, maintenance and emergency response • A requirement that the stationary sources perform a Security and Vulnerability Analysis and test the effectiveness of the changes made as a result of the Security and Vulnerability Analysis • The stationary sources perform Safety Culture Assessments • Conduct, document and complete safeguard protection analysis for process hazard analysis to reduce catastrophic releases
• Use and report of process safety performance indicators in the annual performance review and evaluation report
Major Program difference of RISO from CalARP Program 4 and PSM for Refineries is that the Program 4 requirements include:
• Mechanical Integrity must include assessment of Damage Mechanism Review based on operating history and industry experience
• Process Hazard Analysis must include review of Damage Mechanism Review report compiled as part of process safety information
• Contractor and any subcontractors use a skilled and trained workforce pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 25536.7
• Require a Management System with specific requirements for managing and communicating recommendations from the prevention program elements

Page 72 of 327 ends

14 • Require a Stop Work procedure and an anonymous hazard reporting system

The Safety Culture Assessment guidance chapter was finalized in November 2009. The Industrial Safety Ordinance Guidance Document was updated to reflect all the updates in September 2010. The Accidental Release Prevention Engineers have participated with the Center for Chemical Process Safety on developing the second edition of Inherently Safer Chemical Processes, a book that is referenced in the ordinance and with the Center for Chemical Process Safety on developing process safety metrics for leading and lagging indicators. CCHHMP also participated in developing the third edition of CCPS: Inherently Safer Chemical Processes to further clarify and promote the practice and consideration of Inherently Safer System.

The success of Contra Costa’s programs at reducing MCARs and improving facility safety practices have been frequently cited as exemplary or model policies within the regulatory community:
• Contra Costa County was recognized as an alternative model for doing process-safety inspections by the CSB in its report on a 2005 refinery accident in Texas City, TX. The board also mentioned Contra Costa in its DVD, “Anatomy of a Disaster: Explosion at BP Texas City Refinery,” as a model resource. • CSB Chair Carolyn W. Merritt also recognized Contra Costa County in testimony to the House of Representatives Committee on Education and Labor.
• Senator Barbara Boxer, during a 2007 hearing to consider John Bresland’s nomination to chair of the CSB Board, asked Mr. Bresland about the Contra Costa County program for process safety audits of refineries and chemical companies.
• In its final investigation report of a 2008 incident at the Bayer CropScience Institute in West Virginia, the CSB recommended that regulatory agencies in the area audit their chemical facilities using Contra Costa County’s process. CCHHMP staff and a representative from the local United Steelworkers Union were part of a panel when the CSB presented this report to the Kanawha Valley community. • CCHHMP was asked to give testimony at a June 2010 hearing on “Work Place Safety and Worker Protections in the Gas and Oil Industry” before the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety regarding the success of Accidental Release Prevention Programs in place in Contra Costa County.
• In September 2012, CCHHMP was asked to present at the “Expert Forum on the Use of Performance-based Regulatory Models in the U.S. Oil and Gas Industry: Offshore and Onshore” in Texas City, Texas to share the regulatory experience at Contra Costa County and give testimony on how local, state and Federal agencies can work together and have an unprecedented alignment on regulations that is required for the same facilities. This meeting was spearheaded by Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration and attended by Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. EPA, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, United Steelworkers, American Petroleum Institute, academia and industry representatives.
• CCHHMP staff also testified at a June 2013 hearing on “Oversight of Federal Risk Management and Emergency Planning Programs to Prevent and Address Chemical Threats, Including the Events Leading up to the Explosions in West, TX and Geismar, LA” before the U.S. Senate’s Committee on Environment and Public Work

Page 73 of 327 ends

ATTACHMENT A

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

OMBUDSMAN REPORT
Hazardous Materials
Ombudsperson Evaluation

December 2020-
December 2021

Page 74 of 327 ends

16 1

I. INTRODUCTION

On July 15, 1997, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors authorized creation of an Ombudsman position for the County’s Hazardous Materials Programs. The first Hazardous Materials Ombudsman began work on May 1, 1998. The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors adopted an Industrial Safety Ordinance on December 15, 1998.

Section 450-8.022 of the Industrial Safety Ordinance requires the Health Services Department to continue to employ an Ombudsman for the Hazardous Materials Programs. Section 450-8.030(B)(vii) of the Industrial Safety Ordinance requires an annual evaluation of the effectiveness of the Hazardous Materials Ombudsman, with the first evaluation to be completed on or before October 31, 2000.

The goals of section 450-8.022 of the Industrial Safety Ordinance for the Hazardous Materials Ombudsman are:

1. To serve as a single point of contact for people who live or work in Contra Costa County regarding environmental health concerns, and questions and complaints about the Hazardous Materials Programs.

2. To investigate concerns and complaints, facilitate their resolution, and assist people in gathering information about programs, procedures, or issues.

3. To provide technical assistance to the public.

The Hazardous Materials Ombudsman currently accomplishes these goals through the following program elements:

1. Continuing an outreach strategy so that the people who live and work in Contra Costa County can know about and utilize the program.

2. Investigating and responding to questions and complaints, and assisting people in gathering information about programs, procedures, or issues.

3. Participating in a network of environmental programs for the purpose of providing technical assistance.

This evaluation covers the period from December 2020 through December 31,2021 for the Hazardous Materials Ombudsman program. The effectiveness of the program shall be demonstrated by showing that the activities of the Hazardous Materials Ombudsman meet the goals established in the Industrial Safety Ordinance. Due to the COVID 19 pandemic, 2021 was an unusual year. For the entire year the Ombudsman worked from home and conducted all business by phone or via virtual meetings. For those reasons, many of the activities of the Ombudsman were reduced this year in relation to previous years.

II. PROGRAM ELEMENTS

1. Continuing an Outreach Strategy

This period efforts were focused on maintaining the outreach tools currently available. The web page was maintained for the program as part of Contra Costa Health Services website. This page contains information about the program, links to other related websites, and information about upcoming meetings and events.

A toll-free phone number is published in all three Contra Costa County phone books in the Government section.

Page 75 of 327 ends

17 1

2. Investigating and Responding to Questions and Complaints, and Assisting in Information Gathering

During this period, the Hazardous Materials Ombudsman received 137 information requests. Over 95 percent of these requests occurred via the telephone and have been requests for information about environmental issues. Requests via e-mail are slowly increasing, mainly through referrals from Health Services main web page. Most of these requests concern problems around the home such as asbestos removal, household hazardous waste disposal, pesticide misuse, mold and lead contamination.

Information requests about environmental issues received via the telephone were generally responded to within one business day of being received. Many of the information requests were answered during the initial call. Some requests required the collection of information or written materials that often took several days to compile. Telephone requests were responded to by telephone unless written materials needed to be sent as part of the response.

In 2019 the Ombudsman began facilitating monthly debriefings of the Hazardous Materials Program Incident Response team incidents.

3. Participating in a Network of Environmental Programs for the Purpose of Providing Technical Assistance.

Technical assistance means helping the public understand the regulatory, scientific, political, and legal aspects of issues. It also means helping them understand how to effectively communicate their concerns within these different arenas. This year, the Ombudsman continued to staff a number of County programs and participate in other programs to be able to provide technical assistance to the participants and the public. All of these programs were virtual this year due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

• CAER (Community Awareness and Emergency Response)—This non-profit organization addresses industrial accident prevention, response and communication. The Ombudsman participated in the Emergency Notification subcommittee of CAER.

• Hazardous Materials Commission—In 2001, the Ombudsman took over as staff for the Commission. As staff to the Commission, the Ombudsman conducts research, prepared reports, drafts letters and provides support for 3 monthly Commission meetings. This year, the Commission made recommendations to the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure committee of the Board of Supervisors concerning potential policies to address the impacts of sea level rise on the storage, use and transportation of hazardous materials and hazardous waste in Contra Costa County. Conducted a survey of businesses potentially impacted directly by sea level rise, made recommendations to the County Board of Supervisors concerning the update to the County’s General Plan, made recommendations to the Board of Supervisors concerning treated wood waste management, provided input to the Hazardous Materials Program on proposed changes to the Hazardous Materials Notification Policy, sponsored two student internships for the 2020/2021 school year and appointed two new student interns for the 2021/2022 school year, and recommended candidates to the Board of Supervisors for the Environmental Engineer seat and alternate.

• Integrated Pest Management Advisory Committee—During this period the Ombudsman represented

Page 76 of 327 ends

18 1

the Health Department on the County Integrated Pest Management Advisory Committee. This Committee brings Department representatives and members of the public together to help implement the County’s Integrated Pest Management policy.

• Asthma Program—The Ombudsman participated in the Public Health Department’s Asthma Program as a resource on environmental health issues. The Ombudsman served on the Technical Advisory Board for RAMP, the Regional Asthma Management Prevention program, and supported the Public Health Department’s participation in the AB 617 Community Air Quality program in Richmond. The Ombudsman continued to facilitate the implementation of two grants to provide asthma trigger mitigations and energy efficiency improvements to Contra Costa Health Plan Medical clients with poorly controlled asthma. The Ombudsman partnered with staff from MCE, AEA, the Department of Conservation and Development, and Contra Costa Health Plan to implement this program. One grant was for three years and $528,000 from the Sierra Health Foundation and the other was for one year and $100,000 from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. The Ombudsman also began managing a two-year EPA grant for $200,000 to provide two community health clinics, Lifelong and La Clinica, funding to provide asthma trigger education and mitigations to their clients.

• Climate Change
During this period the Ombudsman provided technical assistance to the Public Health department on a variety of climate change issues. The Ombudsman participated in a County work-group to update the Climate Action Plan and the General Plan.

The Hazardous Materials Ombudsman also attended workshops, presentations, meetings and trainings on a variety of environmental issues to be better able to provide technical assistance to the public. Topics included Environmental Justice, Air Quality, emergency management, energy policy and land-use planning for greenhouse gas reduction.

III. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

The Hazardous Material Ombudsman continued to report to the Public Health Director on a day-to-day basis during this period, while still handling complaints and recommendations about the Hazardous Materials Programs through the Health Services Director. The Ombudsman was also a member of Health Services Emergency Management Team (EMT), participated in EMT trainings and drills, and participated on its HEEP management team

Page 77 of 327 ends

19 1

IV. GOALS FOR THE 2022 PERIOD

In this period, the Ombudsman will provide essentially the same services to Contra Costa residents as was provided in the last period. The Ombudsman will continue respond to questions and complaints about the actions of the Hazardous Materials Programs; answer general questions that come from the public and assist them in understanding regulatory programs; staff the Hazardous Materials Commission; represent the Public Health Department in the Integrated Pest Management Advisory Committee; and participate in the CAER Emergency Notification committee.

The Ombudsman will continue to be part of the Health Department’s EP3RC team and the Emergency Management Team.

During this period the Ombudsman will continue to provide technical assistance to Contra Costa Health on Climate Change issues by being on the County-wide work group updating the Climate Action Plan, providing input on the BCDC regional ART project, and representing Contra Costa Health on the BARHII Built Environment Committee. The Ombudsman will continue to work with collaboratives at the local, regional and state level. The Ombudsman will continue to coordinate the implementation of the three grants that were received to conduct the Asthma Mitigation Program and anticipates receiving another grant from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to conduct additional in-home asthma trigger assessments.

Page 78 of 327 ends

July 2020- June 2021

ATTACHMENT B

RICHMOND REGULATED

SOURCES ANNUAL

PERFORMANCE
With accident history and inherent safety implementation

Page 79 of 327 ends

46 Annual Performance Review and Evaluation
Submittal June 30, 2021
*Attach additional pages as necessary

1. Name and address of Stationary Source: Chevron U.S.A. Inc. (CUSA), Richmond Refinery, 841 Chevron Way, Richmond, California 94801

2. Contact name and telephone number (should CCHMP have questions): Maggie Botka,: 510-242-3361

3. Summarize the status of the Stationary Source’s Safety Plan and Program (450-8.030(B)(2)(i)):

The CUSA Richmond Refinery (Refinery) initial Site Safety Plan (SSP) was completed in 2003, and the most recent revision is dated July 24, 2018.. The SSP was prepared in accordance with the City of Richmond Industrial Safety Ordinance (RISO), which was adopted by the Richmond City Council on January 17, 2002.

4. Summarize Safety Plan updates (i.e., brief explanation of update and corresponding date) (450-8.030(B)(2)(ii)): The SSP was updated in 2018. The next revision will be shared in 3Q2021.

5. List of locations where Safety Plans are/will be available for review, including contact telephone numbers if the source will provide individuals with copies of the document (450-8.030(B)(2)(ii)): CCHMP Office at 4585 Pacheco Boulevard, Suite 100, Martinez; Martinez Library, Richmond Public Library at 325 Civic Center Plaza Richmond, CA 94804; and Point Richmond Public Library at 135 Washington Ave., Richmond, CA 94801.

6. Provide any additions to the annual accident history reports (i.e. updates) submitted pursuant to Section 450-8.016(E)(2) of County Ordinance 98-48 (450-8.030(B)(2)(iii)) (i.e., provide information identified in Section 450-8.016(E)(1) for all major chemical accidents or releases occurring between the last annual performance review report and the current annual performance review and evaluation submittal (12-month history)): There was one major chemical accidents or releases (“MCAR”) as defined in Section 450-8.014(h) between June 1, 2020 and June 1, 2021.The 2021 Site Safety Plan update will include the February 9, 2021 Wharf spill, which is the MCAR in question.

7. Summary of each Root Cause Analysis (Section 450-8.016(C)) including the status of the analysis and the status of implementation of recommendations formulated during the analysis (450-8.030(B)(2)(iv)): There was one MCAR event between June 1, 2020 and June 1, 2021, which was the February 9, 2021 Wharf spill. This event is still under investigation.

8. Summary of the status of implementation of recommendations formulated during audits, inspections, Root Cause Analyses, or Incident Investigations conducted by the Department (450-8.030(B)(2)(v)): The 2011 Cal APR/ISO Audit had 73 ensure and consider recommendations, from which 85 total action items were created, and 85 of those action items are complete. The final report and action plans from the 2013 Cal ARP/Richmond ISO audit were accepted by the County and Richmond Refinery in 2015. The 2013 Cal ARP/ISO audit had 163 ensure and consider recommendations, from which 177 total action items were created, and 177 of those action items are complete. The report and action plans from the 2016 Cal ARP/ Richmond ISO audit had 74 ensure and consider recommendations, from which 80 total action items were created, and 80 of those action items are complete. The ensure and consider items for the 2016 audit were finalized on November 6, 2017. The 2019 Cal ARP/ISO audit closing meeting was held on June 28th 2019.

There were 97 ensure and consider recommendations, from which 110 total action items were created, and 100 of those action items are complete.

Page 80 of 327 ends

47 9. Summary of inherently safer systems implemented by the source including but not limited to inventory reduction (i.e., intensification) and substitution (450-8.030(B)(2)(vi)): See Attachment 1 on page 5.

10. Summarize the enforcement actions (including Notice of Deficiencies, Audit Reports, and any actions turned over to the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office) taken with the Stationary Source pursuant to Section 450-8.028 of County Ordinance 98-48 (450-8.030(B) (2)(vii)): There were no enforcement actions during this period.

11. Summarize total penalties assessed as a result of enforcement of this Chapter (450-8.030(3)):

No penalties have been assessed against this facility.

12. Summarize the total fees, service charges, and other assessments collected specifically for the support of the ISO (450-8.030(B)(4)): The total CalARP Program fees for the eight facilities subject to the Industrial Safety Ordinance was $603,958. The total Industrial Safety Ordinance program fees for these eight facilities was—$575,404. (NOTE: These fees include those for the County and City of Richmond ISO facilities).

13. Summarize total personnel and personnel years utilized by the jurisdiction to directly implement or administer this Chapter (450-8.030(B)(5)): 2,668 hours were used to audit/inspect and issue reports on the Risk Management Chapter of the Industrial Safety Ordinance.

14. Copies of any comments received by the source (that may not have been received by the Department) regarding the effectiveness of the local program that raise public safety issues(450-8.030(B)(6)): No comments were received during this period regarding the effectiveness of the local program that raise public safety issues.

15. Summarize how this Chapter improves industrial safety at your stationary source (450-8.030(B)(7)):Operating safely is one of CUSA’s core values and underpins our commitment to enhancing our process safety programs. The RISO assists CUSA in improving our process safety performance. We have worked closely with CCHMP in its implementation of the RISO and its oversight of our operations, including during its periodic reviews of our operations. Consistent with this commitment, and as part of the company’s efforts to continually improve its process safety performance, CUSA will continue to confer with the CCHMP as it refines and implements these actions.

In addition to the Inherently Safer Systems implemented in Question 9, CUSA has also made other changes to the facility pursuant to the RISO and beyond to decrease the severity or likelihood of accidental releases. A few examples include the following:
• Changes implemented based on findings from Tier 1 and Tier 2 Incident Investigation with solutions due between June 2020 to June 2021

Page 81 of 327 ends

48 » Replace in kind bad order flow meter.
» Stress analysis to determine if/where additional supports need to be added » Upgraded to alloy 825 on bottoms piping system from carbon steel » Replaced heat exchanger shell with upgraded alloy
• Continued effort to conduct Fixed Equipment Asset Strategies (FEAS) Piping studies. These studies improve the refinery’s existing asset strategy, designed to prevent and mitigate loss of containment in piping systems and to describe the process for creating and maintaining these strategies. • SRCM (Streamlined Reliability-Centered Maintenance) continued implementing studies to set up ITPM’s (inspection, testing, and preventative maintenance tasks) refinery wide. • Continued effort to conduct Damage Mechanism Reviews (DMRs) on PSM-covered equipment and piping.

• Equipment and procedural changes implemented to reduce risks identified during PHAs, including:
» Richmond has developed a comprehensive Centrifugal Pump Seal Upgrade (CPSU) program.

Centrifugal pump seal upgrades are inherently safer solutions. Seal upgrades will either reduce or eliminate the hazard associated with seal failure.
» Continued effort to conduct procedural PHAs across refinery units to identify and mitigate potential human factors that may lead to loss of containment; with a focus on emergency, startup, and shutdown procedures.

17. Summarize the emergency response activities conducted at the source (e.g., CWS or TEN activation) in response to major chemical accidents or releases: There was one CWS 2 activation on February 9, 2021 in response to an MCAR. The Chevron Fire Department Incident Command System took lead of the incident for oil spill recovery and clean up. There was mutual aid (Spill response taskforce) for this event. Everyone listed on the communications responded to this event. The following agencies responded: Bay Area A ir Quality Management District (BAAQMD), CDFW-OSPR, Richmond Fire Department, Contra Costa County Health Services Department, Easy Bay Regional Parks, MSRC, Oiled Wildlife Care Network (OWCN), Cal OSHA, Richmond Local Police Department, USCG.

18. Date the last Safety Culture Assessment was completed: Data collected October 2020 and ready to report to work force.

19. Date the results of the Safety Culture Assessment were reported to the workforce and management:

Ready to report out to work force.

20. Answer the following regarding the Safety Culture Evaluation Previous to the one listed in 18:
• Survey method: Online survey
• Areas of improvements being addressed: Training, resource planning, staffing/succession planning • Action Plan made Progress on the identified areas of improvement? (Yes or No) Yes~ o If Yes, did the improvements meet the goals and if not was the action plan amended to address what is being done to meet the goals? Yes, action plan and metrics developed. In the process of being implemented. o If No, has a new action plan been developed to address the identified areas of improvement? (Yes or No) N/A

21. Have milestones and metrics been developed to determine how the Safety Culture Assessment actions are being implemented? Yes, or if not, Why not? Yes, milestones are tracked in the Chevron Database system of record (KMS)

Page 82 of 327 ends

49 22. Describe the process that included employees and their representatives used to determine if the action items effectively changed the expected culture items: Employees and their representatives were involved in the review of data, development of the improvement suggestions as well as the development of the final action items. Through the process of meeting with the representatives we came to agreement on what data needed an action and what action would solve the milestones.

23. Date of the mid-cycle progress evaluation: Not required until ~May 2024 from the RI-333. The PSCA team (with Union Representatives) shall conduct a written Interim Assessment of the implementation and effectiveness of each PSCA corrective action within three (3) years following the completion of a PSCA report. If a corrective action is found to be ineffective, the employer shall implement changes necessary to ensure effectiveness in a timely manner not to exceed six (6) months. » o Did the action plan (for no 18) make progress on the identified areas of improvement? Yes or if not, has a new action pan been developed? (Yes or No) N/A

24. If a mid-cycle progress evaluation was performed during this reporting year, describe the process that included participation of employees or their representatives that determined whether the action items effectively changed the expected culture items: N/A.

25. Common Process Safety Performance Indicators:

Overdue inspection for piping and pressure
vessels based on total number of circuits

2020 Overdue Repeat
January 0 0
February 0 0
March 0 0
April 0 0
May 0 0
June 0 0
July 0 0
August 0 0
September 0 0
October 0 0
November 0 0
December 0 0
Total number of circuits: 6,883*
Total number of annual planned circuit inspection: 2,196* *An ongoing project is re-evaluating piping circuit designations to align each circuit with the anticipated damage mechanisms. As the project progresses, the total number of piping circuits and subsequently, the number inspected, will change to accommodate the long-term strategy for inspections and reliability.

Page 83 of 327 ends

50 Past due PHA recommended actions, includes
seismic and LCC recommended actions

2020 Overdue Repeat
January 0 0
February 0 0
March 0 0
April 0 0
May 0 0
June 0 0
July 0 0
August 0 0
September 0 0
October 0 0
November 0 0
December 0 0

Past due investigation recommended actions
for API/ACC Tier 1 and Tier 2 incidents

2020 Overdue Repeat
January 0 0
February 0 0
March 0 0
April 0 0
May 0 0
June 0 0
July 0 0
August 0 0
September 0 0
October 0 0
November 0 0
December 0 0

Page 84 of 327 ends

51 API/ACC TIER 1 & TIER 2

INCIDENTS AND RATES
STARTING 2011

Refinery or
Industry Rate1
Refinery or
Industry Mean2
Tier 2 LOPC
Incident rate for
Tier 2
Refinery Rate1
Refinery Mean2

0.1553

**
**

0.0995 0.0947 0.0995 0.1038 0.0627 0.0761 0.0570 0.0608 **

1.49 1.30 1.38 1.55 1.01 1.13 0.92 1.03 **

0.2405 0.2531 0.2380 0.2063 0.1726 0.1843 0.1728 0.1574 ** ** ** ** 3.08 2.78 2.73 2.79 2.67 **

1Petroleum refineries to report publicly available refinery rate for API Tier 1 and Tier 2 classification. Chemical plants to report publicly available mean only for ACC Tier 1 2Petroleum refineries to report publicly available refinery mean for API Tier 1 and Tier 2 classification. Chemical plants to report publicly available mean only for ACC Tier 1

26. Process Safety Performance Indicators for refineries only:

I. Number of Major Incidents in 2018: 0
II. The number of temporary piping and equipment repairs that are installed on hydrocarbon and high energy utility systems that are past their date of replacement with a permanent repair. 2020 Total Overdue Repeat
January 65 0 0
February 66 0 0
March 66 0 0
April 66 0 0
May 67 0 0
June 68 0 0
July 68 0 0
August 68 0 0
September 68 0 0
October 68 0 0
November 67 0 0
Year '11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16 '17 '18 '19 '20
No. Tier 1 LOPC 4 3 0 1 2 1 1 1 0 0
Incident rate for 0.14 0.11 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 Tier 1

5 8 3 1 3 5 4 0 1

0.18 0.29 0.19 0.07 0.02 0.07 0.10 0.06 0.00 0.31

Page 85 of 327 ends

52 December 38 0 0
TOTAL 38 0 0
*the total number of temporary piping and equipment repairs installed on hydrocarbon and high energy utility systems.

Page 86 of 327 ends

53 Attachment 1—Question 9

Risk Reduction
Category ISS Approach Description

Inherent

Moderate
Installed piping for rerouting SDA feed piping around charge solution trim coolers and routing only circulating solvent through them because feed has a history of plugging charge solution trim coolers.

Active

Safeguard
Eliminated known relief deficiencies and integrity threats on the North/ South Isomax relief header. Scope included removing out of service inert gas piping and installing new relief valves, inlet and downstream piping, and a new letdown station..

Active

Safeguard
Implemented multiple Safety Instrumented functions such as furnace trips and reverse flow prevention devices to properly mitigate scenarios that could result in major incidents from loss of containment.

Inherent Eliminate
& Moderate
Implemented multiple centrifugal pump seal upgrades to either reduce or eliminate loss of containment resulting from seal failures.

Procedural

Safeguard

Updated procedures resulting from Procedural PHAs to reduce human error that could result in a major incident from a loss of containment

Inherent

Substitute

Richmond Refinery can convert a portion of the existing anhydrous ammonia inventory into Hydrogen and Nitrogen and this will lead to a reduction in anhydrous ammonia inventory within the refinery.

Page 87 of 327 ends

54 Annual Performance Review and Evaluation
Submittal June 30, 2021
*Attach additional pages as necessary

1. Name and address of Stationary Source: Chemtrade Logistics West US, LLC. 525 Castro St. Richmond, CA 94801

2. Contact name and telephone number (should CCHMP have questions): Mike Shepherd – 510- 685-8791

3. Summarize the status of the Stationary Source’s Safety Plan and Program (450-8.030(B)(2)(i)):

The sites Safety Plan is currently up to date after program reviews were completed in 2019.

4. Summarize Safety Plan updates (i.e., brief explanation of update and corresponding date) (450-8.030(B)(2)(ii)): The 2019 Safety Plan submittal included updates to meet current site practices including changes to the site’s investigation and corrective action plans, human factor s program, process hazard analysis procedures and document control procedures.

6. Provide any additions to the annual accident history reports (i.e., updates) submitted pursuant to Section 450-8.016(E)(2) of County Ordinance 98-48 (450-8.030(B)(2)(iii)) (i.e., provide information identified in Section 450-8.016(E)(1) for all major chemical accidents or releases occurring between the last annual performance review report and the current annual performance review and evaluation submittal (12-month history)): No new accidents in the previous 12 months.

9. Summary of inherently safer systems implemented by the source including but not limited to inventory reduction (i.e., intensification) and substitution (450-8.030(B)(2)(vi)): Source has eliminated the production of petroleum as of December 2020.

Page 88 of 327 ends

55 10. Summarize the enforcement actions (including Notice of Deficiencies, Audit Reports, and any actions turned over to the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office) taken with the Stationary Source pursuant to Section 450-8.028 of County Ordinance 98-48 (450-8.030(B)(2) (vii)):

There were no enforcement actions during this period.

11. Summarize total penalties assessed as a result of enforcement of this Chapter (450-8.030(3)):

No penalties have been assessed against this facility.

12. Summarize the total fees, service charges, and other assessments collected specifically for the support of the ISO (450-8.030(B)(4)): The total CalARP Program fees for the eight facilities subject to the Industrial Safety Ordinance was $603,958. The total Industrial Safety Ordinance program fees for these eight facilities was - $575,404. (NOTE: These fees include those for the County and City of Richmond ISO facilities).

14. Copies of any comments received by the source (that may not have been received by the Department) regarding the effectiveness of the local program that raise public safety issues(450-8.030(B)(6)): No additional comments have been received by the source.

15. Summarize how this Chapter improves industrial safety at your stationary source (450-8.030(B)(7)): The ISO ordinance helps the site to continually improve its implementation of new policies and changes to processes by encouraging more thorough system reviews, executing a more inclusive Human Factors program and continually promoting Inherently Safer Systems.

Site has
made significant improvements to its MOC, PHA and ISS programs due to the Industrial Safety Ordinance.

17. Summarize the emergency response activities conducted at the source (e.g., CWS or TEN activation) in response to major chemical accidents or releases: No major chemical accidents or releases since last report

18. Date the last Safety Culture Assessment was completed: 8/14/18

19. Date the results of the Safety Culture Assessment were reported to the workforce and management: 9/19/18

20. Answer the following regarding the Safety Culture Evaluation Previous to the one listed in 18:
• Survey method: Anonymous multiple choice survey developed with comments available for each question • Areas of improvements being addressed: Improve safety incentives and improve including hourly employees when conducting investigations
• Action Plan made Progress on the identified areas of improvement?: (Yes or No) Yes

Page 89 of 327 ends

56 » If Yes, did the improvements meet the goals and if not was the action plan amended to address what is being done to meet the goals? Process is on-going. Another SCA will be conducted to measure success.
» If No, has a new action plan been developed to address the identified areas of improvement? (Yes or No)

21. Have milestones and metrics been developed to determine how the Safety Culture Assessment actions are being implemented? Yes or if not, Why not? Yes

22. Describe the process in place that includes employees and their representatives that will determine if the action items effectively changed the expected culture items: A follow-up SCA will be conducted in 2022.

23. Date of the mid-cycle progress evaluation: Scheduled for October 2021 o Did the action plan (for no 18) make progress on the identified areas of improvement? Yes or if not, has a new action pan been developed? (Yes or No)

No. A new action plan will be developed post safety culture assessment conducted in 2022.

25. Common Process Safety Performance Indicators:

Overdue inspection for piping and pressure
vessels based on total number of circuits

2020 Overdue Repeat
January 0 0
February 0 0
March 0 0
April 0 0
May 0 0
June 0 0
July 0 0
August 0 0
September 0 0
October 0 0
November 0 0
December 0 0

Total number of circuits: 382
Total number of annual planned circuit inspections: 382

Page 90 of 327 ends

57 Past due PHA recommended actions, includes
seismic and LCC recommended actions

2020 Overdue Repeat
January 0 0
February 0 0
March 0 0
April 0 0
May 0 0
June 0 0
July 0 0
August 0 0
September 0 0
October 0 0
November 0 0
December 0 0

Past due investigation recommended actions
for API/ACC Tier 1 and Tier 2 incidents

2020 Overdue Repeat
January 0 0
February 0 0
March 0 0
April 0 0
May 0 0
June 0 0
July 0 0
August 0 0
September 0 0
October 0 0
November 0 0
December 0 0

Page 91 of 327 ends

58 API/ACC TIER 1 & TIER 2

INCIDENTS AND RATES
STARTING 2011

Tier 1
Refinery or
Industry Rate1
Refinery or
Industry Mean
2 Tier 2 LOPC
Incident rate for
Tier 2
Refinery Rate1
Refinery Mean2

26. Process Safety Performance Indicators for refineries only:

I. Number of Major Incidents in 2018: N/A
II. The number of temporary piping and equipment repairs that are installed on hydrocarbon and high energy utility systems that are past their date of replacement with a permanent repair.

2020 Total Overdue Repeat
January 0 0
February 0 0
March 0 0
April 0 0
May 0 0
June 0 0
July 0 0
August 0 0
September 0 0
October 0 0
November 0 0
December 0 0
TOTAL 0 0
*the total number of temporary piping and equipment repairs installed on hydrocarbon and high energy utility systems.

Year '11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16 '17 '18 '19 '20
No. Tier 1 LOPC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Incident rate for 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.8 0

Page 92 of 327 ends

July 2020-June 2021

ATTACHMENT C

COUNTY REGULATED

SOURCES ANNUAL

PERFORMANCE
Contra Costa Health Services Page 93 of 327
21 Annual Performance Review and Evaluation
Submittal June 30, 2021
*Attach additional pages as necessary

1. Name and address of Stationary Source: Air Liquide Rodeo Hydrogen Plant, 1391 San Pablo Ave., Rodeo, California 94572

2. Contact name and telephone number (should CCHMP have questions): Nidhi Jacob (281)917-3895

3. Summarize the status of the Stationary Source’s Safety Plan and Program (450-8.030(B)(2)(i)):

This facility utilizes the programs and procedures identified in the ISO Safety Program/Plan. Additionally, the site is in regular communication with the county regarding updates for the ongoing section E. Safety Plan guidance document review.

4. Summarize Safety Plan updates (i.e., brief explanation of update and corresponding date) (450-8.030(B)(2)(ii)): Several documents have been updated – Rodeo Inherently Safety Systems Policy (Dec 2020), Rodeo Latent Conditions Procedure (Dec 2020), Rodeo Process Hazard Analysis for Covered Processes (Oct 2020).

6. Provide any additions to the annual accident history reports (i.e. updates) submitted pursuant to Section 450-8.016(E)(2) of County Ordinance 98-48 (450-8.030(B)(2)(iii)) (i.e., provide information identified in Section 450-8.016(E)(1) for all major chemical accidents or releases occurring between the last annual performance review report and the current annual performance review and evaluation submittal (12-month history)): There were no major chemical accidents or releases during the past 12 months.

7. Summary of each Root Cause Analysis (Section 450-8.016(C)) including the status of the analysis and the status of implementation of recommendations formulated during the analysis (450-8.030(B)(2)(iv)): There were no major chemical accidents or releases in the past 12 months.

9. Summary of inherently safer systems implemented by the source including but not limited to inventory reduction (i.e., intensification) and substitution (450-8.030(B)(2)(vi)):

Reviewed MOCs
following ISS evaluation and change methodology

10. Summarize the enforcement actions (including Notice of Deficiencies, Audit Reports, and any actions turned over to the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office) taken with the Stationary Source pursuant to Section 450-8.028 of County Ordinance 98-48 (450-8.030(B)(2) (vii)): There were no enforcement actions during this period.

Page 94 of 327 ends

22 11. Summarize total penalties assessed as a result of enforcement of this Chapter (450-8.030(3)):

No penalties have been assessed against this facility.

12. Summarize the total fees, service charges, and other assessments collected specifically for the support of the ISO (450-8.030(B)(4)): The total CalARP Program fees for the eight facilities subject to the Industrial Safety Ordinance was $822,604. The total Industrial Safety Ordinance program fees for these eight facilities was $575,404. (NOTE: These fees include those for the County and City of Richmond ISO facilities).

15. Summarize how this Chapter improves industrial safety at your stationary source (450-8.030(B) (7)): This chapter reinforces the need to maintain, follow, and continuously improve our structured safety program to help ensure the safety of our employees and the community in which we operate.

16. List examples of changes made at your stationary source due to implementation of the Industrial Safety Ordinance (e.g., recommendations from PHA’s, Compliance Audits, and Incident Investigations in units not subject to CalARP regulations; recommendations from RCA’s) that significantly decrease the severity or likelihood of accidental releases. LCC Procedure reviews were facilitated by RMP Corp in October 2020. The recommendations that resulted from the review were incorporated to the procedures and updated. PHA evaluation for the facility scheduled for August 2021.

17. Summarize the emergency response activities conducted at the source (e.g., CWS or TEN activation) in response to major chemical accidents or releases: Tabletop Emergency drill was conducted in Dec 2020 and attendees included Rodeo -Hercules Fire dept, Air Liquide Operations and HSE specialist, CCHS, P66 Emergency Response. A drill will be conducted in 2021 as well.

18. Date the last Safety Culture Assessment was completed: October-November 2019

19. Date the results of the Safety Culture Assessment were reported to the workforce and management: December 2019

20. Answer the following regarding the Safety Culture Evaluation Previous to the one listed in 18:
• Survey method: 34 Question Survey with contractors & operations personnel

21. Have milestones and metrics been developed to determine how the Safety Culture Assessment actions are being implemented? Yes or if not, Why not? N/A

22. Describe the process in place that includes employees and their representatives that will determine if the action items effectively changed the expected culture items: N/A The processes include CCHS ISO & Safety Plan audits, the inclusion of LCC & ISS within the ISO program, and organizations PSM efforts internal to Air Liquide

Page 95 of 327 ends

23 23. Date of the mid-cycle progress evaluation: N/A
o Did the action plan (for no 18) make progress on the identified areas of improvement? Yes or if not, has a new action pan been developed? (Yes or No) N/A

25. Common Process Safety Performance Indicators:

Overdue inspection for piping and pressure
vessels based on total number of circuits

1. Total number of circuits: 187 piping circuits & 36 vessels

2. Total number of annual planned circuit inspection: 11 water circuits deferred till July 2023 due to Low consequence of failure based on RBI study. Deferral letter attached. 2020 Overdue Repeat
January 11 11
February 11 11
March 11 11
April 11 11
May 11 11
June 11 11
July 11 11
August 11 11
September 11 11
October 11 11
November 11 11
December 11 11
TOTAL 11 11

Page 96 of 327 ends

24 Past due PHA recommended actions, includes
seismic and LCC recommended actions

2020 Overdue Repeat
January 5 5
February 5 5
March 5 5
April 5 5
May 5 5
June 5 5
July 5 5
August 5 5
September 5 5
October 5 5
November 5 5
December 2 2
TOTAL 2 2
Past due investigation recommended actions
for API/ACC Tier 1 and Tier 2 incidents

2020 Overdue Repeat
January 0 0
February 0 0
March 0 0
April 0 0
May 0 0
June 0 0
July 0 0
August 0 0
September 0 0
October 0 0
November 0 0
December 0 0

Page 97 of 327 ends

API/ACC TIER 1 & TIER 2

INCIDENTS AND RATES
STARTING 2011

Year '11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16 '17 '18 '19 '20
No. Tier 1 LOPC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Incident rate
for Tier 1
Refinery or
Industry Rate1
Refinery or
Industry Mean2
Tier 2 LOPC
Incident rate for
Tier 2
Refinery Rate1
Refinery Mean2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
1Petroleum refineries to report publicly available refinery rate for API Tier 1 and Tier 2 classification. Chemical plants to report publicly available mean only for ACC Tier 1
2Petroleum refineries to report publicly available refinery mean for API Tier 1 and Tier 2 classification. Chemical plants to report publicly available mean only for ACC Tier 1

26. Process Safety Performance Indicators for refineries only:

I. Number of Major Incidents in 2020: N/A
II. The number of temporary piping and equipment repairs that are installed on hydrocarbon and high energy utility systems that are past their date of replacement with a permanent repair:

2020 Overdue Repeat
January 0 0
February 0 0
March 0 0
April 0 0
May 0 0
June 0 0
July 0 0
August 0 0
September 0 0
October 0 0
November 0 0
December 0 0
*the total number of temporary piping and equipment repairs installed on hydrocarbon and high energy utility systems.

Page 98 of 327 ends

26 Annual Performance Review and Evaluation
Submittal June 30, 2021
*Attach additional pages as necessary

1. Name and address of Stationary Source:

Air Products—Shell Martinez Refinery, 110 Waterfront Road, Martinez, CA 94553

2. Contact name and telephone number (should CCHMP have questions): Nicola Maher, 925-723-1517

3. Summarize the status of the Stationary Source’s Safety Plan and Program (450-8.030(B)(2) (i)): The stationary source’s safety plan was submitted to CCHS in October 2020. CCHS audited the site in Q4 2020 and at time of submission, the report was in draft.

4. Summarize Safety Plan updates (i.e., brief explanation of update and corresponding date) (450-8.030(B)(2)(ii)): The October 2020 Safety Plan submission included routine updates to sections describing Process Safety Programs and changes required from previous audit items. There were no MCARS so no additions to that section in the Safety Plan.

5. List of locations where Safety Plans are/will be available for review, including contact telephone numbers if the source will provide individuals with copies of the document (450-8.030(B)(2)(ii)): CCCHMP Office at 4585 Pacheco Boulevard, Suite 100, Martinez; Martinez Library (libraries closest to the stationary source).

7. Summary of each Root Cause Analysis (Section 450-8.016(C)) including the status of the analysis and the status of implementation of recommendations formulated during the analysis (450-8.030(B)(2)(iv)): No Root Cause Analysis were required in the last calendar year and there are no outstanding action items from previous root cause investigations

8. Summary of the status of implementation of recommendations formulated during audits, inspections, Root Cause Analyses, or Incident Investigations conducted by the Department (450-8.030(B)(2)(v)):

FCCHS Site Audit occurred in Q4 2020. At time of submission of this document the audit is under review and not finalized. At time of submission, there are no open recommendations from inspections, root cause analyses or incident investigations.

9. Summary of inherently safer syste. ms implemented by the source including but not limited to inventory reduction (i.e., intensification) and substitution (450-8.030(B)(2)(vi)):

TE-109 Steam Superheat Thermocouple was replaced with a model with Upgrade CG Detectors w/ Draeger Polytron 8200 DQ Model (Simplification) PSA Vote Boat Configuration Changes - Help reduce single point of failure on PSA voting scheme (Simplification)added material that reduces the risk of failure of the thermocouple in service. (Simplification).

10. Summarize the enforcement actions (including Notice of Deficiencies, Audit Reports, and any actions turned over to the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office) taken with the Stationary Source pursuant to Section 450-8.028 of County Ordinance 98-48 (450-8.030(B)(2)(vii)): There were no enforcement actions during this period.

Page 99 of 327 ends

27 11. Summarize total penalties assessed as a result of enforcement of this Chapter (450-8.030(3)):

No penalties have been assessed against this facility.

12. Summarize the total fees, service charges, and other assessments collected specifically for the support of the ISO (450-8.030(B)(4)): The total CalARP Program fees for the eight facilities subject to the Industrial Safety Ordinance was $603,958. The total Industrial Safety Ordinance program fees for these eight facilities was— $575,404 (NOTE: These fees include those for the County and City of Richmond ISO facilities).

15. Summarize how this Chapter improves industrial safety at your stationary source (450-8.030(B) (7)): Air Products is committed to the safer operation of our facilities and has implemented applicable requirements outlined in the ISO and CalARP regulations. Both the ISO and Human Factors programs are an integral part of our five year Operating Hazard Review revalidations and on going management of change process. The most recent OPHR (PHA) was conducted in February 2020. There have been no incidents resulting in an offsite impact. The Chapter has helped reinforce the need to maintain and follow a structured safety program to help ensure the safety of our employees and the communities in which we operate. The site conducted its Safety Culture assessment in August and September 2019.

17. Summarize the emergency response activities conducted at the source (e.g., CWS or TEN activation) in response to major chemical accidents or releases: None.

18. Date the last Safety Culture Assessment was completed: January 2015 Survey method:

August 2019.

19. Date the results of the Safety Culture Assessment were reported to the workforce and management: Sept. 16-18, 2019.

Page 100 of 327 ends

20. Answer the following regarding the Safety Culture Evaluation previous to the one listed in 18:
• Survey method: Electronic, Anonymous Survey
• Areas of improvements being addressed: 2020 actions focus on improving Accident Prevention Techniques (APTs), safety suggestions and near miss reporting. BSPs (Monthly Safety Meetings) used as the forum for communication. Future actions will focus on Contractor safety and Maintenance Safety
• Action Plan made Progress on the identified areas of improvement?: (Yes or No) – If Yes, did the improvements meet the goals and if not was the action plan amended to address what is being done to meet the goals? N/A
– If No, has a new action plan been developed to address the identified areas of improvement? (Yes or No).

21. Have milestones and metrics been developed to determine how the Safety Culture Assessment actions are being implemented? Yes or if not, Why not? No – N/A (only Program 4 requires this)

22. Describe the process in place that includes employees and their representatives that will determine if the action items effectively changed the expected culture items: The next survey results will show whether actions were effective.

Date of the mid-cycle progress evaluation: N/A Program 4 • Did the action plan (for no 18) make progress on the identified areas of improvement? Yes or if not, has a new action pan been developed? (Yes or No) N/A

23. If a mid-cycle progress evaluation was performed during this reporting year, describe the process that included participation of employees or their representatives that determined whether the action items effectively changed the expected culture items: N/A – Program 4

24. Common Process Safety Performance Indicators:

Overdue inspection for piping and pressure
vessels based on total number of circuits

2020 Overdue Repeat
January 0 0
February 0 0
March 0 0
April 0 0
May 0 0
June 0 0
July 0 0
August 0 0
September 0 0
October 0 0
November 0 0
December 0 0
Total number of circuits: 89 Circuits were inspected in FY20 (660 total) Total number of annual planned circuit inspections: 57 circuits are scheduled for FY21

28 Page 101 of 327
29 Past due PHA recommended actions, includes
seismic and LCC recommended actions

2020 Overdue Repeat
January 0 0
February 0 0
March 0 0
April 0 0
May 0 0
June 0 0
July 0 0
August 0 0
September 0 0
October 0 0
November 0 0
December 0 0

Past due investigation recommended actions
for API/ACC Tier 1 and Tier 2 incidents

2020 Overdue Repeat
January 0 0
February 0 0
March 0 0
April 0 0
May 0 0
June 0 0
July 0 0
August 0 0
September 0 0
October 0 0
November 0 0
December 0 0

Page 102 of 327 ends

30 Year '11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16 '17 '18 '19 '20
No. Tier 1 LOPC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Incident rate
for Tier 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

API/ACC TIER 1 & TIER 2

INCIDENTS AND RATES
STARTING 2011

Refinery or
Industry Rate1
Refinery or
Industry Mean2
Tier 2 LOPC
Incident rate for
Tier 2
Refinery Rate1
Refinery Mean2

1Petroleum refineries to report publicly available refinery rate for API Tier 1 and Tier 2 classification. Chemical plants to report publicly available mean only for ACC Tier 1
2Petroleum refineries to report publicly available refinery mean for API Tier 1 and Tier 2 classification. Chemical plants to report publicly available mean only for ACC Tier 1

26. Process Safety Performance Indicators for refineries only:

I. Number of Major Incidents in 2020:

II. The number of temporary piping and equipment repairs that are installed on hydrocarbon and high energy utility systems that are past their date of replacement with a permanent repair:

0 1.49

1.30 1.38

1.55 1.01

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 .24 .253 .238 .206 .172 .179 .172 .017 0
0 0 0 0 3.08 2.78 0 0 0 0

Page 103 of 327 ends

31 Annual Performance Review and Evaluation
Submittal June 30, 2021
*Attach additional pages as necessary

1. Name and address of Stationary Source: Phillips 66 Rodeo Refinery, 1380 San Pablo Avenue, Rodeo, CA 94572

2. Contact name and telephone number (should CCHMP have questions): Morgan Walker 510-245-4665

3. Summarize the status of the Stationary Source’s Safety Plan and Program (450-8.030(B)(2)(i)):

The Safety Plan was last updated in August of 2018. The Phillips 66 Refinery was audited by the county’s Hazardous Materials Program in January 2020

4. Summarize Safety Plan updates (i.e., brief explanation of update and corresponding date) (450-8.030(B)(2)(ii)): The original Safety Plan for this facility was filed with Contra Costa Health Services on January 14, 2000. A revised plan was filed on April 7, 2000 with the updated recommendations requested by CCHS.

A Human Factors Amendment was submitted on January 15, 2001. In conjunction with CCHS's required 2nd public meeting on our plan and audit findings, we submitted a complete revision of the plan to reflect the change in ownership of our facility and to update where needed. We took this opportunity to include Human Factors within the plan instead of having it as an amendment. On August 9, 2002 the plan was resubmitted. Public meetings for our plans were held on June 22, 2004 in Rodeo and July 8, 2004 in Crockett. As required the Plan was fully updated in August 2005 on the 3 year cycle. The Plan was reviewed by CCHS and was revised on July 28, 2006 with recommended changes. The Safety Plan was updated in July 2009 per the 3 year cycle.. Recommendations requested by CCHMP were incorporated into the Safety Plan on November 4, 2010. Safety Plan was updated in August 2012 and August 2015 per the 3 year cycle. Recommendations requested by CCHMP on May 22, 2017 were incorporated into the plan on August 4, 2017. An updated Safety Plan was submitted in August 2018. The plan will be updated in 2021 per the 3 year cycle.

5. List of locations where Safety Plans are/will be available for review, including contact telephone numbers if the source will provide individuals with copies of the document (450-8.030(B)(2)(ii)): CCHMP Office at 4585 Pacheco Boulevard, Suite 100, Martinez; Crockett and Rodeo Libraries (libraries closest to the stationary source).

6. Provide any additions to the annual accident history reports (i.e. updates) submitted pursuant to Section 450-8.016(E)(2) of County Ordinance 98-48 (450-8.030(B)(2)(iii)) (i.e., provide information identified in Section 450-8.016(E)(1) for all major chemical accidents or releases occurring between the last annual performance review report and the current annual performance review and evaluation submittal (12-month history)): There were no major chemical accidents or releases at the Rodeo Refinery in the June 1, 2020 to May 31, 2021 reporting time period.

7. Summary of each Root Cause Analysis (Section 450-8.016(C)) including the status of the analysis and the status of implementation of recommendations formulated during the analysis (450-8.030(B)(2)(iv)): There were no root cause analysis of major chemical accidents or releases at the Rodeo Refinery in the 2018–2019 time period.

Page 104 of 327 ends

32 8. Summary of the status of implementation o45f recommendations formulated during audits, inspections, Root Cause Analyses, or Incident Investigations conducted by the Department (450-8.030(B)(2)(v)): There are 20 Ensure and 34 Consider recommendations from the 2020 county ISO- CalARP audit. Phillips66 responded to the Administrative Draft Audit Report on December 18, 2020. There were no other audits, inspections, Root Cause Analyses, or Incident Investigations conducted by the Department.

9. Summary of inherently safer systems implemented by the source including but not limited to inventory reduction (i.e., intensification) and substitution (450-8.030(B)(2)(vi)): See ATTACHMENT 1 for the listing of Inherently Safer Systems Improvements that were implemented.

10. Summarize the enforcement actions (including Notice of Deficiencies, Audit Reports, and any actions turned over to the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office) taken with the Stationary Source pursuant to Section 450-8.028 of County Ordinance 98-48 (450-8.030(B)(2) (vii)): There were no enforcement actions during this period.

11. Summarize total penalties assessed as a result of enforcement of this Chapter (450-8.030(3)):

No penalties have been assessed against this facility.

12. Summarize the total fees, service charges, and other assessments collected specifically for the support of the ISO (450-8.030(B)(4)): The total CalARP Program fees for the eight facilities subject to the Industrial Safety Ordinance was $603,958. The total Industrial Safety Ordinance program fees for these eight facilities was—$75,404. (NOTE: These fees include those for the County and City of Richmond ISO facilities).

15. Summarize how this Chapter improves industrial safety at your stationary source (450-8.030(B)(7)): In addition to the Phillips 66 Corporate Health Safety Environment Management Systems the ISO provides another tool for the improvement of process safety performance and industrial safety.

16. List examples of changes made at your stationary source due to implementation of the Industrial Safety Ordinance (e.g., recommendations from PHA’s, Compliance Audits, and Incident Investigations in units not subject to CalARP regulations; recommendations from RCA’s) that significantly decrease the severity or likelihood of accidental releases. Units that were not covered by RMP, CalARP, and PSM are covered under the ISO and PHAs are scheduled and performed on all these units. Recommendations from the PHAs are implemented at an accelerated rate. A list of inherently safer system improvements, required by the ISO for PHA recommendations and projects, are listed in ATTACHMENT1.

17. Summarize the emergency response activities conducted at the source (e.g., CWS or TEN activation) in response to major chemical accidents or releases: There were no major chemical accidents or releases at the Rodeo Refinery in the 2018–2019 time period.

Page 105 of 327 ends

33 18. Date the last Safety Culture Assessment was completed: 4/15/2016 Survey method: written survey

19. Date the results of the Safety Culture Assessment were reported to the workforce: 6/24/16 management: 4/15/16

20. Answer the following regarding the Safety Culture Evaluation for no. 18:
– SURVEY METHOD: written survey
– Areas of improvements being addressed:
» No areas were identified as scoring significantly below normal values. » Improvements require too many reviews/approvals.
» Employees are reluctant to reveal problems or errors. » Having enough qualified people to do the work in their area. – Action Plan made Progress on the identified areas of improvement? YES » If Yes, did the improvements meet the goals and if not, was the action plan amended to address what is being done to meet the goals? Yes, Progress was made and improvements observed in the subsequent SCA. Improvement opportunities were identified in the most recent SCA and recommendations identified.
» If No, has a new action plan been developed to address the identified areas of improvement? (Yes or No)

21. Have milestones and metrics been developed to determine how the Safety Culture Assessment actions are being implemented? Yes or if not, Why not? YES. Specific improvements were identified by a management & union team and implemented.

22. Describe the process that included employees and their representatives used to determine if the action items effectively changed the expected culture items: A midcycle team review was done to evaluate the effects of the actions on the safety culture. The evaluation team included management and union representatives per policy.

23. Date of the mid-cycle progress evaluation: November 1, 2019 » Did the action plan (for no 18) make progress on the identified areas of improvement? Yes or if not, has a new action pan been developed? (Yes or No) ()N/A

24. If a mid-cycle progress evaluation was performed during this reporting year, describe the process that included participation of employees or their representatives used to determine whether the action items from the SCA and the mid-cycle progress effectively changed the expected culture items: By policy, our process includes management and union representatives to review the results and develop modified recommendations as appropriate. Each action was discussed and compared to site performance indicators to determine if improvement was made. The Mid-Cycle Review was conducted on November 1, 2019 by the Process Safety Director, USW PSM Representative, an d Senior H&S Consultant.

Page 106 of 327 ends

34 25. Common Process Safety Performance Indicators:

Overdue inspection for piping and pressure
vessels based on total number of circuits

2020 Overdue Repeat
January 0 0
February 0 0
March 2 0
April 0 0
May 0 0
June 0 0
July 0 0
August 0 0
September 0 0
October 0 0
November 0 0
December 0 0
Total number of circuits: 29,176. Total number of annual planned circuit inspections: 2,413 Past due PHA recommended actions, includes
seismic and LCC recommended actions

2020 Overdue Repeat
January 2 2
February 1 1
March 3 1
April 1 1
May 1 1
June 1 1
July 1 1
August 1 1
September 2 1
October 1 1
November 1 1
December 0 0
TOTAL 5 2

Page 107 of 327 ends

35 Year
No. Tier 1 LOPC
Incident rate
for Tier 1
'11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16 '17 '18 '19 '20
Past due investigation recommended actions
for API/ACC Tier 1 and Tier 2 incidents

2020 Overdue Repeat
January 0 0
February 0 0
March 0 0
April 0 0
May 0 0
June 0 0
July 0 0
August 0 0
September 0 0
October 0 0
November 0 0
December 0 0

API/ACC TIER 1 & TIER 2

INCIDENTS AND RATES
STARTING 2011

Refinery or
Industry Rate1
Refinery or
Industry Mean2
Tier 2 LOPC
Incident rate for
Tier 2
Refinery Rate1
Refinery Mean2

1Petroleum refineries to report publicly available refinery rate for API Tier 1 and Tier 2 classification. Chemical plants to report publicly available mean only for ACC Tier 1
2Petroleum refineries to report publicly available refinery mean for API Tier 1 and Tier 2 classification. Chemical plants to report publicly available mean only for ACC Tier 1
* Tier 1 & 2 Refinery Rate and Mean data was not available at the time of submittal. 2 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0

0.17 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.15 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06

1.49 1.30

1.38 1.55

1.00 1.11

0.92 1.03 0.84

5 3 0 1 2 2 2 0 2 2

0.43 0.29 0.00 0.10 0.21 0.17 0.22 0.00 0.16 0.21
* 0.24 0.25 0.23 0.20 0.17 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.13
* * * * 3.08 2.75 2.75 2.79 2.67 1.80

Page 108 of 327 ends

36 26. Process Safety Performance Indicators for refineries only:

I. Number of Major Incidents in 2018: NONE
II. The number of temporary piping and equipment repairs that are installed on hydrocarbon and high energy utility systems that are past their date of replacement with a permanent repair:

2020 Total* Overdue Repeat
January 30 0 0
February 31 0 0
March 31 0 0
April 31 0 0
May 31 0 0
June 34 0 0
July 35 0 0
August 34 0 0
September 35 0 0
October 35 0 0
November 32 0 0
December 32 0 0
TOTAL 32 0 0

* Tier 1 & 2 Refinery Rate and Mean data was not available at the time of submittal

Page 109 of 327 ends

37 Attachment 1: June 2020—June 2021 ISS improvements
Reference Approach ISS Category MOC Description

M20212637-001

Substitute

Inherent

Introduced a more inherently safe and renewable feedstock to Unit 250 called RB Soybean Feed

M20201934-001

Moderate

Active

Installed germicidal UVC light to kill virus COVID-19 in the Central Control Room air conditioning unit

M2021456-001

Simplify

Procedural

Converted existing Crude/Coker Complex Operating Procedures to Digital Versions

M20205613-001

Moderate

Passive

Upgraded gasket material to increase the reliability of E-809 as part of the Refinery Wide Heat Exchanger Upgrading Gasket to Kammpro Style effort

M20202207-001

Eliminate

Inherent

Permanently removed Tank TK-674 from service

M20201741-001

Moderate

Procedural
Active

Implemented new alarms to protect against the potential of chloride stress corrosion cracking for 300 series stainless steel sour water piping system as a result of a Damage Mechanism Review

M20196214-002

Moderate

Passive

Installed dual mechanical pump seals on the 236:G- 801 Regenerator Reflux Pump

M20195796-001

Substitute

Inherent

Substituted the liquid boiler feed water treatment chemical, Nalco BT-3811, for Nalco BT-3411 which is more stable and will decrease the plugging in the injection lines

M20194263-001

Moderate

Passive

Upgraded Unit 250 Diglycolamine (DGA) sample station to a closed-loop system

M20194092-001

Moderate

Passive

Installed three closed-loop foul water sample stations and associated piping at Unit 267

M20193185-002

Moderate

Active

Installed pump seal integrity alarms on Unit 200 Crude/Coker pumps

M20162681-001

Eliminate

Inherent

Disconnected and plugged a 150# steam-to-process connection line to prevent blackflow

M20203088-001

Moderate

Active

Upgraded 6" check valve on discharge of G-3 Richmond Shipping Pump

M20201360-010

Moderate

Active

Installed a check valve, bleed valves, and spectacle blind on 150# steam utility cross connection to prevent backflow

M20201925-001

Moderate

Active

Installed a valve and other piping on top of Tank 104 roof hatch to allow for safer degassing of the vapor space

M20201453-001

Moderate

Passive

Upgraded metallurgy of antifoulant piping from carbon steel to stainless steel for better chemical compatibility and less corrosion

Page 110 of 327 ends

38 Annual Performance Review and Evaluation
Submittal June 30, 2021
*Attach additional pages as necessary

1. Name and address of Stationary Source: Martinez Refinery Company, 3485 Pacheco Blvd., Martinez, CA 94553

2. Contact name and telephone number (should CCHMP have questions): Ken Axe: 925-313-5371

3. Summarize the status of the Stationary Source’s Safety Plan and Program (450-8.030(B)(2)(i)):

The current revision of the Safety Plan was submitted in August 2019. The Safety Program elements are generally consistent with the descriptions in the Safety Plan. There will be revisions to the Safety Plan as a result of the ISO/CalARP audit conducted in February/March 2021.

4. Summarize Safety Plan updates (i.e., brief explanation of update and corresponding date) (450-8.030(B)(2)(ii)): In addition to the revisions mentioned above, pending updates to the Safety Plan will address change of refinery ownership (sale of Refinery from Shell to PBF Energy), and sale of two hydrogen plants (HP-1 and HP-2) to Air Products. During the transition of hydrogen plant ownership, Martinez Refining Company personnel continue to operate the plants as described in the current Safety Plan. Air Products is currently maintaining the hydrogen plants. The operations transition is anticipated in September 2021.

6. Provide any additions to the annual accident history reports (i.e. updates) submitted pursuant to Section 450-8.016(E)(2) of County Ordinance 98-48 (450-8.030(B)(2)(iii)) (i.e., provide information identified in Section 450-8.016(E)(1) for all major chemical accidents or releases occurring between the last annual performance review report and the current annual performance review and evaluation submittal (12-month history)): There have been no MCARs at the Martinez Refinery in the 12-month period beginning July 1, 2020.

7. Summary of each Root Cause Analysis (Section 450-8.016(C)) including the status of the analysis and the status of implementation of recommendations formulated during the analysis (450-8.030(B)(2)(iv)): There have been no RCAs for MCARs or potential MCARs in the 12-month period beginning July 1, 2020.

8. Summary of the status of implementation of recommendations formulated during audits, inspections, Root Cause Analyses, or Incident Investigations conducted by the Department (450-8.030(B)(2)(v)): Of the 49 recommendations from the audit conducted by CCHS in 2018, all 49 have been completed. Proposed remedies and due dates for actions stemming from the February/March 2021 audit will be submitted to CCHS by July 29, 2021.

9. Summary of inherently safer systems implemented by the source including but not limited to inventory reduction (i.e., intensification) and substitution (450-8.030(B)(2)(vi)): See Attachment 1

10. Summarize the enforcement actions (including Notice of Deficiencies, Audit Reports, and any actions turned over to the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office) taken with the Stationary Source pursuant to Section 450-8.028 of County Ordinance 98-48 (450-8.030(B)(2) (vii)): There were no enforcement actions during the period.

Page 111 of 327 ends

39 11. Summarize total penalties assessed as a result of enforcement of this Chapter (450-8.030(3)):

No penalties have been assessed against this facility.

15. Summarize how this Chapter improves industrial safety at your stationary source (450-8.030(B)(7)): MRC has integrated requirements of the Industrial Safety Ordinance into our Process Safety Management System; in the context of our Process Safety Management System, the ISO requirements drive continual improvement in our HSE performance.

16. List examples of changes made at your stationary source due to implementation of the Industrial Safety Ordinance (e.g., recommendations from PHA’s, Compliance Audits, and Incident Investigations in units not subject to CalARP regulations; recommendations from RCA’s) that significantly decrease the severity or likelihood of accidental releases. All process units are now covered under CalARP Program 4. Examples of changes made to the stationary source during the reporting year are summarized in Attachment 1 (see question 9).

17. Summarize the emergency response activities conducted at the source (e.g., CWS or TEN activation) in response to major chemical accidents or releases: There were no MCARs at the stationary source during the reporting year.

18. Date the last Safety Culture Assessment was completed: 3/31/2019

19. Date the results of the Safety Culture Assessment were reported to the workforce and management: 4/10-22/2019

20. Answer the following regarding the Safety Culture Evaluation for no. 18:
– Survey method: Anonymous computer based and paper based survey – Areas of improvements being addressed: Incident reporting and learnings from incidents and rewards and recognition

Page 112 of 327 ends

40 – Action Plan made Progress on the identified areas of improvement?: (Yes or No) YES » If Yes, did the improvements meet the goals and if not was the action plan amended to address what is being done to meet the goals? Goals for working off backlog of investigations, timely investigation completion, and timely communication of results have been achieved. » If No, has a new action plan been developed to address the identified areas of improvement? Yes

21. Have milestones and metrics been developed to determine how the Safety Culture Assessment actions are being implemented? Yes or if not, Why not? New milestones and metrics being established as a result of mid-cycle assessment.

22. Describe the process that included employees and their representatives used to determine if the action items effectively changed the expected culture items: Assessment team includes employee representatives.

23. Date of the mid-cycle progress evaluation: February 9, 2021 » Did the action plan (for no 18) make progress on the identified areas of improvement? Yes or if not, has a new action pan been developed? (Yes or No) Yes

Page 113 of 327 ends

41 25. Common Process Safety Performance Indicators:

Overdue inspection for piping and pressure
vessels based on total number of circuits
2020 Overdue Repeat
January 0 0
February 0 0
March 0 0
April 0 0
May 0 0
June 0 0
July 0 0
August 0 0
September 0 0
October 0 0
November 0 0
December 0 0
Total number of circuits: 11,930
Total number of annual planned circuit inspections: 1,182 Past due PHA recommended actions, includes
seismic and LCC recommended actions
2020 Overdue Repeat
January 1 0
February 0 0
March 0 0
April 0 0
May 0 0
June 0 0
July 0 0
August 1 0
September 1 0
October 0 0
November 0 0
December 0 0
TOTAL 3

Page 114 of 327 ends

42 Year
No. Tier 1 LOPC
Incident rate
for Tier 1
'11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16 '17 '18 '19 '20
Past due investigation recommended actions
for API/ACC Tier 1 and Tier 2 incidents

2020 Overdue Repeat
January 0 0
February 0 0
March 0 0
April 0 0
May 0 0
June 0 0
July 0 0
August 0 0
September 0 0
October 0 0
November 0 0
December 0 0
TOTAL 0 0
API/ACC TIER 1 & TIER 2

INCIDENTS AND RATES
STARTING 2011

Refinery or
Industry Rate1
Refinery or
Industry Mean2
Tier 2 LOPC
Incident rate for
Tier 2
Refinery Rate1
Refinery Mean2

1Petroleum refineries to report publicly available refinery rate for API Tier 1 and Tier 2 classification. Chemical plants to report publicly available mean only for ACC Tier 1
2Petroleum refineries to report publicly available refinery mean for API Tier 1 and Tier 2 classification. Chemical plants to report publicly available mean only for ACC Tier 1
1 1 1 0 1 0 2 1 2 0

0.07 0.07 0.08 0.07 0 0.11 0.06 0.12 0

0.15 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.06

1.49 1.30

1.41 1.53

1.00 1.11

0.92 1.03 0.84

2 0 5 2 5 1 2 2 5 1

0.14 0 0.41 0.11 0.42 0.06 0.11 0.11 0.31 0.11
* 0.24 0.25 0.24 0.21 0.17 0.19 0.17 0.16 0.13
* * * 3.59 3.07 2.75 2.75 2.79 2.67 1.80

Page 115 of 327 ends

43 26. Process Safety Performance Indicators for refineries only:

I. Number of Major Incidents in 2020: 0
II. The number of temporary piping and equipment repairs that are installed on hydrocarbon and high energy utility systems that are past their date of replacement with a permanent repair:

2020 Total Overdue Repeat
January 132 0 0
February 130 0 0
March 130 0 0
April 129 0 0
May 130 0 0
June 132 0 0
July 135 0 0
August 136 0 0
September 136 0 0
October 139 0 0
November 141 0 0
December 142 0 0

Page 116 of 327 ends

44 Attachment 1

Table 1: Summary of Implemented ISS
Approach MOC Description
Procedural Upgraded existing 6” check valve in CRU, upstream of the hydrogen injection point, to a Class 1 check valve

Procedural

Upgraded 4ES007 SIF Trip of J-240 on high level in V-1320/1321/1322 to SIL1 Procedural/
Simplify
Lowered CGDP V-14229 Critical High-Level alarm setpoint on 41LC23 to provide required operator response time to the alarm
Procedural/
Simplify
Car Seal Open (CSO) inlet and outlet block valves on local pressure controllers: PIC-2505, PIC-2520, PIC-2532, PIC-2588 and PIC-2729 and added CSO valves to Pentane Storage PSV/Car Seal Checklist.

Procedural
Established and implemented routine testing/inspection/preventive maintenance for identified C5 Storage local control loops (PIC-2505, PIC-2520, PIC-2532, PIC-2588 and PIC-2729) in order to ensure sufficient availability to qualify for IPL credit
Passive/Moderate Replaced 3L4 PSV with a liquid certified PSV in order to accommodate liquid relief Procedural/
Simplify

Added 6" block valve on shell side outlet of E-551 to SRHT PSV/Car Seal Checklist Procedural/Simplify Added 8" block valve on inlet of V-15759 (from E-15760) to car seal/PSV checklist in SRHT and Car Seal Open valve in field.

Procedural/Simplify Added block valve on TB-121 (for J-76) discharge to SRHT car seal/PSV checklist and Car Seal Open valve in field
Procedural/Simplify Add 1 block valve on TB-139 (for J-76 lube oil pump, P-2350) discharge to SRHT car seal/PSV checklist and Car Seal Open valve in field.

Procedural/
Simplify
Added valves to ensure H2 purge flows to PSV H194 inlet/outlet and HV166 inlet (on top of HPS V-414) and PSV M60 inlet (on top of LPS V-416) to car seal/PSV checklist and Car Seal Open valve in field.

Active/Moderate Added a high temperature ESP alarm on 3TC243

Passive/Moderate

Repaired damaged concrete at base of V-651 (Seismic)

Passive/Moderate

Repair concrete cracking on E-1424 north pedestal, west side (Seismic)

Passive/Moderate Repaired cracks and spalling on E-542A/B concrete pipe supports that also support walkway for J-80 (Seismic)

Passive/Moderate

Repaired E-548 spalling at ~1 ft above grade on west side of north support (Seismic)

Passive/Moderate Installed a new relief valve on the 300 psig condensate line downstream of PCV-110 with relief to the process sewer

Page 117 of 327 ends

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS PROGRAMS
A Division of Contra Costa Health Services

Page 118 of 327 ends

Richmond Industrial Safety
Ordinance Annual Report
Nicole Heath
Supervising Accidental Release
Prevention Engineer
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 925-655-3240
https://cchealth.org/hazmat/calarp/
July 26, 2022Page 119 of 327
A Clean, healthy and safe
environment
Our mission is to protect human health and
the environment by promoting pollution
prevention, increasing process safety
knowledge and environmental awareness,
responding to incidents and implementing
consistent regulatory compliance and
enforcement programs.

Page 120 of 327 ends

COUNTY
HAZMAT

Page 121 of 327 ends

PROGRAMS
 Hazardous Materials Business Plans
 Hazardous Waste Generators
 Underground Storage Tanks
 Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act
 CalARP Program
 Green Business Plans
 Storm Water Program
 HazMat Response Team
 Unannounced Inspection Program
 Integrated Pest Management
 County’s Industrial Safety Ordinance (ISO)

Page 122 of 327 ends

ACTIVITIES
•Perform Audits
•Develop Guidance
•Review Documents
•Public Outreach
Photo by Jamie Templeton on Unsplash

Page 123 of 327 ends

STAFFING
7 450
1-
71-
5 3

Page 124 of 327 ends

REGULATIONS

Page 125 of 327 ends

Incidents

Page 126 of 327 ends

1989 Chevron
Isomax Unit
Fire
1993 General
Chemical
Richmond Oleum
Release
1992 Rhone
Poulenc Fire
1996 Shell
Cat Gas Fire
1994 Unocal
Catacarb®
Release
1999
Chevron
Isomax Unit
Fire
1999 Tosco
Crude Unit
Fire
1997 Tosco
Hydrocracker
Fire
2012
Chevron
Crude Unit
Fire

Page 127 of 327 ends

•Performance Based
•Regulated Substance
•Above Threshold Quantity
•77 vs. 276 Toxic Chemicals
Risk Management Program

Page 128 of 327 ends

PROGRAM 3
Process Safety Information
Process Hazard Analysis
Operating Procedures
Training
Mechanical Integrity
Management of Change
Pre-Startup Safety
Review
Compliance Audits
Submit of a Risk Management
Plan
Off-Site Consequence Analysis
Emergency Response
Employee Participation
Contractors
Hot Work Permits
Incident Investigation

Page 129 of 327 ends

INDUSTRIAL SAFETY ORDINANCE (ISO)
Human Factors
Management of Organizational Change
Inherently Safer Design
Root Cause Analysis Investigations
Safeguard Protection Analysis
Safety Culture Assessment
Common Process Safety Metrics (Indicators)
Submittal of a Safety Plan
(All Program 3 Requirements)

Page 130 of 327 ends

Human Factors
Management of Organizational Change
Hierarchy of Hazard Control / Inherently Safer Design
Root Cause Analysis Investigations
Safeguard Protection Analysis
Safety Culture Assessment
Management System
PROGRAM 4
Damage Mechanisms
(All Program 3 Requirements)

Page 131 of 327 ends

Map of ISO Facilities in Contra Costa

Page 132 of 327 ends

COUNTY
HAZMAT

REGULATIONS
ISO
ANNUAL
REPORT

Page 133 of 327 ends

Presentation: Industrial Safety
Ordinance (ISO) report brief
 Contains all of the information required by ISO
 Major Chemical Accidents or Releases
 Annual report –Metrics
 Performance Indicators
 API incident rates

Page 134 of 327 ends

Audits Performed
•Martinez Refining Company Feb 2021

Page 135 of 327 ends

Major Chemical Accidents or Releases
(1999 – now)
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 Number of MCAR's
Year

MAJOR CHEMICAL ACCIDENTS AND RELEASES
Severity Level III
Severity Level II
Severity Level I

Page 136 of 327 ends

County and Richmond ISO
MCARs
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total MCARS vs ISO/RISO MCARS
Total MCARs Total ISO MCARs Total RISO MCARS

Page 137 of 327 ends

Performance Indicators
Overdue
Inspections
Past due
PHA Rec.

Past due II
Rec.

Air Liquide Large Industries 11 2 0
Air Products Shell 0 0 0
Chemtrade Richmond* 0 0 0
Chevron* 0 0 0
Martinez Refining Company 0 3 0
Phillip-66 Refinery 0 5 0
2020
* Indicates the facility is located in Richmond.

Page 138 of 327 ends

Performance Indicators
Tier 1 Loss Of Primary Containment
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Refinery mean - 1.49 1.3 1.38 1.55 1.01 1.13 0.92 1.03 .84 Air Liquide Large
Industries 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Air Products Shell 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chemtrade Richmond* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chevron* 4 3 0 1 2 1 1 1 0 0
Martinez Refining
Company 1 1 1 0 1 0 2 1 2 0
Phillip-66 Refinery 2 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
* Indicates the facility is located in Richmond.

Page 139 of 327 ends

Performance Indicators
Tier 2 Loss Of Primary Containment
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Refinery mean 3.08 2.78 2.73 2.79 2.67 1.8
Air Liquide Large
Industries 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Air Products Shell 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chemtrade Richmond* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Chevron* 5 8 6 3 1 3 5 4 0 1
Martinez Refining
Company
2 0 5 2 5 1 2 2 5 1
Phillip-66 Refinery 5 3 0 1 2 2 2 0 2 2
* Indicates the facility is located in Richmond.

Page 140 of 327 ends

Chevron Richmond Refinery
2019 Audit
• This was the 7th audit for this facility
• There was a total of 45 Ensure Action Items
• Areas for Improvement:
 Many programs need to have gaps addressed to meet new regulatory standards
 Employee participation
 Incident Investigation
 PSSR
 Fatigue management needs to be evaluated to address
increases in employee working hours
• Areas of Note:
 The 2022 audit was completed in June 2022 results will be shared in next years report out.

Page 141 of 327 ends

Nicole A. Heath
Supervising Accidental Release
Prevention Engineer
925-655-3240
[email protected]
https://cchealth.org/hazmat/calarp/
July 26, 2022
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA To report a hazmat incident call please call 925 -655-3200.

Page 142 of 327 ends

Page 1 of 2 ends

July 26, 2022

Public Works

DATE: July 26, 2022
TO: Mayor Butt and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Nickie Mastay, Deputy City Manager
Samantha Carr, Environmental Manager

SUBJECT:

Receive a Quarterly Update from PG&E
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact related to this item.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

September 28, 2021, April 19, 2022

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

Over the last several months, Richmond residents have
experienced numerous power outages. On September
28, 2021, PG&E gave a presentation regarding the power
outages in Richmond. It has been requested for PG&E to
give quarterly updates to City Council.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

RECEIVE a quarterly presentation from Pacific Gas and
Electric (PG&E) – Public Works/City Manager’s Office,
Economic Development (Nickie Mastay/Samantha Carr
510-620-5407). This item was continued from the July
26, 2022, meeting.

DISCUSSION:

Background

On September 28, 2021, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) gave a presentation regarding the power outages in Richmond. It has been requested for PG&E to give an update to AGENDA
REPORT

Page 143 of 327 ends

Page 2 of 2 ends

July 26, 2022
City Council. Moving forward, PG&E will be providing quarterly updates to City Council.

City Council may provide suggestions on information or data they’d like to see presented at the next quarterly update from PG&E.

On April 19, 2022, PG&E gave a quarterly update presentation including background and information on the recent Richmond blackouts as well as resources for residents.

All resources noted below are posted on, www.richmondenvironment.org.

Preparation:
 Update Contact Information - Receive outage and restoration notifications.  Prepare an emergency plan including portable backup power, hotel accommodations and accessible transportation at disabilitydisasteraccess.org.  Backup Power Meter Support - PG&E has developed a new meter program to help our customers safely power their homes during emergency outages.

Currently the offer is available for qualified PG&E customers who have been issued a rebate for a qualified backup generator.
 Medical Baseline Program - Apply to receive energy savings and extra outreach.  Explore Backup Power Options - Determine the right solution and generator rebate qualifications. Options include generator rebates for customers who rely on well water and portable batteries for Medical Baseline customers in high fire risk areas.
 Self-identify for Vulnerable Customer Status - The program’s goal is to help address the needs of customers whose life or health would be at risk should their electric or gas service be disconnected. To self-certify for Vulnerable Customer status, you must download, print, and submit an application that is valid after acceptance by PG&E.

During a Power Outage:
 PG&E Report It Safety Mobile App - The new “PG&E Report It” safety app allows customers to submit photos of non-emergency potential safety concerns with our electric system. Customers will also receive notifications when their concern is being reviewed and when it has been resolved.
 Report or View Outages Online - View PG&E’s live map for electric outages, restoration times, or report an outage online.
 Find Community Resource Centers during PSPS Events - Resources to find locations to charge devices, charge Electric Vehicle, and get basic supplies during a PSPS events.
 Resources for Accessibility, Aging, Financial, and Language Needs During PSPS Events - Includes information on in-language support and replacing lost food at your local food bank during and up to three days after a PSPS outage.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Page 144 of 327 ends

Page 1 of 2 ends

July 19, 2022

City Council

DATE: July 19, 2022
TO: Mayor Butt and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Councilmember Claudia Jimenez

Subject:

Recommendation from the Community Police Review
Commission (CPRC)
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact related to this item.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

No previous action by the City Council.

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

The CPRC is concerned about retaining and recruiting
Richmond Police Officers.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

RECEIVE a report from the Community Police Review
Commission Council Liaison on recommendations to the
City Council – Councilmember Claudia Jimenez (510-
620-6565). This item was continued from the July 26,
2022, meeting.

DISCUSSION:

The Community Police Review Commission (CPRC) is concerned about the number of police officers that are retiring and the lack of applications from potential candidates. At the July 6, 2022, meeting, the CPRC approved a motion by a vote of 4-2 to recommend AGENDA
REPORT

Page 145 of 327 ends

Page 2 of 2 ends

July 19, 2022
that City Council work together with the Richmond Police Association, Richmond Police Management Association, and the Richmond Fire Department to come to an agreement that benefits the broader community and makes sure it serves the community as a whole.

The motion was made by Chair Yenny Garcia and seconded by Vice-Chair Dow Tunis.

Motioned by Chair Yenny Garcia Voted Yes
Seconded by Vice-Chair Dow Tunis Voted Yes
Commissioner Diego Garcia Voted No
Commissioner Carol Hegstrom Voted No
Commissioner Andre Jackson Abstained
Commissioner Randy Joseph Voted Yes
Commissioners Steven Lacy Voted Yes
Commissioner Oscar Garcia Absent

Councilmember Claudia Jimenez will provide a report to the City Council for consideration and discussion.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

None

Page 146 of 327 ends

Page 1 of 2 ends

October 25, 2022

City Council

DATE: October 25, 2022
TO: Mayor Butt and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Nathaniel Bates, Councilmember

Subject:

Resolution in Support of Police Chief French and the
Richmond Police Department
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

Chief Bisa French and Richmond Police Department
have worked hard to serve the people of Richmond and
deserve such acknowledgement from the City Council.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

ADOPT a resolution by the Mayor and City Council
expressing our appreciation and total support for Chief of Police Bisa French and the entire police department of
men and women in blue for their outstanding services to our community – Councilmember Nathaniel Bates (510-
620-6743).

DISCUSSION:

The men and women that serve the people of Richmond, California have worked tirelessly through the years; specifically, through the pandemic and era of defunding the police. I believe recognition is warranted for their commitment, sacrifice, and diligent AGENDA
REPORT

Page 147 of 327 ends

Page 2 of 2 ends

October 25, 2022
work. Therefore, I have requested the adoption of a resolution by the Mayor and City Council on behalf of the community organizations and community members to express appreciation and support for Police Chief Bisa French and the entire staff (sworn and unsworn) of the Richmond Police Department for their outstanding service to the city of Richmond.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Resolution

Page 148 of 327 ends

RESOLUTION NO. XX-22

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA, IN

SUPPORT OF POLICE CHIEF FRENCH AND THE ENTIRE RICHMOND POLICE

DEPARTMENT

WHEREAS, the City of Richmond Mayor and City Council, community organizations, and community members express our appreciation and total support for Chief of Police, Bisa French, and her entire police staff of men and women in blue for their outstanding services to our community; and

WHEREAS, we recognize and honor the selfless and heroic service provided by the men and women of the Richmond Police Department; and WHEREAS, we rely on law enforcement officers to keep our neighborhoods safe, enforce our laws, and respond in times of crisis; and
WHEREAS, everyday law enforcement officers face the threat of violence and danger and routinely put their lives in jeopardy to defend others, potentially resulting in injury, disability, or even death; and
WHEREAS, these men and women by their distinctive service and dedicated efforts as law enforcement officers have earned our highest respect and deepest gratitude; and
WHEREAS, during council comments, Richmond City Mayor Tom Butts and Councilmembers express their appreciation for the resolution, and they encourage citizens to think about the risk law enforcement officers and their families face every day.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Council of the City of Richmond reiterate their continuing support and recognize the selfless and heroic service of law enforcement officers of the Richmond Police Department and their invaluable contributions in upholding justice, enforcing the rule of law, and protecting the innocent.
******************
I certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting thereof held on October 25, 2022, by the following vote:

Page 149 of 327 ends

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:

PAMELA CHRISTIAN

CLERK OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
(SEAL)
Approved:

TOM BUTT
Mayor

Approved as to form:

DAVE ALESHIRE
City Attorney

State of California }
County of Contra Costa : ss.

City of Richmond }

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of Resolution No. xx-22, finally passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting held on October 25, 2022.

Pamela Christian, Clerk of the City of Richmond

Page 150 of 327 ends

Page 1 of 1 ends

October 25, 2022

Human Resources

DATE: October 25, 2022
TO: Mayor Butt and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Sharrone Taylor, Interim Director of Human Resources

SUBJECT:

Report on Police and Fire Department Recruitment
FINANCIAL IMPACT: none

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

none

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

Municipal Resource Group (MRG) will present a status
update on the Police and Fire recruitment efforts.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

RECEIVE a status report on the police department and
fire department recruitment efforts – Human Resources
(Sharrone Taylor 620-6803).

DISCUSSION:

A PowerPoint Presentation will be provided by Municipal Resource Group (MRG) and Human Resources department staff members.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

None
AGENDA
REPORT

Page 151 of 327 ends

Page 1 of 3 ends

October 25, 2022

Community Development

DATE: October 25, 2022
TO: Mayor Butt and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Lina Velasco, Director of Community Development
Lydia Elias, Planner I

SUBJECT: Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan Study Session

FINANCIAL IMPACT: Development of the Action Plan was funded by a California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) grant awarded to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC) with Vallejo and Richmond as sub-applicants.

Richmond’s portion of the grant totaled $238,000.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

N/A

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

The 2022 Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan (BPAP or
Action Plan) provides a set of short-term infrastructure recommendations and actions for the City of Richmond to quickly and effectively improve biking, walking, and
rolling (i.e., micromobility device, wheelchairs, etc.). The BPAP is designed to work in conjunction with the City’s Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP), created in tandem
as part of the Travel Safe Richmond project. Alta
Planning and Fehr & Peers assisted the City of
Richmond in preparing the plan.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

RECEIVE a presentation of the DRAFT Bicycle and
Pedestrian Action Plan and provide feedback –
Community Development (Lina Velasco 620-6841).

AGENDA
REPORT

Page 152 of 327 ends

Page 2 of 3 ends

October 25, 2022
DISCUSSION:

The City of Richmond is committed to prioritizing safety on its roadways for all users.

The Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan (BPAP or Action Plan) contains recommendations that are designed to provide short-term infrastructure improvements with a focus on decreasing the risk of collisions for people walking, biking, rolling, and driving across Richmond. Data on bicycle- and pedestrian-involved collisions provided insight into locations and roadways representing the biggest safety challenges.

Richmond has a rich history of community-driven planning projects (i.e., neighborhood and corridor plans) guiding bicycle and pedestrian planning. This BPAP consolidates and sets those ideas into a prioritized set of feasible, immediate actions. This Action Plan combines past planning efforts, existing guidance, and documentation to create a set of achievable objectives for the City of Richmond to meet, improving existing bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.

This Action Plan is designed to work in conjunction with the City’s Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP), which was adopted by City Council on July 19, 2022. The recommendations from the LRSP have been incorporated into the BPAP’s recommendations and together these plans comprise the Travel Safe Richmond project.

The two plans work together to create unified policies and infrastructure recommendations for improving roadway safety and comfort for roadway users of all ages and abilities. In addition, this Action Plan once adopted, updates and replaces the previous Bicycle Master Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan, adopted by the City Council in 2012.

The Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan included a multifaceted community engagement process. The City used multiple engagement methods and partnerships to further the reach and effectiveness of the engagement opportunities. Community engagement included three community workshops, three pop-up events, the development of a project website with an interactive web map, coordination with the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC), and numerous meetings with neighborhood councils. The City partnered with Rich City Rides to lead community engagement with Richmond’s neighborhood councils. Over the project’s development phase, the community engagement process provided over 500 interactions (workshop or pop-up attendance and online interactions) with community members and stakeholders.

The Action Plan recommends over 90 miles of new or improved bicycle facilities as well as pedestrian spot improvements at 134 locations. Recommendations include projects identified in other City adopted or approved corridor and transportation plans, including the recently approved LRSP. The recommended improvements directly respond to safety concerns and community feedback. Four categories drove the recommendation of the projects: safety, health and equity, connectivity, and community support.

The BPAP sets forth 77 high priority projects, 123 medium priority projects, and 118 opportunity projects. These identified projects can be found in the tables and figures included in the Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan (Attachment 1). The prioritized list of projects in the Action Plan is not intended to be a hardened order of projects but

Page 153 of 327 ends

Page 3 of 3 ends

October 25, 2022
rather a guide to support City of Richmond staff in selecting projects that can fill a variety of grants, repaving, or opportunistic situations. As funding is identified, individual projects will be implemented.

Next Steps:

The final Action Plan will incorporate additional community feedback from the third community workshop occurring on November 9, 2022, as well as any feedback received from this study session, project website, and project email. Public comments will be considered until November 11, 2022. Consultants and City staff will finalize and bring the Action Plan back to City Council for adoption in December 2022.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan dated October 7, 2022

Page 154 of 327 ends

DRAFT - OCTOBER 2022
City of Richmond
Bicycle and Pedestrian
Action Plan

Page 155 of 327 ends

Page 156 of 327 ends

Acknowledgments
to be completed for FINAL VERSION OF THE DOCUMENT

Page 157 of 327 ends

Glossary
ADA – Americans with Disabilities Act
ATP – Active Transportation Program
BAAQMD – Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BART – Bay Area Rapid Transit
BPAC – Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee
BPAP – Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan
CA HCD – California Department of Housing and Community Development
CA DPR – California
CA OTS – California Office of Traffic Safety
CALTRANS – California Department of Transportation
CBO – Community Based Organization
CCTA CBPP – Contra Costa Transportation Authority Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
CCTA – Contra Costa Transportation Authority
CIP – Capital Improvement Project
HSIP – Highway Safety Improvement Program
LRSP – Local Road Safety Plan
MPH – Miles Per Hour
MTC – Metropolitan Transportation Commission
MUTCD – Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
OTS – Office of Traffic Safety
PHB – Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
RAISE – Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity Grant Program
RNCC – Richmond Neighborhood Coordinating Council
RRFB – Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
SRTCP – South Richmond Transportation Connectivity Plan TIMS – [University of California Berkeley] Transportation Injury Mapping System
USDOT – United States Department of Transportation

Page 158 of 327 ends

Proposed Spot Improvements by Prioritization Category
Table of Contents
00 Executive Summary ........................................................................................... I 01 Int
roduction ....................................................................................................... 1 02 Comm
unity Engagement .............................................................................. 12 03 Bicy
cle Recommendations ........................................................................... 22 04 Pedes
trian Recommendations .................................................................... 42 05 Imp
lementation ............................................................................................... 61 A App
endices ................................................................................................... 109 List of Tables
01 High-Priority Bicycle Improvement Projects (corridor) ............................ IV 02 High
-Priority Pedestrian Spot Improvements. ......................................... VII 03 Exis
ting and Proposed Bikeways ................................................................ 30 04 Bicy
cle Recommendations ........................................................................... 34 05 Spot
Improvement Recommendations ...................................................... 54 06 Priorit
ization Criteria ..................................................................................... 63 07 Bicyc
le Prioritization Summary ................................................................... 64 08 Bicyc
le Projects by Prioritization Scores .................................................... 71 09 Spot
Recommendation Prioritization Summary ........................................ 81 10 Bicyc
le Projects by Prioritization Scores ................................................... 88 11 Fundin
g Opportunities by Project Type .................................................... 99 12 Bicy
cle Planning Level Cost Estimates
by Bik
eway Classification ............................................................................ 101 13 Spot I
mprovement Planning Level Cost Estimates ............................... 102 List of Figures
i High-Priority Bicycle Improvement Projects. ............................................. III i
i High
-Priority Bicycle Improvement Projects. ............................................ VI 01 Mult
imodal High Injury Network ................................................................... 6 02 Healt
h and Equity Analysis Process ............................................................. 8 03 Heal
th Index Score Map ................................................................................. 9 04 Equi
ty Index Score Map ................................................................................. 10 05 Heal
th and Equity Combined Index Map .................................................... 11 06 Prop
osed Bicycle Improvements ................................................................. 31 07 Prop
osed Bicycle Improvements (central core) ....................................... 32 08 Prop
osed Bicycle Improvements (North Richmond) ............................... 33 09 Propo
sed Spot Improvements ...................................................................... 51 10 Propo
sed Spot Improvements (Central Core) .......................................... 52 11 Prop
osed Spot Improvements (North Richmond) .................................... 53 12 Propo
sed Bicycle Improvements by Prioritization Category ................. 65 13 Propo
sed Bicycle Improvements by Prioritization Category
(Centr
al Core) ................................................................................................. 66 14 Propo
sed Bicycle Improvements by Prioritization Category
(Nort
h Richmond) .......................................................................................... 67 15 High-Priority Bicycle Improvement Projects .............................................. 68 16 High-Priority Bicycle Im provement Projects (Centr al Core) .................... 69 17 High-Priority Bicycle Impro vement Projects (North Richm ond) .............. 70 18 Prop
osed Spot Improvements by Prioritization Category ..................... 82 19 Prop
osed Spot Improvements by Prioritization Category
(Centr
al Core) ................................................................................................. 83 20 Prop
osed Spot Improvements by Prioritization Category
(Nort
h Richmond) .......................................................................................... 84 21 High-Priority Spot I mprovements ............. ............................ ...................... 85 22 High-Priority Spot Improvements (Central Cor e) .....................................86 23 High-Priority Spot Improve ments (North Richmond) ............................... . 87 24 Implementatio n Process Flowch art ............................................ ................107

Page 159 of 327 ends

Executive Summary
The 2022 Bicycle and Pedestrian Action
Plan (BPAP) provides a set of short-term
infrastructure recommendations and
actions for the City of Richmond to quickly
and effectively improve biking, walking,
and rolling (i.e., micromobility device,
wheelchairs, etc.). The recommendations
recognize that funding and resources
will incrementally build upon these
improvements over time. The primary goal
of this document is to guide Richmond
towards a balanced transportation system
that is safe, comfortable, accessible, and
equitable for people of all ages and abilities.

The plan lays out a strategy to develop
comprehensive bicycling and walking
networks that provide access to transit,
schools, parks, trails, the waterfront, and
downtown. Project recommendations were
developed based on a detailed needs
analysis, safety analysis, and community
engagement process. This document also
provides a strategy to design and construct
new infrastructure through prioritization
and phasing to ensure implementation is
manageable and fundable.

This Plan is designed to work in conjunction
with the City’s Local Road Safety Plan
(LRSP), created in tandem as part of the
Travel Safe Richmond initiative. The LRSP
identified traffic safety trends and developed
systemic recommendations to fund and
implement infrastructure countermeasure to
help address safety issues. The two plans
work together to create unified policies
and infrastructure recommendations for
improving roadway safety and comfort for
roadway users of all ages and abilities.

The chapters included in the BPAP include:

1. A
n introduction to the plan and process

2. A
n overview of community engagement

3. B
icycle project recommendations

4. P
edestrian project recommendations

5. D
irections for implementation.

A set of appendices were also developed
and include an update to the City’s bicycle
facility design guidelines and a list of
available sources of funding to jump-start
the implementation progress.

The recommendations included in this
plan are designed to provide short-term
infrastructure improvements with focus on
decreasing the risk of collisions for people
walking, biking, rolling, and driving across
Richmond. Data on bicycle- and pedestrian-
involved collisions provided insight into
locations and roadways representing the
biggest safety challenges.

Richmond has a rich history of community-
driven planning projects (i.e., neighborhood
and corridor plans) guiding bicycle and
pedestrian planning. This BPAP consolidates
and sets those ideas into a prioritized set
of feasible, immediate actions. Further, the
Plan combines past planning efforts, existing
guidance, and documentation to create a set
of achievable objectives and projects for the
City of Richmond to implement.

Richmond Residents bicycling along Bay Trail.

I
Executive Summary
Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan

Page 160 of 327 ends

Richmond resident walking along the Bay Trail. – Image: City of Richmond.

The Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan
included a multifaceted community
engagement process: The City used multiple
engagement methods and partnerships to
further the reach and effectiveness of the
engagement opportunities. Community
engagement included three community
workshops; three pop-up events, the
development of a project website with an
interactive webmap; coordination with the
City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory
Committee (BPAC); and, numerous meetings
with neighborhood councils. The City
partnered with Rich City Rides to lead
community engagement with Richmond’s
neighborhood councils. Over the project’s
life, the community provided over 500
interactions (workshop or pop-up attendance
and online interactions) with community
members and stakeholders.

The plan recommends over 84 miles of
new or improved bicycle facilities as well
as pedestrian spot improvements at 105
locations. Recommendations include projects
from other Richmond corridor and specific
plans and the recently approved Local Road
Safety Plan (LRSP). The recommended
improvements directly respond to safety
concerns and community feedback.

Four categories drove the recommendation
of projects:
• S
afety
• H
ealth and Equity
• C
onnectivity
• C
ommunity Support
The plan sets forth 72 high priority projects,
103 medium priority projects, and 105
opportunity projects. These can be found
in the tables and figures included in the
following pages. The prioritized list of
projects is not intended to be a hardened
order of projects but rather a guide to
support City of Richmond staff in selecting
projects that can fill a variety of grants,
repaving, or opportunistic situations.

The maps and tables on the following
pages summarize the High-priority bicycle
and pedestrian projects. These facility
improvements have been proposed to
help formulate a strategic list to guide
project implementation. However, as
development occurs or other changes
to the City’s transportation network take
place the framework can be used to
reevaluate remaining projects and continue
pursuing the plan’s implementation. The full
prioritization breakdown can be found in
Chapter 5.

II
Executive Summary
Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan

Page 161 of 327 ends

HIGH PRIORITY

BICYCLE

PROJECTS

TRAVEL SAFE

RICHMOND
Sources: City of Richmond, MTC, Caltrans, and Contra Costa County. Document: Z:\Shared\PROJECTS\2021\00-2021-114 MTC VMT Reduction Plan\GIS\Projects\21-114_MTC_VMT_ReductionPlan.aprx. Date saved: 10/4/2022.

EXISTING BICYCLE

FACILITIES
Existing Bicycle
Facilities
BOUNDARIES +

DESTINATIONS
! BART Station
! Amtrak Station
! Ferry Terminal
! School
! City Hall
! Library
! Community Center
Park
Contra Costa College
City Boundary
0 0.5 1 MILES
San Francisco Bay

PROPOSED BICYCLE

FACILITIES
High Priority Project
Medium Priority and
Opportunity Project
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!!
!
!
!! !
! !!
! !
!
!!!
!! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Ä123
¥580
¥580
¥80
¥80

EL CERRITO
PINOLE
SAN
PABLO

BERKELEY
EAST

RICHMOND

HEIGHTS

EL SOBRANTE

KENSINGTON

MONTALVIN
MANOR

NORTH RICHMOND

ROLLINGWOOD
TARA
HILLS
SAINT

JO SEPH

CEMETERY

MIL L ER-KNOX

REG IO NAL

SHO REL INE
PO INT

PINO L E REG

SHO REL INE

SO BRANTE

RIDG E REG

PRESERVE

RICHMO ND

CO UNTRY
CLUB

TIL DEN

REG IO NAL
PARK

TIL DEN

NATU RE

STU DY AREA

WILDCAT CANYON

REGIONAL PARK

KENNEDY

G ROVE REG

REC AREA

SAN PABLO

RESERVO IR

REC AREA

PINO L E PARK

MIRA VISTA

CO UNTRY

C L U B & G O L F

HILLSIDE

NATU RAL
AREA

ROLLIN G
HIL LS

MEMO RIAL
PARK

FIE LDC
REST
DR

CASTRORANCH RD

PINE AVE

SAN PABLO AVE

CUTTING BLVD
7TH

ST ANDRADE AVE

GARRARD BL

VDTEWKSBURY AVE CARLSON BLVDFLORIDA AVE
PARKRI
DGEDR

PARKSIDE D R

HILLTOP
M
ALLRD

REGAT T A
BL
VD

AUTO PL
Z
6TH ST

RHEEM AVE

MCBRYDE
AVE

KEITHDR

MAINE AVE

ESMOND AVE

HILLTOP DR
BLUME
DR

VIEW DR

HILLVIEW DR

FOOTHILLAVE
SHAN
EDR

SANTA RIT
ARD

COSTA AVE

VALLEYVIEW R
D

BAYVIEW AVE

GIANT HWY

MACDONALD AVE

COLLINS A
VE
HE

NSLEY S T
RICHMO
NDAVE

MARINA WAY
23RD ST
47TH
ST
8TH ST
16TH ST

POTRERO AVE
4TH ST

HALL AVE

VIRGINIA AVE

TULARE AVE

LINKSDR
29TH STGARVIN AVE
RO
CK
ROSE
WAY
45TH ST
SCE
N
ICA
V E
WEST
ERNDR
LAKES

IDE D R

MEADEST
P
ARK

CENTRAL

WRIGHT AVE

ATLAS RD
22ND ST
MEADOW

VIEW DR
37TH ST

VIA VERDI
PAIN

TEDPONY RD

OHIO AVE

SANTAFE A
VE

RIPLEY AVE
20TH ST
MOYERS
RD

LUCAS AVE

GRANT AVE
CURR
YST
MAY RD
38TH ST
KEY

BLVDCANAL
BL
VD

SAN MATEO ST

BURBECK AVE
33RD ST

ROOSEVEL T AVE

GOODRICK AVE
TE

HAMA AV
E
FRAN
W
A Y

WALL AVE

NEVIN AVE
SAN J

OAQUIN ST
34TH ST

MONTEREY ST
13TH ST

SELMIGRV
52ND ST

GROOM DR
26TH ST

CHANSLOR AVE CARLSTO
N
ST
39TH ST
M
ARINA
BAY
PKWY

AMENDRD

LOWELL AVE
30TH ST
55TH ST

BUC KBOARD WAY

CARRIAGEDR

ALAMO AVE
28TH ST

SHELDONDR
42ND ST

HEAVENLY RIDGE LN

BERK AVE

MORNING SIDE DR
24TH ST
COA
CH
DR
11TH ST
PARK
RID
GE D
R
SIERRA
AVE
12TH ST
W
ISW
AL
L
DR

JENKINS WAY
DUKE
AVE
SA
N
LUIS
ST
O
X
FORD
A
VE
BA

RKLEYDR

OVEREND AVE
56TH
ST
B ST

AMADOR ST
18TH ST

CENTER AVE

PARKER RD
17TH ST
3RD ST
1ST ST
15TH ST

MARICOPA AVE

SANFORD AVE
2ND ST
50TH ST

K LOSEW
AY

KIPLING
DR

JOANNDR
49TH ST
NELSO
NDR
9TH ST

DUNN AVE
19TH ST

COALINGA AVE

GAYNOR AVE
21ST ST

BISSELL AVE
31ST ST32ND ST
5TH ST
DORN
AN
DR

YUBA ST

KERN STLASSEN ST

ROCKY R
D

BARRETT AVE
HA
RBOU
R
WAY

FASCINATION
CIR

CO NTRA
CO STA

COLLE GE
Figure i High-Priority Bicycle Impr ovement Projects.

III
Executive Summary
Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan

Page 162 of 327 ends

Richmond City CouncilOctober 25, 2022

Richmond City Council
October 25, 2022