Richmond City Council
February 7, 2023

BICYCLE

PROJECT

PRIORITIZATION

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: 12/16/2022.

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
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!!
!
!
!! !
! !!
!
!
! !
!
!
!!
Ä4
¥80
¥80

EL CERRITO
PINOLE

SAN PABLO
EAST

RICHMOND

HEIGHTS

EL SOBRANTE

MONTALVIN
MANOR

ROLLINGWOOD
TARA
HILLS
SAINT

JO SEPH

CEMETERY

PO INT PINO L E
REG

SHO REL INE

SO BRANTE

RIDG E REG

PRESERVE

RICHMO ND

CO UNTRY
CLUB

WILDCAT CANYON

REGIONAL PARK

KENNEDY

G ROVE REG

REC AREA

SAN PABLO

RESERVO IR

REC AREA

PINO L E PARK

ROLLIN G
HIL LS

MEMO RIAL
PARK

CAS TRO RANCHRD

PINE AVE

ANDRADE AVE

SAN PABLO AVE

PARKRIDGEDR

PARKSIDE DR

HILLTOP
M

ALLRD AUTO PLZ

RHEEM AVE

MCBRYDE
AVE

KEITHDR

BARRETT AVE

ESMOND AVE

HILLTOP DR
BLUME
DR

VIEW DR

HILLVIEW DR

SHANE D
R

SANTA R
ITARD

COSTA AVE

VALLEYVIEW
RD
GIA
NT
HWY

MACDONALD AVE

COLLINS AVE
23RD ST

TULARE AVE
LIN
KS DR
29TH ST
RO
CKROSE
WAY
35TH ST
LAKES
IDE DR
PARK

CENTRAL

ATLAS RD
22ND ST

VIA VERDI
PAIN

TEDPONY RD
MOYERS
RD

GRANT AVE
MAY RD
37TH ST
FRA
N
WA Y

ROOSEVEL T AVE

DOWNER AVE

NEVIN AVEBISSELL AVE
34TH ST

SELMIGRV

GROOM DR
30TH ST
24TH ST20TH ST
AME
NDRD

LOWELL AVE
19TH ST

AMADOR ST

BUCKBOARD W
AY

CARRIAGEDR

SHELDON DR HEAVENLY RIDGE LN

MORNING SIDE DR

GARVIN AVE
COA
CH
DR
PARK
RIDGE
D
R
SIERRA
AVE
KEY B
LVD
W
IS
W
ALL
DR
DUKE
AVE
36T
H
ST
BARK
LEY
DR

CE RRO SUR

PARKE R RD
33RD ST

KL OSEW
AY

KIPLING
DR

JOANNDR

NELSONDR
17TH ST
40TH ST
39TH ST
18TH ST
31ST ST

WOOD GLENDR
32ND ST

GAYNOR AVE

YUBA ST

KERN STLASSEN ST

ROCKY RD
FA

SCINATION
CIR

CO NTRA
CO STA

COLLE GE
0 0.5 1 MILES

BICYCLE

PROJECT

PRIORITIZATION
High-Priority Project
Medium-Priority Project
Opportunity Project

NORTH RICHMOND
NORTH

RICHMOND
Figure 15 Proposed Bicycle Improvements by Prioritization Category (North Richmond) 69 Implementation
Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan

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: 12/16/2022.

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 16 High Priority Bicycle Improvement Projects
70 Implementation
Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan

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: 12/16/2022.

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
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Ä123
¥580
¥580
¥80

EL CERRITO
SAN
PABLO

EAST RICHMOND

HEIGHTS
NORTH

RICHMOND

MIL L ER-KNOX

REG IO NAL

SHO REL INE

WILDCAT CANYON

REGIONAL PARK

BOOK E R T

ANDERSO N JR

U NITY PARK

SAN PABLO AVELINCOLN AVE
HELLINGS AVE7THST ANDRADE AVE
2ND ST

CARLSON BLVD

REGATTA BLVD
6TH ST

RHEEM AVE

MAINE AVE

CUTTING BLVD

BAYVIEW
AVE

ESMOND AVE

HARTNETT

AVEMARI
NA BAY
PKWY
47TH ST

FOOTHILLAVE

COSTA AVE

MCBRYDE AVE

MEEKER AVE

MACDONALD AVE

HENSLEY ST

MARINA WAY

MACDONALD AVE
23RD ST
8TH ST
16TH ST

MORAN AVE

PENNSYLVANIA AVE

POTRERO AVE

HARBOUR WAY
4TH ST

HALL AVE

TULARE AVE

GARVIN AVE
45TH ST

PINE AVE
44TH ST

WHARF ST
35TH ST

MEADE S
T

WRIGHT AVE
BROAD
WAY
22ND ST
37TH ST

PENINSULADR
41ST
ST

OHIO AVE

RIPLEY AVE
20TH ST

LUCAS AVE

FLEMING AVE

GRANT AVE

CURRY ST
38TH ST
KEY
BLVD
59TH ST

SAN MATEO ST
BURBECK AVE10TH ST

ROOSEVEL T AVE

EGRET WAY

TEHAMA AVE

MOUNTST

DOWNER AVE

NEVIN A VE
POR
TOLA A
VE
33RD ST
SA
N

JOAQUIN S
T
34TH ST

MONTEREY ST

MERCED ST
13TH ST
52ND ST
DIMM
ST
24TH ST
26TH ST

CHANSLOR AVE
CAR
LST
ON
ST

YUBA ST
28TH ST

WALL AVE

CLINTON AVE
COLLIN
SST

WILSON AVE

HOFFMAN BLVD

LOWELL AVE
30TH ST

VAN FLEET AVE
55 TH
ST

SANTA CLARA ST
56TH ST

AMADOR ST
13TH ST
HU
M
BOLDT
ST

VIRGINIA AVE
HINKLE
Y AVE

ALAMO AVE

FALL AVE
42ND ST

ESPEE AVE
21ST ST

BERK AVE
CANAL
BLVD
11TH ST
SO
NOM
A
ST

BURLINGAME AVE

SIERRA AVE
M

CLAUGHL
IN
ST

SOUTH ST

BE RK PL
12TH ST

SAN LUIS ST
36TH ST
15TH ST

OVEREND AVE
57TH ST
B ST

DUBOCE AVE

CENTER AVE
17TH ST
3RD ST
1ST ST

MARICOPA AVE

SANFORD AVE

WILLARD AVE

FLORIDA AVE
50TH ST
27TH ST29TH ST
49TH ST

COLUMBIA AVE

OHIO AVE

FRESNO AVE

HUMPHREY AVE
9TH ST

DUNN AVE
18TH ST
C ST
19TH ST

COALINGA AVEFACTORY
ST

WALLER AVE
40TH ST39TH ST

CREELY AVE
5TH ST

BISSELL AVE
31ST ST

VISALIA AVE
32ND ST

GATELY AVE
43RD ST

MARIPOSA ST
25TH ST

GAYNOR AVE

WENDELL AVE
46TH ST

KERN ST
LASSEN
ST

VENTURA ST

SPRING ST
58TH ST

BELL AVE

STEGE AVE

TAFT AVE

BARRETT AVE
0 0.5 1 MILES

PROPOSED BICYCLE

FACILITIES
High-Priority Project
Medium-Priority and
Opportunity Project

CENTRAL CORE

CENTRAL
CORE
Figure 17 High Priority Bicycle Improvement Projects (Central Core) 71 Implementation
Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan

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: 12/16/2022.

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
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!!
!
!
!! !
! !!
!
!
! !
!
!
!!
Ä4
¥80
¥80

EL CERRITO
PINOLE

SAN PABLO
EAST

RICHMOND

HEIGHTS

EL SOBRANTE

MONTALVIN
MANOR

ROLLINGWOOD
TARA
HILLS
SAINT

JO SEPH

CEMETERY

PO INT PINO L E
REG

SHO REL INE

SO BRANTE

RIDG E REG

PRESERVE

RICHMO ND

CO UNTRY
CLUB

WILDCAT CANYON

REGIONAL PARK

KENNEDY

G ROVE REG

REC AREA

SAN PABLO

RESERVO IR

REC AREA

PINO L E PARK

ROLLIN G
HIL LS

MEMO RIAL
PARK

CAS TRO RANCHRD

PINE AVE

ANDRADE AVE

SAN PABLO AVE

PARKRIDGEDR

PARKSIDE DR

HILLTOP
M

ALLRD AUTO PLZ

RHEEM AVE

MCBRYDE
AVE

KEITHDR

BARRETT AVE

ESMOND AVE

HILLTOP DR
BLUME
DR

VIEW DR

HILLVIEW DR

SHANE D
R

SANTA R
ITARD

COSTA AVE

VALLEYVIEW
RD
GIA
NT
HWY

MACDONALD AVE

COLLINS AVE
23RD ST

TULARE AVE
LIN
KS DR
29TH ST
RO
CKROSE
WAY
35TH ST
LAKES
IDE DR
PARK

CENTRAL

ATLAS RD
22ND ST

VIA VERDI
PAIN

TEDPONY RD
MOYERS
RD

GRANT AVE
MAY RD
37TH ST
FRA
N
WA Y

ROOSEVEL T AVE

DOWNER AVE

NEVIN AVEBISSELL AVE
34TH ST

SELMIGRV

GROOM DR
30TH ST
24TH ST20TH ST
AME
NDRD

LOWELL AVE
19TH ST

AMADOR ST

BUCKBOARD W
AY

CARRIAGEDR

SHELDON DR HEAVENLY RIDGE LN

MORNING SIDE DR

GARVIN AVE
COA
CH
DR
PARK
RIDGE
D
R
SIERRA
AVE
KEY B
LVD
W
IS
W
ALL
DR
DUKE
AVE
36T
H
ST
BARK
LEY
DR

CE RRO SUR

PARKE R RD
33RD ST

KL OSEW
AY

KIPLING
DR

JOANNDR

NELSONDR
17TH ST
40TH ST
39TH ST
18TH ST
31ST ST

WOOD GLENDR
32ND ST

GAYNOR AVE

YUBA ST

KERN STLASSEN ST

ROCKY RD
FA

SCINATION
CIR

CO NTRA
CO STA

COLLE GE
0 0.5 1 MILES

BICYCLE

PROJECT

PRIORITIZATION
High-Priority Project
Medium-Priority and
Opportunity Project

NORTH RICHMOND
NORTH

RICHMOND
Figure 18 High Priority Bicycle Improvement Projects (North Richmond) 72 Implementation
Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan

Table 10 Bicycle Projects by Prioritization Scores

STREET START END RECOMMENDED FACILITY MILES PRIORITIZATION SCORE

PRIORITIZATION

CATEGORY
Carlson Blvd Richmond Greenway Broadway Class I Shared-Use Path 0.07 81 High-Priority 23rd St Overcrossing Richmond Greenway Richmond Greenway Class I Shared-Use Path 0.11 80 High-Priority Central Ave Jacuzzi St Pierce St Class I Shared-Use Path 0.10 79 High-Priority Harbour Way Richmond Greenway Macdonald Ave Class II Bicycle Lane 0.31 77 High-Priority 16th St Macdonald Ave Livingston Ln Class IV Separated Bikeway 0.01 77 High-Priority Macdonald Ave Harbour Way 16th St Class III Bicycle Route 0.32 77 High-Priority 16th St Nevin Plaza Richmond Greenway Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0.08 77 High-Priority Nevin Ave Marina Way 15th St Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0.05 76 High-Priority Pierce St Central Ave Cerrito Creek Class IV Separated Bikeway 0.23 75 High-Priority Marina Way Macdonald Ave Richmond Greenway Class II Bicycle Lane 0.30 75 High-Priority S 49th St Wall Ave Cutting Blvd Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0.17 75 High-Priority 23rd St Broadway Brooks Ave Class II Bicycle Lane 0.61 75 High-Priority Espee Ave Bissell Ave Trail south of Chanslor
Ave Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0.19 75 High-Priority
Carlson Blvd Bayview Ave Broadway Class IV Separated Bikeway 1.81 73 High-Priority Carlson Blvd Bayview Ave Tehama Ave Class IIB Buffered Bicycle Lane 0.49 72 High-Priority Bayview Ave Seaport Ave S 55th St Class IIB Buffered Bicycle Lane 0.36 72 High-Priority Barrett Ave 19th St Marina Way Class IV Separated Bikeway 0.21 72 High-Priority Plaza Way S 49th St S 50th St Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0.05 72 High-Priority Ohio Ave Harbour Way 2nd St Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0.42 72 High-Priority Barrett Ave 19th St 22nd St Class II Bicycle Lane 0.20 71 High-Priority 73 Implementation
Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan

STREET START END RECOMMENDED FACILITY MILES PRIORITIZATION SCORE

PRIORITIZATION

CATEGORY
Harbour Way Macdonald Ave Barrett Ave Class II Bicycle Lane 0.19 71 High-Priority New Shared-Use
Path S 28th St S 29th St Class I Shared-Use Path 0.07 70 High-Priority Nevin Ave 8th St 11th St Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0.16 70 High-Priority San Joaquin St Central Ave Imperial Ave Class III Bicycle Route 0.83 69 High-Priority Berk Ave - S 49th St Cutting Blvd Cutting Blvd Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0.78 68 High-Priority Spring St S 29th St Regatta Blvd Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0.52 68 High-Priority Tewksbury Ave Santa Fe Ave Washington Ave Class IV Separated Bikeway 0.10 68 High-Priority 22nd St Brooks Ave Bissell Ave Class II Bicycle Lane 0.49 68 High-Priority Chanslor Ave 2nd St 8th St Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0.32 67 High-Priority Macdonald Ave Richmond Parkway Harbour Way Class II Bicycle Lane 0.70 67 High-Priority Cutting Blvd Hoffman Blvd Carlson Blvd Class IV Separated Bikeway 1.43 67 High-Priority BNSF Easement
near Railroad Ave
(not acquired yet)
Richmond Ave Washington Ave/
Tewksbury Ave Class I Shared-Use Path 0.23 66 High-Priority Bissell Ave Richmond Parkway Espee Ave Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 1.29 66 High-Priority Ells St Fleming Ave Bayview Ave Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0.11 65 High-Priority San Pablo Ave Natalie Ct (City
Boundary)
Macdonald Ave (City
Boundary) Class IV Separated Bikeway 1.34 65 High-Priority Macdonald Ave 16th St Key Blvd Class II Bicycle Lane 1.80 65 High-Priority McBryde Ave San Pablo Ave Wildcat Canyon
Parking Lot Class II Bicycle Lane 0.65 65
High-Priority
Miraflores Greenbelt
- Ohio Connection S 45th St Miraflores Greenbelt Class I Shared-Use Path 0.10 65 High-Priority Table 10 Bicycle Projects by Prioritization Scores (Continued) 74 Implementation
Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan

STREET START END RECOMMENDED FACILITY MILES PRIORITIZATION SCORE

PRIORITIZATION

CATEGORY
45th St Nevin Ave Macdonald Ave Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0.08 65 High-Priority Ohio Ave 17th St 23rd St Class II Bicycle Lane 0.30 65 High-Priority 25th St Macdonald Ave Roosevelt Ave Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0.30 65 High-Priority 2nd/ S 2nd St I-580 Pennsylvania Ave Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 1.05 64 Medium-Priority Nevin Ave Richmond Parkway 8th St Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0.54 64 Medium-Priority 6th St Maine Ave Ripley Ave Class III Bicycle Route 0.73 64 Medium-Priority Southside Park Trail
extension S 7th St Cutting Blvd Class I Shared-Use Path 0.11 64 Medium-Priority 23rd St Brooks Ave Maricopa Ave Class II Bicycle Lane 0.66 63 Medium-Priority New Shared-Use
Path Lincoln Ave Garvin Ave Class I Shared-Use Path 0.14 63 Medium-Priority Wilson Ave McBryde Ave 44th St Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0.70 63 Medium-Priority S 41st St Center Ave Cutting Blvd Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0.33 63 Medium-Priority Bayview Ave Seaport Ave S 55th St Class IV Separated Bikeway 0.36 63 Medium-Priority 43rd St Macdonald Ave Wilson Ave Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0.42 63 Medium-Priority 13th St Harbour Way Costa Ave / City
Boundary Class IV Separated Bikeway 0.60 62 Medium-Priority Maine Ave S 2nd St Harbour Way Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0.43 62 Medium-Priority Barrett Ave A St 7th St Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0.34 62 Medium-Priority S 47th St - Fall Ave -
S 45th St - Overend
Ave - JFK Park
Wall Ave Potrero Ave Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0.64 61 Medium-Priority Nevin Ave
27th St 45th St Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0.85 61 Medium-Priority Table 10 Bicycle Projects by Prioritization Scores (Continued) 75 Implementation
Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan

STREET START END RECOMMENDED FACILITY MILES PRIORITIZATION SCORE

PRIORITIZATION

CATEGORY
7th St Barrett Ave Ripley Ave Class II Bicycle Lane 0.13 61 Medium-Priority San Luis St Central Ave Carlson Blvd Class III Bicycle Route 0.75 60 Medium-Priority S 55th St San Joaquin St Creely Ave / City
Boundary Class III Bicycle Route 0.58 60 Medium-Priority Maine Ave S 12th St S 28th St Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0.82 60 Medium-Priority Barrett Ave San Pablo Ave Key Blvd Class II Bicycle Lane 0.11 60 Medium-Priority S 47th St - I-580
Overpass Carlson Blvd Meade St Class I Shared-Use Path 0.08 60 Medium-Priority Central Ave Existing Bay Trail Rydin Rd Class I Shared-Use Path 0.02 59 Medium-Priority S 47th St Potrero Ave Carlson Blvd Class II Bicycle Lane 0.28 59 Medium-Priority Southside Park Trail
west extension S 3rd St S 2nd St Class I Shared-Use Path 0.06 59 Medium-Priority Grant Ave 23rd St 24th St Class III Bicycle Route 0.14 58 Medium-Priority Center Ave Carlson Blvd S 41st St Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0.76 57 Medium-Priority S 2nd St I-580 Cutting Blvd Class II Bicycle Lane 0.13 57 Medium-Priority Barrett Ave 43rd St 45th St Class II Bicycle Lane 0.07 57 Medium-Priority 20th St Espee Ave Potrero Ave Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0.67 57 Medium-Priority Klose Way Hilltop Mall Rd Blume Dr Class II Bicycle Lane 0.10 57 Medium-Priority S 33rd St Wall Ave Nevin Ave Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0.53 56 Medium-Priority Esmond Ave San Pablo Ave 37th St Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0.12 56 Medium-Priority Cypress Ave S 47th St Ells St
Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0.21 55 Medium-Priority
15th St Roosevelt Ave Costa Ave Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0.72 55 Medium-Priority Coalinga Ave 13th St 23rd St Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0.54 55 Medium-Priority Table 10 Bicycle Projects by Prioritization Scores (Continued) 76 Implementation
Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan

STREET START END RECOMMENDED FACILITY MILES PRIORITIZATION SCORE

PRIORITIZATION

CATEGORY
Robert Miller Dr Hilltop Mall Rd Hilltop Dr Class II Bicycle Lane 0.08 55 Medium-Priority S 45th St Richmond Greenway Wall Ave Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0.22 54 Medium-Priority 24th St Maricopa Ave Downer Ave Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0.53 54 Medium-Priority Grant Ave 24th St 30th St Class II Bicycle Lane 0.32 54 Medium-Priority Marina Bay Pkwy Cutting Blvd Meeker Ave Class IV Separated Bikeway 0.39 53 Medium-Priority Elm St 7th St 8th St Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0.05 53 Medium-Priority Wright Ave Marina Way S 19th St Class II Bicycle Lane 0.24 53 Medium-Priority E Richmond Ave Gerrard Blvd Canal Blvd Parking
Lot Cut Through Class II Bicycle Lane 0.27 53 Medium-Priority Roosevelt Ave Portola Ave 44th St Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 1.56 53 Medium-Priority 30th St Garvin Ave Nevin Ave Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0.55 53 Medium-Priority 25th St Grant Ave Downer Ave Class II Bicycle Lane 0.12 53 Medium-Priority S 19th St Wright Ave Meeker Ave Class III Bicycle Route 0.10 53 Medium-Priority 27th St Broadway Grant Ave Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0.45 53 Medium-Priority Marina Way Cutting Blvd Waterfront / Lucretia
Edwards Park Class IV Separated Bikeway 1.06 52 Medium-Priority Wall Ave S 41st St S 49th St Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0.40 52 Medium-Priority Maricopa Ave 23rd St 36th St Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0.77 50 Medium-Priority Regatta Blvd Marina Bay Pkwy S 32nd St Class II Bicycle Lane 0.37 50 Medium-Priority Key Blvd Macdonald Ave Clinton Ave Class II Bicycle Lane

0.51 50 Medium-Priority
Bay Trail - Chevron
Realignment (ROW
not acquired)
Hensley Ave North Richmond
Border Class I Shared-Use Path 0.57 50 Medium-Priority
Table 10 Bicycle Projects by Prioritization Scores (Continued) 77 Implementation
Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan

STREET START END RECOMMENDED FACILITY MILES PRIORITIZATION SCORE

PRIORITIZATION

CATEGORY
Garvin Ave Portola Ave San Pablo Ave Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 1.57 49 Medium-Priority Marina Bay Pkwy I-580 Meeker Ave Class I Shared-Use Path 0.16 49 Medium-Priority Hilltop Mall Rd Hilltop Mall Rd Hilltop Mall Rd Class IV Separated Bikeway 1.28 49 Medium-Priority Regatta Blvd Spring St Julia Woods St Class III Bicycle Route 0.11 49 Medium-Priority S 39th St Center Ave Richmond Greenway Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0.08 49 Medium-Priority S 56th St Tehama Ave Carlos Ave / City
Boundary Class III Bicycle Route 0.64 48 Medium-Priority Hilltop Dr Robert Miller Dr Park Central St Class IV Separated Bikeway 1.11 48 Medium-Priority Filbert St Chesley Ave Existing Class II Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0.34 48 Medium-Priority Wall Ave S 39th St S 41st St Class I Shared-Use Path 0.09 47 Medium-Priority Wall Ave S 33rd St John F. Kennedy Park Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0.34 47 Opportunity Priority Alamo Ave Cherry St City Boundary (North
Richmond) Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0.45 47 Opportunity Priority Shane Dr Hilltop Mall Rd Hilltop Dr Class IV Separated Bikeway 0.12 47 Opportunity Priority 7th St 7th St bike lane Lincoln Ave Class III Bicycle Route 0.10 46 Opportunity Priority Amador Street McBryde Ave Clinton Ave Class III Bicycle Route 0.51 46 Opportunity Priority Tehama Ave Carlson Blvd City Boundary (El
Cerrito) Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0.40 45 Opportunity Priority Meade St Regatta Blvd Seaport Ave Class IV Separated Bikeway 0.72 45 Opportunity Priority Clinton Ave Key Blvd Sierra Ave Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0.07 45 Opportunity Priority Kelsey St Chesley Ave Willard Ave
Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0.25 45 Opportunity Priority Regatta Blvd Regatta Blvd Trail Julia Wood St/Spring
St Class IV Separated Bikeway 0.20 45 Opportunity Priority Table 10 Bicycle Projects by Prioritization Scores (Continued) 78 Implementation
Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan

STREET START END RECOMMENDED FACILITY MILES PRIORITIZATION SCORE

PRIORITIZATION

CATEGORY
Richmond Pkwy San Pablo Ave Blume Dr Class IV Separated Bikeway 0.94 45 Opportunity Priority Hilltop Lake -
Richmond Parkway
Connector
Hilltop Lake Trail Richmond Parkway Class I Shared-Use Path 0.19 45 Opportunity Priority Sierra Ave Clinton Ave City Limits Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0.36 45 Opportunity Priority Sacramento Ave San Pablo Abe San Luis St Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0.41 44 Opportunity Priority Potrero Ave Carlson Blvd San Pablo Ave
(beyond City limit) Class II Bicycle Lane 0.97 44 Opportunity Priority Marina Bay Parkway Regatta Blvd Peninsula Dr Class II Bicycle Lane 0.63 44 Opportunity Priority Solano Ave 38th Ave City Boundary Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0.71 44 Opportunity Priority Lucas Ave Richmond Parkway Lucas Park Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0.32 44 Opportunity Priority Hilltop Dr Richmond Parkway Robert Miller Dr Class IV Separated Bikeway 0.84 44 Opportunity Priority McBryde Ave 23rd St San Pablo Ave Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0.91 44 Opportunity Priority 29th St Howard St Garvin Ave Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0.66 44 Opportunity Priority Regatta Blvd Bay Trail / Marina
Park & Green Marina Bay Parkway Class IV Separated Bikeway 0.17 44 Opportunity Priority Chesley Ave UPRR BNSF Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0.10 44 Opportunity Priority Robin Dr Regatta Blvd Meade St Class I Shared-Use Path 0.34 43 Opportunity Priority McGlothen Way -
Phanor Dr - Giant
Hwy
Williams Dr Point Pinole Regional
Shoreline Park Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0.44 43 Opportunity Priority Groom Dr - Wiswall
Dr - Parker Rd Oxford Ave Movers Rd Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 1.48 43 Opportunity Priority Lincoln Ave 8th St 7th St Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0.05 43 Opportunity Priority
S 51st St Seaport Ave Bay Trail Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0.08 42 Opportunity Priority Table 10 Bicycle Projects by Prioritization Scores (Continued) 79 Implementation
Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan

STREET START END RECOMMENDED FACILITY MILES PRIORITIZATION SCORE

PRIORITIZATION

CATEGORY
Meeker Ave S 19th St Marina Bay Parkway Class II Bicycle Lane 0.26 41 Opportunity Priority Canal Blvd Ohio Ave Cutting Blvd Class IV Separated Bikeway 0.38 41 Opportunity Priority San Pablo Ave Hilltop Dr Richmond Pkwy Class IV Separated Bikeway 0.37 41 Opportunity Priority Sutter Ave San Luis St San Pablo city limit Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0.42 41 Opportunity Priority New Shared-Use
Path
Proposed San Pablo
Creek Trail Richmond Parkway Class I Shared-Use Path 1.59 40 Opportunity Priority N Castro St Bay Trail Filbert St Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0.17 40 Opportunity Priority Washington Ave Casey Dr Richmond Ave Class III Bicycle Route 0.25 40 Opportunity Priority Lakeside Dr Richmond Parkway Research Dr Class II Bicycle Lane 0.54 40 Opportunity Priority San Pablo Creek
Trail
North Richmond
Border San Pablo Border Class I Shared-Use Path 0.11 40 Opportunity Priority Research Dr Hilltop Dr Lakeside Dr Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0.05 39 Opportunity Priority Park Central St Hilltop Dr Park Central Ct Class IV Separated Bikeway 0.86 39 Opportunity Priority Golden Gate Ave Ocean Ave Washington Ave Class III Bicycle Route 0.86 39 Opportunity Priority Richmond Ave
- Canal Blvd
connector
Richmond Ave Canal Blvd Class I Shared-Use Path 0.06 38 Opportunity Priority Moyers Rd - Oxford
Ave - Birmingham Dr Hilltop Dr Hilltop Dr Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 1.89 38 Opportunity Priority Valley View Rd City Boundary (El
Sobrante) Pine Hill Dr Class IV Separated Bikeway 0.78 38 Opportunity Priority Hensley St Willard Ave Richmond Parkway Class II Bicycle Lane 0.40 38 Opportunity Priority Doran Dr Western Dr Brickyard Cove Rd Class IV Separated Bikeway 0.87 38 Opportunity Priority
Table 10 Bicycle Projects by Prioritization Scores (Continued) 80 Implementation
Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan

STREET START END RECOMMENDED FACILITY MILES PRIORITIZATION SCORE

PRIORITIZATION

CATEGORY
El Portal Dr Near I-80 Near San Pablo Dam
Rd Class II Bicycle Lane 0.18 38 Opportunity Priority
Hillview Dr Hilltop Mall Rd Hilltop Dr Class IV Separated Bikeway 0.09 38 Opportunity Priority Richmond Pkwy Goodrick Ave Hilltop Dr Class IV Separated Bikeway 1.76 37 Opportunity Priority San Pablo Dam Rd El Portal Dr City Limits Class IV Separated Bikeway 0.07 37 Opportunity Priority Cerrito Ave - 38th St 37th St Solano Ave Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0.22 36 Opportunity Priority Canal Blvd Cutting Blvd Seacliff Dr Class IV Separated Bikeway 0.76 36 Opportunity Priority Point Richmond Bike
Boulevard Ocean Ave Garrard Blvd Class III Bicycle Route 1.17 35 Opportunity Priority Bay Trail Extension:

Miller-Knox Regional
Shoreline
Existing Bay Trail
near Dornan Dr
Existing Bay Trail near
Brickyard Cove Rd Class I Shared-Use Path 0.40 35 Opportunity Priority Park Central St
Shopping Center
Access
Park Central Ct Shopping Center Class I Shared-Use Path 0.03 34 Opportunity Priority Wildcat Creek Trail
Gap Closure
Existing trail (North
Richmond)
Existing trail (near
Hubert Park - San
Pablo)
Class I Shared-Use Path 0.34 34 Opportunity Priority
San Pablo Ave Hilltop Dr La Puerta Dr Class II Bicycle Lane 0.57 34 Opportunity Priority Brickyard Cove Rd Dornan Dr Sandpiper Spit Class II Bicycle Lane 0.30 34 Opportunity Priority Molate Point Bay
Trail Extension Stenmark Dr Bridge Trail Class I Shared-Use Path 2.39 33 Opportunity Priority Morningside Dr Valley View Rd Full Moon Dr/
Thunderhead Ct Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0.93 33 Opportunity Priority May Rd Laurel Ln Valley View Rd Class II Bicycle Lane 0.66 33 Opportunity Priority Table 10 Bicycle Projects by Prioritization Scores (Continued) 81 Implementation
Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan

STREET START END RECOMMENDED FACILITY MILES PRIORITIZATION SCORE

PRIORITIZATION

CATEGORY
Giant Hwy Collins Ave Richmond Parkway Class IV Separated Bikeway 0.33 33 Opportunity Priority Market Ave San Pablo city limit North Richmond city
limit Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0.07 32 Opportunity Priority New Shared-Use
Path Bay Trail Meade St Class I Shared-Use Path 0.58 31 Opportunity Priority Bayside Dr Marina Bay Pkwy Traffic circle Class II Bicycle Lane 0.15 31 Opportunity Priority Giant Hwy Atlas Rd Griffin Dr Class IV Separated Bikeway 0.95 31 Opportunity Priority Bay Trail - near
Meeker Slough
S 51st St Bay Trail
Spur
Bay Trail near Bayside
Ct Class I Shared-Use Path 0.58 30 Opportunity Priority Point Pinole Bay Trail
spur
Existing Bay Trail/
North Richmond
Border
Existing Bay Trail Class I Shared-Use Path 0.60 26 Opportunity Priority Bay Trail - North of
Landfill Loop Trail Landfill Loop Trail Proposed Point Pinole Bay Trail Spur Class I Shared-Use Path 0.99 26 Opportunity Priority Point San Pablo Bay
Trail extension
Molate Point Bay
Trail extension Point San Pablo Class I Shared-Use Path 1.63 25 Opportunity Priority Bay Trail Extension:

Point Pinole - San
Pablo Bay Regional
Shoreline
Existing Bay Trail Existing Bay Trail Class I Shared-Use Path 1.02 25 Opportunity Priority Regatta Blvd S 32nd St Robin Dr Class II Bicycle Lane 0.44 25 Opportunity Priority San Pablo Dam Rd Near Martins Ln Near Martins Ln Class IV Separated Bikeway 0.06 24 Opportunity Priority Table 10 Bicycle Projects by Prioritization Scores (Continued) 82 Implementation
Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan

Pedestrian Project Prioritization Results

PRIORITIZATION CATEGORY POINT RANGE NUMBER OF PROJECTS
High-Priority 76-100 31
Medium-Priority 58-75 43
Opportunity Priority 0-57 37
Prioritization scores for the recommended
pedestrian improvement projects ranged
between 27 and 81 points (out of 100
possible points).The average project score
was 61. Pedestrian Project Prioritization
results are shown in Table 11 .

Figures 19 through 21 on the following pages
show the category of each recommended
pedestrian project. Figures 22 through 24
show the high priority projects, and Table 12
lists all of the recommended pedestrian spot
improvements with their prioritization scores.

Table 11 Pedestrian Spot Recommendation Prioritization Summary Intersection at the Richmond Wellness Trail.
83 Implementation
Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan

PROPOSED

PEDESTRIAN SPOT

IMPROVEMENT

PRIORITIZATION

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: 12/16/2022.

BOUNDARIES +

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

PROPOSED

PEDESTRIAN SPOT

IMPROVEMENTS
Prioritization Category
High-Priority Project
Medium-Priority
Project
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 LDCREST
DR

CASTRO RANCH RD

PINE AVE

SAN PABLO AVE

LINCOLN AVE

CUTTING BLVD
7TH

ST ANDRADE AVE

GARRARD BLV

DTEWKSBURY AVE

CARLSON BL
VD

FLORIDA AVE
PARKRI
DGEDR
PA

RKSIDE D R

HILLTOP
M
ALLRD

REGAT T A
BLVD

AUTO PLZ
6TH ST

RHEEM AVE

MCBRYDE
AV
E

KEITHDR

MAINE AVE
B

AY VI EWAVE

HILLTOP DR

BLUME DR

VIEW DR
MARINA
BAY P
KWY

HILLVIEWDR

FOOTHILLAVE
SHA
NE D
R

SANTA R
ITARD

COSTA AVE

VALLEYVIEW R
D
GIA
NT
HWY
COLL
IN
S AV
E

HENSLEY S T
RICHM
ONDAVE

MARINA WAY

BUSH AVE
47TH
ST
8TH ST
16TH ST

POTRERO AVE
4TH ST

HALL AVE

VIRGINIA AVE

LINKSDR
29TH ST

GARVIN AVE
RO

CKROSEWAY
45TH ST
SCE
N
ICA
V E
WEST
ERNDR
35TH ST
LAKES

IDE D R
PA
RK

CEN TRAL

ATLASRD
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
CURRY
ST
MAY RD
38TH ST

KEYBLVD

SAN MATEO ST

BURBECK AVE

ROOSEVEL T AVE

GOODRICK AVE
TE

HAMA AV
E
FRAN
WA Y

WALL AVE

NEVIN AVE
SAN
JO
AQUIN
ST

MONTEREY ST
13TH ST

SELMIGRV
52ND ST

GROOM DR
30TH ST
24TH ST

CHANSLOR AVE

CARLSTO
N ST
34TH ST
39TH ST

CLINTON AVE
19TH ST
33RD ST
WIL
SON
AVE
AM
END
RD

LOWELL AVE
55TH ST

BUC KBOARD WA Y

CARRIAGEDR

ALAMO AVE

SHELDONDR
42ND ST

HEAVENLY RIDGE LN

BERK AVE

MORNING SIDE D
R
CANAL
BLVD
COA
CH
DR
11TH ST
PARK
RID
GE
DR

SIERRA AVE
12TH ST
W
ISW
ALL
DR

JENKINS WAY
DUKE
AVE
SA
N
LU
IS ST
36TH ST
OX
FOR
D
A
VE

WRIGHT AVE
BAR
KLEYDR

OVEREND AVE
57TH ST

CER RO SUR
56TH
ST
B ST

AMADOR ST
18TH ST

CENTER AVE

PARKER RD
3RD ST
1ST ST
15TH ST
21ST ST

SANFORD AVE
2ND ST
KLOSEW
AY

KIPLING
DR

JOANNDR
49TH ST

NELSONDR

MOZARTDR
9TH ST

COALINGA AVE

GAYNOR AVE

BISSELL AVE
32ND ST
MEADE
ST

YUBA ST

KERN STLASSEN ST

ROCKY R
D
DO
RNAN
DR

BARRETT AVE
HARBO
UR W
AY

FASCINATION
CIR
12 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21 22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
32 33
34 35
36 37
3839
40 41
4243
4445
46 47
48 49
50 51
52 53
54 55
56 5758 59 60
61 62
63 64
65 66
67 6869
70 71
72 73 74 75
76 77
78 7980
81 82 83
84 85
86 87
88 89
90 91
92 93
94 95
96 97
98 99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109 110
111

CO NTRA
CO STA

COLLE GE

EXISTING PEDESTRIAN

FACILITIES
Existing Class I
Shared-Use Path
Figure 19 Proposed Spot Improvements by Prioritization Category 84 Implementation
Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan

PROPOSED

PEDESTRIAN SPOT

IMPROVEMENT

PRIORITIZATION

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: 12/16/2022.

EXISTING PEDESTRIAN

FACILITIES
Existing Class I Shared-
Use Path
BOUNDARIES +

DESTINATIONS
! BART Station
! Amtrak Station
! Ferry Terminal
! School
! City Hall
! Library
! Community Center
Park
Contra Costa College
City Boundary
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Ä123
¥580
¥580
¥80

EL CERRITO
SAN
PABLO

EAST RICHMOND

HEIGHTS
NORTH

RICHMOND

MIL L ER-KNOX

REG IO NAL

SHO REL INE

WILDCAT CANYON

REGIONAL PARK

BOOK E R T

ANDERSO N JR

U NITY PARK

SAN PABLO AVELINCOLN AVE
HELLINGS AVE7THST ANDRADE AVE
2ND ST

CARLSON BLVD

REGATTA BLVD
6TH ST

RHEEM AVE

CUTTING BLVD

BAYVIEW
AVE

HARTNETT

AVEMARI
NA BAY
PKWY
47TH ST

FOOTHILLAVE

COSTA AVE

MCBRYDE AVE

MEEKER AVE

MACDONALD AVE

HENSLEY ST

MARINA WAY

MACDONALD AVE
23RD ST
8TH ST
16TH ST

MORAN AVE

PENNSYLVANIA AVE

POTRERO AVE
HARBO
UR WA
Y

BARRETT AVE
4TH ST

HALL AVE

TULARE AVE

GARVIN AVE
45TH ST

PINE AVE
44TH ST

WHARF ST
35TH ST

MEADE S
T

WRIGHT AVE
BROAD
WAY 37TH ST

PENINSULADR
41ST
ST

OHIO AVE

RIPLEY AVE
20TH ST

LUCAS AVE

FLEMING AVE

GRANT AVE

CURRY ST
38TH ST
KEY BL
VD
59TH ST

SAN MATEO ST
BURBECK AVE10TH ST

ROOSEVEL T AVE

EGRET WAY

TEHAMA AVE

MOUNTST

DOWNER AVE
POR
TOLA A
VE
33RD ST
SA
N

JOAQUIN S
T
34TH ST

MONTEREY ST
13TH ST
52ND ST
DIMM
ST
24TH ST
26TH ST

CHANSLOR AVE
CAR
LST
ON
ST

YUBA ST
28TH ST

WALL AVE

CLINTON AVE
COLLIN
SST

WILSON AVE

HOFFMAN BLVD

LOWELL AVE
30TH ST
29TH ST
19TH ST

VAN FLEET AVE
55TH
ST

SANTA CLARA ST
56TH ST

AMADOR ST
13TH ST
HUM
BOLDT
ST

VIRGINIA AVE
HINKL
EY AVE

ALAMO AVE

FALL AVE

NEVIN AVE
42ND ST

ESPEE AVE
21ST ST

BERK AVE
CANAL
BLVD
11TH ST
SO
NOM
A
ST

BURLINGAME AVE

SIERRA AVE
M
CLA
UGHLIN
ST

SOUTH ST
BE
R K PL
12TH ST

SAN LUIS ST
36TH ST
15TH ST

OVEREND AVE
57TH ST

MAINE AVE
B ST

DUBOCE AVE
18TH ST

CENTER AVE
17TH ST
3RD ST
1ST ST

MARICOPA AVE

SANFORD AVE

WILLARD AVE

FLORIDA AVE
50TH ST
27TH ST
49TH ST

COLUMBIA AVE
22ND ST

OHIO AVE

FRESNO AVE

HUMPHREY AVE
9TH ST

DUNN AVE
C ST

COALINGA AVE

ESMOND AVE

FACTORY
ST

WALLER AVE
40TH ST39TH ST

CREELY AVE

BISSELL AVE
31ST ST

VISALIA AVE
32ND ST

GATELY AVE
43RD ST

MARIPOSA ST
25TH ST
5TH ST

GAYNOR AVE

WENDELL AVE
46TH ST

KERN ST
LASSEN
ST

VENTURA ST

SPRING ST
58TH ST

BELL AVE

STEGE AVE

TAFT AVE

BARRETT AVE
1 2
3 4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21 22 23
24 25
26 27 28
29 30
31 3335
36 37
38 3940
41 42
4344
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52
53 54 55 56 5758 59
60 61 62
63 64
65 66
67 68
69 70
78 79
80 8182
83 84
85 86
87 88
89 90
91 93
95 96
97 98
99 100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
0 0.5 1 MILES

PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN

SPOT IMPROVEMENTS
High-Priority Project
Medium-Priority Project
Opportunity Project

CENTRAL CORE

CENTRAL
CORE
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Figure 20 Proposed Spot Improvements by Prioritization Category (Central Core) 85 Implementation
Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan

PROPOSED

PEDESTRIAN SPOT

IMPROVEMENT

PRIORITIZATION

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: 12/16/2022.

EXISTING PEDESTRIAN

FACILITIES
Existing Class I Shared-Use
Path
BOUNDARIES +

DESTINATIONS
! BART Station
! Amtrak Station
! Ferry Terminal
! School
! City Hall
! Library
! Community Center
Park
Contra Costa College
City Boundary
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!!
!
!
!! !
! !!
!
!
! !
!
!
!!
Ä4
¥80
¥80

EL CERRITO
PINOLE

SAN PABLO
EAST

RICHMOND

HEIGHTS

EL SOBRANTE

MONTALVIN
MANOR

ROLLINGWOOD
TARA
HILLS
SAINT
JOSEPH

CEMETERY

POINT PINOLE
REG

SHORELINE

SOBRANTE

RIDGE REG

PRESERVE

RICHMOND

COUNTRY
CLUB

WILDCAT CANYON

REGIONAL PARK

KENNEDY

GROVE REG

REC AREA

SAN PABLO

RESERVOIR

REC AREA

PINOLE PARK

RO LLING
HILLS

MEMORIAL
PARK

CAS TRO RANCHRD

PINE AVE

LINCOLN AVE

ANDRADE AVE

SAN PABLO AVE

PARKRIDGEDR

PARKSIDE DR

HILLTOP
M

ALLRD AUTO P
LZ

MCBRYDE
AVE

KEITHDR

BARRETT AVE

ESMOND AVE

HILLTOP DR
BLUME
DR
VI EW
DR

GARVIN AVE

HILLVIEWDR

SHANE D
R

SANTA R
ITARD

COSTA AVE

VALLEYVIEW
RD
GIA
NT
HWY

MACDONALD AVE

COLLINS AVE

ATLAS RD

TULARE AVE

LINKS DR
29TH ST
RO
CK
ROSE
WAY
LAKES
IDE DR
PARK

CENTRAL
22ND ST

VIA VERDI
PAIN

TEDPONY RD
MOYERS
RD

GRANT AVE
MAY RD
38TH ST
37TH ST
FRA
N
WA Y

ROOSEVEL T AVE

DOWNER AVE

NEVIN AVE
33RD ST34TH ST

SELMIGRV

GROOM DR
30TH ST
26TH ST
T S H T 0 2
AME
NDRD

LOWELL AVE
19TH ST

AMADOR ST

BUCKBOARD W
AY

CARRIAGEDR

SHELDON DR HEAVENLY RIDGE LN

MORNING SIDE
DR
COA
CH
DR
PARK
RID
GE
D
R
SIERRA
AVE
36TH ST
KEY B
LVD
W
IS
W
ALL
DR
DUKE
AVE
BARK
LEY
DR

CE RRO SUR

PARKE R RD

KL OSEW
AY
KI
PLING
DR

JOANNDR
NELSO
NDR
T S H T 8 1

WOOD GLENDR

GAYNOR AVE

YUBA ST

KERN STLASSEN ST

ROCKY RD

FASCINATION
CIR
4 5
24 27
28 33
34 35 37
38 39
40 42
43 44
45 46
47 48
49 51
53 69
70 71
72 73 74 75
76 77
78 79
80 81
82 83
84 88
89 90
94 96
98 103
104
105
106
107108
109
111
CONTRA
COSTA

CO LLEGE
0 0.5 1 MILES

PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN

SPOT IMPROVEMENTS
High-Priority Project
Medium-Priority Project
Opportunity Project

NORTH RICHMOND
NORTH

RICHMOND
Figure 21 Proposed Spot Improvements by Prioritization Category (North Richmond) 86 Implementation
Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan

HIGH PRIORITY

PEDESTRIAN SPOT

IMPROVEMENTS

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: 12/14/2022.

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

PEDESTRIAN SPOT

IMPROVEMENTS
Prioritization Category
High-Priority Project
Medium-Priority and
Opportunity Projects
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!!
!
!
!! !
! !!
! !
!
!!!
!! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
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

FIEL DCREST
DR

CASTRORANCH RD

PINE AVE

SAN PABLO AVE

LINCOLN AVE

CUTTING BLVD
7THST ANDRADE AVE

GARRARD BLV

DTEWKSBURY AVE

CARLSON BLVDFLORIDA AVE

PARKRIDGEDR
PA

RKSIDE D R

HILLTOP
M
ALLRD

REGAT T A
BLVD

AUTO PLZ

RHEEM AVE

MCBRYDE
AVE
KEIT
HDR
GOLD

EN GATEAV
E

MAINE AVE
B

AY VI EWAVE

HILLTOP DR
BLUM
E DR

VIEW DR

HILLVIEW DR

FOOTHILLAVE
SH
ANEDR

SANTA R
ITARD

COSTA AVE

VALLEYVIEW
RD
GIA
NT
HWY

MACDONALD AVE

GARVIN AVE
COL
LINS
AVE

HENSLEY S T

RICHMONDAVE

MARINA WAY

BUSH AVE
23RD ST
47TH
ST
16TH ST

POTRERO AVE
4TH ST

HALL AVE

VIRGINIA AVE

TULARE AVE

LINKSDR
29TH ST
RO
CK

ROSEWAY
45TH ST
SCE
N
ICA
V E
WESTE
RN
DR
35TH ST
LAKES

IDE D R
PA
RK

CEN TRAL

WRIGHT AVE
BROADW
AY

ATLAS RD
22ND ST
MEADOW

VIEW DR
37TH ST

VIA VERDI

PAINTEDPONY RD

OHIO AVE

RIPLEY AVE
20TH ST
MOYERS
RD

LUCAS AVE
8TH ST

GRANT AVE
CURR
YST
MAY RD
38TH ST
KEY
BLVD

SAN MATEO ST

BURBECK AVE
33RD ST

ROOSEVELT A
VE

GOODRICK AVE
TE

HAMA AV
E
6TH ST
FRAN
WA Y

ESMOND AVE

WALL AVE
SAN

JOAQUIN S
T

MONTEREY ST
13TH ST
31ST ST

SELMIGRV
52ND ST

GROOM DR
26TH ST

CHANSLOR AVE CARLSTO
N
ST
34TH ST

CLINTON AVE
AME
ND
RD

LOWELL AVE
30TH ST
MA
RINA

BAYPKWY
55TH ST

BUC KBOARD WAY

CARRIAGEDR

ALAMO AVE

NEVIN AVE
28TH ST

SHELDONDR
42ND ST

HEAVENLY RIDGE LN

BERK AVE

MORNING SIDE D
R
COACH
DR
11TH ST
PARK
RIDGE
DR
HAR
BOUR
WAY

SIERRA AVE
12TH ST
W
ISW
AL
L
DR

JENKINS WAY
DUKE
AVE

SAN LUIS ST
O
X
FORD
AV
E

OVEREND AVE
57TH ST
56TH
ST
B ST

AMADOR ST
18TH ST

CENTER AVE

PARKER RD
17TH ST
3RD ST1ST ST
15TH ST

MARICOPA AVE

SANFORD AVE
2ND ST
CANAL
BL
VD
KLOSEW
AY

KIPLING
DR

JOANNDR
49TH ST
NELS
ONDR
9TH ST
19TH ST

COALINGA AVE
39TH ST
21ST ST
BISSELL AVE5TH ST

GAYNOR AVE

YUBA STKERN STLASSEN ST

MEADEST

ROCKY R
D
DORN
AN
DR

BARRETT AVE
1 2
3 6
7 14
15 19
20 21 22
23 24
26 31
32 37
49 50
51 52
54 66
67 92
93 97
104
105
106
107
109 110

CO NTRA
CO STA

COLLE GE

EXISTING

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Class I Shared-Use
Path
Figure 22 High Priority Spot Improvements
87 Implementation
Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan

HIGH PRIORITY

PEDESTRIAN SPOT

IMPROVEMENTS

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: 12/14/2022.

EXISTING PEDESTRIAN

FACILITIES
Class I Shared-Use Path
BOUNDARIES +

DESTINATIONS
! BART Station
! Amtrak Station
! Ferry Terminal
! School
! City Hall
! Library
! Community Center
Park
Contra Costa College
City Boundary
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Ä123
¥580
¥580
¥80

EL CERRITO
SAN
PABLO

EAST RICHMOND

HEIGHTS
NORTH

RICHMOND

MIL L ER-KNOX

REG IO NAL

SHO REL INE

WILDCAT CANYON

REGIONAL PARK

BOOK E R T

ANDERSO N JR

U NITY PARK

SAN PABLO AVE

LINCOLN AVE
HELLINGS AVE7THST ANDRADE AVE
2ND ST

CARLSON BLVD

REGATTA BLVD
6TH ST

RHEEM AVE

CUTTING BLVD

BAYVIEW
AVE

ESMOND AVE

HARTNETT

AVEMARI
NA BAY
PKWY
47TH ST

FOOTHILLAVE

COSTA AVE

MCBRYDE AVE

MEEKER AVE

MACDONALD AVE

HENSLEY ST

MARINA WAY
MACDONALD AVE 23RD ST8TH ST
16TH ST

MORAN AVE

PENNSYLVANIA AVE

POTRERO AVE
HARBO
UR WA
Y

BARRETT AVE
4TH ST

HALL AVE

TULARE AVE

GARVIN AVE
45TH ST

PINE AVE
44TH ST

WHARF ST
35TH ST

MEADE S
T

WRIGHT AVE
BROAD
WAY
22ND ST
37TH ST

PENINSULADR
41ST
ST

OHIO AVE

RIPLEY AVE
20TH ST

LUCAS AVE

FLEMING AVE

GRANT AVE

CURRY ST
38TH ST
KEY BL
VD
59TH ST

SAN MATEO ST
BURBECK AVE10TH ST

ROOSEVEL T AVE

EGRET WAY

TEHAMA AVE

MOUNTST

DOWNER AVE
POR
TOLA A
VE
33RD ST
SA
N

JOAQUIN S
T
34TH ST

MONTEREY ST

MERCED ST
13TH ST
52ND ST
DIMM
ST
24TH ST
26TH ST

CHANSLOR AVE
CAR
LST
ON
ST

YUBA ST
28TH ST

WALL AVE

CLINTON AVE
COLLIN
SST

WILSON AVE

HOFFMAN BLVD

LOWELL AVE
30TH ST

VAN FLEET AVE
55TH
ST

SANTA CLARA ST
56TH ST

AMADOR ST
13TH ST
HUM
BOLDT
ST

VIRGINIA AVE
HINKLE
Y AVE

ALAMO AVE

FALL AVE

NEVIN AVE
42ND ST

ESPEE AVE
21ST ST

BERK AVE
CANAL
BLVD
11TH ST
SO
NOM
A
ST

BURLINGAME AVE

SIERRA AVE
M
CLA
UGHLIN
ST

SOUTH ST
BE
R K PL
12TH ST
SAN

LUIS ST
36TH ST
15TH ST

OVEREND AVE
57TH ST

MAINE AVE
B ST

DUBOCE AVE

CENTER AVE
17TH ST
3RD ST
1ST ST

MARICOPA AVE

SANFORD AVE

WILLARD AVE

FLORIDA AVE
50TH ST
27TH ST29TH ST
49TH ST

COLUMBIA AVE

OHIO AVE

FRESNO AVE

HUMPHREY AVE
9TH ST

DUNN AVE
18TH ST
C ST
19TH ST

COALINGA AVEFACTORY
ST

WALLER AVE
40TH ST39TH ST

CREELY AVE
5TH ST

BISSELL AVE
31ST ST

VISALIA AVE
32ND ST

GATELY AVE
43RD ST

MARIPOSA ST
25TH ST

GAYNOR AVE

WENDELL AVE
46TH ST

KERN ST
LASSEN
ST

VENTURA ST

SPRING ST
58TH ST

BELL AVE

STEGE AVE

TAFT AVE

BARRETT AVE
1 2
3 6
7 14
15 19
20 21 22 23
24 26
31 37
49 50
51 52
54 66
67 93
97 104
105
106
107
109
110
0 0.5 1 MILES

PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN

SPOT IMPROVEMENTS
High-Priority Project
Medium-Priority and
Opportunity Projects

CENTRAL CORE

CENTRAL
CORE
Figure 23 High Priority Spot Improvements (Central Core) 88 Implementation
Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan

HIGH PRIORITY

PEDESTRIAN SPOT

IMPROVEMENTS

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: 12/14/2022.

EXISTING PEDESTRIAN

FACILITIES
Class I Shared-Use Path
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

PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN

SPOT IMPROVEMENTS
High-Priority Project
Medium-Priority and
Opportunity Projects

NORTH RICHMOND
NORTH

RICHMOND
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!!
!
!
!! !
! !!
!
!
! !
!
!
!!
Ä4
¥80
¥80

EL CERRITO
PINOLE

SAN PABLO
EAST

RICHMOND

HEIGHTS

EL SOBRANTE

MONTALVIN
MANOR

ROLLINGWOOD
TARA
HILLS
SAINT

JO SEPH

CEMETERY

PO INT PINO L E
REG

SHO REL INE

SO BRANTE

RIDG E REG

PRESERVE

RICHMO ND

CO UNTRY
CLUB

WILDCAT CANYON

REGIONAL PARK

KENNEDY

G ROVE REG

REC AREA

SAN PABLO

RESERVO IR

REC AREA

PINO L E PARK

ROLLIN G
HIL LS

MEMO RIAL
PARK

CAS TRO RANCHRD

PINE AVE

ANDRADE AVE SAN PABLO AVE

PARKRIDGEDR

PARKSIDE DR

HILLTOP
M

ALLRD AUTO PLZ

RHEEM AVE

MCBRYDE
AVE

KEITHDR

BARRETT AVE

ESMOND AVE

HILLTOP DR
BLUME
DR

VIEW DR

HILLVIEW DR

SHANE D
R

SANTA R
ITARD

VALLEYVIEW
RD
GIA
NT
HWY

MACDONALD AVE

COLLINS AVE
23RD ST

TULARE AVE
LIN
KS DR
29TH ST
RO
CKROSE
WAY
35TH ST
LAKES
IDE DR
PARK

CENTRAL

ATLAS RD
22ND ST

VIA VERDI
PAIN

TEDPONY RD
MOYERS
RD

GRANT AVE
MAY RD
38T
H
ST
37TH ST
FRA
N
WA Y

ROOSEVEL T AVE

DOWNER AVE

NEVIN AVE
34TH ST

SELMIGRV

GROOM DR
30TH ST
26TH ST
28T
H
ST
20TH ST

WILSON AVE
AME
NDRD

LOWELL AVE
19TH ST

AMADOR ST

BUCKBOARD W
AY

CARRIAGEDR

SHELDON DR HEAVENLY RIDGE LN

MORNING SIDE DR

GARVIN AVE
COA
CH
DR
PARK
RIDGE
D
R
SIERRA
AVE
KEY B
LVD
W
IS
W
ALL
DR
DUKE
AVE
36T
H
ST
BARK
LEY
DR

CE RRO SUR

PARKE R RD
33RD ST

KL OSEW
AY

KIPLING
DR

JOANNDR

NELSONDR
17TH ST
40TH ST
39TH ST
18TH ST
31ST
ST

WOOD GLENDR
32ND ST

GAYNOR AVE

YUBA ST

KERN STLASSEN ST

ROCKY RD
FA

SCINATION
CIR
24 37
49 50
51 104
105
106
107109

CO NTRA
CO STA

COLLE GE
Figure 24 High Priority Spot Improvements (North Richmond) 89 Implementation
Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan

Table 12 Pedestrian Projects by Prioritization Scores

PROJECT
ID
CROSS
STREET
CROSS

STREET IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATION PRIORITIZATION
SCORE

PRIORITIZATION

CATEGORY
2 Macdonald Ave 15th St Crossing
Improvement
Consider constructing a raised intersection or raised
crosswalk at the eastern approach. Construct curb
extensions at all four corners. Install high-visibility crosswalks at the eastern and western approaches on top of decorative paving.
81 High-Priority
26 Broadway 23rd St Intersection
Upgrade
Widen, lengthen, and channelize median islands. Restripe crosswalks as high-visibility crosswalks. 81 High-Priority 31 S 49th St Cutting Blvd Lighting LRSP high-injury intersection,: install intersection lighting. 81 High-Priority 32 San Joaquin St Central Ave Crossing
Improvement
LRSP high-injury intersection: construct bulb outs and
install advanced warning signs. 81 High-Priority
19 Harbour Way 300' north of
Chanslor Ave
Crossing
Improvement
Install a high-visibility mid-block crosswalk with a median refuge island. 80 High-Priority
67 Broadway 24th St Crossing
Improvement Construct curb extensions at all corners. 80 High-Priority 92 Central Ave I-80 Crossing
Improvement
Coordinate with Caltrans to upgrade all crosswalks to
high-visibility crosswalks and provide leading pedestrian intervals for all crossing phases. Extend bicycle conflict markings on Central through the Jacuzzi intersection
and interchange. Long term, construct curb extensions to tighten radii and square up approaches.
80 High-Priority
37 25th St Macdonald
Ave
Crossing
Improvement
LRSP high-injury intersection: Upgrade all crosswalks to high-visibility. Consider installing RRFB or PHB. Construct curb extensions at all corners.
79 High-Priority
109 Macdonald Ave Between 30th
and 31st St
Crossing
Improvement
Refresh the existing midblock crosswalk, install advance yield markings, and an RRFB. Construct curb extensions
for the Macdonald crosswalk.
79 High-Priority
51 23rd St Exchange Pl Crossing
Improvement
Construct a median refuge island and install an RRFB for a crossing of 23rd Street. 78 High-Priority
66 Ohio Ave S 23rd St Crossing
Improvement Construct curb extensions at all corners. 78 High-Priority 93 Nevin Ave Marina Way Crossing
Improvement
Upgrade all crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks and provide a leading pedestrian interval for call crossing phases. Long term, consider converting the intersection to a raised intersection.
78 High-Priority
90 Implementation
Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan

PROJECT
ID
CROSS
STREET
CROSS

STREET IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATION PRIORITIZATION
SCORE

PRIORITIZATION

CATEGORY
1 Macdonald Ave 16th St Intersection
Upgrade
Consider scramble phase or otherwise don't allow
permitted left turns to conflict with pedestrians in the crosswalk. Create leading pedestrian interval. Consider parklet on southwest corner.
77 High-Priority
15 Carlson Blvd Bayview Ave Intersection
Upgrade
Install intersection improvements including curb
extensions and a median nose. 77 High-Priority
20 S 23rd St Virginia Ave Crossing
Improvement
Consider installation of a pedestrian refuge island and install pedestrian-scale lighting. 77 High-Priority
110 Macdonald Ave San Pablo Ave Intersection
Upgrade
Study removal of the free-right turn lane and options to straighten crosswalks. Upgrade all crosswalks to high-
visibility and provide a leading pedestrian interval for all crossing phases.
77 High-Priority
3 Nevin Ave 15th St Crossing
Improvement
Consider constructing a median refuge or traffic circle to accommodate direct pedestrian path of travel. 76 High-Priority 6 15th St Nevin Ave Bicycle Access Provide a ramp to allow bicycle access to/from plaza. 76 High-Priority 7 Marina Way Barrett Ave Intersection
Upgrade
Install a curb extension at the northwest and southwest corners. Provide a leading pedestrian interval and adjust pedestrian phase length to provide sufficient crossing
times. Realign the southern crosswalk several feet south and install high-visibility crosswalks at the north and eastern approaches. Consider installing bicycle lane
conflict markings and a two-stage bike turn box for NB- WB bike movements.
76 High-Priority
14 Carlson Blvd Cutting Blvd Intersection
Upgrade
Construct intersection improvements including:
formalized curb extensions, widened sidewalk, and
additional sidewalks.
76 High-Priority
21 Harbour Way Cutting Blvd Crossing
Improvement
Install curb extensions, directional ramps and high-
visibility crosswalks, and median crossing islands. 76 High-Priority 22 Marina Way Cutting Blvd Crossing
Improvement
Install curb extensions, directional ramps and high-
visibility crosswalks and median crossing islands. 76 High-Priority Table 12 Pedestrian Projects by Prioritization Scores (Continued) 91 Implementation
Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan

PROJECT
ID
CROSS
STREET
CROSS

STREET IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATION PRIORITIZATION
SCORE

PRIORITIZATION

CATEGORY
23 S 23rd St Cutting Blvd Crossing
Improvement
Restripe crosswalks as high-visibility crosswalks. Install curb extensions at all corners with directional ramps.

Construct median crossing islands.
76 High-Priority
49 23rd St Barrett Ave Crossing
Improvement
Upgrade all crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks.

Provide a leading pedestrian interval for all crossing
phases. Install bicycle boxes at the 23rd Street
approaches. Install curb extensions at both western
corners.
76 High-Priority
50 23rd St Macdonald
Ave
Crossing
Improvement
Upgrade all crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks.

Provide a leading pedestrian interval for all crossing
phases. Install bicycle boxes at the 23rd Street
approaches. Install curb extensions at both western four corners.
76 High-Priority
52 Barrett Ave BART Tracks Sidewalk Widen sidewalk on northern side through underpass (Requires road diet). 76 High-Priority
54 Cutting Blvd S 12th St Crossing
Improvement Install high-visibility crosswalks at all approaches. 76 High-Priority 97 Macdonald Ave 45th St Crossing
Improvement
Upgrade all crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks and install advance yield markings. Install an RRFB for the Macdonald crosswalks. On the south side of the street,
widen the sidewalk and provide a connection to the
“Target Path.”
76 High-Priority
104 22nd St Macdonald
Ave
Crossing
Improvement
Install curb extensions at the northwest and northeast
corners. Install a pedestrian count display at the
southwest corner. When next repaved, reduce the
intersection's crown and conform asphalt to the gutter
pan.
76 High-Priority
106 Solano Ave San Pablo Ave Crossing
Improvement
Refresh all crosswalks. Provide a leading pedestrian
interval for all crossing phases. Construct curb extensions for the San Pablo crossings.
76 High-Priority
107 Barrett Ave San Pablo Ave Crossing
Improvement
Upgrade all crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks.

Provide a leading pedestrian interval for all crossing
phases. Mark a high-visibility across the northern
approach. Construct transit-friendly curb extensions at all four corners. Install bicycle detection.
76 High-Priority
Table 12 Pedestrian Projects by Prioritization Scores (Continued) 92 Implementation
Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan

PROJECT
ID
CROSS
STREET
CROSS

STREET IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATION PRIORITIZATION
SCORE

PRIORITIZATION

CATEGORY
4 Barrett Ave 18th St Crossing
Improvement
Install the north, south, and west crosswalk legs as high- visibility. Install an RRFB or PHB for Barrett crossings (based on warrants). Add appropriate signs and advance
pavement markings based on selected actuated crossing
beacon.
75 Medium-Priority
16 Carlson Blvd I-80
Undercrossing
Intersection
Upgrade
Construct intersection improvements including: median
refuge islands and curb extensions. 75 Medium-Priority
57 Cutting Blvd S 21st St Crossing
Improvement Upgrade all crosswalks to high-visibility. 75 Medium-Priority 18 Harbour Way Bissell Ave Crossing
Improvement
Install curb extensions at all corners and restripe
crosswalks as high-visibility. 74 Medium-Priority
5 Barrett Ave 19th St Crossing
Improvement
Stripe fourth crosswalk leg and upgrade traffic signal to include pedestrian countdown. 73 Medium-Priority
35 Macdonald Ave 21st St Crossing
Improvement
LRSP high-injury intersection. Upgrade all crosswalks
to high-visibility. Consider installing an RRFB or PHB.

Construct curb extensions at all corners.
72 Medium-Priority
64 Chanslor Ave Espee Ave Crossing
Improvement
Install curb extensions at the two western corners to
square up the intersection. 72 Medium-Priority
68 Broadway Bissell Ave Crossing
Improvement
Install curb extensions at the northern and southwest
corners to square-up the intersection. Realign and
upgrade all crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks. Install an RRFB for the Broadway crossing.
72 Medium-Priority
108 Macdonald Ave 28th St Crossing
Improvement
Upgrade the existing crosswalk to high-visibility and
install advance yield markings and an RRFB. Construct
curb extensions for the Macdonald crosswalk.
72 Medium-Priority
28 San Pablo Ave Roosevelt Ave Intersection
Upgrade
Install curb extensions to tighten turn radii, and shorten crossing distances, Coordinate with Caltrans to study
removing double right turn lane from San Pablo onto I-80 on-ramp.
71 Medium-Priority
55 Cutting Blvd S 15th St Crossing
Improvement Install high-visibility crosswalks at all approaches. 71 Medium-Priority 59 Cutting Blvd 20th St Crossing
Improvement Restripe the existing high-visibility crosswalks. 71 Medium-Priority Table 12 Pedestrian Projects by Prioritization Scores (Continued) 93 Implementation
Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan

PROJECT
ID
CROSS
STREET
CROSS

STREET IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATION PRIORITIZATION
SCORE

PRIORITIZATION

CATEGORY
69 Broadway 26th St Crossing
Improvement Install high-visibility crosswalks at all approaches. 71 Medium-Priority 56 Cutting Blvd S 18th St Crossing
Improvement Install high-visibility crosswalks at all approaches. 70 Medium-Priority 46 23rd St Downer Ave Crossing
Improvement
Install a new high-visibility crosswalk across 23rd Street with an RRFB. 69 Medium-Priority
47 23rd St Clinton Ave Crossing
Improvement
Construct a median refuge island and install an RRFB for the 23rd crossing. 69 Medium-Priority
48 23rd St Grant Ave Crossing
Improvement Install high-visibility crosswalks at all approaches. 69 Medium-Priority 63 Cutting Blvd S 31st St Crossing
Improvement
Construct a pedestrian refuge island and install an RRFB/ PHB. 69 Medium-Priority
65 Maine Ave S 23rd St Crossing
Improvement
Install high-visibility crosswalks at all approaches and construct curb extensions at all corners. 69 Medium-Priority 58 Cutting Blvd S 17th St Crossing
Improvement Install high-visibility crosswalks at all approaches. 68 Medium-Priority 60 Cutting Blvd S 24th St Crossing
Improvement
Construct a pedestrian refuge island; and install RRFB/ PHB. 67 Medium-Priority
42 23rd St Visalia Ave Crossing
Improvement
Install a new high-visibility crosswalk across 23rd Street.

Install an RRFB at the crossing. 64 Medium-Priority
53 Barrett Ave 21st St Crossing
Improvement
Install a new high-visibility crosswalk at the western
approach. 64 Medium-Priority
87 Virginia Ave S 20th Street Bicycle Access Install a bicycle cut through in traffic divertor. 64 Medium-Priority 45 23rd St Garvin Ave Crossing
Improvement
Improve accessibility features (push buttons, curb ramps, etc.) at all corners (more details in the CSSA). Install curb extensions at all corners and crosswalk landings. Upgrade crosswalks to high-visibility.
63 Medium-Priority
25 Harbour Way Pennsylvania
Ave/13th St
Intersection
Upgrade
Install high-visibility crosswalks, and construct medians/ channelized islands/curb extensions and advance stop
bars. Consider slip lane removal.
62 Medium-Priority
Table 12 Pedestrian Projects by Prioritization Scores (Continued) 94 Implementation
Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan

PROJECT
ID
CROSS
STREET
CROSS

STREET IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATION PRIORITIZATION
SCORE

PRIORITIZATION

CATEGORY
62 Cutting Blvd S 29th St Crossing
Improvement Construct pedestrian refuge island and install RRFB/PHB. 62 Medium-Priority 111 Barrett Ave Key Blvd Crossing
Improvement
Construct curb extensions (transit-friendly), install
advance yield markings, and install an RRFB for the
Barrett Avenue crossings.
62 Medium-Priority
27 Barrett Ave I-80
Undercrossing
Intersection
Upgrade
Coordinate with Caltrans to consider reconfiguring
the through and turn lanes around the interchange.

Coordinate with Caltrans to remove/trim vegetation
around the off-ramp that blocks the visibility of
pedestrians in the north crosswalk. Install a high-visibility crosswalk across the eastern approach.
61 Medium-Priority
38 23rd St Lowell Ave Crossing
Improvement
Install a high-visibility crosswalk across the Lowell Ave approach. Upgrade curb ramps to current ADA standards. 61 Medium-Priority 43 23rd St Esmond Ave Crossing
Improvement Construct median refuge island and install an RRFB. 61 Medium-Priority 79 McBryde Ave 37th St Crossing
Improvement Install curb extensions at all corners. 61 Medium-Priority 9 Ohio Ave S 2nd St Crossing
Improvement
Potential for bike and pedestrian intersection
improvements. 60 Medium-Priority
24 San Pablo Ave McBryde Ave Intersection
Upgrade
Install curb extensions and ramps, and construct curb
extensions so that streets intersect at right angles.

Upgrade all crosswalk to high-visibility crosswalks.
60 High-Priority
29 S 45th St
Richmond
Greenway
Trail
connection
Trail Access Improve connections to trail connector ramp from 45th St 60 Medium-Priority 39 23rd St Dunn Ave Crossing
Improvement Construct median refuge island and install an RRFB. 60 Medium-Priority 44 23rd St Gaynor Ave Crossing
Improvement
Install high-visibility crosswalks and an RRFB for the
crossing of 23rd. 60 Medium-Priority
Table 12 Pedestrian Projects by Prioritization Scores (Continued) 95 Implementation
Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan

PROJECT
ID
CROSS
STREET
CROSS

STREET IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATION PRIORITIZATION
SCORE

PRIORITIZATION

CATEGORY
105 23rd St Rheem Ave Crossing
Improvement
Upgrade all curb ramps to current best practices;
specifically, replace the southwest corner ramp with a
“parallel” ramp and “centered” ramps at the two eastern corners. Adjust pedestrian signal heads as needed.

Provide a leading pedestrian interval for all crossing
phases.
60 High-Priority
36 5th St Barrett Ave Crossing
Improvement
LRSP high-injury intersection. Upgrade crosswalks
to high-visibility. Consider installing an RRFB or PHB.

Construct curb extensions.
59 Medium-Priority
41 23rd St Andrade Ave Crossing
Improvement Construct median refuge island and install RRFB. 59 Medium-Priority 17 Sacramento
Ave San Luis St Crossing
Improvement
Path crossing improvements: upgrade crosswalk to high-
visibility and install advance yield markings. Consider installing RRFB.
58 Medium-Priority
40 23rd St Hellings Ave Crossing
Improvement
Install high-visibility crosswalks and install an RRFB for the 23rd Street crossing. 58 Medium-Priority
89 Garvin Ave San Pablo Ave Crossing
Improvement
Install high-visibility crosswalks at all intersection
approaches. Provide a leading pedestrian interval with all crossing phases. Install bicycle conflict markings.
58 Medium-Priority
75 Hilltop Dr Blumer Dr Intersection
Upgrade Study removal of free-right turn lane. 56 Opportunity- Priority
8 Ohio Ave Canal Blvd Crossing
Improvement
Refresh existing intersection markings, upgrade
remaining crosswalks to high-visibility and provide a
leading pedestrian interval.
55 Opportunity-
Priority
70 McBryde Ave Sonoma St Crossing
Improvement Construct curb extensions. 55 Opportunity-
Priority
96 Barrett Ave 25th St Crossing
Improvement
Upgrade the three existing crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks and provide a leading pedestrian interval
for all crossing phases. Install bicycle conflict markings through the intersection and consider other intersection treatments like bicycle boxes.
55 Opportunity-
Priority
73 Hilltop Dr Robert Miller
Dr
Intersection
Upgrade Study removal free-right turn lanes. 54 Opportunity- Priority
Table 12 Pedestrian Projects by Prioritization Scores (Continued) 96 Implementation
Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan

PROJECT
ID
CROSS
STREET
CROSS

STREET IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATION PRIORITIZATION
SCORE

PRIORITIZATION

CATEGORY
101 I-580 Marina Bay
Pkwy
Crossing
Improvement
Coordinate with Caltrans to upgrade all crosswalks to
high-visibility. At signalized crossings, provide a leading pedestrian interval for all crossing phases. At uncontrolled crossings, install RRFBs.
54 Opportunity-
Priority
82 Maricopa Ave 26th St Crossing
Improvement Install high-visibility crosswalks. 53 Opportunity- Priority
33 33rd St Barrett Ave Crossing
Improvement
LRSP high-injury intersection. Construct curb extensions and install advanced warning signs and markings. 52 Opportunity- Priority
81 Maricopa Ave 28th St Crossing
Improvement Install high-visibility crosswalks. 52 Opportunity- Priority
78 Garvin Ave 30th St Crossing
Improvement
Install high-visibility crosswalks and an RRFB for a
crossing of Gavin Avenue. 51 Opportunity-
Priority
94 Park Central St Hilltop Dr Crossing
Improvement
Study intersection design changes to improve pedestrian crossings and accessibility. Improvements should include high-visibility crosswalks and curb extensions. Coordinate with property owners and other jurisdictions as required. 50 Opportunity-
Priority
85 Maine Ave S 16th St Bicycle Access Install bicycle cut through in traffic divertor. 49 Opportunity- Priority
86 Florida Ave S 20th St Bicycle Access Install bicycle cut through in traffic divertor. 49 Opportunity- Priority
61 Cutting Blvd S 26th St Crossing
Improvement Construct pedestrian refuge island with an RRFB/PHB. 48 Opportunity- Priority
83 Tulare Ave 28th St Crossing
Improvement Install high-visibility crosswalks. 48 Opportunity- Priority
90 Coalinga Ave 18th St Crossing
Improvement
Upgrade the two existing crosswalks to high-visibility
and install high-visibility crosswalks at the northern and eastern approaches. Install advance stop markings at all approaches. Study intersection traffic control options with the design of the Coalinga Avenue bicycle boulevard.
48 Opportunity-
Priority
Table 12 Pedestrian Projects by Prioritization Scores (Continued) 97 Implementation
Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan

PROJECT
ID
CROSS
STREET
CROSS

STREET IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATION PRIORITIZATION
SCORE

PRIORITIZATION

CATEGORY
95 Lucas Ave 7th St Crossing
Improvement
Upgrade the two existing crosswalks to high-visibility
and install high-visibility crosswalks at the northern and eastern approaches. Build out the northeast corner to
square up the intersection. Construct curb extensions at all corners.
48 Opportunity-
Priority
74 Hilltop Dr Shane Dr Intersection
Upgrade Study removal of free-right turn lanes. 47 Opportunity- Priority
99 Center Ave S 39th St Wayfinding Add wayfinding signs directing people walking and biking to the Richmond Greenway trailhead off of 39th Street. 47 Opportunity- Priority
13 Harbour Way I-580 On and
Off Ramps
Intersection
Upgrade
Coordinate with Caltrans install high-visibility crosswalks and curb extensions at all corners. 46 Opportunity-
Priority
10 Hoffman Blvd Harbour Way Crossing
Improvement
Install high-visibility crosswalks and install curb
extensions. 45 Opportunity-
Priority
11 Wright Ave Harbour Way Crossing
Improvement
Implement ADA accessible accommodations throughout
the intersection, sidewalk and curbs. 45 Opportunity-
Priority
91 Sutter Ave Carlson Blvd Crossing
Improvement
SRTCP: Upgrade the existing southern crosswalk to
high-visibility and install advance yield markings. Install transverse crosswalks at the eastern and western
approaches with advance stop markings. Install an RRFB
for the Carlson (southern) crosswalk. Consider building a refuge islands from the existing median.
44 Opportunity-
Priority
76 Morningside Dr Valley View
Rd
Crossing
Improvement Install high-visibility crosswalks. 43 Opportunity- Priority
77 May Rd Valley View
Rd
Crossing
Improvement
Upgrade crosswalks to high-visibility and install curb
extensions. 43 Opportunity-
Priority
71 Hilltop Dr San Pablo Ave Crossing
Improvement Construct curb extensions. 40 Opportunity-
Priority
100 Meeker Ave Marina Bay
Pkwy
Crossing
Improvement
Install a leading pedestrian interval for all crossing
phases. Study removal of the free-right turn lane from
the northwest corner. If removed, realign the west
crosswalk to be parallel to Marina Bay Parkway. Due to
the asymmetrical intersection and challenging site lines, consider providing a protected turn phase for northbound left traffic.
40 Opportunity-
Priority
Table 12 Pedestrian Projects by Prioritization Scores (Continued) 98 Implementation
Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan

PROJECT
ID
CROSS
STREET
CROSS

STREET IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATION PRIORITIZATION
SCORE

PRIORITIZATION

CATEGORY
72 Hilltop Dr Research Dr Crossing
Improvement Construct curb extensions at all corners. 39 Opportunity- Priority
80 Esmond Ave 26th St Crossing
Improvement Install high-visibility crosswalks. 39 Opportunity- Priority
30 Seacliff Dr Seaview Dr Crossing
Improvement
LRSP high-injury intersection. Install crosswalk on
northeast leg of intersection to connect to Class I path.

Consider installing yield markings and radar speed
feedback signs.
38 Opportunity-
Priority
88 29th St/Vale Rd Howard St/
Salesian Ave
Crossing
Improvement
Study locations for a marked crossing of 29th/Vale,
including one block south at Moran Avenue. Coordinate
with City of San Pablo as necessary.
37 Opportunity-
Priority
103 38th St Boyd Ave/
Solano Ave
Crossing
Improvement
Upgrade all crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks.

Install advance yield/stop marks where appropriate. Long term, study additional park access improvements include converting Boyd to one-way, curb extensions, and other
traffic calming measures.
36 Opportunity-
Priority
84 Solano Ave Amador St Crossing
Improvement Install curb extensions at all corners. 35 Opportunity- Priority
102 Sea Cliff Dr Canal Blvd Crossing
Improvement
Trim vegetation around stop sign to improve visibility.

Consider adding street lighting to this intersection.

Upgrade the existing crosswalk to high-visibility.

Coordinate with the Port to trim vegetation along Sea Cliff Drive.
35 Opportunity-
Priority
12 1000' north of
Hall Ave Harbour Way Crossing
Improvement
Coordinate with railroad operator to install pedestrian railroad crossing gates, Implement ADA accessible
accommodations throughout the intersection, sidewalk,
and curbs.
30 Opportunity-
Priority
98 McBryde Ave/
Park Ave Marin Ave Crossing
Improvement
Study intersection redesign options to improve driver
and pedestrian visibility at all intersection approaches.

Study should look at crossing, visibility/site lines, and intersection control changes.
28 Opportunity-
Priority
34 Atlas Rd Oakmont Dr Crossing
Improvement
LRSP high-injury intersection. Construct curb extensions and install advanced warning signs and markings,
Consider installing an RRFB or PHB for the Atlas Road
crossing.
27 Opportunity-
Priority
Table 12 Pedestrian Projects by Prioritization Scores (Continued) 99 Implementation
Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan

Active Projects
Table 13 lists the active transportation
projects Richmond is working on. The
projects are listed with their current status.

The City of Richmond have applied and are
considering applying for funding through a
number of different grants, including:
• One Bay Area Grant
• Highway Safety Improvement Program
Grant
• Transformative Climate Communities
Grant
• Clean California Grant
• California Active Transportation Program
• Safe Streets for All Grant
• Urban Greening Grant
• Sustainable Transportation Planning
Grant
• Transportation Development Act Grants
• Transportation for Livable Communities
Grants
In addition to these competitive grant
programs, the City has also had success
implementing projects using paving funds
from SB1 and using developer fees. The
number of projects the City can concurrently
develop varies based on a number of factors,
including staff capacity, project complexity,
and project funding.

The project prioritization process and results
discussed in the prior section is intended to
guide the City’s limited resources to which
project should be implemented first. The
following Project Funding section will help
the City understand planning-level project
costs and provides a detailed list of funding
opportunities.

Table 13 Current Active Transportation
Projects

PROJECT NAME STATUS
Carlson Crosstown Connection Construction
Cutting-Hoffman-Harbour
Bikeway Construction
Yellow Brick Road Construction
13th Street Complete Streets Design
Harbour/Wright Section 130
Railroad Crossing Improvement Design
I-80/Central Phase II Design
Lincoln Elementary Safe Routes
to School Design
Point Molate Bay Trail Design
San Pablo Multimodal Corridor
Study (WCCTAC) Study
Cutting Blvd Section 130 Phase II
Railroad Crossing Improvement Funded
Ferry to Bridge to Greenway-
Castro to Cutting Funded
Richmond Wellness Trail Phase II Funded
Harbour Way Complete Streets Funded
7th Street Sidewalk Gap Closure Funded
100
Implementation
Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan

Project Funding
The bicycle and pedestrian improvement
projects in the BPAP will require funding
for design (i.e., detailed engineering work)
and construction. bicycle and pedestrian
improvement projects is available at all levels
of government (local, regional, state, and
federal) and from private sources. Project
funding can take the form of competitive
grants, formula-based allocations, tax
measure-based funding, funds from private
development, and others. Appendix C
provides a detailed list of potential funding
sources with a brief description.

Table 14 summarizes the type of projects
and project phases (planning, design,
construction) that each funding opportunity
listed in Appendix C will fund.

Planning Level Cost Estimates
Table 15 provides high and low planning
level cost estimates for each class of
bicycle facility. Table 16 provides the same
information for different types of spot
improvements. Cost estimates include
30% extra for “soft costs” (items like City
staff time and other administrative-related
work). These are order of magnitude
planning budgetary figures; a complete
detailed engineering design will be needed
to determine the most probable cost of
individual projects.
101
Implementation
Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan

FUNDING SOURCE

FUNDING

FOR PLANNING (P),

DESIGN (D), OR

CONSTRUCTION (C)

ON-STREET

BIKEWAYS/

END-OF-TRIP
TRAILS
SAFE
ROUTES

TO SCHOOL
SAFE
ROUTES

TO TRANSIT

CROSSINGS/

INTERSECTIONS PROGRAMS STUDIES

LOCAL AND REGIONAL OPPORTUNITIES
Contra Costa County Measure J (CCTA) P/D/C • • • • • •
Transportation Fund for Clean Air, County Program
Manager Fund (CCTA)
C
• • • •
511 Contra Costa Bike Rack and Locker Program
(Contra Costa County)
C
•
One Bay Area Grants (MTC) D/C • • •
Transportation Development Act Article 3 (CCTA) D/C • • • • • Bicycle Facilities Grant Program (BAAQMD) C •
Climate Initiatives Innovative Grants (MTC) - •
New Developments/Resurfacing Projects
(Richmond)
D/C
• • •
Assessment Districts (Richmond) P/D/C • • • • • • •
Impact Fees (Richmond) P/D/C • • • • • • •

STATE AND FEDERAL OPPORTUNITIES
Active Transportation Program (CTC) P/D/C • • • • • • • Sustainable Transportation Planning Grants
(Caltrans)
P
•
Highway Safety Improvement Program (Caltrans) D/C • • • • • Solutions for Congested Corridors (CTC) C • • •
Office of Traffic Safety (CA OTS) - •
Table 14 Funding Opportunities by Project Type
102
Implementation
Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan

FUNDING SOURCE

FUNDING

FOR PLANNING (P),

DESIGN (D), OR

CONSTRUCTION (C)

ON-STREET

BIKEWAYS/

END-OF-TRIP
TRAILS
SAFE
ROUTES

TO SCHOOL
SAFE
ROUTES

TO TRANSIT

CROSSINGS/

INTERSECTIONS PROGRAMS STUDIES
Recreational Trails Program (CA DPR) C •
Affordable Housing & Sustainable Communities
(CA HCD)
C
• • •
Urban Greening Grants (CA NRA) C • • • •
Statewide Park Program (CA DPR) C • •
RAISE Grants (USDOT) P/D/C • • • • • •
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (Caltrans
and MTC)
C
• • • • •
Surface Transportation Block Grants (Caltrans and
MTC)
C
• • • • •

OTHER STATE FUNDS
Local Partnership Program (CTC) C • • • •
Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program
(Controller’s Office)
D/C
• • •
Table 14 Funding Opportunities by Project Type (Continued) 103
Implementation
Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan

Table 15 Planning Level Cost Estimates by Bikeway Classification

BIKEWAY

CLASSIFICATION

COST PER MILE

ASSUMPTIONS

LOW HIGH
Class I
- Shared-use Path $500,000 $1,500,000 Cost includes asphalt path and minor crossing improvements. Cost does not include signal modification or right- of-way acquisition.

Class II
- Bicycle Lane $50,000 $350,000 Low cost assumes signage and striping. High cost assumes green conflict marking, and traffic signal modification, including bike signal detection.

Class IIB
- Buffered
Bicycle Lane
$100,000 $400,000 Low cost assumes signage, striping, and a painted buffer. High cost assumes green conflict marking, traffic signal modification (including bike signal detection), and wayfinding signage.

Class III
- Bicycle Route $15,000 $25,000 Cost includes signage and striping.

Class IIIB
- Bicycle Boulevard $70,000 $1,000,000
Low cost assumes signage, striping, and minor traffic calming (such as speed humps and up to three other elements such as medians, diverters, or a raised crosswalk). High cost assumes low-cost items plus traffic circles, curb extensions, traffic signal modification (including bike signal detection), and wayfinding signage.

Class IV
- Separated Bikeway $300,000 $1,500,000 Low cost assumes signage, striping, and a painted buffer with flexible delineators. High cost assumes green conflict marking, traffic signal modification (including bike signal detection), and a raised concrete buffer.

Please note that all costs are based on values obtained from Bid Documents of local (i.e., Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara, and San Mateo counties) projects from 2019 to present, or historic planning level costs generated for local planning efforts from 2018 to present. Values derived from Bid documents were multiplied by a planning level contingency factor to account for additional project needs not explicitly stated in the descriptions. Costs include the cost of materials, labor and administration of the identified facilities and items, and do not include design fees, public outreach efforts, or inter-agency coordination.
104
Implementation
Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan

Table 16 Planning Level Cost Estimates by Pedestrian Spot Improvement Project

FACILITY TYPE COST UNIT NOTES
Signage $500 Each
Pavement Markings (stop/yield) $2,000 Each
Transverse crosswalk $3,000 Each Transverse crosswalk
High-visibility crosswalk $4,000 Each High-visibility crosswalk Curb Ramps $15,000 Each Assumes no drainage relocation
Red Curb Paint $26,500 Per Mile
Wayfinding Signs $30,000 Per Mile
Curb extensions/Corner Radii $50,000 Each Varies by size and assumes no drainage relocation Median Refuge Island $50,000 Each Varies by size
Median (short) $50,000 Each
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) $60,000 Each
Leading Pedestrian Interval $100,000 Each Cost varies based on the cost of existing and required equipment Slip Lane (free-right turn lane) Removal $100,000 Each Varies by size Pedestrian-only Signal Phase $100,000 Each Cost varies based on the cost of existing and required equipment Neighborhood Traffic Circle $150,000 Each
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) $400,000 Each
Protected Intersection $500,000 Each
Sidewalk $500,000 Per Mile Six-foot wide sidewalk on one side of the street Please note that all costs are based on values obtained from Bid Documents of local (i.e., Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara, and San Mateo counties) projects from 2019 to present, or historic planning level costs generated for local planning efforts from 2018 to present. Values derived from Bid documents were multiplied by a planning level contingency factor to account for additional project needs not explicitly stated in the descriptions.

Costs include the cost of materials, labor and administration of the identified facilities and items, and do not include design fees, public outreach efforts, or inter-agency coordination.
105
Implementation
Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan

Active Transportation Supportive
Programs and Policies
The following set of policies and programs
should be considered to support
the implementation of the proposed
improvements in this plan. These policies
and programs will be subject to additional
community engagement to understand
community support, funding availability,
and allocation to determine how they
can be implemented. Further discussion
and refinement will also to be needed to
determine any required changes to the
municipal code and who the implementing/
enforcement department should be.

Internal departmental coordination over
the next two years is also recommended
to further develop and evaluate the rollout
and implementation of said policies and
programs.

Maintenance
Timely and regular maintenance of bicycle
facilities, shared-use paths, trails, and
sidewalks are critical for their continued
safe and comfortable use. Inadequately
maintained facilities can create potentially
hazardous conditions and reduce the
accessibility and connectivity of the bicycle
and pedestrian networks. Providing safe,
accessible, comfortable, and well-maintained
walking, bicycling, and rolling facilities allows
such active transportation to be a viable
travel option. Prioritizing the procurement
of new equipment for conducting regular
maintenance and sweeping on new
facilities such as separated bikeway lanes
will benefit the City’s active transportation
long-term goals by encouraging people
bicycling and walking to use these well-
maintained facilities. The following section
includes maintenance policies that the City
will endeavor to meet based on ongoing
constraints such as staffing and funding:

Sidewalk Repair and Maintenance
The City has an established and codified
sidewalk repair and maintenance program.

Richmond’s Municipal Code (12.36.025)
states that property owners are responsible
for the repair and maintenance of sidewalks
(and all associated costs) for sidewalks
adjacent to their property. To help reduce
the burden on low-income homeowners
and encourage more rapid repairs, the City
should consider the following actions:
• Conduct a citywide sidewalk inventory
to understand where missing and
broken sidewalks exist. This study
could also include an inventory of
curb ramps and other accessibility
treatments. Green conflict markings help all roadways
users know about upcoming potential
conflicts between people bicycling and
driving near intersections.
106
Implementation
Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan

• Develop requirements that sidewalks
be repaired when properties are sold,
homeowners file for specific permits, or
other conditions.
• Educate residents, homeowners, and
businesses about their sidewalk repair
and maintenance responsibilities.
• Develop a program to coordinate with
property owners to trim and maintain
overgrown vegetation.
• Provide subsidies or other financial
assistance for sidewalk repairs to
reduce the financial burden for lower-
income homeowners.
• Adjust City standards and design
guidelines to use sidewalk-friendly tree
species (trees with roots that won’t
affect the sidewalk) where appropriate.

Closing Sidewalk Gaps
After completing the citywide sidewalk
inventory mentioned previously, the City
should develop a prioritization process to
rank the sidewalk gaps by importance and
gradually work toward addressing all gaps
across the city. The currently available
sidewalk gap data (see Figure 02 , page 8)
can serve as a starting point until funds for
the full inventory have been allocated.

NOTE: the data contained in Figure 02 (see page 8 ) is not an exhaustive inventory of existing/missing sidewalks. The data has been compiled by City staff based on internal knowledge and feedback received from the community.

Sidewalk Access
Community feedback indicated that one
of the most frequent types of pedestrian
issues is the obstruction of sidewalks by
parked vehicles (see Figure 02 , page 8).

This includes vehicles that have been
driven onto the sidewalk, vehicles that have
been partially parked off street on private
property, and vehicles overhanging into the
sidewalk from a driveway. The City should
Tree roots have uplifted this segment of sidewalk, creating an uneven walking and rolling path. consider the development of policies to
educate the public on the importance of
keeping sidewalks clear of obstructions and
not blocking the sidewalk, including legality,
access, and safety.
107
Implementation
Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan

Maintenance Policies
The City should consider the implementation
of the following policies to maintain the
bicycle and pedestrian network in a state of
good repair, high usability, and accessibility.

Implementation of all maintenance policies
is subject to sufficient allocation of staff,
capital, and funding resources.

Policy 1: Identify all maintenance
stakeholders across City of Richmond
Departments and partner agencies/
jurisdictions.

A. Regularly coordinate to establish and
update maintenance needs across
the City and share resources when
possible and practical.

B. Create a facility inspection schedule
to inspect facilities and update
maintenance priorities regularly.

Policy 2: Maintain designated walking and
bicycling facilities to be safe, comfortable,
accessible, and usable for walking, bicycling,
and rolling.

A. Sweep streets regularly with priority
given to roads with higher pedestrian
and bicycle traffic volumes.

B. Ensure Richmond Public Works has
all necessary equipment to maintain
all facility types, including trails and
separated bikeways.

C. Develop a schedule to sweep
separated bikeways regularly.

D. Trim overhanging vegetation and
work with appropriate property
owners to maintain a clear path
of travel along pedestrian and
bicycle facilities. Consider working
with neighborhood councils and
community groups to help maintain
vegetated pieces of infrastructure.

E. Develop and implement an
appropriate minimum paving surface
standard for bicycle boulevards
and other low-stress bikeways that
maintain a higher safety and comfort
level for active transportation users.

F. Update the City’s repaving project
methodology to prioritize bicycle
boulevards and other low-stress
bikeways to maintain the minimum
paving surface standard.

G. Incorporate maintenance needs into
the design of separated bikeways
and other facilities to ensure proper
maintenance after construction.

H. Develop a construction mitigation
policy for impacted pedestrian
and bicycle facilities requiring City
staff and contractors to create fully
accessible detours of equivalent
standards, where possible, when
construction, maintenance, or other
activities restrict the use of bikeways
and walkways.

Policy 3: Maintain bicycle parking and other
support facilities
for a more comprehensive bicycle network.

C. Develop a procedure for inspection
and prompt repair/replacement of
damaged bicycle racks or other
facilities in the public right-of-way.

D. Encourage public event organizers
to provide and publicize valet
bicycle parking at special events.

Amend the City’s event permitting
process to include bicycle access
accommodations and parking as part
of necessary traffic control provisions.

Policy 4: Develop a communications
protocol for walking, bicycling, or rolling-
related updates.

A. Regularly update digital and printed
bicycle and trail network maps.

Distribute paper maps at libraries,
community centers, bike shops, and
other locations.

B. Promote Richmond’s eTRAKiT service
as an easy-to-use method for the
public to report maintenance and
other facility issues.
108
Implementation
Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan

A Quick-build curb extensions in Oakland near the Lake Merritt BART Station.

Many infrastructure improvements
(especially pedestrian projects and
intersection geometry changes) can be
completed using signage, striping, and
other quick-build strategies. Facilities like
curb extensions, medians, and separated
bikeways are examples of treatments that
can be built with quick-build materials. These
improvements can be left permanently with
the quick-build materials or used as a short-
term improvement until additional funding
for design and construction can be secured
for permanent, more expensive design
installations. Constructing improvements
with quick-build materials can result in more
immediate safety and comfort enhancements
at lower costs. Using quick-build materials
also allows the City to trial design changes
before committing to long-term investments.

There are many resources available online
that describe quick-build projects in more
detail. The California Bicycle Coalition has an
80-page guide with details on how to move
forward with these low-cost, high-impact
project types.

Quick-Build Project Alternatives
109
Implementation
Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan

Public Art
Public art is a crucial component of
placemaking and allows community
members to help establish and reinforce
a public identity. Public art can take
many forms, including sculptures, murals,
decorative crosswalks, painted curb
extensions, and themed street furniture.

Public art can also help create a more
welcoming and engaging environment
to walk, roll, and bike through; helping
to encourage more people to use active
transportation. Public art can be coordinated
through the City’s Public Art Advisory
Commission and the Richmond Arts and
Culture Commission.

The City should work to include public
art and placemaking elements wherever
possible with active transportation projects.

Next Steps
Project Timing and Funding
Projects can take a long time to get from “a
line on a map” to being fully constructed.

Limited staff time and limited City resources
may constrict how many projects can move
forward at a given time and how fast those
projects move. In some cases, funding
for project phases (planning, engineering
design, and construction) is found separately,
sometimes with years between phases. As
the City wins competitive grants, it may take
one to two years for the City to get access to
those funds to continue moving the project
forward. The realities of active transportation
funding strengthen the importance of project
prioritization to guide City staff in selecting
projects that will provide the most significant
safety and overall community benefits.
“Black Lives Matter ” text painted on Nevin Avenue in front of Richmond City Hall.

Active Transportation Progress Reports
This plan recommends City staff present
updates on current active transportation
projects, grant opportunities, recent
community feedback, and other relevant
updates to the City Council, Bicycle and
Pedestrian Advisory Committee, and the
Richmond Neighborhood Coordinating
Council biannually.

Partner Entities
The City of Richmond is not the only
jurisdiction or entity responsible for
planning, designing, and constructing
walking, bicycling, and rolling facilities
across the City. Some of the bicycle
and pedestrian improvement project
recommendations in the BPAP are in the
rights-of-way of other agencies, jurisdictions,
or private owners, such as Caltrans, Contra
Costa County, or Union Pacific Railroad. The
City will coordinate with the appropriate
stakeholders for planning, design, funding,
and implementation. These partner agencies
may have final approval on these projects,
even if they are located within the City of
Richmond. Examples of projects out of the
City’s right-of-way include trails on railroad
company property, bicycle facilities on
Caltrans-operated roads, or pedestrian
crossing improvements at interchanges.
110
Implementation
Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan

What Projects Move Forward Next?
Given the limited amount of staff time and budget for new projects, several factors will impact which projects move forward and when.

Figure 25 shows the development and implementation process for projects in the BPAP.

Focusing on Safety
Throughout the community engagement process, community
members consistently stated that improving safety was their top priority. Travel Safe Richmond analyzed collision histories across the City and developed recommendations that responded to those locations. Additionally, safety was one of the major components of the project prioritization process (one-quarter of possible priority points).

When seeking funding sources, many competitive grants have collision history as a score factor. Some grants, including the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and those from the Office of Traffic Safety (OTS), focus on responding to collision locations and other safety concerns.

Interpreting Prioritization Results
The overall prioritization rankings provide an order of projects that can improve safety and benefit the community. Overall project rankings can help select projects for Active Transportation Program (ATP) grant applications or for projects to add to the City’s next Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Breaking down the scores of the different inputs can provide guidance for more specific needs. For example, City staff could sort projects by order of the “safety” score to find the best projects for HSIP or OTS grants. The rankings are not intended to be a hardened list but rather a guide for staff to select projects based on a variety of factors that present opportunities to move projects forward.

Figure 25 Implementation Process Flowchart
Bike and Ped
Action Plan
Local Road
Safety Plan
Prior corridor
and community
plans
Prioritized
Projects
Project Selection
In/f_luences
City Staff
BPAC
Community
Members
CBOs/ Advocates
Other
Jurisdictions
Corridor
Studies
Capital
Plans
Outside
Funding
Development
Projects
Repaving
Projects
Interjurisdictional
Coordination
Engineering
Design Work
Construction
Maintenance
Other plans
and policies
City Council
Blue: Plans and policies
Red: Coordination opportunities
Y ellow: Jurisdictions and CBOs
Green: Project implementation
111
Implementation
Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan

Staying informed and involved is one of the
best ways to continue to advocate for your
community and show support for the bicycle
and pedestrian improvement projects that
matter to you most. There are multiple ways
you can get involved:

Attend Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory
Committee Meetings
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory
Committee (BPAC) meets monthly to discuss
current and future bicycle and pedestrian
improvement projects and needs. City staff
present updates, and there are opportunities
for public comment. If you don’t have time to
attend, checking the
BPAC website is also a
great way to stay informed.

Get Involved with Your Local
Neighborhood Council
Neighborhood councils are great ways to
meet your neighbors and stay informed
about different happenings in your
area. Neighborhood councils receive
presentations and updates from City staff on
projects and other issues. You can find your
neighborhood council on the
City’s website .

From the main page, type “Neighborhood
Council” in the search bar.

Get Involved with Local Walking and
Biking Organizations
Supporting local community and advocacy
groups like Rich City Rides and Bike East
Bay is another way to advocate for bicycle
and pedestrian improvement projects in
your community. These groups focus on
advocating for safer roads and getting
more people walking and bicycling. Your
membership and support will help grow their
advocacy and education work on behalf of
the community.

How Can the Community Stay Involved?
112
Implementation
Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan

Plan Review Summary
A
Appendix

MEMORANDUM

City of Richmond | 1
To: Kara Oberg, MTC; Denee Evans, Lina Velasco, Patrick Phelan; City of Richmond From: Mauricio Hernández and Ben Frazier, Alta
Date: September 29, 2022
Re: Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Action Plan – Plan Review Summary

Introduction
This memorandum summarizes local and regional plans, policies, and standards that impact active transportation in the City of Richmond. These planning documents were reviewed to better understand existing conditions and the results of prior planning efforts in Richmond as it pertains to walking, biking, rolling, and accessing public transportation. This document provides a foundation for the development of the Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Action Plan.

The document was adapted from the Plan Review summary developed for the City’s Local Roadway Safety Plan.

The document is divided into three sections:

Section 1 – Introduction: provides an overview of the memo and included information Section 2 – Key Takeaways: consists of a high-level summary of common themes identified within the plans reviewed.

Section 3 – Document Review and key takeaways: contains a complete overview of the 14 documents reviewed.

The following documents were reviewed as part of this memo:

• Richmond General Plan
• Richmond Bicycle Master Plan
• Richmond Pedestrian Plan
• 23rd Street Streetscape Improvement Plan
• Rumrill/13th Street Complete Street Study
• South Richmond Transportation Connectivity Plan
• Yellow Brick Road Iron Triangle Walkable
Neighborhood Plan
• Richmond Wellness Trail Study
• First Mile/Last Mile Transportation Strategic Plan
• Harbour Way Complete Streets
• Ferry to Bridge to Greenway Complete Streets Plan
• BART Walk and Bicycle Network Gap Study
• Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian
Plan
• Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation
Plan

FINAL 11-02-21
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond
Key Takeaways
Over the past several years, the City has developed numerous citywide plans that set safety-focused policies and goals.

Richmond has also developed corridor plans that include multimodal access and safety recommendations for specific corridors and area plans that prioritize improvements across broader regions. Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) develops countywide plans that support the City of Richmond’s efforts and work towards unified regional connectivity at the county level. In general, many of the documents reviewed emphasize the need for a transportation system that supports safe, comfortable, and equitable transportation networks for vulnerable users (e.g., people walking, biking, and rolling – especially youth, seniors, and those with limited physical mobility or limited mobility options). Major themes throughout the documents reviewed included:

• Need for improving safety and comfort of all
users
• Need for improving connectivity and access to
multimodal transportation networks under a
more equitable approach
• Need to enhance connectivity to neighboring
jurisdictions
• Need to standardize implementation of Active
Transportation facilities and networks
• Need to improve quality of life by focusing on
improving health (personal, environmental, and
economic)
• Commitment to encourage and promote
walking and bicycling as viable modes of
transportation

Future recommendations included in the Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Action Plan will consider these key themes and the infrastructure recommendations made in the plans reviewed for this memorandum.

Document Review
The following sections summarize previous citywide plans, corridor and area plans that recommend and guide transportation safety improvements in Richmond.

Richmond General Plan (2012)
The Circulation Element of the Richmond General Plan (2012) provides a vision and policy framework for transportation planning in Richmond. Richmond has a robust multimodal transportation environment that can foster trips across various travel modes: walking, bicycling, rolling (skating, scooting, or using mobility devices), public transportation (bus, commuter rail, heavy rail, and ferry), and driving. In this vision, the City’s transportation network strives to balance the efficiency and needs of all modes of travel, with traffic calming, dedicated bicycle facilities, trails, and sidewalks supporting safe and comfortable conditions for all modes, especially people walking, bicycling, and rolling.

The Circulation Element outlines a place-based circulation classification system tailored to surrounding land use, street function, and desired character. This classification system assigns modal priorities to each accessway type and provides design recommendations for each one. While the General Plan does not include a transportation safety analysis, policies and actions in the Circulation Element set safety as a high priority:

FINAL 09-29-22
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 3
• Policy CR1.5 calls for safe and convenient walking and bicycling. • Action CR1.C calls for the development and implementation of Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans. • Policy CR3.1 focuses on safety and accessibility, with a focus on walking, bicycling, and transit. The policy also emphasizes at-grade railroad safety, with a dedicated action item for rail crossing improvements. • Action CR3.B calls for traffic calming on streets that experience speeding or cut-through traffic. • Action CR2.F: calls for the city to explore the potential to lower speed limits around schools, parks, and other public gathering spaces.

In addition to safety-focused policies and actions, the General Plan also included ones that focus on improving conditions for active transportation users:
• Policy CR1.1: encourages multiple circulation options and equitable transit access/service throughout the City. • Policy CR1.2: calls for interconnected streets that adequately serve the needs of all roadway users. • Policy CR1.3: calls for enhanced linkages within Richmond and beyond to neighboring cities and areas and improved connections to public transportation.
• Policy CR1.6: calls for a comprehensive network of multi-use trails throughout the City and region. • Action CR1.E: calls for expanded multi-use trails and greenways within Richmond to improve connections to existing and future trails and improve connectivity to trails from more neighborhoods across the city. • Action CR1.K: calls for the development of station area plans around major transit hubs, including improving active transportation connectivity.
• Policy CR2.1: calls for improved access and connectivity within neighborhoods and to major destinations in the City.
• Policy CR2.2: calls for mixed-use urban streets designed with complete street policies that balance the needs of all roadway users.
• Action CR2.B: calls for the city to work with school districts, transit providers, and other partners to develop a Safe Route to School Program.

Richmond Bicycle Master Plan
The City of Richmond Bicycle Master Plan (2011) set forth the blueprint for developing and implementing bikeways and support facilities within the City of Richmond. The Plan focused on improving inter-and intra-neighborhood connectivity, safe routes to schools, and access to major destinations such as employment centers, stores and shops, parks, trails, and open space areas.

FINAL 09-29-22
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 4
The Bicycle Master Plan outlines four main goals, with Goal 3 focused on making Richmond’s streets safer for bicyclists, both during the day and at night. Goal 1 calls for the expansion of bicycle facilities and parking facilities. Goal 2 calls for the city to increase the number of people of all ages and backgrounds bicycling for any trip purpose. In the network development and prioritization, safety was worth three out of twenty points, scored based on the number of previous bicycle collisions per mile.

The Bicycle Plan proposed over 104 miles of bikeways (30 miles of Class I, 32 miles of Class II, and 42 miles of Class III).

Bicycle recommendations are concentrated in three focus areas: Hilltop, Central Richmond, and El Sobrante. Since 2011, 24 miles of bike facilities have been installed in Richmond. While the high priority corridors all received bikeway project recommendations in the Bicycle Master Plan, new design best practices including Class IV bikeways are not reflected in the network. Key hot spot corridors have also undergone in-depth safety and Complete Street studies, including Harbour Way, Rumrill/13th Street, and 23rd Street.

Richmond Pedestrian Plan
Completed in 2011, the Richmond Pedestrian Plan aimed to improve the safety, convenience, and appeal of walking throughout the City. Central Richmond, comprised of Downtown, Civic Center, transit center, and several historic mixed-income and low-income neighborhoods, is the Plan's focus. The Pedestrian Plan includes goals to improve safety, security, connectivity, equity, health, sustainability, and help revitalize neighborhoods and downtown Richmond.

The Plan included a safety and connectivity analysis with criteria for project prioritization focusing on proximity to Pedestrian Improvement Districts (General Plan), community connectivity, safety, and ease of implementation. Top-tier projects from the Richmond Pedestrian Plan included Marina Way, Nevin Avenue, the Richmond Greenway, South 23rd Street, Barrett Avenue, 6th Street, Ohio Avenue, and Harbour Way.

The Pedestrian Plan also included a Crosswalk Policy, treatment toolbox, action plan, and roundabout concept for Cutting Boulevard at Carlson Boulevard.

Crosswalk Policy/Treatment Toolbox
Richmond’s crosswalk policy included an escalating hierarchical scale of crossing enhancements, starting with marking crosswalks and advance stop/yield markings; next, curb extensions/curb radii changes, followed by Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs)/Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (PHBs) and similar treatments; followed by signals and grade separation.

The pedestrian toolkit included infrastructure treatments like complete streets/road diets/right-sizing roadways, curb radii changes/curb extensions, neighborhood traffic circles/roundabouts, crossing improvements, street lighting, crossing islands, sidewalk improvements, street trees, and others.

Corridor and Area Plans
The following corridor and area plans expand on the goals from citywide plans and develop more specific improvement recommendations throughout the City.

FINAL 09-29-22
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 5
23rd Street Streetscape Improvement Plan
The 23rd Street Project Report (2009) focused on a one mile stretch of 23rd Street and 22nd Street within the City of Richmond, between the Carlson Boulevard over-crossing at the south to Costa Avenue at the north and 22nd Street between the Carlson Boulevard over-crossing at the south to the Brooks Avenue crossover. The 23rd Street corridor hosts a major commercial district and provides a north-south arterial connection between Richmond and San Pablo and Interstate 580.

The recommended improvements outlined in the report aim to promote pedestrian and bicycle safety along the corridor by reducing the number of travel lanes, widening the sidewalks, shortening crossing distances for pedestrians, and improving overall pedestrian and bicycle visibility. The preferred alternative includes parallel vehicle parking and a Class III bike route along the corridor. Sidewalk improvements also include reallocation of space to include an amenity zone, through zone, and café seating zone. The 23rd Street project has not been funded for construction.

Rumrill/13th Street Complete Street Study
The Rumrill Boulevard and 13th Street Complete Streets Study (2015) was developed through an intensive community- based design process focused on transforming the street into a safe and friendly place for people and businesses by improving walking, bicycling, and transit conditions. Both the Cities of San Pablo and Richmond and community members of adjacent neighborhoods identified Rumrill Boulevard/13th Street as a corridor in need of a safety, comfort, and placemaking vision for the corridor. The Study area covered those two streets between Harbour Way/Pennsylvania Avenue in Richmond and San Pablo Avenue in San Pablo. The Study identified existing conditions, documented alternatives development for corridor-wide improvements, and provided a preferred concept alternative for the community’s complete streets vision for the corridor.

Because of safety concerns along the corridor, resulting from limited crossing opportunities and perceptions of speeding traffic, the Study included a detailed analysis of pedestrian conditions, including a collision history report. The final preferred concept for Rumrill/13th Street included a lane reduction with space reallocated to pedestrian, bus riders, and bicycle improvements. Other improvements called for shorter crosswalk distances, sidewalk repair, implementation of Class IV or cycle tracks, bus shelters, and far side bus stops. The project has been funded for construction in Richmond and San Pablo; construction is expected to be completed in the near future.

South Richmond Transportation Connectivity Plan (SRTCP) The South Richmond Transportation Connectivity Plan (2015) identified deficiencies in the existing transportation system, with a specific focus on critical transportation corridors in South Richmond. The Plan set forth recommendations to improve multimodal connectivity to and within the area, while strengthening businesses and neighborhoods, to overcome highway and railroad barriers. Key objectives of the SRTCP included connecting South Richmond Neighborhoods to opportunities for employment, education, and recreation on the South Shoreline. The plan also called for connecting key opportunity sites in South Richmond with major transit hubs at Richmond and El Cerrito BART stations and the SF Bay Ferry terminal.

The SRTCP also proposed implementing complete streets designs for major corridors in South Richmond including Harbour Way South, Marina Way South, Hoffman Boulevard, Carlson Boulevard, Central Avenue, and Bayview Avenue.

Some corridors have been identified as priority routes for transit and freight. Other corridors were selected to include recommendations to improve the safety, comfort, convenience, and connectivity for walking, biking, or rolling.

FINAL 09-29-22
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 6
Multimodal safety was one of six criteria to determine project and corridor prioritization. The SRTCP also informed the development of the more recent Ferry to Bridge to Greenway Complete Streets Plan (see below), with multimodal investments on Harbour Way designed and funded.

Yellow Brick Road Iron Triangle Walkable Neighborhood Plan The Yellow Brick Road Walkable Neighborhoods Project (2015) identified barriers, issues, and opportunities in the community to design and implement complete streets improvements along a number roadways in the Yellow Brick Road (YBR) network. The YBR concept was conceived by local youth living in the Iron Triangle neighborhood to safely link key areas in the neighborhood through bright yellow brick patterns on the sidewalks and roadways. The routes would connect the important assets in the community, including local elementary schools, parks, and transit.

The YBR project included a collision analysis and proposed design solutions to improve safety and walkability in the Iron Triangle. Root Routes (Phase 1) forming the backbone of the network included Pennsylvania Avenue, 7th Street, and Elm Avenue. Construction of the Root Routes is expected to be completed in 2022. Trunk Routes (Phase 2) including the Richmond Greenway, 16th Street, and 8th Street, would create cross-neighborhood north-south and east-west connectors, greatly expanding the spine of the neighborhood network. Branch Routes (Phase 3) call for the creation of additional connectivity and routing options for residents, giving them more practical transportation options to BART, schools, community centers, and parks. Funding for Phases 2 and 3 implementation has not been identified.

Richmond Wellness Trail Study
The 2016 Richmond Wellness Trail Vision Plan provided a comprehensive plan for a north-south corridor connecting existing transit facilities and key destinations. Using the Pedestrian Plan and Bicycle Master Plan as a foundation, the plan proposed a series of bicycle enhancements and pedestrian amenities connecting the city’s existing infrastructure to a number of destinations. Important destinations along the corridor include the Bay Trail, Ferry Terminal, Greenway, Marina Bay, Richmond BART Station, and Richmond Kaiser Permanente Medical Center. The project recommended a main spine along Marina Way from the shoreline to Central Richmond.

By proposing design elements along the corridor such as public art, fitness stations, and graphic wayfinding coupled with infrastructure improvements, the plan aimed to develop a tailored “wellness theme.” With a focus on health, wellness, and safety, the Plan included separated bike facilities, pedestrian accessibility improvements, and traffic calming. The Wellness Trail proposed improvements on Marina Way, 16th Street, and 9th Street. Phase 1 of the Wellness Trail, between BART and MLK Park, completed construction in 2022.

First Mile/Last Mile Transportation Strategic Plan
The 2017 Richmond First Mile/Last Mile Transportation Strategic Plan focused on providing first mile/last mile connections to the city’s varied transit services and enhance its transportation network. The plan identified bicycle, pedestrian, and transit barriers leading up to the Richmond Ferry Terminal and the Richmond BART Station. The study recommended ten priority projects that to facilitate easy, safe, and efficient access to Richmond’s transit hubs. Priority projects with a safety focus include Macdonald Avenue and Nevin Avenue Yellow Brick Road Improvements, Ferry to Bridge Complete Streets, Barrett Avenue and Marina Way Intersection Improvements, and Marina Way Pedestrian

FINAL 09-29-22
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 7
Improvements. In addition to corridor improvements, programmatic recommendations put forth by the plan included bike share and e-scooter permit programs and support programs for commuters, seniors, and paratransit users. The first phase of the City’s bike share started implementation in 2021.

Ferry to Bridge to Greenway Complete Streets Plan
The Richmond Ferry to Bridge to Greenway Complete Streets Plan (F2B2G Plan, 2020) envisioned valuable connections for walking and bicycling to and between the Richmond Ferry, the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Trail, and the Richmond Greenway. The F2B2G Plan, when implemented, will provide a balance of permanent regional connections and local safety improvements for people of all ages and abilities, including those in disadvantaged and traditionally underserved areas of the City. It will directly serve four City neighborhoods: Marina Bay, Santa Fe, Iron Triangle, and Point Richmond, as well as visitors from surrounding places.

The plan builds on previous Complete Streets concepts, including the Complete Streets concept for Harbour Way and the Richmond Wellness Trail and existing trails and greenways in Richmond. The F2B2G Plan included a review of the existing infrastructure in the plan area, a development of a planning framework, and presented a summary of issues and opportunities for the area. The proposed network concept features two-way separated cycle tracks on Harbour Way, Hoffman Boulevard, Cutting Boulevard, and Tewksbury Avenue, along with bike boulevards and bike lanes to safely connect neighborhoods with the Richmond Greenway and the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge. A quick build project in 2019 completed a portion of the bicycle facilities along Ohio Avenue, Garrard Boulevard, and Tewksbury Avenue. Construction on the Harbour Way South, Hoffman, and Cutting cycle tracks estimates completion in 2022.

Harbour Way Complete Streets
The City developed a concept for a two-way separated cycle track and pedestrian improvements in 2018 as part of a California Active Transportation Program grant application. The concept has been expanded and updated as part of the Ferry to Bridge to Greenway Complete Streets Plan. A quick-build design for the Complete Streets improvements on Harbour Way from the ferry terminal to Hoffman Boulevard is funded. The City was expected to begin construction on the project in 2021 and coordinate with the complete streets project on Hoffman and Cutting Boulevards.

BART Walk and Bicycle Network Gap Study
The BART Walk and Bicycle Network Gap Study (2020) evaluated potential improvements to the pedestrian network within a ½ mile of 17 focus BART stations. The study summarized outcomes and near- to mid-term recommendations from a series of stakeholder walk audits that took place over three years.

For the Richmond BART station, recommendations included improvements on Nevin Avenue to the west of the station, safety upgrades at Barrett Avenue and Marina Way, safer crossings and bike lane gap closures on Barrett Avenue, and pedestrian improvements along 19th Street between Macdonald and Barrett Avenues. The Study also recommended considering a road diet on Macdonald Avenue and a scramble phase at Macdonald and 16th Streets.

FINAL 09-29-22
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 8
Countywide Plans
The following plans from the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) integrate or expand on City of Richmond planning efforts.

Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
CCTA adopted its first Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (CBPP) in 2003 and updated it again in 2009. The CBPP builds on and expands the goals, policies, and strategies of the Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP).

Both plans set goals for increasing and encouraging more walking and bicycling from people of all ages and abilities – equitably across the County - and identify actions CCTA and its partners should take to achieve them.

The CBPP included a collision density analysis for both bicycles and pedestrians and a level of traffic stress analysis, resulting in a proposed low-stress countywide bikeway network. For the City of Richmond, bikeways for inclusion in the countywide network included San Pablo Avenue, Rumrill Boulevard, Barrett Avenue, and Cutting Boulevard.

The CBPP also designated Priority Pedestrian Areas (PPAs) for focused investment, including all of Central and South Richmond and Richmond Annex. The PPAs identify locations with higher residential and employment densities, high growth forecasts, proximity to major transit stops, proximity to schools, and collision history.

The Plan also included educational and encouragement program recommendations. These include Safe Routes to Schools, adult education programs, transportation demand management (TDM) programs, bicycle parking, end-of-trip facilities (water, showers, lockers, etc.), bike share, wayfinding, and evaluation.

Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan
Led by CCTA and completed in 2020, the Community-Based Transportation Plan (CBTP) for the Richmond Area recommended a series of projects and programs to improve parts of Richmond and several neighboring areas. These recommendations were prioritized using evaluation criteria developed with plan advisors. The CBTP focused on addressing the needs of economically disadvantaged communities in Contra Costa County (based on MTC’s Communities of Concern metric) through robust community engagement and demographic analysis to identify issues, priorities, and potential solutions for mobility.

Based on feedback from a Project Working Group, the Richmond Area CBTP selected four criteria for project prioritization: community priorities, increased access, financial feasibility, and ease of implementation. The CBTP outlines a set of high need and high potential projects and programs based on these criteria. These included: closing gaps in the bicycle network, improving active access to schools, pedestrian crossing improvements, closing sidewalk gaps, and others. The Plan also prioritized transit-specific and safe routes to schools projects and programs. While a collision analysis was not central to the CBTP, results of the robust community outreach process mainly centered on improving the safety and accessibility of the transportation network. Priorities in Richmond included a focus on ADA accessibility in North Richmond, sidewalk gaps and arterial safety along San Pablo Avenue, and arterial corridor safety on MacDonald Avenue.

Bicycle Design Guidelines
B
Appendix

MEMORANDUM

City of Richmond | 1

Overview

California and Local Guidance

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 2

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 3

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 4

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 5
National Guidance

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 6

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 7

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 8
Design Needs of People Bicycling
Design Needs for People Bicycling

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 9
Design Needs of Other Rolling Users

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 10

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 11
Facility Types and Wayfinding
Shared Use Path (Class I)
Typical Application
Design Features

•
•

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 12
•
•
Further Considerations
Lateral Clearance
•
•
Overhead Clearance
•
Striping
•
•
•
Materials and Maintenance
•
•

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 13
On-Street Bicycle Lanes (Class II)
Typical Application
•
•
•
•
Design Features

o
o

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 14
o

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 15

Further Considerations
•
•
o
•
•
•
•
Manhole Covers and Grates
•

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 16
•
•
Interactions with Transit

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 17
Bike Lanes at Right-Turn Lanes
Typical Application
•
•
Design Features
•
•
•
•

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 18
Further Considerations
•
•
•
•
Materials and Maintenance
•

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 19
Combined Bike Lane/Turn Lane
Typical Application
•
•
•
Design Features

•

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 20
Further Considerations
•
Materials and Maintenance
•

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 21
Buffered Bicycle Lanes (Class IIb)
Typical Application
•
•
•
•
Design Features

•
•
•

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 22
Further Considerations
•
•
•

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 23
Bike Route (Class III)
Typical Application
•
Design Features
•
•
•
•
•
•

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 24
Further Considerations
Markings
•
•
•
Signs
•

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 25
Bicycle Boulevards (Class III)
Typical Application
•
•
•
•
Design Features

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 26

Further Considerations
•
o
•

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 27
Advisory Bike Lanes (Advisory Shoulders)
Typical Application
•
Design Features
•
•
•
•

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 28
•
Further Considerations
Markings
•
•
•
•
Intersections
•
•
•
•
Signs

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 29
•
•
•
Accessibility
Implementation

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 30

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 31
Bike Intersection Crossings
Typical Application
•
•
•
Design Features

•
•

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 32
Further Considerations
•
•
•

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 33
Separated Bikeways (Class IV)
Typical Application
•
•
•
•
Design Features

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 34

•
Further Considerations
•
•
•
•
Interaction with Transit

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 35

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 36
Protected Intersection
Typical Application
•
•
•
•
Design Features

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 37

Further Considerations
•
•
•
•
•

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 38
Traffic Calming Strategies

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 39
Typical Application
•
o
o
Design Features
Speed Reduction

Volume Reduction
•

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 40
•
•
•

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 41
Traffic Circles
Typical Application
•
•
•
•
Design Features

Further Considerations
•

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 42
•
•
•
•
•

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 43
Traffic Diverters
Typical Application
•
•
•
•
Design Features – Volume Management

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 44

Further Considerations
•
•
•
•

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 45
Intersection Treatments
Two-Stage Turn Boxes
Typical Application
•
•
•
Design Features

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 46
Further Considerations
•
•
•
•
•

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 47
Bike Box
Typical Application
•
•
•
Design Features

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 48

Further Considerations
•
•
•

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 49
Protected Bicycle Signal Phase
Typical Application
•
•
•
Design Features

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 50

Further Considerations
•
•
•
•

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 51
Leading Bicycle Interval
Typical Application
•
•
•
•

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 52
Further Considerations
•
•
•

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 53
Traffic Signal Detection and Actuation
Typical Application
•
•
•
•
•
Design Features

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 54
Further Considerations
•
•
•
•

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 55
Bicycle Parking
Short-Term Parking
•
•
Site Planning
Location
Security

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 56
Bike Corrals
Long-Term Parking
•
•
•
•
•
Site Planning
Location
Security
Further Considerations
Density

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 57
Bicycle Design Variety
Bicycle Rack Selection Criteria

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 58
•
•
•
•
•
•

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 59
Rack Materials and Coatings

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 60
Placement

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 61
Wayfinding
Sign Types
Typical Application
•
o
o
o
Design Features

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 62

Further Considerations
•
•
•
o
o
o
o
•
•
•

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 63
Sign Placement
Typical Application
Confirmation Signs
•
•
Turn Signs
•
•

Final 09-29-22 Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Richmond 64
Decision Signs
•
•
Design Features
•
•
Further Considerations
•

Project Funding
C
Appendix

Metropolitan Transportation Commission
To: Patrick Phelan, Lina Velasco, Denee Evans, Lydia Elias; City of Richmond From: Ben Frazier, Mauricio Hernández; Alta Planning + Design Date: March 2, 2022 (FINAL)
Re: Travel Safe Richmond - Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Funding Sources

The following memo provides information about available funding sources for the City of Richmond to implement the proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian improvements as part of the Travel Safe Richmond project.

The memo has been organized to include Local and Regional funding sources as well as State and Federal programs which fund the implementation and maintenance of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. A comparative matrix has also been included at the end of the memo which summarizes the activities covered under each funding source.

Funding Sources
Local and Regional Funding Sources
Contra Costa County Measure J
Measure J provides funding for countywide and local transportation projects and programs through the year 2034. Eligible improvements include pedestrian, bicycle, and trail facilities, local streets and road maintenance, and transportation for livable communities.

Funds are programmed by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority.

Transportation Fund for Clean Air, County Program Manager Fund The Transportation Fund for Clean Air funds bicycle facilities including paths, lanes, routes, lockers, and racks.

Funds are programmed by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority.

511 Contra Costa Bike Rack and Locker Program
511 Contra Costa is a countywide program that strives to reduce traffic congestions and improve air quality by providing the public with resources and tools that promote mobility options beyond driving alone. Eligible projects include bicycle parking racks and lockers.

Funds are programmed by Contra Costa County.

Funding Opportunities and Matrix
Alta Planning + Design, Inc Metropolitan Transportation Commission | 2 One Bay Area Grant
The One Bay Area grant program (OBAG) emphasizes funding for projects within Priority Development Areas (PDAs) in the region that are in-line with housing and land use goals. Projects that are within or provide access to these PDAs could qualify for OBAG grants.

Funds are programmed by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority.

Transportation Development Act Article 3
Transportation Development Act Article 3 (TDA 3) provides funding annually for bicycle and pedestrian projects. Two percent of TDA 3 funds collected within the county are used for TDA 3 projects. MTC policies require that all projects be reviewed by a BPAC or similar body before approval.

Funds are programmed by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority.

Bicycle Facilities Grant Program
Throughout the nine-county Bay Area, the Bicycle Facilities Grant program strives to reduce emissions from on- road vehicles and improve air quality by helping residents and commuters shift to bicycling and walking as alternatives to driving for short distances and first- and-last mile trips. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has grant programs that fund both on-street facilities and bicycle parking facilities. Funding comes from the BAAQMD’s Transportation Fund for Clean Air.

Funds are programmed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.

Climate Initiatives Innovative Grants Fund
MTC’s Climate Initiatives Program promotes innovative ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the Bay Area; and taps federal funding for a pair of competitive grant programs. Innovative grants of $1 million and up are used to support high-impact projects that can be replicated around the region.

Funds are programmed by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.

New Development or Redevelopment/Rehabilitation
Future new development and redevelopment projects including new road construction, resurfacing, and construction projects are one method of providing pedestrian improvements and bike facilities. To ensure that pedestrian and bicycle improvements are included in these projects, it is important that the review process includes an individual (designated active transportation coordinator) or group (BPAC) to monitor the review process.

Funds are programmed by the City of Richmond.

Funding Opportunities and Matrix
Alta Planning + Design, Inc Metropolitan Transportation Commission | 3 Assessment Districts
Different types of assessment districts can be used to fund the construction and maintenance of bikeway facilities. Examples include Mello-Roos Community Facility Districts, Infrastructure Financing Districts (SB 308), Open Space Districts, Special Assessment Districts, Tax Increment Financing, or Lighting and Landscape Districts. These types of districts have specific requirements relating to the establishment and use of funds.

Funds are programmed by the City of Richmond.

Impact Fees
Another potential local source of funding are developer impact fees, typically tied to trip generation and traffic impacts as a result of proposed projects. A developer may be required to help mitigate the overall impact of vehicular trips by paying an impact fee; the City should ensure that planning policies consider bicycle and pedestrian planning, design, and construction costs to be an eligible use of these fees.

Funds are programmed by the City of Richmond.

Funding Opportunities and Matrix
Alta Planning + Design, Inc Metropolitan Transportation Commission | 4 State and Federal Grant Programs
California Active Transportation Program
California’s Active Transportation Program (ATP) funds infrastructure and programmatic projects that support the program goals of shifting trips to walking and bicycling, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and improving public health. Competitive application cycles occur every one to two years, typically in the spring or early summer. Eligible projects include construction of bicycling and walking facilities, new or expanded programmatic activities, or projects that include a combination of infrastructure and non-infrastructure components. Typically, no local match is required, though extra points are awarded to applicants who do identify matching funds.

Funds are programmed by the California Transportation Commission (CTC).

Sustainable Transportation Planning Grants
Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grants are available to communities for planning, study, and design work to identify and evaluate projects, including conducting outreach or implementing pilot projects.

Communities are typically required to provide an 11.47 percent local match, but staff time or in-kind donations are eligible to be used for the match provided the required documentation is submitted.

Funds are programmed by Caltrans.

Highway Safety Improvement Program
Caltrans offers Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grants every one to two years. Projects on any publicly owned road or active transportation facility are eligible, including bicycle and pedestrian improvements. HSIP focuses on projects that explicitly address documented safety challenges through proven countermeasures, are implementation-ready, and demonstrate cost-effectiveness.

Funds are programmed by Caltrans.

Solutions for Congested Corridors Program
Funded by SB1, the Congested Corridors Program strives to reduce congestion in highly traveled and congested roads through performance improvements that balance transportation improvements, community impacts, and environmental benefits. This program can fund a wide array of improvements including bicycle facilities and pedestrian facilities. Eligible projects must be detailed in an approved corridor-focused planning document. These projects must include aspects that benefit all modes of transportation using an array of strategies that can change travel behavior, dedicate right of way for bikes and transit, and reduce vehicle miles traveled.

Funds are programmed by the California Transportation Commission.

Funding Opportunities and Matrix
Alta Planning + Design, Inc Metropolitan Transportation Commission | 5 Office of Traffic Safety
Under the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, five percent of Section 405 funds are dedicated to addressing nonmotorized safety. These funds may be used for law enforcement training related to pedestrian and bicycle safety, enforcement campaigns, and public education and awareness campaigns.

Funds are programmed by the California Office of Traffic Safety.

Recreational Trails Program
The Recreational Trails Program helps provide recreational trials for both motorized and non-motorized trail use. Eligible products include trail maintenance and restoration, trailside and trailhead facilities, equipment for maintenance, new trail construction, and more.

Funds are programmed by the California Department of Parks and Recreation.

Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program
The Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program (AHSC) funds land-use, housing, transportation, and land preservation projects that support infill and compact development that reduces greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Projects must fall within one of three project area types: transit-oriented development, integrated connectivity project, or rural innovation project areas. Fundable activities include affordable housing developments, sustainable transportation infrastructure, transportation-related amenities, and program costs.

Funds are programmed by the Strategic Growth Council and implemented by the Department of Housing and Community Development.

Urban Greening Grants
Urban Greening Grants support the development of green infrastructure projects that reduce GHG emissions and provide multiple benefits. Projects must include one of three criteria, most relevantly: reduce commute vehicle miles traveled by constructing bicycle paths, bicycle lanes or pedestrian facilities that provide safe routes for travel between residences, workplaces, commercial centers, and schools. Eligible projects include green streets and alleyways and non-motorized urban trails that provide safe routes for travel between residences, workplaces, commercial centers, and schools.

Funds are programmed by the California Natural Resources Agency.

Statewide Park Program (SPP)
The Statewide Park Program solicits competitive grants to fund new parks and recreation opportunities in critically underserved communities across California. Funds can be used to create and expand/renovate existing parks. All projects must include at least one “recreation feature” which includes non-motorized trails.

No match is required.

Funds are programmed by the California Department of Parks and Recreation.

Funding Opportunities and Matrix
Alta Planning + Design, Inc Metropolitan Transportation Commission | 6 RAISE Grants
The Rebuilding America Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity program supports projects that improve transportation system safety, improve accessibility, and improve sustainability. Eligible projects must have quantifiable environmental benefits, serve disadvantaged communities, and address equity concerns in the project’s design. Eligible projects range between $5 million and $25 million. RAISE grants can fund both planning and capital projects. A 20% local match is required except in rural areas.

Funds are programmed by the United States Department of Transportation.

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program CMAQ funding supports projects that reduce congestion and help jurisdictions meet National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter. Projects must be included in the local MPO’s transportation improvement plan.

Funds are programmed by Caltrans and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.

Surface Transportation Block Grants
These grants are used to maintain and improve the performance on any federal-aid highway, bridges, and tunnel projects on any public road, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, and transit capital projects.

Additional Transportation Alternatives set aside funds for active transportation, and active transportation access to transit improvements are also available.

Funds are programmed by Caltrans and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.

Funding Opportunities and Matrix
Alta Planning + Design, Inc Metropolitan Transportation Commission | 7 Other State Funds
Senate Bill 1: Local Partnership Program
This program provides local and regional agencies that have passed sales tax measures, developer fees or other transportation-imposed fees to fund road maintenance and rehabilitation, sound walls, and other transportation improvement projects. Jurisdictions with these taxes or fees are then eligible for a formulaic annual distribution of no less than $100,000. These jurisdictions are also eligible for a competitive grant program. Local Partnership Program funds can be used for a wide variety of transportation purposes including roadway rehabilitation and construction, transit capital and infrastructure, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, and green infrastructure.

Funds are programmed by California Transportation Commission.

Senate Bill 1: Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program Senate Bill 1 created the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program (RMRP) to address deferred maintenance on state highways and local road systems. Program funds can be spent on both design and construction efforts. On-street active transportation-related maintenance projects are eligible if program maintenance and other thresholds are met. Funds are allocated to eligible jurisdictions.

Funds are programmed by the State Controller’s Office.

Funding Opportunities and Matrix

Alta Planning + Design, Inc Metropolitan Transportation Commission | 6

Funding Source
Planning/
Design/
Construction
On-Street
Bikeways/
End-of-
Trip
Trails
Safe
Routes
to
School
Safe
Routes
to
Transit
Crossings/
Intersections Programs Studies
Local and Regional Opportunities
Contra Costa County Measure J (CCTA) P/D/C • • • • • •
Transportation Fund for Clean Air, County Program Manager Fund (CCTA) C • • • • 511 Contra Costa Bike Rack and Locker Program (Contra Costa County) C • One Bay Area Grants (MTC) D/C • • •
Transportation Development Act Article 3 (CCTA) D/C • • • • • Bicycle Facilities Grant Program (BAAQMD) C •
Climate Initiatives Innovative Grants (MTC) - •
New Developments/Resurfacing Projects (Richmond) D/C • • • Assessment Districts (Richmond) P/D/C • • • • • • •
Impact Fees (Richmond) P/D/C • • • • • • •
State and Federal Opportunities
Active Transportation Program (CTC) P/D/C • • • • • • • Sustainable Transportation Planning Grants (Caltrans) P • Highway Safety Improvement Program (Caltrans) D/C • • • • Solutions for Congested Corridors (CTC) C • • •
Office of Traffic Safety (CA OTS) - •
Recreational Trails Program (CA DPR) C •
Affordable Housing & Sustainable Communities (CA HCD) C • • • Urban Greening Grants (CA NRA) C • • • •
Statewide Park Program (CA DPR) C •
RAISE Grants (USDOT) P/D/C • • • • • •

Funding Opportunities and Matrix

Alta Planning + Design, Inc Metropolitan Transportation Commission | 7

Funding Source
Planning/
Design/
Construction
On-Street
Bikeways/
End-of-
Trip
Trails
Safe
Routes
to
School
Safe
Routes
to
Transit
Crossings/
Intersections Programs Studies
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (Caltrans and MTC) C • • • • • Surface Transportation Block Grants (Caltrans and MTC) C • • • • • Other State Funds
Local Partnership Program (CTC) C • • • •
Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program (Controller’s Office) D/C • • •

Travel Safe Richmond
Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan
City Council Study Session
October 25, 2022

WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
Agenda
• Project Overview and Community Engagement
• Walking and Bicycling Project Recommendations
• Project Prioritization
• Questions/Discussion
• Next Steps

WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
Before we begin…
www.TravelSafeRichmond.org
Comment period closes
November 13, 2022

Project Overview
and Community
Engagement
What is Travel Safe Richmond?
What did we learn from the community?

PROJECT OVERVIEW
Project Overview
Travel Safe Richmond is a two-
pronged approach to improving
roadway safety for all users:
• Local Roadway Safety Plan
• Bike and Pedestrian Action
Plan
Richmond Wellness Trail

PROJECT OVERVIEW
Project Timeline
Phase 1
Existing Conditions
Summer – Fall 2021
Phase 3
Draft and Final Plan
Fall-Winter 2022
Phase 2
Recommendations
Winter 2021 – Fall 2022
● Plan Review
● Existing Facilities
● Health and Equity Analysis • Virtual Workshop #2
• Council Sessions
• Collision Assessment
• Safety Countermeasures
• Community Engagement
• Funding and Implementation
Recommendations
• Infrastructure Recommendations
• Programmatic Recommendations

PROJECT OVERVIEW
Community Engagement Summary Themes
SAFETY

IMPROVED ACCESS

TO COMMUNITY

DESTINATIONS

CONNECTIVITY

IMPLEMENTATION
& MAINTENANCE

Walking and Bicycling
Project Recommendations

• Existing Plans and Policies
• Community Engagement
• Health and Equity Analysis
• Local Road Safety Plan
• Partner Agencies – Facilities and Recommendations
• City Planned Projects

PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation Development

Class III - Bicycle Route Class II- Bicycle Lane Class IV - Separated Bike Lane Class IIIB – Bicycle Boulevard Class IIB - Buffered Bicycle Lane Class I - Shared-Use Path Low Stress FacilitiesBicycle Facility Types

PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS

Proposed Bicycle Improvements

PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS

Proposed Bicycle Improvements

Proposed
Bicycle
Improvements
(CENTRAL)

PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS

Proposed
Bicycle
Improvements
(NORTH)

PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS

Sidewalk Crosswalk Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
Curb Extension Leading Pedestrian Interval Pedestrian-Hybrid Beacon Proposed Pedestrian Improvements

PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS

Proposed Pedestrian Spot
Improvements

Proposed
Pedestrian
Spot
Improvements
(CENTRAL)

PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS

Proposed
Pedestrian
Spot
Improvements
(NORTH)

PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS

Project
Prioritization
Overview and results

PROJECT PRIORITIZATION
Prioritization Methodology
Projects were grouped into HIGH-PRIORITY, MEDIUM-PRIORITY, and OPPORTUNITY PROJECT buckets based on their priority points

Prioritized Bicycle ImprovementsPage 287 of 1061
Prioritized Pedestrian Spot
Improvements

Next Steps
Future engagement opportunities

NEXT STEPS
Next Steps
Project Website
www.TravelSafeRichmond.org
Interactive Draft Plan
Comment Tool
Comment period closes November 13, 2022!!

thank you!

Comment
Source Comment Location Comment
Bruce ‐ TRAC Email
TRAC, the Trails for Richmond Action Committee, recently learned of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan via Lina Velasco’s October 5 email in relation to realignment of the Bay Trail between Hensley Street and Gertrude Avenue. No one from Alta Planning had contacted us with an opportunity to provide early input, so our comments are fundamental, as well as detailed. The October draft does not contain realignment of the Bay Trail between Hensley Street and Gertrude Avenue based upon the information provided to you. We would appreciate the opportunity to review the language and exhibits to be added for this new Bay Trail realignment.

The overall structure of the draft Plan and its exhibits overlooks Richmond’s backbone of multi‐use trails for use by both pedestrians and bicyclists for transportation and recreation. Richmond has about 30 miles of Class I two‐way, multi‐use San Francisco Bay Trail and another 2‐ 1/2 miles of multi‐use Class I Richmond Greenway. Taken together the Bay Trail and Greenway represent the most popular and heavily used walking, running and cycling venues in the City of Richmond. However, they are ignored by draft Plan’s dichotomous approach of separating the plan into bicycle facilities & projects vs. pedestrian facilities & projects. The plan should be revised to explicitly recognize and address Class I multi‐use trails. For example, the report should recommend High Priority Multi‐use Trail Projects. Class I multi‐use Class I trails should be added to the maps, which currently show only bikeways and refer to bicycle “Class I Shared‐Use Path”. Bay Trail Class I trails are designed and operated for use by both peds and cyclists. They are not bicycle “paths” which, by the way, peds are allowed to use. Richmond’s multi‐ use trails include the regional San Francisco Bay Trail, Marina Bay Trail,  Ferry Point Loop Trail & Shipyard 3 Trail, Wildcat Marsh & Landfill Loop Trail, etc. These typically comprise a 10‐foot paved surface with 2‐foot wide shoulders ofter preferred by those walking and jogging.

They are not “paths”, as in a little garden path.

Bruce ‐ TRAC Email
The Plan should include all of the planned multi‐use trails included in the Transportation Element of the Richmond General Plan. As examples, the draft Plan doesn’t include trails planned on the south side of San Pablo Creek between the Landfill Loop Trail and Fred Jackson Way or the trail between the South 51st Street Bay Trail spur and the existing multi‐use trail on the north side of Meeker Tidal Creek leading to Regatta Blvd. as shown by the attached markup of General Plan Map 4.1.

More detailed comments are being added via the project’s interactive website.

Bruce ‐ TRAC Email
Further to the email below, the draft report contains Bicycle Design Guidelines, but not the attached Bay Trail Design Guidelines and Toolkit for design of trails to be shared by pedestrians and cyclists. The report is skewed toward design of Class I trails for cyclists with those walking and jogging considered to be a secondary, tolerated use of “bicycle paths”.

Public Comments on Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan (BPAP)

Public Comments on BPAP
Councilmember
Bates City Council 1st Reading ‐ Notes
Receives complaints from the public regarding crime, bike lanes and barrett avenue; how do you justify implementing bike lanes if there's not many people using bikes? Justify the need for this.

Mayor Butt City Council 1st Reading ‐ Notes
Cutting Blvd gets a lot of use by biccyclists; Ferry to Bridge facilities are great and impressive; issue with sidewalks include: difficulty for people with mobility impairments, city council directed staff for plan to maintain sidewalks June of 2017 and there hasn't been action regarding this
Councilmember
McLaughlin City Council 1st Reading ‐ Notes Coordinate more clear ly with the Local Roadway Safety Plan and the upcoming Public Works Director should be involved in this Philip Rosenthal City Council 1st Reading ‐ Notes Disagrees with  the extensive public outreach and not sufficient time to review; Cutting Blvd is a big issue with gridlock Jim Hanson City Council 1st Reading ‐ Notes
San Pablo Avenue is part of the high‐injury network and it is not reflected as a high priority project in the draft BPAP, this corridor affects the whole city
Mayor Butt Email
This month is National Pedestrian Safety Month. Pedestrians typically walk on sidewalks, but in Richmond, sidewalks often have hazards such as cracks, uplifts or overhanging vegetation that make them difficult to navigate or even dangerous. The City of Richmond settles claims annually for people who trip and fall due to damaged sidewalks. Despite direction by the City Council in 2017, the City has yet to prepare a sidewalk inspection and maintenance plan and policy. See “Richmond, California, Sidewalks and Street Edges.” Even more dangerous than damaged sidewalks are sidewalks that are blocked by parked cars. Apparently, many people do not understand or even care that sidewalks are for walking. A lot of people believe they are for parking cars. See “Cars on Richmond Sidewalks Present Obstacles for Residents; So Do parking Fines.”
Vehicles blocking sidewalks violate state law and local ordinances, yet enforcement is almost non‐existent due to staffing shortages and low priority . Vehicles blocking sidewalks are particularly dangerous for young children who are walking to school, parents pushing baby strollers, disabled people in wheelchairs or walkers, and the elderly, all of whom are routinely forced into the street to navigate their neighborhoods.

Take a look at this this video I made of a dad pushing a stroller having to detour into a busy street to avoid two cars totally blocking the sidewalk.

I have been taking photos and sending them to RPD for years, but the problem doesn’t seem to be improving. Below are some typical examples:

James Marceda website Form
Hi there,
I'm reviewing the plan and I don't see any mention of San Pablo Ave. Are there any plans to add bike lanes there? I think that would be a huge quality of life improvement for everyone who lives near this very busy street.

Thanks!
Ms. Annette Segal website Form
We need SAFE pedestrian crossing lanes on San Pablo and McBryde, Barrett and Solana. This is a CHEAP FIX! Why can't it happen without a lot of red tape?

Public Comments on BPAP
Amrita Ghai website Form
Hello,
I own and operate Curious Explorers Academy, a preschool located at 200 Broadway.

I was introduced to Travel Safe Richmond through a parent who came to tour our preschool.

We are on the surface streets that connect the Richmond Greenway Trail to itself. The suggested route to connect the trail from Pullman Portal to Dirt World is to go up Broadway to Bissell then back down 23rd. We should have a safe way to get from the greenway back to the greenway.

We are very interested in getting involved to improve the safety on Broadway, more specifically the intersection of Bissell Ave and Broadway. Many of our students and teachers bike or walk to school. While there is a 2‐way stop sign on Bissell Ave, there are no stop signs on Broadway which leads to a lot of speeding traffic. Very often cars go by at 50+mph.

Additionally, the turn from Bissell Ave onto Broadway is also a "blind" turn, it is very difficult for cars to safely make a left turn onto Broadway and there are regularly near collisions with both cars and bikes. Personally I have witnessed 2 vehicle collisions at that intersection in the past 6 months. It would be wonderful to have a 4‐way stop sign or roundabout to help the flow of traffic.

Please let me know if there is another way we can get involved to improve the safety of this corridor for our community.

Susan Wehrle website Form
I saw a map of plans to improve biking in Richmond on McBryde to Wildcat Park. We are a biking family in the neighborhood and DO HOPE this can come to fruition. I want to be safe on my bike, I want everyone to have this opportunity. Also, our family has ADA needs, and so many curbs in our ‘hood are not compliant. Let’s make Richmond safer for all, including children, families out for a walk, bike riders, wheelchair users, people with dogs, and others. Car drivers would be safer if they slowed down as well. Traffic calming for better health for all!
Michael Peritz website Form
Just became aware of the project (11/8/22); forgive ignorance; will go deeper but have questions/concerns:

What can be done to improve safety for bikes and pedestrians along the trails we already have? There are many problems that exist under BART between Macdonald and EC Plaza that do not exist from there southward. How do we encourage people and make them feel more comfortable using the Baxter Creek east/west trail to the Bay? How do we convince Marinites who depend on Eastbay labor to build safe bicycle infrastructure starting at their end of the San Rafael Bridge? How do we convince them to envision the future and keep the bike lane on the bridge? What San Pablo Avenue improvements/accommodations for bike riders and pedestrians will be included for the growing popularity of electric bikes, trikes, carts, etc.?
Where are there models/best practices/ designs worldwide where bikes, scooters, skateboards, pedestrians, etc. outnumber cars and trucks?

Public Comments on BPAP
Butler W Baylis
The sidewalk along the Garrard side of the Plunge that is now a bicycle path + a sidewalk I feel needs some signage on the sidewalk itself to alert pedestrians that cycles will be legally on the sidewalk .

RNCC Email from staff
Comments were around the RNCC’s request that BPAP have outreach tailored to the business community. We’d like to discuss adding that component with any remaining funding.

Jim Hanson PDF ‐ Feedback & Comments
This is one of the most, if not the most trafficked intersections in Richmond. It's a commercial block with transit stops. The pedestrian striping is non‐existent.

Jim Hanson PDF ‐ Feedback & Comments
San Pablo Ave. is a High Injury street but there are no corresponding high priority pedestrian safety improvements in the pedestrian safety prioritization listing (Table 10)
Jim Hanson PDF ‐ Feedback & Comments Table 10 seems like it shoul d be labeled as as "Pedestrian Projects" instead of bicycle projects.

Jim Hanson PDF ‐ Feedback & Comments
There are bike "spot" projects show in purple dots on the map that don't have numbers associated with them, and some that are above the ending #105 project in this table. I'd like to know what these proposed projects are. Thank you.

Jim Hanson PDF ‐ Feedback & Comments
Redo, There are spot projects in East Richmond that aren't numbered on the map that therefore are likely not in this table, and also projects that are numbered higher than the ending #105 in this table, thus don't yet show up either.

Jim Hanson PDF ‐ Feedback & Comments
McBryde from San Pablo Ave. to Alvarado Park is a High Priority bicycle (and pedestrian) improvements. Richmond residents from across the city use this street to get to this popular park that the Local Road Safety Plan shows is currently also a high injury area. Please include McBryde as a high priority bicycle safety improvement area.

Jim Hanson PDF ‐ Feedback & Comments
Solano is both a fast and busy street with a very steep section and with cars parked along the curb. This can be a difficult street for bicycling, even with a proposed IIB bike lane. Neighbors and bicyclists would need to be consulted on using this street as a major bike route.

Jim Hanson PDF ‐ Feedback & Comments
Clinton has steep sections, and a blind corner at the twist in the road halfway up at Yuba. This may be a decent option to get to Arlington, but the blind twist in the road is a problem going up hill if there is a vehicle coming up from behind.

Jim Hanson PDF ‐ Feedback & Comments
McBryde should be a High Priority street for bicycle (pedestrian) improvements. People from across the city access Alvarado Park on McBryde from San Pablo Ave. to the Park, but there have been injuries here.

Jim Hanson PDF ‐ Feedback & Comments McBryde should be a High Pri ority bicycle proejct.

Jim Hanson PDF ‐ Feedback & Comments McBryde should be a High Pri ority bicycle project.

Jim Hanson PDF ‐ Feedback & Comments McBryde should be a High Pri ority bicycle project.

Jim Hanson PDF ‐ Feedback & Comments McBryde should be a High Pri ority Bicycle project.

Public Comments on BPAP
Jim Hanson PDF ‐ Feedback & Comments McBryde should be a High Pri ority bicycle project.

Jim Hanson PDF ‐ Feedback & Comments
Because people from all Richmond neighborhoods travel to commercial corridors also, high injury areas and accompanying priority pedestrian safety projects need to go beyond the neighborhood level to where people shop, too. Residents from all neighborhoods have occasion to walk and ride commercial services on San Pablo Avenue. Despite its recognition as a High Injury area, this report currently lacks any high priority pedestrian safety projects along San Pablo Avenue. Please add a table the ranks all projects on their strictly on their safety value to all residents traveling across the city. Please include needed high priority safety projects on San Pablo Avenue.

Jim Hanson PDF ‐ Feedback & Comments
Because people from all Richmond neighborhoods travel to commercial corridors also, high injury areas and accompanying priority pedestrian safety projects need to go beyond the neighborhood level to where people shop, too. Residents from all neighborhoods have occasion to walk and ride commercial services on San Pablo Avenue. Despite its recognition as a High Injury area, this report currently lacks any high priority pedestrian safety projects along San Pablo Avenue. Please add a table the ranks all projects on their strictly on their safety value to all residents traveling across the city. Please include needed high priority safety projects on San Pablo Avenue.

Jim Hanson PDF ‐ Feedback & Comments
Less expensive measures, such as striping that is estimated to cost $4k can and should be considered first at numerous dangerous intersections. More expensive $400k “islands” etc. that take a lot of time to design, bid, and construct. Please ADD a second table that is ranked by least expensive high priority pedestrian projects to most expensive high priority ones.

Jim Hanson PDF ‐ Feedback & Comments #27 is a dot at McBryde on t he map above.

Jim Hanson PDF ‐ Feedback & Comments A quick scan of Table 10 bel ow has no information on project #120 Jim Hanson PDF ‐ Feedback & Comments
Pedestrian safety improvement needed at the at San Pablo and McBryde Intersection. This is a retail corridor and a recognized High Injury street with residents from across Richmond parking and crossing busy San Pablo. The pedestrian crossing lines are badly eroded. A higher level pedestrian safety crossing measure is needed here.

Jim Hanson PDF ‐ Feedback & Comments
Pedestrian safety improvement needed at the at San Pablo and Solano intersection. This is a commercial corridor and a recognized High Injury street with residents from across Richmond parking and crossing busy San Pablo Ave. The pedestrian crossing lines are badly eroded.

A higher level safety crossing measure is needed here.

Jim Hanson PDF ‐ Feedback & Comments
Pedestrian safety improvement needed at the at San Pablo and Barrett Intersection. This is a busy commercial corridor and recognized High Injury street with residents from across Richmond parking and crossing busy San Pablo. The pedestrian crossing lines are badly eroded. A higher level safety crossing measure is needed here.

Trevor Rice PDF ‐ Feedback This portion of the Richmond Wellness  Trail has already been completed.

Trevor Rice PDF ‐ Feedback
16th St. between Macdonald Ave and the Richmond Greenway is a designated Bike Boulevard w/ accompanying signage & lane markings, per the Richmond Wellness Trail Vision.

Trevor Rice PDF ‐ Feedback
9th St. from Nevin to the Richmond Greenway is envisioned as a Bicycle Boulevard in the Richmond Wellness Trail Vision Plan. Bike lanes may be an improvement but should be checked to ensure the other pedestrian safety and road calming measures envisioned in the plan aren't excluded due to width needed for bike lanes.

Public Comments on BPAP
Anonymous PDF ‐ Feedback to
Anonymous PDF ‐ Feedback on?
Bruce Beyaert PDF ‐ Feedback Should be Tewksbury Ave end.

Bruce Beyaert PDF ‐ Feedback
Add Richmond Wellness Trail on Marina Way South between Cutting and Lucretia Edwards Park. This SF Bay Trail multi‐use trail, not a bicycle project.

Bruce Beyaert PDF ‐ Feedback Upgrade of Harbour Way South & Wrigh t Ave. intersection Bruce Beyaert PDF ‐ Feedback Add upgrade of Harbour Way South & W right Avenue intersection & BNSF RR grade crossing.

Bruce Beyaert PDF ‐ Feedback Add medium priority to close multi‐u se Bay Trail gap on south side of San Pablo Creek between Richmond Parkway and Landfill Loop Trail Bruce Beyaert PDF ‐ Feedback
There is a gap in the planned multi‐use SF Bay Trail on the south side of San Pablo Creek between the Richmond Parkway and the Landfill Loop Trail.

Bruce Beyaert PDF ‐ Feedback
Richmond Parkway to Fred Jackson Way: Show dotted line, planned but incomplete Class I Trail on south side of San Pablo Creek as in City and County General Plans and Countywide Bike & Ped Plan.

Bruce Beyaert PDF ‐ Feedback Brickyard Cove Road from Dornan Driv e to Seacliff Drive: Show existing Class I Trail.

Bruce Beyaert PDF ‐ Feedback Hensley/Gertrude Realignment on west ern side of Castro St: Show to replace existing Bay Trail route per info provided to Lydia Elias Ryan Booth PDF ‐ Feedback
Make the Bay Trail on the Richmond‐San Rafael Bridge permanent, and improve connections through Richmond. This an essential piece of infrastructure for Bay Area, and a much needed connection for providing transportation choices for all residents.

Philip Rosenthal PDF ‐ Feedback
I was appalled that this major presentation was  breezed over in ten minutes at 11:15 at the end of a five hour meeting, Please provide a list of neighborhood council meetings, this i sthe first many of us have heard of this.

This website, with its complicated and illegible maps, which can't be expanded to show our neighborhoods, are not helpful in gaining feedback from communities who are aware of their own specific needs and dangers.

If using an interactive website requires a complicated tutorial and is glitchy, how can you consider this open and public feedback. It seems as though only a few people, all with a slant toward bike lanes at any cost, have figured this out.

Until mid‐October, we couldn't even find this plan posted on this website.

A project of this nature deserves an earnest outreach by mail notification by the city and posting on social media.

The taxpayers deserve to help design this plan based on their knowledge of issues in their  own neighborhoods, Philip Rosenthal PDF ‐ Feedback This map can't be expanded enough  for us to comment on our neighborhood needs and feedback.

Philip Rosenthal PDF ‐ Feedback Why wasn't this website aggressiv ely promoted if this was the main source of feedback Edith Alderette PDF ‐ Feedback
Wait... Whaaa? First, Tewksbury already has a separated and dedicated bike lane. Second, are you building through the railroad tracks? Because your line as plotted is going through buildings. Third, if you're suggesting a dedicated bike lane down Railroad, you're destroying what little parking is available for visitors and customers to the Point. So you know where they'll park? In front of our homes, where we already don't have enough space for people who live here. Bicycles have zero problem getting to Tewksbury via Park Place, and they go by businesses who need their custom. Please don't fix what isn't broken (or break more what is already going to be pretty jacked up by the Bicycle Coalition plans).

Public Comments on BPAP
Laurie Isenberg PDF ‐ Feedback Thank you for proposing better/saf er routes for walking/biking to BART.

Eli Moore PDF ‐ Feedback
Riding bikes on busy streets like Macdonald or Barret always feel less safe than when there is a bike path on a wide residential street like Clinton. I don't agree with making the bike paths on Macdonald a priority over other ones.

Bruce Beyaert, TRAC
Chair PDF ‐ Feedback
The overall structure of the draft Plan and its exhibits overlooks Richmond’s backbone of multi‐use trails for use by both pedestrians and bicyclists for transportation and recreation. Richmond has about 30 miles of Class I two‐way, multi‐use San Francisco Bay Trail and another 2‐ 1/2 miles of multi‐use Class I Richmond Greenway. Taken together the Bay Trail and Greenway represent the most popular and heavily used walking, running and cycling venues in the City of Richmond. However, they are ignored by draft Plan’s dichotomous approach of separating the plan into bicycle facilities & projects vs. pedestrian facilities & projects. The plan should be revised to explicitly recognize and address Class I multi‐use trails.

Anonymous PDF ‐ Feedback
The report should recommend Priority Multi‐use Trail Projects. Class I multi‐use Class I trails should be added to the maps, which currently show only bikeways and refer to bicycle “Class I Shared‐Use Path”. Bay Trail Class I trails are designed, built and operated for use by both peds and cyclists. They are not bicycle “paths” which, by the way, peds are allowed to use.

Bruce Beyaert, TRAC
Chair PDF ‐ Feedback
Class I multi‐use trails should be identified on the map, It shows only bikeways and refers to bicycle “Class I Shared‐Use Path”. Bay Trail Class I trails are designed, built and operated for use by both peds and cyclists. They are not bicycle “paths” which, by the way, peds are allowed to use.

Bruce Beyaert PDF ‐ Feedback
Add the existing Class I multi‐use trail on the NORTH side of Meeker Tidal Creek behind BioRad & Richmond Wholesale Meats leading to Regatta Blvd.. Also add planned Class I multi‐use trail connecting this trail to planned S. 46th St. spur trail and S. 51st St. Bay Trail spur as shown on General Plan Map 4.1
Bruce Beyaert PDF ‐ Feedback
Class I multi‐use trails should be identified on the map, It shows only bikeways and refers to bicycle “Class I Shared‐Use Path”. Bay Trail Class I trails are designed, built and operated for use by both peds and cyclists. They are not bicycle “paths” which, by the way, peds are allowed to use.

Bruce Beyaert PDF ‐ Feedback
Add the existing Class I multi‐use trail on the NORTH side of Meeker Tidal Creek behind BioRad & Richmond Wholesale Meats leading to Regatta Blvd.. Also add planned Class I multi‐use trail connecting this trail to planned S. 46th St. spur trail and S. 51st St. Bay Trail spur as shown on General Plan Map 4.1
Bruce Beyaert PDF ‐ Feedback Shouldn't this be E. Richmond to Can al Blvd.? Best to be Class I multi‐use for peds as well as cyclists.

Bruce Beyaert PDF ‐ Feedback
This Class I multi‐use section of Bay Trail is to built next year 2.5 miles from RSR Bridge to Stenmark Drive at Northern end of the City's Point Molate property
Bruce Beyaert PDF ‐ Feedback Class II bike lanes need to be resto red on Wright Ave. between Marina Way  and Harbour Way South.

Bruce Beyaert PDF ‐ Feedback Class II bike lanes need to be resto red on Wright Ave. between Marina Way and Harbour Way South.

Bruce Beyaert PDF ‐ Feedback Class II bike lanes need to be resto red on Wright Ave. between Marina Way and Harbour Way South.

Bruce Beyaert PDF ‐ Feedback Don't understand what is meant by th ese two Bay Trail extensions.

Bruce Beyaert PDF ‐ Feedback Not needed. There already is a Class  I multi‐use section of Bay Trail along Brickyard Cove Road.

Bruce Beyaert PDF ‐ Feedback Not clear what is meant by this.

Anonymous PDF ‐ Feedback Fantastic connection!
Bruce Beyaert PDF ‐ Feedback Should be Point San Pablo
Bruce Beyaert PDF ‐ Feedback Excellent idea.

Bruce  Beyaert PDF ‐ Feedback Class II bike lanes need to be rest ored on Wright Ave. between Marina Way and Harbour Way South.

Bruce Beyaert PDF ‐ Feedback Sidewalks needed on Wright Ave. betw een Marina Way and Harbour Way South.

Public Comments on BPAP
Bruce Beyaert PDF ‐ Feedback Sidewalks needed on Wright Ave. betw een Marina Way and Harbour Way South.

Bruce Beyaert PDF ‐ Feedback Sidewalks needed on Wright Ave. betw een Marina Way and Harbour Way South.

Bruce Beyaert PDF ‐ Feedback
Make red high priorioty, the 2.5 miles of Class I Bay Trail to be built by EBRPD and the City in 2023 between the RSR Bridge Trail and the northern border of the City's Point Molate property at Stenmark Drive.

Bruce Beyaert PDF ‐ Feedback Add Medium Priority the planned Clas s I Bay Trail section between Marina Bay Parkway and Landfill Loop Trail.

Bruce Beyaert PDF ‐ Feedback Male High Priority Wellness Trail ph ase 2 between Cutting Blvd. and Lucretia Edwards Park.

Bruce Beyaert PDF ‐ Feedback Male High Priority Wellness Trail ph ase 2 between Cutting Blvd. and Lucretia Edwards Park.

Bruce Beyaert PDF ‐ Feedback Add Medium Priority the Bay Trail se ction on SOUTH side of San Pablo Creek between Richmond Parkway and Landfill Loop Trail.

Bruce Beyaert PDF ‐ Feedback Add High Priority Richmond Wellness  Trail phase 2 between Cutting and Edwards Park.

Bruce Beyaert PDF ‐ Feedback High Priority for Richmond Wellness  Trail phase 2 between Cutting and Edwards Park.

Anonymous PDF ‐ Feedback Bravo! Much needed connection between th e heart of Richmond and Wildcat! Anonymous PDF ‐ Feedback considered
Sidonia PDF ‐ Feedback
I would feel safer biking on 24th St. rather than 23rd St. and also some type of vehicle volume reduction on 24th St. would make biking more comfortable.

Earlene Gordon PDF ‐ Feedback
The pedestrian walkway crossing San Pablo Ave at San Pablo Ave & Barrett, Richmond is a very busy one.  It needs to be updated because it is in poor condition.  Many users are either very young or seniors or the the seemingly inattentive unhoused. These citizens are more subject to stumbling and/or falling.  The present state of the walkway presents a hazard.

Cristina Gámez PDF ‐ Feedback
Quería comentar una calle muy transitada y no tiene zona peatonal ni marcada de líneas blancas o amarillas no hay una luz de cruzar el peatón y es una escuela cerca que necesitamos que pongan señalización necesaria y urgente para la protección de nuestros estudiantes , e spa calle 28 y Macdonald ave. A la par de la iglesia San Cornelius , porfavor es urgente e indispensable por la seguridad de los niños ! Gracias .
[I wanted to comment on a very busy street and it does not have a pedestrian area or marked with white or yellow lines, there is no pedestrian crossing light and it is a school nearby that we need to put up necessary and urgent signage for the protection of our students, e spa calle 28 and Macdonald ave. Next to the San Cornelius church, please, it is urgent and essential for the safety of the children! Thanks .] Jim Hanson PDF ‐ Feedback
San Pablo Ave. is a High Injury street but there are no corresponding high priority pedestrian safety improvements in the pedestrian safety prioritization listing (Table 10)
Jim Hanson PDF ‐ Feedback Table 10 seems like it should be labele d as as "Pedestrian Projects" instead of bicycle projects.

Jim Hanson PDF ‐ Feedback
There are bike "spot" projects show in purple dots on the map that don't have numbers associated with them, and some that are above the ending #105 project in this table. I'd like to know what these proposed projects are. Thank you.

Jim Hanson PDF ‐ Feedback
Redo, There are spot projects in East Richmond that aren't numbered on the map that therefore are likely not in this table, and also projects that are numbered higher than the ending #105 in this table, thus don't yet show up either.

Public Comments on BPAP
Nick Despota PDF ‐ Feedback A pedestrian crossing button and ligh t are necessary at San Pablo Ave at Solano Ave. This is a heavily used pedestrian crossing location.

Nick Despota PDF ‐ Feedback
The intersection of San Pablo Ave and Solano Ave is frequently used by pedestrians and cyclists. We would like to have a working button on the lamp posts on either side of the street to activate the stop light.

Jim Hanson PDF ‐ Feedback
McBryde from San Pablo Ave. to Alvarado Park is a High Priority bicycle (and pedestrian) improvements. Richmond residents from across the city use this street to get to this popular park that the Local Road Safety Plan shows is currently also a high injury area. Please include McBryde as a high priority bicycle safety improvement area.

Jim Hanson PDF ‐ Feedback
Solano is both a fast and busy street with a very steep section and with cars parked along the curb. This can be a difficult street for bicycling, even with a proposed IIB bike lane. Neighbors and bicyclists would need to be consulted on using this street as a major bike route.

Jim Hanson PDF ‐ Feedback
Clinton has steep sections, and a blind corner at the twist in the road halfway up at Yuba. This may be a decent option to get to Arlington, but the blind twist in the road is a problem going up hill if there is a vehicle coming up from behind.

Jim Hanson PDF ‐ Feedback
McBryde should be a High Priority street for bicycle (pedestrian) improvements. People from across the city access Alvarado Park on McBryde from San Pablo Ave. to the Park, but there have been injuries here.

Jim Hanson PDF ‐ Feedback
Because people from all Richmond neighborhoods travel to commercial corridors also, high injury areas and accompanying priority pedestrian safety projects need to go beyond the neighborhood level to where people shop, too. Residents from all neighborhoods have occasion to walk and ride commercial services on San Pablo Avenue. Despite its recognition as a High Injury area, this report currently lacks any high priority pedestrian safety projects along San Pablo Avenue. Please add a table the ranks all projects on their strictly on their safety value to all residents traveling across the city. Please include needed high priority safety projects on San Pablo Avenue.

Jim Hanson PDF ‐ Feedback
Because people from all Richmond neighborhoods travel to commercial corridors also, high injury areas and accompanying priority pedestrian safety projects need to go beyond the neighborhood level to where people shop, too. Residents from all neighborhoods have occasion to walk and ride commercial services on San Pablo Avenue. Despite its recognition as a High Injury area, this report currently lacks any high priority pedestrian safety projects along San Pablo Avenue. Please add a table the ranks all projects on their strictly on their safety value to all residents traveling across the city. Please include needed high priority safety projects on San Pablo Avenue.

Jim Hanson PDF ‐ Feedback
Less expensive measures, such as striping that is estimated to cost $4k can and should be considered first at numerous dangerous intersections. More expensive $400k “islands” etc. that take a lot of time to design, bid, and construct. Please ADD a second table that is ranked by least expensive high priority pedestrian projects to most expensive high priority ones.

Jim Hanson PDF ‐ Feedback #27 is a dot at McBryde on the map abov e.

Jim Hanson PDF ‐ Feedback A quick scan of Table 10 below has no i nformation on project #120 Jim Hanson PDF ‐ Feedback
Pedestrian safety improvement needed at the at San Pablo and McBryde Intersection. This is a retail corridor and a recognized High Injury street with residents from across Richmond parking and crossing busy San Pablo. The pedestrian crossing lines are badly eroded. A higher level pedestrian safety crossing measure is needed here.

Jim Hanson PDF ‐ Feedback
Pedestrian safety improvement needed at the at San Pablo and Solano intersection. This is a commercial corridor and a recognized High Injury street with residents from across Richmond parking and crossing busy San Pablo Ave. The pedestrian crossing lines are badly eroded.

A higher level safety crossing measure is needed here.

Public Comments on BPAP
Jim Hanson PDF ‐ Feedback
Pedestrian safety improvement needed at the at San Pablo and Barrett Intersection. This is a busy commercial corridor and recognized High Injury street with residents from across Richmond parking and crossing busy San Pablo. The pedestrian crossing lines are badly eroded. A higher level safety crossing measure is needed here.

Mary Lou Herlihy PDF ‐ Feedback
San Pablo Avenue should be included in the HIGH PRIORITY list. It is THE MOST dangerous street for cyclists and pedestrians to travel along or cross.

Mary Lou Herlihy PDF ‐ Feedback
I recommend changing AT LEAST 3 major intersections across San Pablo to HIGH PRIORITY. Walking in this area is really dangerous. My priorities include MacDonald, Barrett, Roosevelt, Garvin, McBride.

Mary Lou Herlihy PDF ‐ Feedback
PLEASE change intersections along San Pablo Avenue from med priority to HIGH PRIORITY and ADD Barrett and MacDonald. (NOTE: I posted this same comment but was zoomed in while posting so it appears in the wrong area.) Mary Lou Herlihy PDF ‐ Feedback The San Pablo corridor is among t he busiest and most dangerous in Richmond yet the plan does not appear to focus improvements here.

Mary Lou Herlihy PDF ‐ Feedback
Recommend adding spot improvements at Barrett/San Pablo, as well as MacDonald/San Pablo. Since San Pablo was JUST resurfaced, I have not yet seen what pedestrian safety features are planned. At the VERY LEAST, freshly painted high visibility crosswalks should be included.

Mary Lou Herlihy PDF ‐ Feedback
A number of new businesses have opened on San Pablo Ave. between Clinton and Solano and that area is likely to see increased cycling and pedestrian traffic. I recommend making San Pablo a HIGH PRIORITY improvement area.

Mary Lou Herlihy PDF ‐ Feedback San Pablo Avenue should be includ ed in the HIGH PRIORITY improvement list.

Mary Lou Herlihy PDF ‐ Feedback
San Pablo Avenue should be included on the HIGH PRIORITY project list. (NOTE: duplicate comment to one posted in the wrong place on map.)
Mary Lou Herlihy PDF ‐ Feedback
A mere glance at this priority map shows a lack of consideration for San Pablo Avenue, one of the busiest streets in Richmond. I am perplexed by this oversight.

Mary Lou Herlihy PDF ‐ Feedback
Not really sure where this comments belongs but on the topic of pedestrian improvements and public art, the beautiful mural under i80 overpass at San Pablo and Roosevelt is BADLY in need of a refresh. I believe the artist (John Wehrle) submitted a proposal to update the mural and THAT would go a long way toward improving the pedestrian experience.

Mary Lou Herlihy PDF ‐ Feedback
I recommend continuing the Class IV Separated Bikeway ALL along Marina Way (from the Ferry terminal all the way to the Bart station) instead of becoming a Class II Bicycle lane 4 blocks before Bart? Mary Lou Herlihy PDF ‐ Feedback
Thank you for including and considering our comments. Some GREAT information in this report regarding cycling and pedestrian traffic diagrams/terminology/rules. I will keep for future reference.

Mary Lou Herlihy PDF ‐ Feedback
Thank you for including and considering our comments. Some GREAT information in this report regarding cycling and pedestrian traffic diagrams/terminology/rules. I will keep for future reference.

Mary Lou Herlihy PDF ‐ Feedback Was this plan reviewed by members  of and/or representatives for the disabled community?

Public Comments on BPAP
Ken McCroskey PDF ‐ Feedback
A separate bike facility on Pierce St. is excellent and matches well with needs identified just over the border in Albany where there's a concentrated population in condo towers. Not addressed are barriers to getting from Pierces Street and the Pacific East Mall area to BART, San Pablo, and points East and SE of Albany Hill. Adams is a regional bike route, linking north to Carlson and south via Jackson through UC Village and on to the 9th Street Bekerkley Bikeway.

A bike/ped bridge to Adams Street in Albany across Cerrito Creek and an improved trail along Cerrito Creek could help a lot. Crossing Cerrito Creek at Santa Clara or Yosemite and connecting to Adams could provide a calmer, all‐ages and abilities connection, especially if connected to Carlson via an improved intersection at Lassen. This would provide an alternative for bikes and peds away from the congested San Pablo/Carlson intersection and hard Carlson turn. + encourage bikes off the sidewalk at the SP/C intersection.

Anonymous PDF ‐ Feedback Fantastic recommendations here! Anonymous PDF ‐ Feedback Wish the connection with Alvarado Park w as via protected bike lanes Bruce Beyaert PDF ‐ Comment This comment should be moved to corre ct location.

Edith Alderette PDF ‐ Comment Agreed. This map is inadequate and  the map is not detailed enough to see what they're suggesting.

Yvette Schopp PDF ‐ Comment
There is a school on 28th & MacDonald that has a crosswalk that is very dangerous to cross. Both kids and adults that attend Voices Academies cross it during the weekday and Church goes from St. Ignatius Church on the weekend. I am suggesting we add to the priority list this intersection to make that crosswalk safer for community members to cross.

Jim Hanson PDF ‐ Comment
This is one of the most, if not the most trafficked intersections in Richmond. It's a commercial block with transit stops. The pedestrian striping is non‐existent.

Citizen PDF ‐ Comment San Pablo at Barret is a mess. I don't feel  safe on any corner waiting to cross.

Nick Despota PDF ‐ Comment Pedestrians and cyclists often cross S an Pablo at Solano Ave. Can we have a button to activate the stop light here? Mary Lou Herlihy PDF ‐ Comment Agree with Jim that the San Pablo  corridor needs to be included in all high priority cycling and pedestrian improvement recommendations.

Mary Lou Herlihy PDF ‐ Comment
I completely agree with Jim's comment. This plan seems not to recognize the significance of San Pablo Avenue as a major cycling and pedestrian corridor. I frequently walk from my home on Key Blvd. to businesses on or across San Pablo Avenue. SAFER, well planned, well lit and marked intersections, are desperately needed all along San Pablo Avenue.

Shelley Trask PDF ‐ Comment
Agree. It is very dangerous to cross San Pablo Ave on foot, particularly at the intersection of San Pablo & Nevin, to get to the Transbay bus station. Cars do not stop for pedestrians at all there.

Shelley Trask PDF ‐ Comment
In addition to San Pablo, Key Blvd is a major bicycle and car thoroughfare. The addition of stop signs at Barrett and MacDonald were very helpful, but we are experiencing an increase in donuts and sideshows at the corner of Key & Barrett, as well as people blowing through the stops. Neighbors are asking for a traffic circle to deter this behavior. It would be amazing to get speed bumps installed. I am often unable to cross the street due to heavy traffic during commute hours.

Public Comments on BPAP
Sarah Hannah PDF ‐ Comment
I agree and would like to note that there are no speed limit signs along Solano Ave from Amador through 38th. Frequent speeding along Solano Ave makes this stretch particularly dangerous and unfriendly to cyclists and pedestrians.

Maurice Tierney PDF ‐ Comment Calming of McBryde would do wonders  for the neighborhood and the park.

Business Community
meeting (RCOC/COI) During meeting
Key Takeaway: Continue the public engagement process during implementation of capital improvement projects with the business community and the community who are impacted by the construction (I.e. those within 300 feet of the location). Connect with other jurisdictions and regionally for proposed areas of work that are near city jurisdiction lines.

February 7, 2023

Finance Department

DATE: February 7, 2023
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Delmy Cuellar, Director of Finance
Mubeen Qader, Budget Administrator
Antonio Banuelos, Accounting Manager
Ofelia Alvarez, Senior Buyer

Subject:

Contract for Online Registration and Bid Management
System
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The $18,675 cost for the first year of the contract is included within the approved fiscal year 2022-2023
Finance Department budget (01178015-400201). The
same amount will be included in the operating budget for each of the next two fiscal years.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

N/A

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

City staff requests approval of a sole-source contract with PlanetBids, Inc. to provide an online vendor registration and bid management system.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

APPROVE a sole-source contract with PlanetBids, Inc. to provide an online vendor registration and bid
Management System (BidsOnline), at an amount not to
exceed $18,675 per year, for a period of three years with one two-year option to extend at the same cost and
terms per year – Finance (Antonio Banuelos 510-620-
6741/Ofelia Alvarez 510-620-6699).

AGENDA
REPORT

February 7, 2023
DISCUSSION:

The PlanetBids, Inc. BidsOnline system is an on-line vendor registration and bid management system that allows vendors to “self-register” to receive requests for quotes, requests for proposals, and to submit bids. The BidsOnline system also allows Purchasing and other City departments to electronically post request for proposals and receive bids. In 2006, City staff obtained proposals from three vendors who provided vendor registration and bid management systems. PlanetBids was recommended for approval because it met the City’s technical requirements and was the lowest priced solution.

Since its inception, over 10,500 vendors have registered in the database and City staff has posted over 1,000 solicitations. By posting the solicitations online, the City reaches a greater number of vendors/suppliers and receives better pricing. Also, the City saves time and money by not printing and mailing out the solicitations. The solicitations are posted online and vendors download and print the solicitation, plans, and specifications at their office. Vendors also submit bids and proposals electronically.

The City also added the PlanetBids, Inc. Emergency Operations Module (EO), which provides the following capabilities:

 Identifies emergency suppliers from the master database;  Categorizes potential emergency purchases (i.e. materials, services, heavy equipment, etc.);
 Completes emergency vendor detail form;
 Works compatibly with current vendor registration;
 Provides reports by main EO categories, sub-categories, and additional description;
 Schedules automatic vendor notification emails to maintain up-to-date emergency records; and
 Schedules emergency vendor summary reports on periodic basis (i.e. weekly, monthly, and quarterly).

The proposed yearly price stems from negotiations between the City and PlanetBids in 2018. The City negotiated a 16 percent (16%) discount with yearly savings totaling $3,650. The proposed amount will be honored through the duration of this contract. The discounted total offered to the City is $18,675 per year.

The Finance Department recommends the approval to renew a three-year contract with one, two- year option to extend with PlanetBids, Inc. to provide an online vendor registration and bid Management System (BidsOnline) at an amount not to exceed $18,675 per year.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Original Contract
Attachment 2 – Sole Source

CITY OF RICHMOND

STANDARD CONTRACT

Department: Project Manager:

Project Manager E-mail:

Project Manager Phone No:

PR No: Vendor No: P.O./Contract No:

Description of Services:

The parties to this STANDARD CONTRACT do mutually agree and promise as follows:

1. Parties. The parties to this Contract are the City of Richmond (herein referred to as the “City”) and the following named Contractor:

Company Name:

Street Address:

City, State, Zip Code:

Contact Person:

Telephone: Email:

Business License No: / Expiration Date:

A California [ ] corporation, [ ] limited liability corporation [ ] general partnership, [ ] limited partnership, [ ] individual, [ ] non-profit corporation, [ ] individual dba as [specify:] , [ ] other [specify:]

2. Term. The effective date of this Contract is and it terminates unless terminated as provided herein.

3. Payment Limit. City’s total payments to Contractor under this Contract shall not exceed $ . City shall not pay for services that exceed the Contract Payment Limit unless a contract amendment has been approved by the City Council or City Manager.

4. Contractor’s Obligations. Contractor shall provide those services and carry out that work described in the Service Plan (Exhibit A) which is attached hereto and is incorporated herein by reference, subject to all the terms and conditions contained or incorporated herein.

5. City's Obligations. City shall make to the Contractor those payments described in the Payment Provisions (Exhibit B) which are attached hereto and are incorporated herein by reference, subject to all the terms and conditions contained or incorporated herein.

6. Authorized Representatives and Notices. This Contract is subject to the Authorized Representatives and Notices Provisions (Exhibit C) which are attached hereto and are incorporated herein by reference.

7. General Conditions. This Contract is subject to the General Conditions (Exhibit D) which are attached hereto and are incorporated herein by reference, subject to all the terms and conditions contained or incorporated herein.

8. Special Conditions. This Contract is subject to the Special Conditions (Exhibit E) (if any) which are attached hereto and are incorporated herein by reference, subject to all the terms and conditions contained or incorporated herein. (Note:
other than Public Works contracts, the City will agree to Special Conditions only in unusual circumstances.)

9. Insurance Provisions. This Contract is subject to the Insurance Provisions (Exhibit F) which are attached hereto and are incorporated herein by reference.

10. Signatures. These signatures attest the parties' Contract hereto:

CITY OF RICHMOND CONTRACTOR:
a municipal corporation

By:
(* The Corporation Chairperson of the Board,
President or Vice President should sign below)

Title: By:

I hereby certify that this Contract Title:
has been approved by City Council.

Date Signed:

B y :

City Clerk
(* The Corporation Chief Financial Officer,
Secretary or Assistant Secretary should sign below)
Approved as to form:

B y :

B y : T i t l e :

City Attorney
Date Signed:

(NOTE: Pursuant to California Corporations
Code Section 313, if Contractor is a corporation
or nonprofit organization, this Contract (1) must
be signed by (a) the Chairperson of the Board,
President or Vice-President
and (b) the
Secretary any Assistant Secretary, the Chief
Financial Officer or any Assistant Treasurer.

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:

Service Plan Exhibit A
Payment Provisions Exhibit B
Authorized Representatives and Notices Exhibit C
General Conditions Exhibit D
Special Conditions Exhibit E
Insurance Provisions Exhibit F
Standard Contract/EJ/TE 9-26-07

For the Contract between the City of
Richmond and

EXHIBIT A

SERVICE PLAN

Contractor shall, to the satisfaction of the , perform the following services and be compensated as outlined below:

2. Fees and Payments.
a) Support Fees. Customer agrees to pay to PlanetBids $24,400.00 for a period of one (1) year:
b) Additional Services; Fees. If requested by Customer, PlanetBids will provide any or all of the following additional services:
1) Special customization work -up shall be provided at PlanetBids’ current standard rates pursuant to an estimate provided by PlanetBids. 2) Training to Customer’s designated users, in addition to that provided pursuant to Section 2(a)(1), is available at the rate of $1,875.00 per day per class plus reasonable travel, living and parking expenses of the instructor, as applicable.
3) The standard fees include 2GB of disk storage space and a transfer rate of 10 gigabytes per month.
4) The standard fees include the use of the Services by up to twelve (12) authorized users of Customer for bid management by the Customer. 5) PlanetBids will record at no cost a back-up copy of all data appearing on Customer’s website on a daily basis. Customer can export accessible data from within the BidsOnline system. However, added services related to the retrieval or restoration of any of Customer’s data from such back-up files are available at PlanetBids current standard rates, which will vary depending on the level of services required, but not less than $125.00 per hour.

3. Use of Services.
a) PlanetBids is not responsible for the content and/or transactions on Customer’s website. Notwithstanding the foregoing, PlanetBids reserves the right to monitor content that uses the Services and to remove content which PlanetBids determines to be offensive, harmful or otherwise in violation of its operating policies and terminate this Agreement. 1) PlanetBids shall have the right to impose reasonable rules and regulations from time to time regarding the use of the Services. Customer agrees to comply with all such rules and regulations and with applicable laws, ordinances and regulations related to the use of Services and not make any unauthorized commercial use of the Services or of the PlanetBids name, marks or logos. Further, Customer agrees to not use the PlanetBids websites to (1) post information anonymously or under a false name; (2) post any unlawful, threatening, abusive, harassing, libelous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic, profane or otherwise objectionable information of any kind, such as inducements to conduct that would constitute a criminal offense or give rise to civil or other liability.
2) If Customer uses standard identification codes, PlanetBids shall have the right to request for inspection an original copy of such codes and any necessary authorizations for use. If such identification codes are proprietary codes of third parties, such as NIGP, SIC or CSI, it shall be the responsibility of Customer to obtain the necessary licenses and Customer indemnifies and holds harmless PlanetBids from the unauthorized use or publication of any such identification codes with respect to the Services.

3) Customer represents and warrants (a) the information provided is current, complete and accurate, (b) that the person signing this Agreement is authorized to bind Customer, (c) Customer will update the information (including credit card information, if applicable) as required to keep such information current, complete and accurate, and (d) it will not attempt to circumvent the Services and related fees by attempting to engage in private transactions with Suppliers located via the Services. PlanetBids may, in its sole discretion, cancel or terminate this Agreement if Customer has willfully violated its obligations hereunder.
4) In addition, Customer agrees to use information obtained through the Services only as necessary to the transaction of Customer and shall not use the Services for the benefit of any third party.
5) It shall be the responsibility of Customer to collect and pay any taxes, duties, imposts or tariffs that are applicable to sales via the Services. b) THE SERVICES ARE PROVIDED "AS IS." PLANETBIDS MAKES NO

WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, IMPLIED

WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR

NONINFRINGEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OR OTHER VIOLATION OF RIGHTS,

EVEN IF PLANETBIDS HAS BEEN MADE AWARE IN ADVANCE OF SUCH POTENTIAL RISK. FURTHER, PLANETBIDS DOES NOT WARRANT OR MAKE ANY

REPRESENTATIONS REGARDING THE ACCURACY, LIKELY RESULTS, OR RELIABILITY OF THE USE OF THE SERVICES OR SITES LINKED THERETO.
c) PlanetBids does not at any time come into possession of the products or services acquired through the Services and is not aware of the specific use to which those items will be put. In using the Services, Customer hereby releases, indemnifies, and holds harmless PlanetBids and its agents, employees, and affiliates harmless from all claims, demands, costs and damages (actual and consequential) of every kind and nature arising out of, or in any way connected with, Bid Requests and uncompleted or completed transactions related to the Services.

4. Confidentiality. PlanetBids will take reasonable measures not to disclose website communications or information about its Customers, except to the extent that PlanetBids believes in good faith that such action is within the scope of the Services or reasonably necessary to (a) comply with the law or the directives of courts or governmental agencies; (b) enforce this Agreement; (c) respond to claims of any third party; or (d) protect the legitimate interests of PlanetBids or its customers. Notwithstanding the foregoing, all communications directed to PlanetBids via the website such as questions, comments, inquiries, shall be deemed to be not confidential, unless specifically agreed otherwise in advance by PlanetBids. Further, PlanetBids will have the right to use any Customer’s name in connection with the advertising or promotion of the Services.

5. Copyright Protection. The BidsOnline™ system and all materials appearing on the PlanetBids website are protected by worldwide copyright laws and related international treaties.

None of the materials may be copied, reproduced, modified, published, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any form or by any means other than as described herein. All rights not expressly granted herein are reserved. Any unauthorized use of the materials appearing on PlanetBids website may violate copyright, trademark and other applicable laws and could result in criminal or civil penalties.

a) Customer shall not reproduce, duplicate, copy, sell, resell or exploit for any commercial purpose the Services, website content, the BidsOnline™ system or any other PlanetBids tools. Customer shall not reverse engineer, decompile, or otherwise attempt to derive source code from any software or tools accessible or available through the Services. b) Special use requests should be sent to [email protected].

Permission to use shall be granted in the sole discretion of Planet Bids.

6. Security.
(a) The PlanetBids ordering and posting processes are protected by the Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) protocol, which encrypts your information and confirms the identity of the PlanetBids server before allowing a transaction to be completed. Netscape Navigator 2.0+ (or better) and Internet Explorer 3.0+ (or better) support the SSL protocol are acceptable, but we recommend that you use the latest browsers to ensure that you are protected by advances in security technology. For more detailed information, please refer to the PlanetBids Privacy Policy.
(b) Password-protection techniques will be provided to restrict access under Customer’s account to authorized individuals. REGISTRANT ACKNOWLEDGES, HOWEVER,

THAT ACCESS RESTRICTIONS, BY THEIR NATURE, ARE CAPABLE OF BYPASS AND

PLANETBIDS DOES NOT GUARANTEE THAT THE SERVICES CANNOT BE ACCESSED BY UNAUTHORIZED PERSONS. Customer shall at all times maintain as confidential its user names and passwords. If Customer is a corporation or other business entity, then it may allow employees to use its user name and password, but the Customer shall be responsible for all activity and charges incurred by such employees. Permitting third parties to use the Services is prohibited and a violation of this Agreement.
(c) If a security breach occurs with respect to any account, the Customer must immediately change its password and notify PlanetBids at [email protected].

Customer shall be liable for any unauthorized use of the Services until PlanetBids is notified of the security breach.

For the Contract between the City of
Richmond and

EXHIBIT B

PAYMENT PROVISIONS

{PLEASE NOTE THAT THE CITY OF RICHMOND SHALL NOT PAY FOR SERVICES

THAT EXCEED THE CONTRACT PA YMENT LIMIT UNLESS A CONTRACT

AMENDMENT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OR THE CITY MANAGER}

1. Provided Contractor is not in default under this Contract, Contractor shall be compensated as provided below.

2. Any and all payments made pursuant to this Contract shall be subject to the Contract Payment Limit. The Payment Limit includes expenses (phones, photo copying, meals and travel etc). Invoices, shall be adequately detailed, based on accurate records, and be in a form reasonably satisfactory to the City. Contractor may be required to provide back-up material upon request.

3. Contractor shall submit timely invoices to the following address:

Attention: City of Richmond, Finance Department - Accounts Payable Project Manager: Department:

PO Box 4046
Richmond, CA 94804-0046

4. All invoices that are submitted by Contra ctor shall be subject to the approval of the City’s Project Manager, before payments shall be authorized.

5. The City will pay invoice(s) within 45 days a fter completion of services to the City’s satisfaction. The City shall not pay late fees or interest.

6. A Richmond business license shall be obtained before any payment under this Contract shall be authorized and the business license must be kept current during the term of this Contract for payments to continue to be authorized.

7. All insurance coverage required by this Contract shall be provided by the Contractor before this Contract shall be executed by the City. The insurance coverage must be kept current during the term of this Contract for payments to continue to be authorized.

For the Contract between the City of
Richmond and

EXHIBIT C

AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES AND NOTICES

1. Notices
. All notices, demands, statements, or communications provided for by this Contract shall be in writing and may be delivered by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid. Notices to the City shall be addressed to the Department Head and (as delineated below in section 1.1) to the project manager responsible for the administration of or the supervision of the scope of work under this Contract. Notices to the Contractor shall be addressed to the party designated by Contractor (as delineated below in section 1.2). Notice shall be deemed delivered (a) upon personal delivery; (b) as of the fifth business day after mailing by United States certified mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the proper party; or (c) as of 12:00 p.m. on the second business day immediately after the day it is deposited with and accepted by Federal Express, or a similar overnight courier service, addressed to the proper party and marked for next business day morning delivery. For the purposes of this Contract, a "business day" means any day Monday through Friday that is not a holiday recognized by the federal government or the State of California.

1. 1 CITY hereby designates as its Authorized Representative the Project Manager whose name and address are as follows:

City of Richmond

Richmond, CA 94804-0046

1. 2 CONTRACTOR hereby designates as its Authorized Representative the Project Manager whose name and address are as follows:

General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 1 of 13

EXHIBIT D

GENERAL CONDITIONS

1. Independent Contractor . Contractor acknowledges, represents and warrants that Contractor is not a regular or temporary employee, joint venturer or partner of the City, but rather an independent Contractor. This Contract shall not be construed to create an agency, servant, employee, partnership, or joint venture relationship. As an independent Contractor, Contractor shall have no authority to bind City to any obligation or to act as City's agent except as expressly provided herein. Due to the independent Contractor relationship created by this Contract, City shall not withhold state or federal income taxes, the reporting of which shall be Contractor's sole responsibility.

2. Brokers . Contractor acknowledges, represents and warrants that Contractor has not hired, retained or agreed to pay any entity or person any fee, commission, percentage, gift, or any other consideration, contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Contract.

3. City Property . The rights to applicable plans, drawings, reports, calculations, data, specifications, videos, graphics or other materials prepared for or obtained pursuant to this Contract, which, upon request, are to be delivered to City within a reasonable time, shall be deemed assigned to City. If applicable, Contractor shall prepare check prints upon request. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Contractor shall not be obligated to provide to City proprietary software or data which Contractor has developed or had developed for Contractor's own use; provided, however, that Contractor shall, pursuant to Section 15 below, indemnify, defend and hold harmless City from and against any discovery or Public Records Act request seeking the disclosure of such proprietary software or data.

4. Patents, Trademarks, C opyrights and Rights in Data
. Contractor shall not
publish or transfer any materials, discoveries, developments, concepts, designs, ideas, know how, improvements, inventions and/or original works of authorship resulting from activities supported by this Contract without the express prior written consent of the City Manager. If anything resulting from activities supported by this Contract is patentable, trademarkable, copyrightable or otherwise legally protectable, City reserves the exclusive right to seek such intellectual property rights. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Contractor may, after receiving City's prior written consent, seek patent, trademark, copyright or other intellectual property rights on anything resulting from activities supported by this Contract. However, City reserves, and Contractor irrevocably grants, a nonexclusive, fully paid-up, royalty-free, assumable, perpetual, worldwide license, with the right to transfer, sublicense, practice and exploit said license and the right to make, have made, copy, modify, make derivative works of, use, sell,

General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 2 of 13

import, and otherwise distribute under all applicable intellectual properties without restriction of any kind said license.

Contractor further agrees to assist City, at City's expense, in every proper way to secure the City’s rights in any patents, trademarks, copyrights or other intellectual property rights relating thereto, including the disclosure to City of all pertinent information and data with respect thereto. Contractor shall also assist City in the execution of all applications, specifications, oaths, assignments, recordations, and all other instruments which City shall deem necessary in order to apply for, obtain, maintain and transfer such rights, or if not transferable, to waive such rights. Contractor shall further assist City in the execution of all applications, specifications, oaths, assignments, recordations and all other instruments which City shall deem necessary in order to assign and convey to City, and any assigns and nominees the sole and exclusive right, title and interest in and to any patents, trademarks, copyrights or other intellectual property rights relating thereto. Contractor further agrees that its obligation to execute or cause to be executed, when it is in Contractor's power to do so, any such instruments or papers shall continue during and at all times after the end of Contractor's services and until the expiration of the last such intellectual property right. Contractor hereby irrevocably designates and appoints City, and its duly authorized officers, agents and servants, as its agent and attorney-in-fact, to act for and in its behalf and stead to execute and file any such applications and to do all other lawfully permitted acts to further the application for, prosecution, issuance, maintenance or transfer of letters of patents, copyright and other registrations. This power of attorney is coupled with an interest and shall not be affected by Contractor's subsequent incapacity.

5. Inspection
. Contractor's performance, place of business and records pertaining to this Contract are subject to monitoring, inspection, review and audit by authorized representatives of the CITY, the State of California, and the United States Government.

If the project or services set forth in Exhibit A shall be performed on City or other public property, City shall have the right to inspect such work without notice. If such project or services shall not be performed on City or other public property, City shall have the right to inspect such work upon reasonable notice.

6. Services
. The project or services set forth in Exhibit A shall be performed to the full satisfaction and approval of City. In the event that the project or services set forth in Exhibit A are also itemized by price, City, in its sole discretion, may, upon notice to Contractor, delete certain items or services set forth in Exhibit A, in which case there shall be a corresponding reduction in the amount of compensation paid to Contractor.

General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 3 of 13

Contractor shall, at its own cost and expense, furnish all facilities and equipment necessary for Contractor to complete the project or perform the services required herein, unless otherwise provided in Exhibit A.

7. Records
. Contractor shall keep and make available for inspection and copying by authorized representatives of the City, the State of California, and the United States Government, the Contractor's regular business records and such additional records pertaining to this Contract as may be required by the City.

Contractor shall retain all documents pertaining to this Contract for a period of five (5) years after this C ontract's termination (or for any further period that is required by law) and until all Fede ral or State audits are complete and exceptions resolved for this contract's funding period. Upon request, CONTRACTOR shall make thes e records available to authorized representatives of the CITY, the State of California, and the United States Government.

Contractor shall keep full and detailed accounts, maintain records, and exercise such controls as may be necessary for proper financial management under this Contract. The Contractor’s accounting and control systems shall be satisfactory to City. Contractor's accounting systems shall conform to generally accepted accounting principles and all records shall provide a breakdown of total costs charged under this Contract, including properly executed payrolls, time records, utility bills, invoices and vouchers. The City shall be afforded prompt access to Contractor's records, books, and Contractor shall preserve such project records for a period of at least five (5 years after the termination of this Contract , or for such longer period as may be required by law.

Contractor shall permit City and its authorized representatives and accountants to inspect, examine and copy Contractor's books, records, accounts, correspondence, instructions, drawings, receipts, subcontracts, purchase orders, vouchers, memoranda and other data relating to the project or services set forth in Exhibit A, and any and all data relevant to this Contract at any reasonable time for the purpose of auditing and verifying statements, invoices, or bills submitted by Contractor pursuant to this Contract and shall provide such assistance as may be reasonably required in the course of such inspection. Contractor shall also allow City access to the record keeping and accounting personnel of Contractor.

City further reserves the right to examine and re-examine said books, records, accounts, and data during the five (5 year period following the termination of this Contract; and Contractor shall in no event dispose of, destroy, alter, or mutilate said books, records, accounts, and data in any manner whatever for five (5 years after the termination of this Contract.

General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 4 of 13

Pursuant to California Government Code § 10527, the parties to this Contract shall be subject to the examination and audit of representatives of the Auditor General of the State of California for a period of three (3) years after final payment under this Contract. The examination and audit shall be confined to those matters connected with the performance of this Contract including, but not limited to, the cost of administering this Contract.

8. Changes and Extra Work . All changes and/or extra work under this Contract shall be performed and paid for in accordance with the following:

Only the City Council or the City Manager may authorize extra and/or changed work. Contractor expressly recognizes that other City personnel are without authorization to either order extra and/or changed work or waive contract requirements. Failure of Contractor to secure the authorization for such extra and/or changed work shall constitute a waiver of any and all right to adjustment in contract price due to such unauthorized work and Contractor thereafter shall be entitled to no compensation whatsoever for performance of such extra and/or changed work.

If Contractor is of the opinion that any work which Contractor has been directed to perform is beyond the scope of this Contract and constitutes extra work, Contractor shall promptly notify City of the fact. The City shall make a determination as to whether or not such work is, in fact, beyond the scope of this Contract and constitutes extra work. In the event that City determines that such work does constitute extra work, City shall provide extra compensation to Contractor on a fair and equitable basis. A change order or Contract Amendment providing for such compensation for extra work shall be negotiated between City and Contractor and executed by Contractor and the appropriate City official.

In the event City determines that such work does not constitute extra work, Contractor shall not be paid extra compensation above that provided herein and if such determination is made by City staff, said determination may be appealed to the City Council; provided, however, a written appeal must be submitted to the City Manager within five (5) days after the staff's determination is sent to Contractor. Said written appeal shall include a description of each and every ground upon which Contractor challenges the staff's determination.

9. Additional Assistance
. If this Contract requires Contractor to prepare
plans and specifications, Contractor shall provide assistance as necessary to resolve any questions regarding such plans and specifications that may arise during the period of advertising for bids, and Contractor shall issue

General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 5 of 13

any necessary addenda to the plans and specifications as requested. In the event Contractor is of the opinion that City's requests for addenda and assistance is outside the scope of normal services, the parties shall proceed in accordance with the changes and extra work provisions of Section 8 of these General Conditions.

10. Professional Ability. Contractor acknowledges, represents and warrants that Contractor and its employees are skilled and able to competently provide the services hereunder, and possess all professional licenses, certifications, and approvals necessary to engage in their occupations.

City has relied upon the professional ability and training of Contractor as a material inducement to enter into this Contract. Contractor shall perform in accordance with generally accepted professional practices and standards of Contractor's profession. In the event that City, in its sole discretion, desires the removal of any person employed or retained by Contractor to perform services hereunder, such person shall be removed immediately upon receiving notice from City.

11. Business License
. Contractor shall obtain a Richmond Business License
before performing any services required under this Contract. The failure to so obtain such license shall be a material breach of this Contract and grounds for immediate termination by City; provided, however, that City may waive the business license requirement in writing under unusual or extraordinary circumstances without necessitating any modification of this Contract to reflect such waiver.

12. Termination Without Default. Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, City may, in its sole and absolute discretion and without cause, terminate this Contract at any time prior to completion by Contractor of the project or services hereunder, immediately upon written notice to Contractor. Contractor may terminate this Contract at any time in its sole and absolute discretion and without cause upon 30 days' written notice to City. In the event of termination by either party, Contractor shall be compensated for: (1) all authorized work satisfactorily performed prior to the effective date of termination; (2) necessary materials or services of others ordered by Contractor for this Contract, prior to receipt of notice of termination, irrespective of whether such materials or services of others have actually been delivered, provided that Contractor is not able to cancel such orders. Compensation for Contractor in such event shall be determined by City in accordance with the percentage of the project or services completed by Contractor; and all of Contractor's finished or unfinished work product through the time of the City's last payment shall be transferred and assigned to City. Additionally, in the event of such termination, the City may proceed with the work in any reasonable manner it chooses.

General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 6 of 13

13. Termination in the Event of Default. Should Contractor fail to perform any of its obligations hereunder, within the time and in the manner provided or otherwise violate any of the terms of this Contract, City may immediately terminate this Contract by giving written notice of such termination, stating the reasons for such termination. Contractor shall be compensated as provided in Section 12 of these General Conditions; provided, however, there shall be deducted from such amount the amount of damage, including attorney's fees, expert witness fees and costs, if any, sustained by City by virtue of Contractor's breach of this Contract. Additionally, in the event of such termination, the City may proceed with the work in any reasonable manner it chooses.

14. Conflict of Interest. Contractor acknowledges, represents and warrants that Contractor shall avoid all conflicts of interest (as defined under any federal, state or local statute, rule or regulation, or at common law) with respect to this Contract. Contractor further acknowledges, represents and warrants that no City official or employee has any economic interest, as defined in Title 2, California Code of Regulations §§ 18703.1 through 18703.5, with Contractor that would invalidate this Contract. Contractor acknowledges that in the event that Contractor shall be found by any judicial or administrative body to have any conflict of interest (as defined above) with respect to this Contract, all consideration received under this Contract shall be forfeited and returned to City forthwith. This provision shall survive the termination of this Contract for one (1) year.

15. Indemnification.

(a) If this Contract is a contract for design professional services subject to California Civil Code Section 2782.8(a) and Contractor is a design professional, as defined in California Civil Code Section 2782.8(b)(2), Contractor shall hold harmless, defend and indemnify the City, its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers from and against any and all claims, damages, losses, and expenses including attorneys’ fees arising out of, or pertaining to, or relating to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Contractor, except where caused by the active negligence, sole negligence, or willful misconduct of the City. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Contractor shall immediately defend and indemnify the City and its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers from and against any and all liabilities, regardless of nature or type, that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Contractor, or its employees, agents, or subcontractors.

Liabilities subject to the duties to defend and indemnify include, without limitation, any and all claims, losses, damages, penalties, fines, and judgments; associated investigation and administrative expenses; defense costs, including but not limited to reasonable attorneys’ fees; court costs; and costs of alternative dispute resolution. Contractor’s obligation to

General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 7 of 13

indemnify applies unless it is finally adjudicated that the liability was caused by the sole active negligence or sole willful misconduct of an indemnified party.
(b) If this Contract is not a contract for design professional services subject to California Civil Code Section 2782.8(a) or Contractor is not a design professional as defined in California Civil Code Section 2782.8(b)(2), Contractor shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers from any and all claims, suits, or actions of every name, kind and description, brought forth on account of injuries to or death of any person or damage to property arising from or connected with the willful misconduct, negligent acts, errors or omissions, ultra-hazardous activities, activities giving rise to strict liability, or defects in design by Contractor or any person directly or indirectly employed by, or acting as, the agent for Contractor in the performance of this Contract, including the concurrent or successive passive negligence of the City, its officers, agents, employees or volunteers.
(c) It is understood that the duty of Contractor to indemnify and hold harmless includes the duty to defend as set forth in Section 2778 of the California Civil Code. Contractor shall be obligated to defend, in all legal, equitable, administrative, or special proceedings, with counsel approved by the City, the City and its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers, immediately upon tender to Contractor of the claim in any form or at any stage of an action or proceeding, whether or not liability is established. An allegation or determination that persons other than Contractor are responsible for the claim does not relieve Contractor from its separate and distinct obligation to defend under this Section 15. The obligation to defend extends through final judgment, including exhaustion of any appeals. The defense obligation includes an obligation to provide independent counsel if Contractor asserts that liability is caused in whole, or in part, by the negligence or willful misconduct of an indemnified party. (d) The review, acceptance or approval of the Contractor’s work or work product by any indemnified party shall not affect, relieve or reduce the Contractor’s indemnification or defense obligations. This Section 15 survives completion of the services or the termination of this Contract.

The provisions of this Section 15 are not limited by, and do not affect, the provisions of this Contract relating to insurance.
(e) Acceptance of insurance certificates and endorsements required under this Contract does not relieve Contractor from liability under this Section

15. This Section 15 shall apply whether or not such insurance policies are determined to be applicable to any such damages or claims for damages.

16. Safety
. Contractor acknowledges that the City is committed to the highest standards of workplace safety. Contractor shall perform all work hereunder in full compliance with applicable local, state and federal safety requirements including but not limited to Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements, and shall assume sole and complete

General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 8 of 13

responsibility for the safety of Contractor's employees and any subContractor's employees. If a death, serious personal injury or substantial property damage occurs in connection with the performance of this Contract, Contractor shall immediately notify the City by telephone.

17. Insurance. Insurance requirements are set forth in Exhibit F to this Contract. Contractor shall abide by the insurance requirements set forth in said Exhibit F.

18. Non-Liability of Officials and Employees of the City. No official or employee of the City shall be personally liable for any default or liability under this Contract.

19. Compliance with Laws. Contractor shall comply with all federal, state and local laws, statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations, and the orders and decrees of any courts or administrative bodies or tribunals, with respect to this Contract, including without limitation environmental laws, employment discrimination laws and prevailing wage laws. Compliance under this provision includes compliance with all provisions of the Richmond Municipal Code ("Municipal Code"), including Chapters 2.50, 2.52, 2.56, and 2.60, if applicable.

Contractor acknowledges that under § 2.60.070 of the Municipal Code ("Living Wage Ordinance"), Contractor shall promptly provide to City documents and information verifying its compliance with the Living Wage Ordinance. Also as prescribed in § 2.60.070, Contractor shall notify each of its affected employees with regards to the wages that are required to be paid pursuant to the Living Wage Ordinance.

Contractor shall comply with § 2.28.030 of the Municipal Code, obligating every Contractor or subcontractor under a contract or subcontract with the City for public work or for goods or for services to refrain from discriminatory employment or subcontracting practices on the basis of race, color, sex, sexual orientation, religious creed, national origin or ancestry of any employee, any applicant for employment or any potential subcontractor.

Contractor acknowledges that the City’s Drug Free Workplace Policy, Violence in the Workplace Policy and the Policy Against Workplace Harassment, are available on the City’s website at
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/workplacepolicies
. Contractor agrees to
abide by the terms and conditions of said policies.

20. Limitations upon Subcontracting and Assignment. This Contract binds the heirs, successors, assigns and representatives of Contractor. The Contractor shall not enter into subcontracts for any work contemplated

General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 9 of 13

under this Contract and shall not assign this Contract, nor any portion hereof or monies due or to become due, without the prior written consent of the City Council or its designee.

Contractor acknowledges that the services which Contractor shall provide under this Contract are unique, personal services which, except as otherwise provided herein, Contractor shall not assign or sublet to any other party without the prior written approval of City, which approval may be withheld in City's sole and absolute discretion. In the event that City, in writing, approves any assignment or subletting of this Contract or the retention of subcontractors by Contractor, Contractor shall provide to City upon request copies of each and every subcontract contract prior to the execution thereof by Contractor and subcontractor. Any assignment by Contractor of any or all of its rights under this Contract without first obtaining City's prior written consent shall be a default under this Contract.

The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Contractor (if applicable), or of the interest of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member if Contractor is a partnership or joint-venture or syndicate, which shall result in a change of control of Contractor, shall be deemed an assignment. For this purpose, control shall mean fifty percent or more of the voting power or twenty-five percent or more of the assets of the corporation, partnership or joint-venture.

21. Integration
. This Contract constitutes the entire agreement between the parties concerning the subject matter hereof and supersedes any previous oral or written agreement; provided, however, that correspondence or documents exchanged between Contractor and City may be used to assist in the interpretation of the Exhibits to this Contract.

22. Modifications and Amendments. This Contract may be modified or amended only by a change order or Contract Amendment executed by both parties and approved as to form by the City Attorney.

23. Conflicting Provisions. In the event of a conflict between these General Conditions and those of any Exhibit or attachment hereto, these General Conditions shall prevail; provided, however, that any Special Conditions as set forth in Exhibit E shall prevail over these General Conditions. In the event of a conflict between the terms and conditions of any two or more Exhibits or attachments hereto, those prepared by City shall prevail over those prepared by the Contractor, and the terms and conditions preferred by the City shall prevail over those preferred by the Contractor.

24. Non-exclusivity. Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, the services provided by Contractor hereunder shall be non-exclusive, and

General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 10 of 13

City reserves the right to employ other Contractors in connection with the project.

25. Exhibits. All Exhibits hereto are made a part hereof and incorporated herein by reference; provided, however, that any language in Exhibit A which does not pertain to the project description, proposal, scope of services, or method of compensation (as applicable) , or any corresponding responsibilities of City, shall be deemed extraneous to, and not a part of, this Contract.

26. Force Majeure. Neither party hereto shall be considered in default in the performance of its obligations hereunder to the extent that the performance of such an obligation is prevented or delayed by reason of acts of God, strikes, boycotts, lock-outs, inability to procure materials not related to the price thereof, failure of power, restrictive governmental laws and regulations enacted after the date of this Contract, riots, civil unrest, acts of terrorism, insurrection, war, declaration of a state or national emergency or other reasons of a like nature not within the reasonable control of such party.

27. Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence of this Contract. Contractor and City agree that any time period set forth in Exhibit A represents their best estimates with respect to completion dates and both Contractor and City acknowledge that departures from the schedule may occur.

Therefore, both Contractor and City will use reasonable efforts to notify one another of changes to the schedule. Contractor shall not be responsible for performance delays caused by others, or delays beyond Contractor's control, and such delays shall extend the times for performance of Contractor's work.

28. Confidentiality. Contractor agrees to comply with, and to require its employees, agents and partners to comply with, all applicable State or Federal statutes or regulations respecting confidentially, including but not limited to, the identity of persons served under this Contract, their records, or services provided them, and assures that:

All applications and records concerning any individual made or kept by Contractor or any public officer or agency in connection with the administration of or relating to services provided under this Contract will be confidential, and will not be open to examination for any purposes not directly connected with the administration of such service.

No person will publish or disclose or permit or cause to be published or disclosed, any list of persons receiving services, except as may be required in the administration of such service.

General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 11 of 13

29. Third Parties. Nothing herein shall be interpreted as creating any rights or benefits in any third parties. For purposes hereof, transferees or assignees as permitted under this Contract shall not be considered "third parties."

30. Governing Law. This Contract shall be construed in accordance with the law of the State of California without regard to principles of conflicts of law.

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

31. Nonrenewal. Contractor understands and agrees that there is no representation, implication, or understanding that the services provided by Contractor under this Contract will be purchased or renewed by the City under a new contract following expiration or termination of this Contract, and waives all rights or claims to notice or hearing respecting any failure by City to continue the purchase of all or any failure to continue purchase of all or any such services from Contractor.

32. Claims. Any claim by Contractor against City hereunder shall be subject to Government Code §§ 800 et seq. The claims presentation provisions of said Act are hereby modified such that the presentation of all claims hereunder to the City shall be waived if not made within six months after accrual of the cause of action.

33. Interpretation. This Contract shall be interpreted as if drafted by both parties.

34. Warranty. In the event that any product shall be provided to the City as part of this Contract, Contractor warrants as follows: Contractor possesses good title to the product and the right to transfer the product to City; the product shall be delivered to the City free from any security interest or other lien; the product meets any specifications contained herein; the product shall be free from material defects in materials and workmanship under normal use for a period of one (1) year from the date of delivery; and the product shall be fit for its intended purpose(s). Notwithstanding the foregoing, consumable and maintenance items (such as light bulbs and batteries) shall be warranted for a period of one hundred and eighty (180) days from the date of delivery. All repairs during the warranty period shall be promptly performed by Contractor, at Contractor's expense, including shipping.

35. Severability. In the event that any of the provisions or portions or applications thereof of this Contract are held to be unenforceable or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, City and Contractor shall negotiate an equitable adjustment in the provisions of the Contract with a view

General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 12 of 13

toward effecting the purpose of this Contract, and the validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions or portions or applications thereof, shall not be affected thereby.

36. Authority. City warrants and represents that the signatory hereto (the Mayor of the City of Richmond or the City Manager) is duly authorized to enter into and execute this Contract on behalf of City. The party signing on behalf of Contractor warrants and represents that he or she is duly authorized to enter into and execute this Contract on behalf of Contractor, and shall be personally liable to City if he or she is not duly authorized to enter into and execute this Contract on behalf of Contractor.

37. Waiver. The waiver by City of any breach of any term or provision of this Contract shall not be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach.

Inspections or approvals, or statements by any officer, agent or employee of the City relating to the Contractor’s performance, or payments therefore, or any combination of these acts, shall not relieve the Contractor’s obligation to fulfill this Contract as prescribed; nor shall the City be thereby stopped from bringing any action for damages or enforcement arising from any failure to comply with any of the terms and conditions of this Contract.

38. Possessory Interest. If this Contract results in the Contractor having possession of, claim to or right to the possession of land or improvements, but does not vest ownership of the land or improvements in the same person, or if this Contract results in the placement of taxable improvements on tax exempt land (Revenue and Taxation Code 107), such interest or improvements may represent a possessory interest subject to property tax, and Contractor may be subject to the payment of property taxes levied on such interest.

39. Performance and Final Acceptance.

Contractor represents that it is experienced, qualified, registered, licensed, equipped, organized and financed to perform the services under this Contract.

Contractor shall perform the services under this Contract with that degree of skill and judgment normally exercised by professional firms performing services of a similar nature in the State of California, and shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy and coordination of the services it performs under this Contract. In addition to the other rights and remedies which City may have, Contractor shall, at its own expense, correct any services which fail to meet the above standard.

General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 13 of 13

City shall provide Contractor an opportunity to cure errors and omission which may be disclosed during the review of submittals, with no increase in the authorized Contract Payment Limit. Should Contractor fail to make necessary corrections in a timely manner, such corrections shall be made by the City and the cost thereof shall be charged to Contractor.

If warranted, City shall determine, and Contractor may request such determination, that Contractor has satisfactorily completed performance of this Contract. Upon such determination, City shall issue to Contractor a written Notice of Final Acceptance, after which Contractor shall not incur further costs under this Contract. Contractor shall respond to such Notice of Final Acceptance by executing and submitting to City a Release and Certificate of Final Payment.

40. Survival
. The rights and obligations of the parties which by their nature survive termination or completion of the services covered by this Contract shall remain in full force and effect after termination or completion.

For the Contract between the City of
Richmond and

EXHIBIT E

SPECIAL CONDITIONS

The General Conditions are hereby amended to include the following modifications and/or provisions (if applicable):

For the Contract between the City of
Richmond and

EXHIBIT F

INSURANCE PROVISIONS

During the entire term of this Contract and any extension or modification thereof, the CONTRACTOR shall keep in effect insurance policies meeting the insurance requirements specified in the insurance provisions which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

___ Exhibit F
___ Section 8
City of Richmond - Insurance Requirements - Type 2:

Professional Services

Type 2 – Page 1 of 3

Revised: June 2011
In all instances where CONTRACTOR or its representatives will provide professional services (architects, engineers, construction management, counselors, medical professionals, hospitals, clinics, attorneys, consultants, accountants, etc.) to the City of Richmond (City), the City requires the following MINIMUM insurance requirements and limits.

CONTRACTOR shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract, agreement, or other order for work, services or supplies, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder and the results of that work by the CONTRACTOR, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. Maintenance of proper insurance coverage is a material element of the contract. Failure to maintain or renew coverage or to provide evidence of renewal may be treated by the City as a material breach of contract.

CONTRACTOR agrees that in the event of loss due to any of the perils for which it has agreed to provide Commercial General Liability insurance, CONTRACTOR shall look solely to its insurance for recovery.

CONTRACTOR hereby grants to CITY, on behalf of any insurer providing Commercial General Liability insurance to either CONTRACTOR or CITY with respect to the services of CONSULTANT herein, a waiver of any right to subrogation which any such insurer of said CONTRACTOR may acquire against the CITY by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance.

Original, signed certificates and original, separate policy endorsements, naming the City as an additional insured for general liability coverage, as well as a waiver of subrogation for Workers’ Compensation insurance, shall be received and approved by the City before any work may begin. However, failure to do so shall not operate as a waiver of these insurance requirements.

City reserves the right to modify or require additional coverages for specific risk exposures depending on scope of CONTRACTORS work.

Minimum coverage is detailed below. The policy limits of coverage shall be made available to the full limits of the policy. The minimum limits stated herein shall not serve to reduce the policy limits of coverage of CONTRACTOR.

Minimum Scope of Insurance – the following forms shall be provided and coverage shall be at least as broad as the following:

1. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (ISO Occurrence Form CG 0001), and including coverage for bodily and personal injury, property damage, and products and completed operations (if applicable).

2. Insurance Services Office Automobile Liability coverage (ISO Form CA 0001, Code 1, Any Auto).

3. Original and Separate Additional Insured Endorsement for General Liability (ISO Form CG 20 10 11/85 or its equivalent) with primary and non-contributory language.

4. Workers’ Compensation Insurance as required by the State of California including Employer’s Liability coverage.

5. Original and Separate Waiver of Subrogation for Workers’ Compensation insurance.

6. Professional Liability or Errors & Omissions Liability Insurance appropriate to the CONTRACTOR’s profession (if required.)

Required Coverage Minimum Limits
Workers’ Compensation and
Employers’ Liability
Statutory limits as required by the State of California including $1 million Employers’ Liability per accident, per employee for bodily injury or disease.

If CONTRACTOR is self-insured, provide a certificate of Permission to Self- Insure, signed by the California Department of Industrial Relations and Self- Insurance. If contractor is a sole proprietor (has no employees) than contractor must sign “Contractor Release of Liability” found at:
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/index.aspx?nid=61.

General Liability
(primary and excess limits
combined)
$2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If the policy includes a general aggregate, either the general aggregate shall apply separately to this project, service or location or the minimum required aggregate limit shall be twice the per occurrence limit.

Policy shall be endorsed to name the City of Richmond as an additional insured per the conditions detailed below.

___ Exhibit F
___ Section 8
City of Richmond - Insurance Requirements - Type 2:

Professional Services

Type 2 – Page 2 of 3

Revised: June 2011
Automobile Liability $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage.

PROJECT COST R EQUIRED LIMIT
$0 - $1 million $1 million p/o
$1 million - $5 million $2 million p/o
Over $5 million $5 million p/o

Professional Liability or Errors &
Omissions Liability –
Required for all professionals
including architects, engineers,
consultants, construction
management, counselors, medical
professionals, hospitals, clinics,
attorneys and accountants, & other
consultants as may be required by
the City.

Required Policy Conditions
Additional Insured Endorsement

Applicable to General Liability coverage.

The City of Richmond, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be named as additional insureds for all liability arising out of the operations by or on behalf of the named insured including bodily injury, deaths and property damage or destruction arising in any respect directly or indirectly in the performance of this contract.

ISO form CG 20 10 (11/85) or its equivalent is required. If the Contractor is supplying their product or providing a service then the endorsement must not
exclude products and completed operations
coverage. If it does, then CG 20 37 (10/01) is also required.

SAMPLE Endorsements can be found at
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/index.aspx?nid=61
.

Primary and Noncontributory The contractor’s insurance coverage must be primary coverage as it pertains to the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. Any insurance or self insurance maintained by the City is wholly separate from the insurance of the contractor and in no way relieves the contractor from its responsibility to provide insurance.

Waiver of Subrogation
Endorsement Form
Contractor’s insurer will provide a Waiver of Subrogation in favor of the City for Workers’ Compensation Insurance during the life of this contract.

SAMPLE Endorsements can be found at
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/index.aspx?nid=61.

Deductibles and Self-Insured
Retentions
Any deductible or self-insured retention must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retention as respects the City or the CONTRACTOR shall procure a financial guarantee in an amount equal to the deductible or self-insured retention guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claims administration and defense expenses.

Contractor is responsible for satisfaction of the deductible and/or self-insured retention for each loss.

A. M. Best Rating A:VII or Better. If the A.M. Best Rating falls below the required rating, CONTRACTOR must replace coverage immediately and provide notice to City.

Umbrella/Excess Liability Policies
If an Umbrella or Excess Liability Policy is used to meet the liability limits, coverage shall be as broad as specified for underlying coverage’s and cover those insured in the underlying policies.

Claims-Made Policies

___ Exhibit F
___ Section 8
City of Richmond - Insurance Requirements - Type 2:

Professional Services

Type 2 – Page 3 of 3

Revised: June 2011
If any insurance policy is written on a claims-made form: 1) the retroactive date must be shown, and must be before the date of the contract or the beginning of contract work. 2) Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five (5) years after completion of the contract of work. 3) If coverage is canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a retroactive date prior to the contract effective date, the Contractor must purchase an extended period coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of contract work.

Subcontractors

CONTRACTOR
shall include all subcontractors as insured under its policies or shall furnish to the City for review and approval, separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverage for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the requirements stated herein.

CONTRACTOR agrees to defend and indemnify the City of Richmond for any damage resulting to it from failure of either CONTRACTOR or any subcontractor to take out or maintain the required insurance policies.

The fact that
insurance is obtained by CONTRACTOR, and/or CONTRACTOR’s subcontractors, will not be deemed to release or diminish the liability of CONTRACTOR, including, without limitation, liability under the indemnity provisions of this contract. Damages recoverable by CITY from CONTRACTOR or any third party will not be limited by the amount of the required insurance coverage.

Verification of Coverage
All original certificates and endorsements shall be received and approved by the City before work may begin .

The City of Richmond reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies including endorsements affecting the coverage at any time.

Original insurance certificates and required policy endorsements shall be mailed or delivered to the Designated Project Manager for the City of Richmond.

Insurance certificates and endorsements may be faxed to the Designated Project Manger. However, CONTRACTOR must mail the original certificates and endorsements to Designated Project Manager once faxed.

Continuous Coverage
CONTRACTOR shall maintain the required insurance for the life of the contract. Should the CONTRACTOR cease to have insurance as required during this time, all work by the CONTRACTOR pursuant to this agreement shall cease until insurance acceptable to the City is provided. In the event that CONTRACTOR fails to comply with the City’s insurance requirements, the City may take such action as it deems necessary to protect the City’s interests. Such action may include but is not limited to termination of the contract, withholding of payments, or other actions as the City deems appropriate.

If services or the scope of work extend beyond the expiration dates of the required insurance policies initially approved by the City, CONTRACTOR must provide updated certificates and endorsements indicating that the required coverage, terms and conditions are still in place. Renewal certificates and updated endorsements shall be mailed to the Designated Project Manager.

Cancellation
CONTRACTOR shall ensure that coverage shall not be cancelled, reduced or otherwise materially changed except after thirty (30) days’ prior written notice has been given to the City.

Reporting Requirements

Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers.

Consistent with Public Policy
The insuring provisions, insofar as they may be judged to be against public policy shall be void and unenforceable only to the minimum extent necessary so that the remaining terms and provisions herein may be consistent with public policy and thus enforceable.

EXHIBIT H

CITY OF RICHMOND
Sanctuary City Compliance Statement

The undersigned, an authorized agent of (hereafter
"Contractor"), has had an opportunity to review the requirements of City of Richmond Ordinance 12 -18 (hereafter "Sanctuary City Contracting Ordinance" or “SCCO”). Contractor understands and agrees that the City may choose with whom it will maintain business relations and may refrain from contracting with any person or entity that provides Data Broker or Extreme Vetting services to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the United States Department of Homeland Security (“ICE”). Contractor understands the meaning of the following terms used in the SCCO:

a. "Data Broker” means either of the following:

i. The collection of information, including personal information about consumers, from a wide variety of sources for the purposes of reselling such information to their customers, which include both private-sector business and government agencies;

ii. The aggregation of data that was collected for another purpose from that for which it is ultimately used.

b. “Extreme Vetting” means data mining, threat modeling, predictive risk analysis, or other similar services."

Contractor understands that it is not eligible to receive or retain a City contract if at the time the Contract is executed, or at any time during the term of the Contract, it provides Data Broker or Extreme Vetting services to ICE.

Contractor further understands and agrees that Contractor's failure to comply with the SCCO shall constitute a material default of the Contract and the City Manager may terminate the Contract and bar Contractor from bidding on future contracts with the City for five (5) years from the effective date of the contract termination.

By executing this Statement, Contractor certifies that it complies with the requirements of the SCCO and that if at any time during the term of the Contract it ceases to comply, Contractor will promptly notify the City Manager in writing. Any person or entity who knowingly or willingly supplies false information in violation of the SCCO shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a $1,000 fine.

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned declares under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this day of , 20 , at , California.

Printed Name: Title:

Signed: Date:

Business Entity:

Vendor SCCO Compliance Statement (Augt2020)

February 7, 2023

Finance Department

DATE: February 7, 2023
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Nickie Mastay, Deputy City Manager, Internal Services
Delmy Cuellar, Director of Finance
Jerry Chak, Accounting Managere
Subject:

Investment and Cash Balance Report, and Monthly
Overtime Reports for the Month of December 2022
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

N/A

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

City staff is requesting that the City Council receive the City’s Investment and Cash Balance Report and monthly
Overtime Reports for the month of December 2022.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

RECEIVE the City’s Investment and Cash Balance
Report and monthly Overtime Reports for the month of
December 2022 – Finance Department (Nickie
Mastay/Mubeen Qader 510-412-2077).

DISCUSSION:

The Investment and Cash Balance Report is a monthly report of the City’s pooled cash balance. The Portfolio Management Report represents the monthly bank balances, along with market balances of permitted investments according to the City’s Investment Policy. Investment in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), money market, agency AGENDA
REPORT
Formatted: Font: 12 pt

February 7, 2023
bonds, certificates of deposits, and corporate notes are all allowable and permitted according to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2022-2023 Investment Policy.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Investment and Cash Balance Report for December 2022 Attachment 2 – Overtime Report for December 2022
Attachment 3 – Overtime Public Safety Report for December 2022

Finance Department – Treasury Division

M E M O R A N D U M

To: Mayor and Members of the City Council

From: Mubeen Qader, Acting Director of Finance
Jerry Chak, Accounting Manager

Date: February 7, 2023

Subject:

MONTHLY CASH BALANCES & INVESTMENT REPORT –
December 2022

Enclosed for your information are the Investment Report, Portfolio Summary, and Comparative Cash Report for the month of December 2022 prepared by the City Treasurer pursuant to the statutory requirements of the State of California.

City of Richmond
FY2022-23
Overtime Report
PERIOD 6, DECEMBER 2022
50% Threshold

ORIGINAL TRANFRS REVISED AVAILABLE PCT

APPROP ADJSTMTS BUDGET YTD EXPENDED BUDGET USED

GENERAL FUND
Summary
400031 OVERTIME/General 1,179,856 419,428 1,599,284 891,117 708,167 56% 400032 OVERTIME/Sworn 9,499,934 (365,435) 9,134,499 4,715,116 4,419,383 52% TOTAL GENERAL FUND 10,679,790 53,993 10,733,783 5,606,233 5,127,550 52% By Department
13 CITY MANAGER
400031 OVERTIME/General 2,500 2,500 2,500 0% 14 CITY CLERK
400031 OVERTIME/General 20,000 20,000 10,249 9,751 51% 16 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT -
400031 OVERTIME/General - 380 (380) 100% - -
17 FINANCE -
400031 OVERTIME/General 6,400 44,993 51,393 44,106 7,287 86% 18 HUMAN RESOURCES -
400031 OVERTIME/General 217 (217) 100% 19 POLICE
400031 OVERTIME/General 813,874 365,435 1,179,309 550,286 629,023 47% 400032 OVERTIME/Sworn 5,165,435 (365,435) 4,800,000 2,227,949 2,572,051 46% TOTAL POLICE 5,979,309 5,979,309 2,778,235 3,201,074 46% 20 FIRE
400031 OVERTIME/General - - 136 (136) 100% 400032 OVERTIME/Sworn 4,334,499 4,334,499 2,487,168 1,847,331 57% TOTAL FIRE 4,334,499 4,334,499 2,487,304 1,847,195 57% -
23 PUBLIC WORKS & ENGINEERING SVCS
400031 OVERTIME/General 320,432 320,432 258,539 61,893 81% 24 LIBRARY
400031 OVERTIME/General - 8,000 8,000 2,322 5,678 29% -

City of Richmond
FY2022-23
Overtime Report
50% Threshold

ORIGINAL TRANFRS REVISED AVAILABLE PCT

APPROP ADJSTMTS BUDGET YTD EXPENDED BUDGET USED
25 COMMUNITY SERVICES
400031 OVERTIME/General 16,650 500 17,150 24,831 (7,681) 145% -
36 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM - -
400031 OVERTIME/General - 500 500 50 450 10% TOTAL GENERAL FUND 10,679,790 53,993 10,733,783 5,606,233 5,127,550 52%

NON-GENERAL FUND
By Fund
1012 HILLTOP LANDSCAPE MAINT DIST
400031 OVERTIME/General 15,515 - 15,515 13,322 2,193 86% 1015 MARINA BAY LNDSCP & LIGHT DIST
400031 OVERTIME/General 25,300 25,300 19,103 6,197 76% 1018 RENT CONTROL
400031 OVERTIME/General - 689 (689) 100% 1050 CR-PLANNING & BUILDING
400031 OVERTIME/General 9,500 9,500 9,500 0% 1055 ENCROACHMENT SVCS
400031 OVERTIME/General 8,000 8,000 5,711 2,289 71% 4003 WASTEWATER
400031 OVERTIME/General 8,100 8,100 8,100 0% 4404 RHA-NEVIN PLAZA
400031 OVERTIME/General 15,000 15,000 13,212 1,788 88% 4405 RHA-NYSTROM VILLAGE
400031 OVERTIME/General 10,000 10,000 8,224 1,776 82% 4501 RHA-CENTRAL OFFICE COST CTR
400031 OVERTIME/General - 247 (247) 100% 5001 INSURANCE RESERVES
400031 OVERTIME/General - 163 (163) 100% TOTAL NON-GENERAL FUNDS 91,415 - 91,415 60,672 30,743 66%