PLEASE NOTE: HYBRID MEETING FORMAT
AMENDED AGENDA
- REGULAR MEETING OF THE RICHMOND CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, February 25, 2025, 4:30 p.m.
Community Services Building
440 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
Members:
Eduardo Martinez, Mayor at Large
Jamelia Brown, Councilmember District 1
Cesar Zepeda, Vice Mayor, District 2
Doria Robinson, Councilmember District 3
Soheila Bana, Councilmember District 4
Sue Wilson, Councilmember District 5
Claudia Jimenez, Councilmember District 6
NOTICE: MASKS ARE STRONGLY ENCOURAGED!!
***REGISTER TO VOTE HERE!!***
https://registertovote.ca.gov/
Link to City Council Agendas/Packets
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/4157/City-ofRichmond-Council-Meetings
Register to receive notification of new agendas, etc.
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/list.aspx
HOW TO WATCH THE MEETING FROM HOME:
KCRT – Comcast Channel 28 or AT&T Uverse Channel 991.
Livestream online at http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/3178/KCRT-Live2.
HOW TO SUBMIT PUBLIC COMMENTS:
In Person: Anyone who desires to address the City Council on items appearing on the agenda, including Open Forum, must complete and file a pink speaker’s card with the City Clerk prior to the City Council’s consideration of the item. Once the City Clerk has announced the item, no person shall be permitted to speak on the item other than those persons who have submitted their names to the City Clerk. Each speaker will be allowed up to TWO (2) MINUTES to address the City Council on NON-PUBLIC HEARING items listed on the agenda. Speakers are allowed up to THREE (3) minutes on PUBLIC HEARING items.
Via Zoom: Anyone who desires to address the City Council on items appearing on the agenda, including Open Forum, must raise their hand once public comment is open. The public speakers attending in person will be called first, followed by Zoom participants. Only those public speakers that have their hand raised once the speakers are called will be recognized.
Open Session and City Council: Please click the link below to join the webinar:
https://zoom.us/j/99312205643?pwd=MDdqNnRmS2k4ZkRTOWhlUldQOUF1Zz09
Passcode: ccmeeting
By iPhone one-tap: US: +16699006833,,99312205643# or +13462487799,,99312205643# By Telephone: Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1 669 900 6833 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 929 205 6099 or +1 301 715 8592
Webinar ID: 993 1220 5643
International numbers available: https://zoom.us/u/aehrwCgISx
To comment by video conference: click on the Participants button at the bottom of your screen and select the “Raise Your Hand” button to request to speak when Public Comment is being asked for. When called upon, press the unmute button. After the allotted time, you will then be re-muted. **
To comment by phone: you will be prompted to “Raise Your Hand” by pressing “*9” to request to speak when Public Comment is asked for. When called upon, you will be asked to unmuted by pressing *6. After the allotted time, you will then be re-muted. Instructions of how to raise your hand by phone are available at:
https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/201362663 -Joining-a-meeting-by-phone. **
CC Mtg. 2-25-25
2 **The mayor will announce the agenda item number and open public comment when appropriate.
Via mail: received by 1:00 p.m. the day of the meeting, sent to 450 Civic Center Plaza, 3rd Floor, Office of the Clerk, Richmond, CA 94804.
Via eComments: eComments are available once an agenda is published. Locate the meeting in "upcoming meetings" and click the comment bubble icon. Click on the item you wish to comment on. eComments can be submitted when the agenda is published and until the conclusion of public comments for the agenda item. Email your comment to [email protected] should you have difficulty submitting an eComment during a meeting.
Via email: to [email protected] by 1:00 p.m. the day of the meeting.
Emails MUST contain in the subject line 1) public comments – Open Session prior to Closed Session; 2) public comments – Open Forum; or 3) public comments agenda item #__ [include the agenda item number].
Properly labeled public comments will be considered a public record, put into the official meeting record, available after the meeting as supplemental materials, and will be posted as an attachment to the meeting minutes when the minutes are posted: http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/Archive.aspx?AMID=31
The City cannot guarantee that its network and/or the site will be uninterrupted. To ensure that the City Council receives your comments, you are strongly encouraged to submit your comments in writing in advance of the meeting.
Procedures for Removing Items from the Consent Calendar: Members of the public who request to remove an item from the consent calendar must first discuss the item with a staff member by phone or a back-and- forth email discussion, and state the name of the staff member when requesting removal of the item from the consent calendar (by 2 p.m. the day of the meeting).
Any member of the City Council who would like to remove an item from the consent calendar must notify the appropriate staff person and the City Clerk’s Office prior to the meeting. Although members of the City Council are encouraged to ask questions and share concerns with staff ahead of the meeting, they are not required to do so.
The Clerk’s Office must be informed of any requests to remove items from the Consent Calendar. Items removed from the Consent Calendar shall be placed at the end of the agenda for consideration.
CONDUCT AT MEETINGS: Richmond City Council meetings are limited public forums during which the City strives to provide an open, safe atmosphere and promote robust public debate. Members of the public, however, must comply with state law, as well as the City’s laws and procedures and may not actually disrupt the orderly conduct of these meetings. The public, for example, may not shout or use amplifying devices, must submit comment cards and speak during their allotted time, may not create a physical disturbance, may not speak on matters unrelated to issues within the jurisdiction of the City Council or the agenda item at hand, and may not cause immediate threats to public safety.
Click here for City Harassment Policy
CC Mtg. 2-25-25
3 Accessibility for Individuals with Disabilities: Upon request, the City will provide for written agenda materials in appropriate alternative formats, or disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services and sign language interpreters, to enable individuals with disabilities to participate in and provide comments at/related to public meetings. Please submit a request, including your name, phone number and/or email address, and a description of the modification, accommodation, auxiliary aid, service or alternative format requested at least two days before the meeting. Requests should be emailed to [email protected] or submitted by phone at 510-620-6513, ext. 9, or 510-620-6509.
Requests made by mail to City Clerk’s Office, City Council meeting, 450 Civic Center Plaza, Richmond, CA 94804 must be received at least two days before the meeting. Requests will be granted whenever possible and resolved in favor of accessibility.
Unless otherwise noted in an agenda description, all actions taken by the Council include a determination that CEQA does not apply (i.e., the action is not a project and therefore exempt from CEQA).
Disclaimer: The City Clerk's Office translates agendas to enhance public access. Translated agendas are provided as a courtesy and do not constitute legal notice of the meeting or items to be discussed. In case of discrepancy, the English agenda will prevail.
Pages
CC Mtg. 2-25-25
4 A. OPEN SESSION TO HEAR PUBLIC COMMENT BEFORE CLOSED SESSION 4:30 p.m.
B. ROLL CALL
C. JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND/SURPLUS PROPERTY AUTHORITY
MEETING
SURPLUS PROPERTY AUTHORITY
C.1 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION (paragraph (1) of Subdivision [d] of Government Code Section 54956.9) • Surplus Property Authority of the City of Richmond v. Riggers Loft Wine Company
CITY COUNCIL
C.2 CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Government Code Section 54957.6)
• Agency Representatives: Sharrone Taylor, Jack Hughes, Lisa Charbonneau Employee organizations:
SEIU Local 1021 Full Time Unit and Part Time Unit1.
IFPTE Local 21 Mid-Level Management Unit and Executive
Management Units
2. Richmond Police Officers Association RPOA3.
Richmond Police Management Association RPMA4.
IAFF Local 1885.
Richmond Fire Management Association RFMA6.
C.3 LIABILITY CLAIMS (Government Code Section 54956.9)
• Claimant: Jameiz Terrell
D. PUBLIC COMMENT BEFORE CLOSED SESSION (limited to items on the Closed Session agenda only)
E. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION
________________________________________________________ CC Mtg. 2-25-25
5 F. REGULAR MEETING OF THE RICHMOND CITY COUNCIL
6:30 p.m.
G. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
H. ROLL CALL
I. STATEMENT OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
J. AGENDA REVIEW
K. REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY OF FINAL DECISIONS MADE DURING
CLOSED SESSION
L. REPORT FROM THE CITY MANAGER (public comment allowed under Open Forum) M. OPEN FORUM FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
(public comment on items that remain on the Consent Calendar or items not on the agenda - limited to 2 minutes unless otherwise specified - Back and forth dialogue with the Council is prohibited)
N. CITY COUNCIL CONSENT CALENDAR
(All items placed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and noncontroversial. These items will be enacted upon together with a motion and second, without discussion, of any member of the City Council, and each item shall be deemed to have received the action recommended.)
N.1 City Clerk's Office
N.1.a City Clerk's Office 9
APPROVE the minutes of the January 21 and January 28, 2025, regular City Council meetings - City Clerk's Office (Pamela Christian 510-620-6513.
N.2 Economic Development
N.2.a Port Contract with Haley and Aldrich, Inc. for Dredging Permitting Support and Slope Analysis at Terminal 2 and Other Port Areas 27 APPROVE a contract agreement with Haley and Aldrich, Inc. in the amount of $254,100, to secure permits to complete required maintenance dredging at Terminal 2, the Point Potrero Marine Terminal Berths 7 and 8, the Marina Bay Yacht Harbor, and conduct slope analysis at Terminal 2 with a term ending June 30, 2026, and APPROVE the transfer of $150,350 between projects in the Port’s Fiscal Year 2024-2025 budget – Economic Development Department (Charles Gerard 510-620-6792).
N.3 Mayor's Office
N.3.a Proclamation in Honor of June Albonico 145
PROCLAMATION in honor of the life and legacy of June Albonico – Mayor’s Office (Mayor Eduardo Martinez 510-620-6503).
CC Mtg. 2-25-25
6 N.3.b Proclamation Recognizing February 28, 2025, as Rare Disease Day in Richmond, California
148
PROCLAMATION recognizing February 28, 2025, as Rare Disease Day in Richmond, California – Mayor’s Office (Mayor Eduardo Martinez 510-620-6503).
N.3.c Appointment of Xiao Feng Zhou to the Richmond-Zhoushan Friendship Commission
151
APPOINT Xiao Feng Zhou to the Richmond-Zhoushan Friendship Commission, with a term ending December 31, 2027 – Mayor’s Office (Mayor Eduardo Martinez 510-620-6503).
N.3.d Appointment of Andrew Melendez to the Community Crisis Response Program Advisory Board
154
APPOINT Andrew Melendez to the Community Crisis Response Program Advisory Board, term expires December 31, 2025 – Mayor’s Office (Mayor Eduardo Martinez 510-620-6503).
N.3.e Reappointment of Valeria Serrano to the Richmond Youth Council 157 REAPPOINT Valeria Serrano to the Richmond Youth Council, term expires October 1, 2025 – Mayor’s Office (Mayor Eduardo Martinez 510-620-6503).
N.4 Police Department
N.4.a Contract Amendment No. 1 with Community Violence Solutions 160 APPROVE the first contract amendment with Community Violence Solutions increasing the payment limit by $204,000, for a total contract payment limit of $384,000, and extending the term from January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2027, to provide to the Richmond Police Department coordinated access and services at the Child Interview Center for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault – Police Department (Chief Bisa French 510-621-1802).
N.4.b Purchase of Four Laser Tech LTI 20/20 TruVISION Lidar Speed Guns with Digital Camera
193
APPROVE the purchase of four TruVISION lidar speed guns from Laser Tech Traffic Safety at a cost of $27,635.05 – Police Department (Chief Bisa French 510-621-1802).
N.4.c Crime Report from Police Chief 198
RECEIVE a written crime report from the Police Chief - Police Department (Chief Bisa French 510-621-1802).
CC Mtg. 2-25-25
7 N.5 Public Works
N.5.a Construction Agreement with Rapid Services LLC, dba, Rapid Grading Services, for the 7th Street Bike Lane Improvement Project 204
ADOPT a resolution approving a construction agreement with Rapid Services LLC, dba Rapid Grading Services, for the 7th Street Bike Lane Improvement Project in an amount not to exceed $269,000, and AUTHORIZE the Director of Public Works to approve change orders, if necessary, up to a 20 percent contingency amount of $53,800, for a total potential construction phase cost of $322,800 – Public Works Department (Hillal Hamdan 621-1612/Robert Armijo 620-5477/Daniel Chavarria 620-5478).
O. STUDY AND ACTION SESSION
O.1 Presentation and Proclamation Honoring the Establishment of the Guardians of Justice and Celebrating the Black Nine
268
RECEIVE a presentation from The Guardians of Justice on the history and contributions of the officers from the Black Nine towards advancing civil rights and police accountability, and PROCLAMATIONS recognizing the members of the Black Nine - Arthur Johnson, Douglas Ellison, Harold Redic, Marvin Smith, Michael Nichols, Ollie Glover, Otis Timmons, Rudolph Johnson, and Tecumseh "Danny" Nelson - Councilmembers Soheila Bana (510-672-3490), Doria Robinson (510-620-6568), and Jamelia Brown (510-412-2050).
O.2 Presentation from the United Teachers of Richmond on West Contra Costa Unified School District’s (WCCUSD) Fiscal Crisis
313
RECEIVE a presentation from the United Teachers of Richmond on West Contra Costa Unified School District’s Manufactured Fiscal Crisis and to review the financial practices of West Contra Costa Unified School District’s and to discuss recommendations on how to better support Richmond students and families - Councilmember Claudia Jimenez (510-620-6565).
O.3 Presentation from AC Transit: Macdonald Avenue and Cutting Boulevard Transit Improvement Update
331
RECEIVE a presentation by Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) – Mayor’s Office (Mayor Eduardo Martinez 510-620-6503).
O.4 Discuss and Provide Direction on Future City Council Meeting Start Times 358 DISCUSS and PROVIDE DIRECTION to the City Clerk on the time of City Council meetings - Vice Mayor Cesar Zepeda (510-685-5002).
P. REPORTS OF OFFICERS: REFERRALS TO STAFF, AND GENERAL REPORTS (INCLUDING AB 1234 REPORTS)(limited to two minutes per Councilmember)(public comments allowed under Open Forum)
Q. ADJOURNMENT
________________________
CC Mtg. 2-25-25
8 9
cc21Jan2025 – ud/prc
RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA,
January 21, 2025, 4:30 p.m.
Community Services Building
440 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
_____________________________________________________________________
A. OPEN SESSION TO HEAR PUBLIC COMMENT BEFORE CLOSED SESSION The meeting was called to order at 4:36 p.m. by Mayor Eduardo Martinez.
B. ROLL CALL
Present: Councilmembers Jamelia Brown, Claudia Jimenez, Doria Robinson, Sue Wilson, Cesar Zepeda, and Mayor Eduardo Martinez. Absent: Councilmember Soheila Bana arrived after adjourning to Closed Session.
C. CLOSED SESSION
C.1 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION (initiation of litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of Subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9)
One case
C.2 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION (paragraph (1) of Subdivision [d] of Government Code Section 54956.9) Guillermo Gomez v. John Temple, et al.
C.3 CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Government Code
Section 54957.6)
Agency Representatives: Sharrone Taylor, Jack Hughes, Lisa Charbonneau
Employee organizations:
1. SEIU Local 1021 Full Time Unit and Part Time Unit
2. IFPTE Local 21 Mid-Level Management Unit and Executive Management Units
3. Richmond Police Officers Association RPOA
4. Richmond Police Management Association RPMA
5. IAFF Local 188
6. Richmond Fire Management Association RFMA
C.4 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EV ALUATION (Government Code Section 54957)
Title: City Attorney
D. PUBLIC COMMENT BEFORE CLOSED SESSION (limited to items on the Closed Session agenda only)
Cordell Hindler gave comments in support of the city attorney performance evaluation and for the labor negotiations.
E. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION
10 cc21Jan2025 – ud/prc
The meeting adjourned at 4:38 p.m. Closed Session adjourned at 6:29 p.m.
F. SPECIAL MEETING OF THE RICHMOND HOUSING AUTHORITY
The meeting was called to order at 6:32 p.m. by Chairperson Eduardo Martinez.
G. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairperson Eduardo Martinez led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
H. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Jamelia Brown, Claudia Jimenez, Doria Robinson, Sue Wilson, Cesar Zepeda, and Chairperson Eduardo Martinez. Absent: Commissioner Soheila Bana arrived after the roll was called. Housing Tenant Commissioner Jaycine Scott was absent the entire meeting.
I. STATEMENT OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
None.
J. REPORT FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Executive Director, Antoinette Terrell presented a PowerPoint, which highlighted the following: RHA Requests for Proposals; Nystrom Village update; and Nevin Plaza I and II update.
Commissioners stated that there should be an increase in city subsidies so units could be repaired faster, and that staff provide a report at the next meeting regarding the length of time needed to renovate all of the units so that they are available as soon as possible to receive the low-income housing vouchers.
K. AGENDA REVIEW
None.
L. HOUSING AUTHORITY PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
M. HOUSING AUTHORITY CONSENT CALENDAR
M.1 As Needed Legal Services Contract with Edringtion, Schrimer, and Murphy LLP.
ADOPT a resolution authorizing a legal services contract with Edrington, Shirmer & Murphy LLP for as needed lease enforcement and unlawful detainer services in the amount of $400,000 for a three-year term, starting January 21, 2025, and ending January 21, 2028, with an option to extend for two additional one-year terms at $100,000 per year for a total amount not to exceed $600,000 - Richmond Housing Authority (Antoinette Terrell 510-620-6784/Gregory Palomino (510- 621-1361).
Motion by Commissioner Cesar Zepeda
Seconded by Chairperson Eduardo Martinez
Ayes (7): Commissioners Soheila Bana, Jamelia Brown, Claudia Jimenez, Doria Robinson, Sue Wilson, Cesar Zepeda, and Chairperson Eduardo Martinez.
Absent (1): Housing Tenant Commissioner Jaycine Scott.
Passed
Adopted Resolution No. 2206.
11 cc21Jan2025 – ud/prc
N. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 6:53 p.m.
O. REGULAR MEETING OF THE RICHMOND CITY COUNCIL
The meeting was called to order at 6:53 p.m. by Mayor Eduardo Martinez.
P. ROLL CALL
Present: Councilmembers Soheila Bana, Jamelia Brown, Claudia Jimenez, Doria Robinson, Sue Wilson, Cesar Zepeda, and Mayor Eduardo Martinez. Absent: None.
Q. STATEMENT OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
None.
R. ELECTION OF THE NEW VICE MAYOR FOR 2025
R.1 Election of the new vice mayor for 2025
The Richmond City Council shall elect from among its members a vice mayor to serve for 2025. In the absence or disability of the mayor, the vice mayor shall serve as the mayor. The vice mayor shall also represent the mayor upon the mayor's request. The vice mayor shall serve for a term of one year - Mayor's Office (Mayor Eduardo Martinez 510-620-6503). PUBLIC COMMENT ON
THIS ITEM MAY BE ALLOWED UNDER OPEN FORUM
A motion was made to nominate Councilmember Zepeda as Vice Mayor.
Motion by Councilmember Claudia Jimenez
Seconded by Councilmember Doria Robinson
Ayes (7): Soheila Bana, Jamelia Brown, Claudia Jimenez, Doria Robinson, Sue Wilson, Cesar Zepeda, and Mayor Eduardo Martinez
Passed
S. AGENDA REVIEW
Item W.2.b - Request for Richmond Fire, including Emergency Services, Public Works, Police, and City Attorney's Office to participate in an ad-hoc committee on Wildfire Preparedness; Item W.7.a - Approve a third contract amendment with Flock Group Inc., and Item W.8.c - Resolution to request Metropolitan Transportation Commission to allocate Transportation Development Act Article 3Pedestrian/Bicycle Project funding for the Downtown Point Richmond Bicycle Connectivity Project were removed from the consent calendar for discussion.
T. REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY OF FINAL DECISIONS MADE
DURING CLOSED SESSION
C.1 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION (initiation of litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of Subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9)
One case
A status report was given and no reportable action was taken.
C.2 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION (paragraph (1) of Subdivision [d] of Government Code Section 54956.9) 12 cc21Jan2025 – ud/prc
Guillermo Gomez v. John Temple, et al.
Item was not discussed.
C.3 CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Government Code Section 54957.6)
Agency Representatives: Sharrone Taylor, Jack Hughes, Lisa Charbonneau Employee organizations:
1. SEIU Local 1021 Full Time Unit and Part Time Unit
2. IFPTE Local 21 Mid-Level Management Unit and Executive Management Units
3. Richmond Police Officers Association RPOA
4. Richmond Police Management Association RPMA
5. IAFF Local 188
6. Richmond Fire Management Association RFMA
A status report was given and the item was continued to a future meeting.
C.4 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EV ALUATION (Government Code Section 54957)
Title: City Attorney
Item was not discussed.
U. REPORT FROM THE CITY MANAGER (public comment allowed under Open Forum)
City Manager Shasa Curl presented the report.
Link to report: CITY MANAGER REPORT
V. OPEN FORUM FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
(public comment on items that remain on the Consent Calendar or items not on the agenda - limited to 2 minutes unless otherwise specified - Back and forth dialogue with the Council is prohibited)
Cordell Hindler gave comments in support of the Richmond Main Street activities. Mr.
Hindler also suggested that speakers that make presentations to the city council should be moved up sooner on the agenda and requested that the Standing Committees be reinstated.
Don Gosney gave comments regarding the recent 80% wage increase for the mayor and city council.
Sherri Norris gave comments regarding housing issues she experienced.
Mark Wassberg gave comments regarding side shows in the city.
Jamin Pursell thanked staff for organizing the swearing-in ceremony and urged the community to be strong and continue to work together.
Emily Ross welcomed the newly elected Councilmembers Jamelia Brown and Sue Wilson.
Terri Hinte gave comments regarding the need for fireworks enforcement and that staff should follow the directives they were previously given regarding fireworks.
Ghaliyah Roberts-Palmer gave comments in opposition to the potential opening of the D&D Liquor store near Market Square Mall due to the potential negative impacts to the surrounding neighborhood.
13 cc21Jan2025 – ud/prc
W. CITY COUNCIL CONSENT CALENDAR
(All items placed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and noncontroversial. These items will be enacted upon together with a motion and second, without discussion, of any member of the City Council, and each item shall be deemed to have received the action recommended.)
The motion to approve the consent calendar did not include the following items:
Item W.2.b - Request for Richmond Fire, including Emergency Services, Public Works, Police, and City Attorney's Office to participate in an ad-hoc committee on Wildfire Preparedness; Item W.7.a - Approve a third contract amendment with Flock Group Inc., and Item W.8.c - Resolution to request Metropolitan Transportation Commission to allocate Transportation Development Act Article 3 Pedestrian/Bicycle Project funding for the Downtown Point Richmond Bicycle Connectivity Project.
Motion by Councilmember Doria Robinson
Seconded by Councilmember Sue Wilson
Ayes (7): Councilmembers Soheila Bana, Jamelia Brown, Claudia Jimenez, Doria Robinson, Sue Wilson, Vice Mayor Cesar Zepeda, and Mayor Eduardo Martinez Passed
W.1 City Clerk's Office
W.1.a Meeting Minutes
APPROVE the minutes of the December 17, 2024, regular City Council meeting - City Clerk's Office (Pamela Christian 510-620-6513).
W.2 City Council
W.2.a Resolution to prohibit the purchase of products made with Prison Labor ADOPT a resolution declaring that the City of Richmond will not purchase any products produced with prison labor and DIRECT staff to conduct an analysis of current products/suppliers produced with prison labor and utilized by City and return with recommendations for alternatives to utilize suppliers that do not use prison labor to produce goods - Councilmember Soheila Bana (510-620-6743).
Adopted Resolution No. 5-25.
W.2.b Request for Richmond Fire, including Emergency Services, Public Works, Police, and City Attorney’s Office to participate in an ad-hoc committee on Wildfire preparedness
DIRECT staff to provide a summary assessment of the City’s and community’s current preparedness for public disasters, it should briefly highlight key successes, gaps, challenges, and vulnerabilities and offer practical recommendations for resource allocation and actions needed to improve disaster preparedness, mitigation, and emergency response, including updates to the Richmond Municipal Code in advance of the adoption of the Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Budget - Councilmember Soheila Bana (510-620-6743).
Councilmember Bana gave an overview.
A motion was made by Councilmember Bana, seconded by Vice Mayor Zepeda, to approve the item. A friendly amendment was offered by 14 cc21Jan2025 – ud/prc
Councilmember Wilson, to request for Richmond Fire, including Emergency Services, Public Works, Police, and City Attorney's Office to participate in an ad-hoc committee on wildfire preparedness.
Councilmember Robinson offered a friendly amendment to conduct immediate community meetings to have an open discussion with the affected neighborhoods.
Councilmember Bana modified her motion as follows: to establish an ad- hoc committee of councilmembers and staff to work on wildfire preparedness and mitigation, conduct community outreach for the purpose of needs assessment, and bring proposals for budget and resource allocation to enhance wildfire preparedness in the city and request that the City Attorney's Office update the city's municipal code.
Councilmember Wilson also offered a friendly amendment to only include community meetings not for the purpose of needs assessment and remove the updating of the municipal code. The ad-hoc committee would decide if necessary. Councilmember Bana accepted the friendly amendments.
Mayor Martinez appointed Councilmembers Bana, Brown, and Vice Mayor Zepeda to the ad-hoc committee.
Motion by Councilmember Soheila Bana
Seconded by Vice Mayor Cesar Zepeda
Ayes (7): Councilmembers Soheila Bana, Jamelia Brown, Claudia Jimenez, Doria Robinson, Sue Wilson, Vice Mayor Cesar Zepeda, and Mayor Eduardo Martinez
Passed
W.3 Economic Development
W.3.a Contract with CoBiz Richmond for On-Demand Enhanced Business Services
APPROVE a contract with CoBiz and AUTHORIZE the city manager or their designee to negotiate contract terms as needed to provide on-demand enhanced business, workplace, events services and solutions to small businesses, in an amount not to exceed $95,000 with a term ending December 31, 2026 – Economic Development Department (Nannette Beacham 510-621-1306/Lizeht Zepeda 510-620-6653/Kyle Lam 510-620- 6802).
W.4 Finance Department
W.4.a Investment and Cash Balance Report, Monthly Overtime Reports, and Documentary Transfer Tax Report for the Month of November 2024 RECEIVE the City’s Investment and Cash Balance Report, Monthly Overtime Reports, and Documentary Transfer Tax Report for the month of November 2024 – Finance Department (Andrea Miller 510-620-6740).
W.5 Internal Services
W.5.a Ordinance Amending the Monthly Salary for the Mayor and Introduce an Ordinance Amending the Monthly Salary for City Councilmembers ADOPT an ordinance (second reading) amending the monthly salary for City Council members; and ADOPT an ordinance (second reading) 15 cc21Jan2025 – ud/prc
amending the monthly salary for the Mayor – Human Resources Department (Sharrone Taylor 510-620-6803)/City Attorney's Office (Shannon Moore 510-620-6505).
Initially this item was adopted with the approval of the consent calendar, however separate votes were required.
A motion made by Mayor Martinez, seconded by Councilmember Robinson rescinded the previous vote, by the unanimous vote of the city council.
A motion was made to amend the salary for the mayor:
Motion by Councilmember Claudia Jimenez
Seconded by Councilmember Doria Robinson
Ayes (6): Councilmembers Soheila Bana, Jamelia Brown, Claudia Jimenez, Doria Robinson, Sue Wilson, and Vice Mayor Cesar Zepeda Abstain (1): Mayor Eduardo Martinez
Passed
Adopted Resolution No. 3-25 to amend the salary for the mayor.
A motion was made to amend the salary for the city councilmembers:
Motion by Councilmember Mayor Eduardo Martinez
Seconded by Councilmember Claudia Jimenez
Ayes (7): Councilmembers Soheila Bana, Jamelia Brown, Claudia Jimenez, Doria Robinson, Sue Wilson, Vice Mayor Cesar Zepeda, and Mayor Eduardo Martinez
Passed
Adopted Resolution No. 4-25 to amend the salary for the city councilmembers.
W.6 Mayor's Office
W.6.a International Holocaust Remembrance Day 2025
PROCLAMATION declaring January 27, 2025, as International Holocaust Remembrance Day in Richmond, California – Mayor Eduardo Martinez (510-620-6503).
W.6.b Black History Month February 2025
PROCLAMATION declaring February 2025 as Black History Month in the City of Richmond – Mayor Eduardo Martinez (510-620-6503), Councilmembers Doria Robinson and Jamelia Brown (510-620-6861).
W.6.c Appointment of Ashton Desmangles to the Richmond Youth Council APPOINT Ashton Desmangles to the Richmond Youth Council, with a term that expires October 1, 2025 – Mayor’s Office (Mayor Eduardo Martinez 510-620-6503).
W.6.d Appointment of Isabel Ziegler to the Historic Preservation Commission APPOINT Isabel Ziegler to the Historic Preservation Commission, with a term that expires July 31, 2026 – Mayor’s Office (Mayor Eduardo Martinez 510-620-6503).
16 cc21Jan2025 – ud/prc
W.6.e Appointment of Martha Jackson to the Urban Forest Advisory Committee APPOINT Martha Jackson to the Urban Forest Advisory Committee with a term expiring November 17, 2027 – Mayor’s Office (Mayor Eduardo Martinez 510-620-6503).
W.6.f Appointment of Bernadette Garcia-Roger to the Urban Forest Advisory Committee
APPOINT Bernadette Garcia-Roger to the Urban Forest Advisory Committee with a term expiring November 17, 2027 – Mayor’s Office (Mayor Eduardo Martinez 510-620-6503).
W.6.g Appointment of O’Neill Fernandez to the Human Rights and Human Relations Commission
APPOINT O’Neill Fernandez to an unexpired term on the Human Rights and Human Relations Commission, with a term ending March 30, 2025 – Mayor’s Office (Mayor Eduardo Martinez 510-620-6503).
W.6.h Appointment of Gerry La Londe-Berg to the Commission on Aging APPOINT Gerry La Londe-Berg to the Commission on Aging, term expires May 19, 2028 – Mayor’s Office (Mayor Eduardo Martinez 510- 620-6503).
W.6.i Appointment of Gregory Brooks to the Workforce Development Board APPOINT Gregory Brooks to an unexpired term on the Workforce Development Board, with a term ending September 22, 2026 – Mayor’s Office (Mayor Eduardo Martinez 510-620-6503).
W.6.j Appointment of Ode Kunthar to the Richmond Youth Council APPOINT Ode Kunthar to the Richmond Youth Council, term expires October 1, 2025 – Mayor’s Office (Mayor Eduardo Martinez 510-620- 6503).
W.6.k Appointment of Gina Baker to the Richmond Workforce Development Board
APPOINT Gina Baker to the Richmond Workforce Development Board, term expires September 22, 2026 – Mayor’s Office (Mayor Eduardo Martinez 510-620-6503).
W.7 Police Department
W.7.a Approve a third contract amendment with Flock Group Inc.
APPROVE a third contract amendment with Flock Group to increase the contract expenditure by $1,000,000, for a total not to exceed $2,037,000 with a term beginning March 1, 2023, and ending on February 28, 2026 – Police Department (Chief Bisa French 510-621-1802).
Police Chief Bisa French gave an overview.
Sara Cantor and Emily Ross gave comments.
Discussion ensued.
City council requested a report on the impact of the cameras on solving crimes and recovering vehicles before and after the installation of the cameras.
17 cc21Jan2025 – ud/prc
After further discussion, a motion to approve the contract was made.
Motion by Vice Mayor Cesar Zepeda
Seconded by Councilmember Soheila Bana
Ayes (4): Councilmembers Soheila Bana, Jamelia Brown, Doria Robinson, and Vice Mayor Cesar Zepeda.
Noes (3): Councilmembers Claudia Jimenez, Sue Wilson, and Mayor Eduardo Martinez
Passed
W.7.b Sole-Source Agreement with Royal Flooring to Install Carpeting at the Police Department.
APPROVE a sole-source agreement with Royal Flooring to replace the Police Department’s carpet throughout the first floor of the station for a total not to exceed amount of $100,000, which includes a 6.3 percent contingency – Police Department (Chief Bisa French 510-621-1802).
W.8 Public Works
W.8.a Wastewater Treatment Plant Fence Upgrades – Contract with Pisor Fence ADOPT a resolution approving a new contract with Pisor Fence Division, Inc., to satisfy payment for completing the replacement of the damaged fence at the Wastewater Treatment Plant, in an amount not to exceed $126,960 - Public Works Department (Mary Phelps 510-621-1269/Daniel Chavarria 510-620-5478).
Adopted Resolution No. 6-25.
W.8.b First Amendment to Construction Agreement with W.R. Forde Associates, Inc. for the 37th Street Bicycle & Pedestrians Improvements Project to Increase Contract Amount By $121,236.30
ADOPT a resolution to approve the first amendment to the construction agreement with W.R. Forde Associates, Inc. for the 37th Street Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvements Project to increase the contract amount by $121,236.30 for the final change order that addresses unforeseen project conditions, for an amended total contract amount not to exceed $925,777.40; and APPROPRIATE funds in the amount of $46,288.37 in the SB1 RMRA Fund 1019; and ACCEPT the 37th Street project as complete to enable the City to release the contractor’s bonds and retention payment - Public Works Department (Robert Armijo 510-620-5477/Hillal Hamdan 510-621-1612).
Adopted Resolution No. 7-25.
W.8.c Resolution to request the Metropolitan Transportation Commission to allocate Transportation Development Act Article 3 Pedestrian/Bicycle Project funding for the Downtown Point Richmond Bicycle Connectivity Project.
ADOPT a resolution authorizing the city manager or their designee to submit a grant application to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the allocation of Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Transportation Development Act Funding Article 3 Pedestrian/Bicycle Project Funding and if awarded, ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE the funds to implement the Downtown 18 cc21Jan2025 – ud/prc
Point Richmond Bicycle Connectivity Project – Public Works Department (Janney Lockman 510-307-8097/Robert Armijo 510-620-5477/Daniel Chavarria 510-620-5478).
Public Works Director Daniel Chavarria and City Engineer Robert Armijo gave an overview.
Councilmembers expressed concern regarding the process on how projects were chosen to be funded, which should include the entire city and requested the following: that bike maps and traffic safety were prioritized with community input; look at all areas of the city for projects and map all of the planned projects and cost by district; prepare a rubric for projects to ensure equity; who was being served and was at the best place to construct the project; a study session to discuss the list of projects that were non- regional with a matrix for the prioritization of the projects.
Bruce Beyaert gave comments.
A motion was made to conduct community meetings for future projects to ensure equity for projects throughout the city.
Motion by Vice Mayor Cesar Zepeda
Seconded by Councilmember Soheila Bana
Ayes (7): Councilmembers Soheila Bana, Jamelia Brown, Claudia Jimenez, Doria Robinson, Sue Wilson, Vice Mayor Cesar Zepeda, and Mayor Eduardo Martinez
Passed
Adopted Resolution No. 8-25
X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS: REFERRALS TO STAFF, AND GENERAL REPORTS (INCLUDING AB 1234 REPORTS)(limited to two minutes per
Councilmember)(public comments allowed under Open Forum) Vice Mayor Zepeda reported the following: he attended the Martin Luther King community event; the Canet Cuba art exhibit was displayed in the council chambers; and the Rosie the Riveter Dinner event was on Wednesday, January 22, 2025, at 5 pm.
Councilmember Robinson reported that she attended meetings regarding the community empowerment zone to bring green sustainable businesses to Contra Costa County.
Councilmember Jimenez reported that she attended know your rights trainings with Faith in Action and the Contra Costa County Public Defender's Office about how to protect immigrants.
Councilmember Wilson reported that she attended the Eastshore Neighborhood Council and discussed concerns about unhoused individuals near railroad tracks and safety concerns on Carlson Avenue.
Councilmember Bana reported the following: she met with West Contra Costa Transportation Authority (WCCTAC) regarding concerns with road capacity and density on roads. Caltrans allocated $1.5 million for a countywide evacuation plan; there would be a HAM Radio class at Booker T Anderson on February 1, 2025; and thanked Officer Ross for the police ride-a-long.
Y. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:37 p.m., to meet again on January 28, 2025.
19 cc21Jan2025 – ud/prc
Clerk of the City of Richmond Mayor
20 cc28Jan2025 – ud/prc
RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA,
January 28, 2025, 4:30 p.m.
Community Services Building
440 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
_____________________________________________________________________
A. OPEN SESSION TO HEAR PUBLIC COMMENT BEFORE CLOSED SESSION The meeting was called to order at 4:37 p.m. by Mayor Eduardo Martinez.
B. ROLL CALL
Present: Councilmembers Soheila Bana, Jamelia Brown, Claudia Jimenez, Doria Robinson, Sue Wilson, Vice Mayor Cesar Zepeda, and Mayor Eduardo Martinez.
Absent: None.
C. CLOSED SESSION
C.1 CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (Government Code Section 54956.8)
Property: 425 24th Street, Richmond, CA 94804 (Homekey Program at Motel 6 location)
Agency Negotiators: Nannette Beacham, Lina Velasco, Jesus Morales Negotiating Parties: Novin Development, Insight Housing Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment
C.2 CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Government Code
Section 54957.6)
Agency Representatives: Sharrone Taylor, Jack Hughes, Lisa Charbonneau Employee organizations:
1. SEIU Local 1021 Full Time Unit and Part Time Unit
2. IFPTE Local 21 Mid-Level Management Unit and Executive Management Units
3. Richmond Police Officers Association RPOA
4. Richmond Police Management Association RPMA
5. IAFF Local 188
6. Richmond Fire Management Association RFMA
C.3 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EV ALUATION (Government Code Section 54957)
Title: City Attorney
C.4 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION (PARAGRAPH (1) of Subdivision [d] of Government Code Section 54956.9) The Guidiville Rancheria of California, et al., v. The United States of America, et al.
21 cc28Jan2025 – ud/prc
D. PUBLIC COMMENT BEFORE CLOSED SESSION (limited to items on the Closed Session agenda only)
Cordell Hindler gave comments in favor of a positive evaluation for City Attorney Dave Aleshire and also in support of the labor negotiations.
Mark Wassberg spoke against the Homekey Program at Motel 6.
E. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION
The meeting adjourned at 4:42 p.m. Closed Session adjourned at 6:31 p.m.
F. REGULAR MEETING OF THE RICHMOND CITY COUNCIL
The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. by Mayor Eduardo Martinez.
G. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Eduardo Martinez led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
H. ROLL CALL
Present: Councilmembers Soheila Bana, Jamelia Brown, Claudia Jimenez, Doria Robinson, Sue Wilson, Vice Mayor Cesar Zepeda, and Mayor Eduardo Martinez.
Absent: None.
I. STATEMENT OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
None.
J. AGENDA REVIEW
Item N.4.a - Budget book compilation and publishing services to prepare this policy document under Government Finance Officers Association guidelines was continued to the February 18, 2025, City Council meeting. Item N.7.a - Crime Report from Police Chief and Item N.7.c - Three-year contract with Allied Universal Security Services was removed from the agenda for discussion.
K. REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY OF FINAL DECISIONS MADE
DURING CLOSED SESSION
C.1 CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (Government Code Section 54956.8)
Property: 425 24th Street, Richmond, CA 94804 (Homekey Program at Motel 6 location)
Agency Negotiators: Nannette Beacham, Lina Velasco, Jesus Morales Negotiating Parties: Novin Development, Insight Housing Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment
A status report was made, and direction was given to the city negotiators.
C.2 CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Government Code Section 54957.6)
Agency Representatives: Sharrone Taylor, Jack Hughes, Lisa Charbonneau Employee organizations:
1. SEIU Local 1021 Full Time Unit and Part Time Unit
2. IFPTE Local 21 Mid-Level Management Unit and Executive Management Units
3. Richmond Police Officers Association RPOA
22 cc28Jan2025 – ud/prc
4. Richmond Police Management Association RPMA
5. IAFF Local 188
6. Richmond Fire Management Association RFMA
Not discussed.
C.3 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EV ALUATION (Government Code Section 54957)
Title: City Attorney
Not discussed.
C.4 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION (PARAGRAPH (1) of Subdivision [d] of Government Code Section 54956.9) The Guidiville Rancheria of California, et al. v. The United States of America, et al.
A status report was given. No reportable action was taken.
L. REPORT FROM THE CITY MANAGER (public comment allowed under Open Forum)
City Manager Shasa Curl presented the report.
Link to the report: City Manager's Report
M. OPEN FORUM FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
(public comment on items that remain on the Consent Calendar or items not on the agenda - limited to 2 minutes unless otherwise specified - Back and forth dialogue with the Council is prohibited)
Cordell Hindler expressed concern for the late-night city council meetings that city staff have to attend. Mr. Hindler also stated that he attended the Richmond Chamber Commerce mixer and no officials from the City of Richmond attended.
Don Gosney gave comments regarding the consent calendar and the process to remove items for discussion.
Liz Woods and Philina Cosby stated the Nevin Plaza construction was hazardous to residents who reside there.
Mark Wassberg gave comments regarding Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids and deportations.
Joe Puleo spoke in favor of the measures being taken by the city regarding sideshows.
Kathleen Wimmer thanked the city council for providing additional legal protections to undocumented immigrants who reside in Richmond and for adopting an interim urgency ordinance regarding moratorium on parklets.
Sara Cantor spoke in support of protections for undocumented immigrants and suggested safe zones, and a clear prohibition of city collaboration with ICE.
N. CITY COUNCIL CONSENT CALENDAR
(All items placed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and noncontroversial. These items will be enacted upon together with a motion and second, without discussion, of any member of the City Council, and each item shall be deemed to have received the action recommended.)
The motion to approve the consent calendar excludes the following items:
23 cc28Jan2025 – ud/prc
Item N.4.a - Budget book compilation and publishing services to prepare this policy document under Government Finance Officers Association guidelines was continued to the February 18, 2025, City Council meeting. Item N.7.a - Crime Report from Police Chief and Item N.7.c - Three-year contract with Allied Universal Security Services was removed from the agenda for discussion.
Motion by Councilmember Doria Robinson
Seconded by Vice Mayor Cesar Zepeda
Ayes (7): Councilmember Soheila Bana, Councilmember Jamelia Brown, Councilmember Claudia Jimenez, Councilmember Doria Robinson, Councilmember Sue Wilson, Vice Mayor Cesar Zepeda, and Mayor Eduardo Martinez Passed
N.1 City Attorney's Office
N.1.a Interim Urgency Ordinance re Moratorium on Parklets within the City APPROVE the Interim Urgency Ordinance to establish a 45-day moratorium on the establishment of new Parklets, expansion of existing Parklets, or the extension of the term of existing Parklets within City limits to allow for the City’s review and adoption of permanent zoning regulations for such uses to ensure public health, safety, and welfare - City Attorney’s Office (Dave Aleshire 510-620-6509).
Adopted Ordinance No. 05-25 N.S.
N.2 City Council
N.2.a Explore providing additional legal protections to undocumented immigrants who reside in Richmond
N.3 Economic Development
N.3.a Contract with CSW/Stuber-Stroeh Engineering Group, Inc.
N.4 Finance Department
N.4.a Budget book compilation and publishing services to prepare this policy document under Government Finance Officers Association guidelines APPROVE a contract with Govdollars Consulting to provide Budget Book compilation services, in an amount not to exceed $66,000, over a three- year term from February 1, 2025, through January 31, 2028, with an option to extend the contract an additional two years – Finance Department (Andrea Miller 510-620-6790/Mubeen Qader 510-412- 2077/Jerry Gurule 510-620-6591).
Item continued to the February 18, 2025, City Council meeting.
N.5 Human Resources
N.5.a Amend Staffing (Position Control)
ADOPT a resolution amending staffing (position control) to reallocate existing positions – Human Resources Department (Nickie Mastay/Sharrone Taylor 510-620-6602).
Adopted Resolution No. 9-25.
N.5.b Parental Leave Enhancement for all Bargaining Groups 24 cc28Jan2025 – ud/prc
ADOPT a resolution approving side letters with all bargaining groups increasing Parental Leave from one week to four weeks for 37.5- hour/week and 40-hour/week employees and eight shifts for 56-hour/week employees – City Manager’s Office/Human Resources Department (Shasa Curl 510-620-6512/Nickie Mastay/Sharrone Taylor 510-620-6803).
Adopted Resolution No. 10-25.
N.6 Library and Community Services
N.6.a Approve a Sole-Source Contract Amendment with Charleston Mobility for Electric Bikeshare Operations
N.7 Police Department
N.7.a Crime Report from Police Chief
RECEIVE a written crime report from the Police Chief - Police Department (Chief Bisa French 510-621-1802).
Councilmember Bana asked for information on the reason for the recent increase in arsons and how they occurred. The city council requested the following: that misdemeanor crime, quality of life crimes and sideshows were included on future reports; the number of unsolved homicides in 2021; and a comparison of the last four years of the old way of reporting compared to the new crime data since 2021.
Jamin Pursell gave comments.
Motion by Councilmember Soheila Bana
Seconded by Councilmember Sue Wilson
Ayes (7): Councilmember Soheila Bana, Councilmember Jamelia Brown, Councilmember Claudia Jimenez, Councilmember Doria Robinson, Councilmember Sue Wilson, Vice Mayor Cesar Zepeda, and Mayor Eduardo Martinez
Passed
N.7.b First Contract Amendment with Napa Solano SANE/SART APPROVE the first contract amendment with Napa Solano SANE/SART to add funds of $100,000 for a total contract value not to exceed $148,000 for a contract term through February 28, 2027 – Police Department (Chief Bisa French 510-621-1819).
N.7.c Three-year contract with Allied Universal Security Services.
APPROVE a three-year contract with Allied Universal Security Services to provide security services throughout the City of Richmond for a total estimated cost not to exceed $1,916,153.99, which includes a five percent contingency, for the contract term January 1, 2025, through December 31, 2027, with two one-year extensions, if mutually agreed upon – Police Department (Chief Bisa French 510-621-1802).
Councilmembers requested the following: an analysis to determine if city employees could do the security work; a report from staff on what the city was using contractors for; what it would take to bring contractors in as city employees; and what the cost would be to transfer cost of security services to city staff as well as other services the city contracts out; limit the 25 cc28Jan2025 – ud/prc
contract to a one-year contract and return with data to perform the jobs in house with city staff; provide opportunities to get Richmond businesses hired; and conduct community outreach to local businesses.
Jamin Pursell gave comments.
The contract was approved as a one-year contract from January 1, 2025, through December 31, 2025, so staff could explore and bring data back to the city council for in house staff for outside contractors and include this data in the class and compensation study. The cost should also include a cost benefit analysis of all positions that could be brought in house.
Motion by Councilmember Sue Wilson
Seconded by Councilmember Claudia Jimenez
Ayes (7): Councilmember Soheila Bana, Councilmember Jamelia Brown, Councilmember Claudia Jimenez, Councilmember Doria Robinson, Councilmember Sue Wilson, Vice Mayor Cesar Zepeda, and Mayor Eduardo Martinez
Passed
N.8 Public Works
N.8.a December 2024 Abatement Presentation
N.8.b Contract Amendment No. 1 for Swinerton Management & Consulting for Terminal 4 Wharf Removal
O. STUDY AND ACTION SESSION
O.1 Presentation on Human Trafficking in Richmond and Proclamation RECEIVE a presentation from the Family Justice Center, the Contra Costa County Human Trafficking Task Force Director, and the Richmond Police Department on the current state of and collaborative efforts to combat human trafficking in Richmond and PROCLAMATION declaring January 2025 as Human Trafficking Prevention Month in the City of Richmond - Councilmember Soheila Bana (510-672-3490).
Councilmember Bana gave an overview. LaShara Johnson, Center Director, Family Justice Center West (Richmond), Katrina Natale, Director, Contra Costa Human Trafficking Task Force, and Seargent Florencio Rivera, Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault Unit, Richmond Police Department, gave the presentation.
Link to presentation: Human Trafficking in Richmond
Cordell Hindler, Mark Wassberg, and Sara Cantor gave comments.
The city council received the report and requested the following: how many individuals were helped, their outcomes, and what services were given; the budget for the phase 2 illumination along allies and progress on cutting bushes, trees, etc.
P. REPORTS OF OFFICERS: REFERRALS TO STAFF, AND GENERAL REPORTS (INCLUDING AB 1234 REPORTS)(limited to two minutes per
Councilmember)(public comments allowed under Open Forum) Councilmember Robinson reported that she attended the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC) meeting regarding the Richmond 26 cc28Jan2025 – ud/prc
Parkway Plan. She also reports that the Urban Forestry Advisory Commitee was revising a list of trees, expanding urban canopy not funded by grants. Over 600 trees were planted and 72 removed. Create standardized mulch and compost program. Working to coordinate greening efforts with shared organizations. Donations for native plants to urban forestry committee.
Vice Mayor Zepeda reported that he attended the following: Rosie the Riveter 25th Anniversary; the Richmond Fire cadet training; and the snowball event.
Mayor Martinez attended the snowball event and requested scholarship donations for future snowballs events.
Councilmember Brown reported the following: she attended the Richmond Chamber of Commerce and Rosie the Riveter events; the liquor store that requested a liquor license withdrew their application due to community opposition; and thanked the youth for working on the food ordinance.
Q. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m., in memory of Pedie Perez's mother, Julie Perez, to meet again on February 4, 2025, at 6:30 p.m.
Clerk of the City of Richmond Mayor
27
February 25, 2025
Economic Development
Port Division
DATE: February 25, 2025
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:
Charles Gerard, Port Director
Subject:
Port Contract with Haley and Aldrich, Inc. for Dredging Permitting Support and Slope Analysis at Terminal 2 and Other Port Areas
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The proposed expenditure is included within the approved Fiscal Year (FY) 2024-2025 Port budget.
Funds for this contract are available in Account String:
40163080-400708-36020 ($58,750); Account String:
40163080-400708-36021 ($45,000); Account String:
40163080-400708-36036 ($500,000).
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
NONE
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
Port of Richmond staff is seeking approval of a contract with Haley and Aldrich, Inc. to secure permits for the
required maintenance dredging at Terminal 2, the Point
Potrero Marine Terminal Berths 7 and 8, the Marina Bay
Yacht Harbor, and to conduct a slope analysis at
Terminal 2.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
APPROVE a contract agreement with Haley and Aldrich,
Inc. in the amount of $254,100, to secure permits to
complete required maintenance dredging at Terminal 2,
the Point Potrero Marine Terminal Berths 7 and 8, the
Marina Bay Yacht Harbor, and conduct slope analysis at
Terminal 2 with a term ending June 30, 2026, and
APPROVE the transfer of $150,350 between projects in
the Port’s Fiscal Year 2024-2025 budget – Economic
AGENDA
REPORT
28
February 25, 2025
Development Department (Charles Gerard 510-620-
6792).
DISCUSSION:
Maintenance dredging is an important responsibility for a deep-water port like the Port of Richmond (Port) to be efficient in its operations. Port dredging involves scooping sedimentation that gradually fills the terminal berth areas. For the dredging to occur, the Port needs to complete technical studies necessary to acquire permits from the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and Bay Conservation and Development Commission.
The Port must maintain a water depth at its berth areas for navigation of vessels. The required depths for Terminal 2 and the Point Potrero Marine Terminal (PPMT) Berths 7 and 8 is between 33 and 37 feet at mean lower low water (MLLW). The Marina Bay Yacht Harbor (MBYH) channel entrance is required to be maintained to 12 to 13 feet below MLLW.
In November 2024, the Port advertised the project for public bid through the City’s Bids Online system (Attachment 1). The Port’s Request for Proposal (RFP) outlined a scope of services that included technical studies necessary to acquire permits to perform the required maintenance dredging and to further evaluate Terminal 2. As an optional service, they submitted a scope to provide support for permitting the dredging of the entrance channel to the Marina Bay Yacht Harbor (MBYH).
In December 2024, responses were due. The Port received two proposals, listed alphabetically, from the following firms:
1. Haley and Aldrich, Inc., Walnut Creek
2. Moffatt and Nichol, Walnut Creek
Port staff reviewed the proposals and ranked Haley and Aldrich, Inc. as the most qualified vendor (Attachment 2). The Port recommends awarding the complete scope of work as outlined to Haley and Aldrich, Inc. because this organization has demonstrated its ability to provide the services with internal resources as opposed to outsourcing multiple scope of work elements (Attachment 3). The dredging planning, analysis and permitting is the core business for Haley and Aldrich, Inc. Lastly, this organization completed projects with two private terminals within the geographic Port of Richmond, the Levin Richmond Terminal and International-Matex Tank Terminals (IMTT), demonstrating that they have current and recent experience within Richmond’s Harbor Channel.
Scope of Services
The Port requires the consultant to perform all tasks necessary to secure the permits to complete the maintenance dredging at Terminal 2, the PPMT Berths 7 and 8. These tasks include:
29
February 25, 2025
1. Complete a Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) to characterize the sediment at the project site.
2. Perform field sampling and analysis of the sediment consistent with the SAP and summarize the results in a Sediment Characterization Results (SCR) document.
3. Obtain permits to complete dredging of Terminal 2, the Point Potrero Marine Terminal Berths 7 and 8, and slope analysis at Terminal 2. If possible, secure a permit for dredging of the MBYH in 2025, as an optional service.
4. Provide permitting support including compilation of a joint Dredge Material Management Office (DMMO) application for a multi-year permit (10 years) for maintenance dredging from the United State Army Corp of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, as well as the Bay Conservation and Development Commission for Terminal 2, the Point Potrero Marine Terminal Berths 7 and 8, and the MBYH.
In addition, Haley and Aldrich, Inc. will evaluate the existing recommendations for Terminal 2 slope repair and provide a recommendation to advance the design that will include plans and cost to construct. To support the effort, the consultant may recommend additional sampling of underlying soils.
A budget transfer from the Port’s Storm Drain Improvements account is sought to complete the work and award the contract of $254,100 to Haley and Aldrich, Inc. The Storm Drain Improvements project will be planned for fiscal year 2026.
Once work commences in 2025, the project is expected to be completed no later than June 2026.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
As this is maintenance work, the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – RFP for Dredging Services
Attachment 2 – RFP Rating and Ranking Sheet
Attachment 3 – Contract with Haley and Aldrich, Inc.
30 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
PERMITTING FOR DREDGING AND TERMINAL 2 SLOPE ANALYSIS
The Port of Richmond (“Port”) is requesting proposals from consultants to complete technical studies necessary to acquire permits to perform maintenance dredging at Terminal 2, t he Point Potrero Marine Terminal (PPMT) Berths 7 and 8 . As an optional service, provide support for permitting dredging of the entrance c hannel to the Marina Bay Yacht Harbor (MBYH). We present the locations of the proposed dredge episodes in Attachment A. The Port seeks permits to dredge the berths at Terminal 2 and PPMT to a depth of between 33 and 37 feet at mean lower low water (MLLW) and the MBYH to 12 to 13 feet below MLLW.
Dredging last occurred at the MBYH and PPMT in 2017 as well as at Terminal 2 in 2021 . The Port completed a bathymetric survey of these facilities in 2024, which we include in Attachment B. In 2016, the Port dredged Terminal 2 and found instability in the adjacent slope, which we evaluated in 2021; we include the evaluation in Attachment C. The 2021 dredge followed the recommendations in Alternative 1 without issue.
The Port seeks a consultant to perform the technical studies and acquire permits from the United State s Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and Bay Conservation and Development Commission. In addition, the Port would like further evaluation for Terminal 2 as detailed in Attachment C.
The Port of Richmond has 10 -Year dredging permit for Terminals 2, 3, 7, and 8 which expires in 2027 as well as an expired 10-year permit for Terminal 2. See the permit included in Attachment G. The following tables illustrate previous dredging events. Note that there remains about 126,000 CY of dredge material under the 10-year permit for Terminals 2, 3, 7, and 8.
Port of Richmond Previous Dredge Episodes Since 2010
Date Volume (CY) Terminal
11/15/2011 53,817 MBYH
11/19/2015 14,756 2
8/15/2017 44,802 7 and 8
8/15/2017 33,103 MBYH
2/15/22 4,000 2
Port of Richmond USACE 10-Year Dredge Permits
Location
Allowed
Volume (CY)
Expiration
Date Permit #
Total
Volume
Remaining
Volume
Terminals 2, 3, 7, and 8 171,000 6.1.2027 2016-00302S 44,802 126,198 Terminal 2 50,000 12.31.2024 2015-00092S 18,756 Expired
The Port seeks permits to complete the dredging of Terminals 2, 7, and 8 in 2025. 31 RFP – Permitting for Dredging and Terminal 2 Slope Analysis
Scope Of Services
The Port requires the consultant to perform all tasks necessary to secure the permits to complete the maintenance dredging at Terminals 2, 7, and 8. At a minimum, these tasks include:
1. Complete a Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) to characterize the sediment at the project site.
2. Perform field sampling and analysis of the sediment consistent with the SAP and summarize the results in a Sediment Characterization Results (SCR) document.
3. Obtain permits to complete dredging of Terminals 2, 7, and 8 for the work to be completed in 2025. If possible, secure a permit for dredging of the MBYH in 2025 as an optional service.
4. Provide permitting support including compilation of a joint Dredge Material Management Office (DMMO) application for a multi- year permit (10 years) for maintenance dredging from the United State Army Corp of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, as well as the Bay Conservation and Development Commission for Terminals 2, 3, 7, 8, and the MBYH.
In addition, we seek a consultant to e valuate the existing recommendations for Terminal 2 and provide a recommendation to advance one to the 10% level of design that would include plans and cost to construct.
To support the effort, the consultant may recommend additional sampling of underlying soils.
Port Furnished Materials
The Port will provide the following information and materials to the selected Consultant:
1. AutoCAD version of the dredging limits illustrated in Attachment 1.
2. Review and comment of the SAP, SCR, and permit conditions.
3. Plans and specifications for maintenance dredging of all facilities.
4. Past permits or reports of previous dredging activity at the Port, if available.
Proposal Requirements
If you are interested in providing a proposal for this effort, in less than 1 0 pages (single sided with a 1 0- point font), please provide the following information:
A. Cover letter detailing your interest in the project and contact information. In the letter describe your compliance with Richmond’s ordinances as well as review of any addenda issued.
B. A discussion of the understanding of the work required to acquire the permits and any strategies to expedite acquisition. Permitting must be ready for construction in 2025 as noted above.
C. A scope of services illustrating tasks and deliverables.
D. A schedule of activities and key milestones.
E. The list of key personnel assigned to the project and their expertise with permitting for maintenance dredging.
F. A description of similar maintenance dredging and slope stability projects.
G. Three (3) references and contact information
H. A total “not to exceed” fee quotation separating the permitting and Terminal 2 planning , 10-year permits, and MBYH as separate tasks. This is not counted to the page limit. 32 RFP – Permitting for Dredging and Terminal 2 Slope Analysis
Please note that all work must be inclusive of the following:
1. City of Richmond Ordinance No. 16-12 N.S. Richmond Business Opportunity Ordinance.
2. City of Richmond Ordnance Number 15-10 N.S. Local Employment Ordinance.
3. Compensation shall be consistent with Prevailing Wage Requirements as required by the Department of Industrial Relations.
4. Execute an agreement with the City of Richmond ; a copy of which is included in Attachment D.
No changes to this agreement will be made.
5. The City of Richmond requires consultants doing business with it to obtain insurance, as shown in the Attachment D Standard Contract’s Exhibit F. The required insurance certificates must comply with all requirements of the standards as shown and must be provided within fifteen (15) days of issuance of the Notice of Intent to Award and prior to the commencement of any work on the Project.
6. The successful Contractor and all subcontractors used in the work will be required to hold or to obtain a City of Richmond business license for which the fee will not be waived.
7. The Richmond Sanctuary City Contracting Ordinance No. 12-18 (Attachment E) prohibits the City from granting and or retaining contracts 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”). Proposers must submit the attached Sanctuary City Compliance Statement with their Proposal. (Attachment E)
8. Resolution No. 86-21 (Attachment F), approved by City Council on July 6, 2021, requires disclosure of the identities of beneficial & responsible owners of Limited Liability Corporations (LLC). Proposers must submit the attached Disclosure Statement of Limited Liability Companies Form with their Proposal (Attachment F)
Schedule
The Port anticipates this effort will be completed as follows:
Task Date
Release RFP November 20, 2024
Response Due December 16, 2024
Negotiations with Vendor December 2024
City Council Approves Agreement January 2025
Notice to Proceed February 2025
Acquire Permits for Terminals 2, 7, and 8 August 2025
Finalize Remaining Tasks December 2025
Submittal Process
Any questions from prospective vendors must be submitted via the electronic BidsOnline system no later than 5:00 p.m., December 3, 2024. As necessary, responses to questions will be issued via an addendum.
33 RFP – Permitting for Dredging and Terminal 2 Slope Analysis
Electronic Proposals shall be submitted via the City’s secure online bidding system. All required sections of the proposal must be submitted via the website. Vendor is solely responsible for “on time” submission of their electronic proposal. The Bid Management System will not accept late proposals and no exceptions shall be made. Contractors will receive an e -bid confirmation number with a time stamp from the Bid Management System indicating that their bid was submitted successfully. The City will only receive those proposals that were transmitted successfully no later than 2:00 p.m., December 16 , 2024.
Evaluation Criteria
The sole purpose of the proposal evaluation process is to determine which solution best meets the Port’s needs. The Port will review all proposals received as part of a structured evaluation process. For each decision point in the process, the Port will evaluate proposers according to specific criteria.
A review committee will evaluate all responses to the RFP that meet the submittal requirements and deadline. Submittals that do not meet the requirement or deadline will not be considered. The review committee will rank the proposals and arrange interviews of the top two or three firms if deemed necessary.
The table below describes the criteria that will be used to review proposals and interview performance , if deemed necessary. The Port offers a total of 100 points, weighted as follows:
Criteria Total Points Available
The overall experience of the team as evidenced by
recent representative projects 50
Strategy to acquire permits allowing for
maintenance dredging as quickly as possible 50
Adherence to the parameters contained in this RFP. 10
Port’s Rights Reserved
For this RFP, City and Port are used interchangeably. The Port reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to:
• Select the proposal which in its sole judgment best meets the needs of the City. The recommended selection of the evaluation committee is final and subject only to review and final approval by the City Council.
• Reject any or all proposals and to waive technicalities and informalities when such waiver is determined by the City to be in the City’s best interest. • Retain all accepted proposals, including proprietary documentation, regardless of which proposal is selected. No proposals will be returned to proposers. • Request any supplementary information it deems necessary to evaluate proposer’s experience or qualifications. This may include supplemental financial information, additional interview(s), and/or additional presentation by the proposer. 34 RFP – Permitting for Dredging and Terminal 2 Slope Analysis
• Reconsider any proposal submitted at any stage of the procurement. It also reserves the right to meet with select proposers at any time to gather additional information.
Furthermore, the City reserves the right to delete or add functionality (i.e., modules and components) until the final contract signing.
• Cancel, in part or in its entirety, this RFP, including, but not limited to: selection schedule, submittal date, and submittal requirements. If the City cancels or revises this RFP, all proposers will be notified by the City.
• Revise the RFP prior to the date that proposals are due. The City will communicate changes through addendum to this RFP. All registered proposers will be notified of revisions to the RFP. The City reserves the right to extend the date by which the proposals are due. • To reject any and all proposals and to waive informalities and minor irregularities in any proposals received. Failure to furnish all information requested or to follow the format as determined by City, in its sole discretion, requested herein , may disqualify the proposer .
False, incomplete, misleading or unresponsive statements in a proposal may also be sufficient cause for a proposal’s rejection.
Finally, the Port notes the following:
• This RFP does not commit the City to award a contract. All proposals submitted in response to this RFP become the property of the City and public records, and as such, may be subject to public review.
• The City shall not be liable for any pre -contractual expenses incurred by prospective proposers or designated subcontractors, including but not limited to costs incurred in the preparation or submission of proposals.
• The City shall be held harmless and free from any and all liability, claims, or expenses whatsoever incurred by, or on behalf of, any person or organization responding to this RFP. • The City of Richmond administers grant funds from various local, state, and Federal sources.
All grant-funded expenditures shall comply with the terms and conditions of the grant and the applicable Federal, State, and Local requirements for such expenditures. • Contracts awarded under this solicitation shall/may be funded, in whole or in part, with Federal grant funding. All Federal grant awards are subject to Uniform Administrative Requirements and Cost Principles, codified in 2 CFR 200. See 2 CFR 200 Appendix II.
Bids Online Codes
90742
91843
92500
96109
95900
35 ATTACHMENT A
DREDGING AREAS
36 37
RFP – Permitting for Dredging and Terminal 2 Slope Analysis
ATTACHMENT B
BATHYMETRIC SURVEY
38 SEE SEPARATE DOCUMENT
39 RFP – Permitting for Dredging and Terminal 2 Slope Analysis A
TTACHMENT C
T
ERMINAL 2 SLOPE ANALSYIS
40 Memorandum February 15, 2021
130 Battery Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, California 94111
415.230.0862
\\sf1\sf\PROJECTS\Bou dr eau _Assoc i at es\200600-01.01 - Port of Richmond Terminal 2\Deliverables\Geotech Evaluation Memo\Terminal 2 Geotechnical Design Memo_021421.docx
\\sf1\sf\PROJECTS\Bou dr eau _Assoc i at es\200600-01.01 - Port of Richmond Terminal 2\Deliverables\Geotech Evaluation Memo\Terminal 2 Geotechnical Design Memo_021421.docx
To: Robert Stevens, CSWST2, and Christine Boudreau, Boudreau, LLC From: Michael Whelan, PE, and Casey Janisch, PE, Anchor QEA, LLC cc: Jaclyn Gnusti, Anchor QEA, LLC
Re: Slope Stability Evaluation
Port of Richmond Terminal 2 Maintenance Dredging
Richmond, California
Introduction
The purpose of this memorandum is to describe Anchor QEA, LLC’s evaluation of the geotechnical stability of the side slopes adjacent to the proposed berth maintenance at the Port of Richmond’s Terminal 2 facility. The proposed maintenance entails dredging the berth to required elevations of −32 to −35 feet mean lower low water (MLLW). Each option would also include a potential over - dredge of 2 feet. to −37 feet MLLW.
A geotechnical evaluation has been performed to assess the stability of bank side slopes adjacent to the proposed dredging area . The stability analysis consisted of evaluating the slope prior to and after removal of the dredged material at the toe of the slope to determine the effect of dredging on the side slope factor of safety (FOS).
The following are presented in this memorandum:
• Discussion of subsurf ace conditions, including the following:
‒ A generalized soil profile developed from review of cone penetrometer testing (CPT) ‒ Derivation of soil properties and engineering parameters used in the stability evaluation • Presentation and discussion of the geotec hnical evaluations of slope stability for pre - and post-dredge conditions
• Presentation of conclusions, recommendations, and design considerations with respect to the proposed dredging
The evaluations and conclusions presented herein are based on our understanding of the Port of Richmond’s dredging needs and on the current geometry of the bank side slopes as of the date of this memorandum. Any changes to these assumptions and expectations may affect the results of the analyses and conclusions and would require a re-evaluation. 41 February 15, 2021
Subsurface Conditions
A bathymetric survey of the site was completed by eTrac on September 3, 2020. This survey included bathymetry of the proposed dredge area up the bank to the waterline. This information was used to develop the geologic profile for stability evaluation. The complete set of bat hymetry survey sheets, with annotations added to represent the slope stability analyses and conclusions, are provided in Attachment 1.
Subsurface Investigations
A subsurface investigation of the site was performed by Anchor QEA in December 2020, consisting of two CPT investigations from the upland bank of the shoreline adjacent to the termin al. Each CPT was performed to a depth of 50.5 feet below ground surface.
The number, location, and depth of explorations w ere selected by Anchor QEA based upon the expected site conditions, the proposed project limits, and site access. Exploration locations were recorded in the field with a handheld differential global positioning system ( DGPS). The CPTs performed by ConeTec were used to develop soil profiles and determine soil engineering properties .
The CPT report is provided in Attachment 2.
Subsurface Soil Profile
The following is a description of the generalized subsurface soil profile, with a discussion of the key characteristics of the major soil units encountered during our investigation, listed in order from the ground surface downward.
• Fill: The uppermost 8 to 9 feet of the shoreline bank consists of sandy fill material. This unit is interpreted as previously placed fill that was used to build up the site adjacent to the terminal.
The top 5 feet of this layer were excavated by hand for utility clearance . • Bay Mud: Underlying the fill material, bay mud was found. This silty to clayey layer extends to a depth of 42 to 44 feet below ground surface. This unit begins at a soft to medium stiff consistency and exhibits increas ing strength with depth. • Sand: The sand unit was encountered below the bay mud, starting at a depth of approximately 42 to 44 feet below ground surface and extending to approximately 48 feet below ground surface. There were interbedded laminations of silt and sandy silt recorded sporadically throughout this layer.
Groundwater
The depth to groundwater was not directly observed during the exploration program, and piezometers were not installed. Due to the site’s proximity to the bay, groundwater levels are expected to fluctuate with the tidal cycle.
42 February 15, 2021
Engineering Soil Properties
Engineering soil properties are listed in Table 1. These parameters were derived using the results of the CPT testing, interpreted in concert with engineering properties of similar subsurface deposits in the region. Strength parameters for stability evaluations were derived from Table 6 and Figure 7 of the Naval Facilities Engineering Command Soil Mechanics: Design Manual 7.01 (NAVFAC 1986).
Table 1
Strength Parameters for Stability Evaluations
Soil Unit
Depth Below
Ground Surface
(feet)
Total Unit Weight
(pcf)
Effective Friction
Angle (degrees)
Effective
Cohesion
(psf)
Fill 0 to 9 120 35 --
Bay Mud 9 to 44 115 25 to 29a 600 to 1,400b
Sand > 44 120 38 --
Notes:
a. The effective friction angle of this layer varied, increasing with depth. b. The effective cohesion of this layer varied, increasing with depth. pcf: pounds per cubic foot
psf: pounds per square foot
Slope Stability Evaluations
Slope stability was evaluated for slope conditions typical for Terminal 2, based on the 2020 bathymetric survey (Attachment 1). The analysis assumed 2 feet of allowable over -dredging would occur at the dredge footprint .
Slope stability was evaluated using limit equilibrium methods ( LEM) coded in the Rocscience Slide2 software package. The LEM procedure calculates the FOS as the resisting force (i.e. , soil strength) divided by the driving force (i.e. , weight of the soil mass plus other external loads). The F OS was computed for a suite of assumed trial “slip surfaces” that were identified using a search routine in the software . The search routine iteratively optimized the geometry of the slip surfaces until the lowest FOS was identified, and that surface was presented as the “critical” slip surface. The LEM procedure satisfied both force and moment equilibrium in the free -body diagram.
Stability was evaluated for the existing (pre-dredging) condition and for four potential dredge conditions, as follows:
• Alternative 1: dredging to a target elevation of −32 feet MLLW over as much of the berth as possible without destabilizing the slope
• Alternative 2: dredging to a target elevation of −35 feet MLLW, to the greatest extent possible without destabilizing the slope
43 February 15, 2021
• Alternative 3: dredging to a target elevation of −35 feet MLLW without an offset and sloping the bank from toe of slope
• Alternative 4: installing a sheet pile wall at the toe of slope to support dredging to an elevation of −37 feet MLLW over the full berthing area
Up to 2 feet of overdredge allowance is envisioned for each dredging alternative.
Slope Stability Evaluation Results and Recommendations
The soil profile and strength parameters used for the slope stability evaluation are presented in Table 1. A target FOS of 1.5 is the minimum recommended FOS for long-term stability evaluations and is based on recommendations presented in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2003) and Duncan and Wright (2005).
Our evaluation indicated that the current bank slopes are below the recommended long-term FOS of
1.5 for static conditions, and below 1.0 for a seismic event with a return period of 2,475 years, indicating the potential for movement of the slope materials in a sufficiently large earthquake . It would be necessary to regrade or add structural support elements to the slope in order to achieve the recommended FOSs for static and seismic conditions.
The dredging alternatives presented below describe how to perform each alternative without further decreasing the existing FOS of the slope . (It is important to recognize that these recommendations do not increase the current stability of the slope .) The alternatives are generally described relative to an estimated Berthing Line, which generally follows the waterward edge of existing berthing structures at Terminal 2.
Alternative 1: The site can be dredged to a consistent elevation of −32 feet MLLW to the existing toe of slope without impacting the existing stability of the slope . Refer to Attachment 1, Sheet A1.
Alternative 2: The site can be dredged to an elevation of − 32 feet MLLW at the toe of the slope , as in Alternative 1. The remaining site can be dredged to an elevation of −35 feet MLLW while maintaining a minimum offset of 20 feet from the toe of the slope to maintain the existing stability of the slope. Refer to Sheet A2.
Alternative 3: The site can be dredged to an elevation of − 35 feet MLLW at the toe of the slope if the entire slope is cut back at an angle of 2H:1V. This option would impact the upland portion of the site to accommodate the extension of this slope. Further design work would be needed to implement this alternative. Refer to Sheet A 3.
Alternative 4: Installation of a sheet pile wall at the toe of the slope would allow dredging to the desired depth of −35 feet MLLW (or deeper, depending on the structural design of the wall) , but 44 February 15, 2021
would require substantial cost expenditure. Further design work would be needed to implement this alternative. Refer to Sheet A4.
The seismic condition of the slope was analyzed, confirming that the post-dredge condition is identical to the pre-dredge condition FOS (below 1.0 for a seismic event with a return period of 2,475 years), indicating the potential for movement of the slope materials .
References
Duncan, J.M., and S.G. Wright, 2005. Soil Strength and Slope Stability. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
NAVFAC (Naval Facilities Engineering Command), 1986. Soil Mechanics: Design Manual 7.01.
September 1986.
Rocscience Inc., 2020. Slide2 Modeler, Version 2020 9.012 – 2D Limit Equilibrium Analysis for Slopes. https://www.rocscience.com/.
USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), 2003. Slope Stability. Engineer Manual EM 1110-2-1902.
October 31, 2003.
Attachments
Attachment 1 Port of Richmond Terminal 2: Pre-Dredge Survey (by eTrac Inc. ), with annotations by Anchor QEA
Sheet A1 Alternative 1 – Dredge to −32 feet
Sheet A2 Alternative 2 – Dredge to −32 and −35 feet with Offset Sheet A3 Alternative 3 – Dredge to −35 feet with 2H:1V Slope Excavation Sheet A4 Alternative 4 – Install Sheet Pile Wall and Dredge to −35 feet
Attachment 2 CPT Report (by ConeTec Inc.)
45 Attachment 1
Port of Richmond Terminal 2: Pre-Dredge
Survey
46 $
IF SHEET IS LESS THAN 11"X17"
IT IS A REDUCED PRINT,
SCALE ACCORDINGLY
eTrac Inc.
637 LINDARO STREET
SUITE 100
SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901
415.462.0421
eTracInc.com
FILE NAME:
BOUD_20200903_Richmond Terminal 2_11X17.dwg
PORT OF RICHMOND
TERMINAL 2
PRE-DREDGE SURVEY
SURVEY DATE:
SEPTEMBER 03, 2020
Anchor QEA
130 Battery Street
Suite 400
San Francisco, CA
415.230.0862
0' MLLW
-40' MLLW
6KHHW
Existing Toe of
Slopea t- 3 2 '
Estimated
Berthing Line
Alternative 1: Dredge to -32' west of red boundary
47 $
IF SHEET IS LESS THAN 11"X17"
IT IS A REDUCED PRINT,
SCALE ACCORDINGLY
eTrac Inc.
637 LINDARO STREET
SUITE 100
SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901
415.462.0421
eTracInc.com
FILE NAME:
BOUD_20200903_Richmond Terminal 2_11X17.dwg
PORT OF RICHMOND
TERMINAL 2
PRE-DREDGE SURVEY
SURVEY DATE:
SEPTEMBER 03, 2020
REVISION #
Anchor QEA
130 Battery Street
Suite 400
San Francisco, CA
415.230.0862
0' MLLW
-40' MLLW
6KHHW
Dredging to -35:
Offset 20' from
Toe of Slope
Alternative 2: Dredge to -35' west of orange boundary
and -32' between red & orange boundaries
Existing Toe of
Slope at -32'
Estimated
Berthing Line
48 $
IF SHEET IS LESS THAN 11"X17"
IT IS A REDUCED PRINT,
SCALE ACCORDINGLY
eTrac Inc.
637 LINDARO STREET
SUITE 100
SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901
415.462.0421
eTracInc.com
FILE NAME:
BOUD_20200903_Richmond Terminal 2_11X17.dwg
PORT OF RICHMOND
TERMINAL 2
PRE-DREDGE SURVEY
SURVEY DATE:
SEPTEMBER 03, 2020
REVISION #
Anchor QEA
130 Battery Street
Suite 400
San Francisco, CA
415.230.0862
0' MLLW
-40' MLLW
6KHHW
Alternative 3: Dredge to -35' at Berthing Line and
dredge/excavate a 2H:1V slope upland
Estimated
Berthing Line
Projected Top of
Slope Inclined
2H:1V from
Existing Toe
49 6KHHW
$
IF SHEET IS LESS THAN 11"X17"
IT IS A REDUCED PRINT,
SCALE ACCORDINGLY
eTrac Inc.
637 LINDARO STREET
SUITE 100
SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901
415.462.0421
eTracInc.com
FILE NAME:
BOUD_20200903_Richmond Terminal 2_11X17.dwg
PORT OF RICHMOND
TERMINAL 2
PRE-DREDGE SURVEY
SURVEY DATE:
SEPTEMBER 03, 2020
REVISION #
Anchor QEA
130 Battery Street
Suite 400
San Francisco, CA
415.230.0862
0' MLLW
-40' MLLW
Alternative 4: Install sheet-pile wall at Berthing
Line to facilitate deeper dredging
Sheetpile
Installed along
Berthing Line
50 Attachment 2
CPT Report (by ConeTec Inc.)
51 PRESENTATION OF SITE INVESTIGATION RESULTS
Port of Richmond Terminal 2 Project
Prepared for:
Anchor QEA
ConeTec Job No: 20-56-21677
--
Project Start Date: 01-Dec-2020
Project End Date: 01-Dec-2020
Report Date: 03-Dec-2020
Prepared by:
ConeTec Inc.
820 Aladdin Avenue
San Leandro, CA 94577
-
Tel: (510) 357-3677
[email protected]
www.conetec.com
www.conetecdataservices.com
52 Port of Richmond Terminal 2 Project in Richmond, CA
Introduction
The enclosed report presents the results of the site investigation program conducted by ConeTec Inc. for Anchor QEA of Seattle, Washington. The program consisted of cone penetration testing (CPTu) at two (2) locations.
Project Information
Project
Client Anchor QEA
Project Port of Richmond Terminal 2 Project
ConeTec Project # 20-56-21677
An aerial overview from Google Earth including the CPT test locations is presented below.
Rig Description Deployment System Test Type
CPT truck rig (C17) 30-ton truck mounted cylinder CPTu
Coordinates
Test Type Collection Method EPSG Number
CPTu Consumer grade GPS 32610
53 Port of Richmond Terminal 2 Project in Richmond, CA
Cone Penetrometers Used for this Project
Cone Description Cone
Number
Cross
Sectional Area
(cm2)
Sleeve
Area
(cm2)
Tip
Capacity
(bar)
Sleeve
Capacity
(bar)
Pore Pressure
Capacity
(psi)
446:T1500F15U500 446 15 225 1500 15 500
Cone 446 was used in both soundings.
Cone Penetration Test
Depth reference Depths are referenced to the existing ground surface at the time of test.
Tip and sleeve data offset 0.1 Meter
This has been accounted for in the CPT data files.
Additional Comments
Advanced plots with Ic, Phi, Su(Nkt), and N1(60)Ic, as well as Soil Behavior Type (SBT) Scatter plots have been included in the data release package.
Calculated Geotechnical Parameter Tables
Additional information
The Normalized Soil Behaviour Type Chart based on Q tn (SBT Qtn) (Robertson, 2009) was used to classify the soil for this project. A detailed set of calculated CPTu parameters have been generated and are provided in Excel format files in the release folder. The CPTu parameter calculations are based on values of corrected tip resistance (qt) sleeve friction (fs) and pore pressure (u2).
Effective stresses are calculated based on unit weights that have been assigned to the individual soil behaviour type zones and the assumed equilibrium pore pressure profile.
Soils were classified as either drained or undrained based on the Qtn Normalized Soil Behaviour Type Chart (Robertson, 2009). Calculations for both drained and undrained parameters were included for materials that classified as silt mixtures (zone 4).
Limitations
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Anchor QEA (Client) for the project titled “Port of Richmond Terminal 2 Project”. The report’s contents may not be relied upon by any other party without the express written permission of ConeTec, Inc. (ConeTec). ConeTec ha s provided site investigation services, prepared the factual data reporting, and provided geotechnical paramete r calculations consistent with current best practices. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made.
The information presented in the report document and the accompanying data set pertain to the specific project, site conditions and objectives described to ConeTec by the Client. In order to properly understand the factual data, assumptions and calculations, reference must be made to the documents provided and their accompanying data sets, in their entirety.
54 CONE PENETRATION TEST
Cone penetration tests (CPTu) are conducted using an integrated electronic piezocone penetrometer and data acquisition system manufactured by Adara Systems Ltd., a subsidiary of ConeTec.
ConeTec’s piezocone penetrometers are compression type designs in which the tip and friction sleeve load cells are independent and have separate load capacities. The piezocones use strain gauged load cells for tip and sleeve friction and a strain gauged diaphragm type t ransducer for recording pore pressure.
The piezocones also have a platinum resistive temperature device (RTD) for monitoring the temperature of the sensors, an accelerometer type dual axis inclinometer and a geophone sensor for recording seismic signals. All signals are amplified down hole within the cone body and the analog signals are sent to the surface through a shielded cable.
ConeTec penetrometers are manufactured with various tip, friction and pore pressure capacities in 5 cm2, 10 cm 2 and 15 cm2 tip base area configurations in order to maximize signal resolution for various soil conditions. The specific piezocone used for each test is described in the CPT summary table presented in the first appendix. The 15 cm 2 penetrometers do not require friction reducers as they have a diameter larger than the deployment rods. The 10 cm2 piezocones use a friction reducer consisting of a rod adapter extension behind the main cone body with an enlarged cross-sectional area (typically forty-four millimeter diameter over a length of thirty-two millimeter with tapered leading and trailing edges) located at a distance of 585 millimeters above the cone tip.
The penetrometers are designed with equal end area friction sleeves, a net end area ratio of 0.8 and cone tips with a sixty-degree apex angle.
All ConeTec piezocones can record pore pressure at various locations. Unless otherwise noted, the pore pressure filter is located directly behind the cone tip in the “u 2” position (ASTM Type 2). The filter is six millimeters thick, made of porous plastic (polyethylene) having an average pore size of 125 microns (90- 160 microns). The function of the filter is to allow rapid movements of extremely small volumes of water needed to activate the pressure transducer while preventing soil ingress or blockage.
The piezocone penetrometers are manufactured with dimensions, tolerances and sensor characteristics that are in general accordance with the current ASTM D5778 standard. ConeTec’s calibration criteria also meets or exceed s those of the current ASTM D5778 standard. An illustration of the piezocone penetrometer is presented in Figure CPTu.
55 CONE PENETRATION TEST
Figure CPTu. Piezocone Penetrometer (15 cm2)
The ConeTec data acquisition systems consist of a Windows based computer and a signal conditioner and power supply interface box with a sixteen bit (or greater) analog to digital (A/D) converter. The data is recorded at fixed depth increments using a depth wheel attached to the push cylinders or by using a spring loaded rubber depth wheel that is hel d against the cone rods . The typical recording interval is 2.5 centimeters; custom recording intervals are possible. The system displays the CPTu data in real time and records the following parameters to a storage media during penetration:
• Depth
• Uncorrected tip resistance (qc)
• Sleeve friction (fs)
• Dynamic pore pressure (u)
• Additional sensors such as resistivity, passive gamma, ultra violet induced fluorescence , if applicable
All testing is performed in accordance to ConeTec’s CPT operating procedures which are in general accordance with the current ASTM D5778 standard.
56 CONE PENETRATION TEST
Prior to the start of a CPTu sounding a suitable cone is selected, the cone and data acquisition system are powered on, the pore pressure system is saturated with silicone oil and the baseline readings are recorded with the cone hanging freely in a vertical position.
The CPTu is conducted at a steady rate of two centimeters per second , within acceptable tolerances .
Typically, one-meter length rods with an outer diameter of 1.5 inches ( 38.1 millimeters) are added to advance the cone to the sounding termination depth. After cone retraction final baselines are recorded.
Additional information pertaining to ConeTec’s cone penetration testing procedures:
• Each filter is saturated in silicone oil under vacuum pressure prior to use • Recorded baselines are checked with an independent multi-meter • Baseline readings are compared to previous readings
• Soundings are terminated at the client ’s target depth or at a depth where an obstruction is encountered, excessive rod flex occurs, excessive inclination occurs, equipment damage is likely to take place, or a dangerous working environment arises • Differences between initial and final baselines are calculated to ensure zero load offsets have not occurred and to ensure compliance with ASTM standards
The interpretation of piezocone data for this report is based on the corrected tip resistance (q t), sleeve friction (f s) and pore water pressure (u). The interpretation of soil type is based on the corr elations developed by Robertson et al. (1986) and Robertson (1990, 2009). It should be noted that it is not always possible to accurately identify a soil behavior type based on these parameters. In these situations, experience, judgment and an assessment of other parameters may be used to infer soil behavior type.
The recorded tip resistance (qc) is the total force acting on the piezocone tip divided by its base area. The tip resistance is corrected for pore pressure effects and termed corrected tip resistance (qt) according to the following expression presented in Robertson et al. (1986):
qt = qc + (1-a) • u2
where: qt is the corrected tip resistance
qc is the recorded tip resistance
u2 is the recorded dynamic pore pressure behind the tip (u2 position) a is the Net Area Ratio for the piezocone (0.8 for ConeTec probes)
The sleeve friction (f s) is the frictional force on the sleeve divided by its surface area. As all ConeTec piezocones have equal end area friction sleeves, pore pressure corrections to the sleeve data are not required.
The dynamic pore pressure (u) is a measure of the pore pressures generated during cone penetration. To record equilibrium pore pressure, the penetration must be stopped to allow the dynamic pore pressures to stabilize. The rate at which this occurs is predominantly a function of the permeability of the soil and the diameter of the cone.
57 CONE PENETRATION TEST
The friction ratio (Rf) is a calculated parameter. It is defined as the ratio of sleeve friction to the tip resistance expressed as a percentage. Generally, saturated cohesive soils have low tip resistance, high friction ratios and generate large excess pore water pressures. Cohesionless soils have higher tip resistances, lower friction ratios and do not generate significant excess pore water pressure.
A summary of the CPTu soundings along with test details and individual plots are provided in the appendices. A set of files with calculated geotechnical parameters were generated for each sounding based on published correlations and are provided in Excel format in the data release folder. Information regarding the methods used is also included in the data release folder.
For additional information on CPTu interpretations and calculated geotechnical parameters , refer to Robertson et al. (1986) , Lunne et al. (1997) , Robertson (2009) , Mayne ( 2013, 2014) and Mayne and Peuchen (2012).
58 PORE PRESSURE DISSIPATION TEST
The cone penetration test is halted at specific depths to carry out pore pressure dissipation (PPD) tests, shown in Figure PPD-1. For each dissipation test the cone and rods are decoupled from the rig and the data acquisition system measures and records the variation of the pore pressure (u) with time (t).
Figure PPD-1. Pore pressure dissipation test setup
Pore pressure dissipation data can be interpreted to provide estimates of ground water conditions, permeability, consolidation characteristics and soil behavior.
The typical shapes of dissipation curves shown in Figure PPD -2 are very useful in assessing soil type, drainage, in situ pore pressure and soil properties. A flat curve that stabilizes quickly is typical of a freely draining sand. Undrained soils such as clays will typically show positive excess pore pressure and have long dissipation times. Dilative soils will often exhibit dynamic pore pressures below equilibrium that then rise over time. Overconsolidated fine -grained soils will often exhibit an initial dilatory response where there is an initial rise in pore pressure before reaching a peak and dissipating.
Figure PPD-2. Pore pressure dissipation curve examples 59 PORE PRESSURE DISSIPATION TEST
In order to interpret the equilibrium pore pressure (u eq) and the apparent phreatic surface, the pore pressure should be monitored until such time as there is no variation in pore pressure with time as shown for each curve in Figure PPD-2.
In fine grained deposits the point at which 1 00% of the excess pore pressure has dissipated is known as t100. In some cases this can take an excessive amount of time and it may be impractical to take the dissipation to t100. A theoretical analysis of pore pressure dissipations by Teh and Houlsby (1991) showed that a single curve relating degree of dissipation versus theoretical time factor (T*) may be used to calculate the coefficient of consolidation (ch) at various degrees of dissipation resulting in the expression for ch shown below.
ch= T*∙a2∙√Ir
t
Where:
T* is the dimensionless time factor (Table Time Factor) a is the radius of the cone
Ir is the rigidity index
t is the time at the degree of consolidation
Table Time Factor. T* versus degree of dissipation (Teh and Houlsby (1991)) Degree of
Dissipation (%) 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
T* (u2) 0.038 0.078 0.142 0.245 0.439 0.804 1.60
The coefficient of consolidation is typically analyzed using the time (t 50) corresponding to a degree of dissipation of 50% (u50). In order to determine t50, dissipation tests must be taken to a pressure less than u50. The u 50 value is half way between the initial maximum pore pressure and the equilibrium pore pressure value, known as u100. To estimate u50, both the initial maximum pore pressure and u100 must be known or estimated. Other degrees of dissipations may be considered, particularly for extremely long dissipations.
At any specific degree of dissipation the equilibrium pore pressure (u at t 100) must be estimated at the depth of interest. The equilibrium value may be determined from one or more sources such as measuring the value directly (u100), estimating it from other dissipations in the same profile, estimating the phreatic surface and assuming hydrostatic conditions, from nearby soundings, from client provided information, from site observations and/or past experience, or from other site instrumentation.
For calculations of c h (Teh and Houlsby (1991 )), t 50 values are estimated from the corresponding pore pressure dissipation curve and a rigidity index (Ir) is assumed. For curves having an initial dilatory response in which an initial rise in pore pressure occurs before reachin g a peak, the relative time from the peak value is used in determining t50. In cases where the time to peak is excessive, t50 values are not calculated.
Due to possible inherent uncertainties in estimating Ir, the equilibrium pore pressure and the effect of an initial dilatory response on calculating t50, other methods should be applied to confirm the results for ch.
60 PORE PRESSURE DISSIPATION TEST
Additional published methods for es timating the coefficient of consolidation from a piezocone test are described in Burns and Mayne ( 1998, 2002), Jones and Van Zyl (1981) , Robertson et al. (1992) and Sully et al. (1999).
A summary of the pore pressure dissipation tests and dissipation plots are presented in the relevant appendix.
61 REFERENCES
ASTM D5778-12, 2012, "Standard Test Method for Performing Electronic Friction Cone and Piezocone Penetration Testing of Soils", ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. DOI: 10.1520/D5778-12.
Burns, S.E. and Mayne, P.W., 1998, “Monotonic and dilatory pore pressure decay during piezocone tests”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal 26 (4): 1063-1073. DOI: 1063-1073/T98-062.
Burns, S.E. and Mayne, P.W., 2002, “Analytical cavity expansion -critical state model cone dissipation in fine-grained soils”, Soils & Foundations, Vol. 42(2): 131-137.
Jones, G.A. and Van Zyl, D.J.A., 1981, “The piezometer probe: a useful investigation tool”, Proceedings, 10th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 3, Stockholm: 489-495.
Lunne, T., Robertson, P.K. and Powell, J. J. M., 1997, “Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical Practice”, Blackie Academic and Professional.
Mayne, P.W. , 2013, “Evaluating yield stress of soils from laboratory consolidation and in -situ cone penetration tests”, Sound Geotechnical Research to Practice (Holtz Volume) GSP 230, ASCE, Reston/VA:
406-420. DOI: 10.1061/9780784412770.027.
Mayne, P.W. and Peuchen, J. , 2012, “Unit weight trends with cone resistance in soft to firm clays ”, Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization 4, Vol. 1 (Proc. ISC-4, Pernambuco), CRC Press, London: 903-910.
Mayne, P.W., 2014, “Interpretation of geotechnica l parameters from seismic piezo cone tests”, CPT’14 Keynote Address, Las Vegas, NV, May 2014.
Robertson, P.K., Campanella, R.G., Gillespie, D. and Greig, J., 1986, “Use of Piezometer Cone Data”, Proceedings of InSitu 86, ASCE Specialty Conference, Blacksburg, Virginia.
Robertson, P.K., 1990, “Soil Classification Using the Cone Penetration Test”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Volume 27: 151-158. DOI: 10.1139/T90-014.
Robertson, P.K., Sully, J.P., Woeller, D.J., Lunne , T., Powell, J.J.M. and Gillespie, D.G., 1992, “Estimating coefficient of consolidation from piezocone tests”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 29(4): 539 -550. DOI:
10.1139/T92-061.
Robertson, P.K., 2009, “In terpretation of cone penetration tests – a unified approach”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Volume 46: 1337-1355. DOI: 10.1139/T09-065.
Sully, J.P., Robertson, P.K., Campanella, R.G. and Woeller, D.J., 1999, “An approach to evaluation of field CPTU dissipation data in overconsolidated fine-grained soils”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 36(2): 369- 381. DOI: 10.1139/T98-105.
Teh, C.I., and Houlsby, G.T., 1991, “An analytical study of the cone penetration test in clay”, Geotechnique, 41(1): 17-34. DOI: 10.1680/geot.1991.41.1.17.
62 APPENDICES
The appendices listed below are included in the report:
• Cone Penetration Test Summary and Standard Cone Penetration Test Plots • Advanced Cone Penetration Test Plots with Ic, Su(Nkt) and N1(60)Ic • Soil Behavior Type (SBT) Scatter Plots
• Pore Pressure Dissipation Summary and Pore Pressure Dissipation Plots 63 Cone Penetration Test Summary and Standard Cone Penetration Test Plots
64 Job No: 20-56-21677
Client: Anchor QEA
Project: Port of Richmond Terminal 2 Project
Start Date: 01-Dec-2020
End Date: 01-Dec-2020
CONE PENETRATION TEST SUMMARY
Sounding ID File Name Date Cone
Assumed Phreatic
Surface 1
(ft)
Final
Depth
(ft)
Northing 2
(m)
Easting 2
(m)
Elevation 3
(ft)
Refer to
Notation
Number
RT-CPT-1 20-56-21677_CP01 01-Dec-2020 446:T1500F15U500 7.6 50.52 4196722 556119 10 RT-CPT-2 20-56-21677_CP02 01-Dec-2020 446:T1500F15U500 8.3 50.52 4196635 556127 10
1. The assumed phreatic surface was based on the shallowest pore pressure dissipation tests performed within the sounding. Hydrostatic conditions are assumed for the calculated parameters.
2. The coordinates were acquired using consumer grade GPS equipment, datum: WGS 1984 / UTM Zone 10 North.
3. Elevations are referenced to the ground surface and are derived from the Google Earth Elevation for the recorded coordinates.
Sheet 1 of 1 65
The reported coordinates were acquired from consumer grade GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes. 0 1002003000
10 20
30 40
50 60
qt (tsf)
Depth (feet)
0.01.02.03.0fs (tsf)
0.02.04.06.08.0Rf (%)
01002003000u (ft)
0369SBT Qtn
Anchor QEAJob No: 20-56-21677Date: 2020-12-01 12:03Site: Port of Richmond Terminal 2 ProjectSounding: RT-CPT-1Cone: 446:T1500F15U500 Max Depth: 15.400 m / 50.52 ftDepth Inc: 0.025 m / 0.082 ftAvg Int: Every PointFile: 20-56-21677_CP01.CORUnit Wt: SBTQtn (PKR2009)SBT: Robertson, 2009 and 2010Coords: UTM 10N N: 4196722m E: 556119m Undefined
Sands
Very Stiff Fine Grained
Sand Mixtures
Sands
Sand Mixtures
Clays
Clays
Silt Mixtures
Clays
Sand Mixtures
Clays
Silt Mixtures
Clays
Clays
Clays
Silt Mixtures
Clays
Silt Mixtures
Silt Mixtures
Clays
Silt Mixtures
Clays
Silt Mixtures
Clays
Silt Mixtures
Silt Mixtures
Clays
Clays
Clays
Sand Mixtures
Silt Mixtures
Clays
Silt Mixtures
Sands
Sand Mixtures
Silt Mixtures
Sand Mixtures
Sands
Silt Mixtures
Silt Mixtures
Undefined
32.5 Ueq(ft)
Target Depth
Target Depth
Target Depth
Target Depth
Equilibrium Pore Pressure (Ueq)
Assumed Ueq
Hydrostatic Line
Dissipation, Ueq not achieved
Dissipation, Ueq achieved
Drill Out
Drill Out
Drill Out
Drill Out
66 The reported coordinates were acquired from consumer grade GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes. 0 1002003000
10 20
30 40
50 60
qt (tsf)
Depth (feet)
0.01.02.03.0fs (tsf)
0.02.04.06.08.0Rf (%)
01002003000u (ft)
0369SBT Qtn
Anchor QEAJob No: 20-56-21677Date: 2020-12-01 09:19Site: Port of Richmond Terminal 2 ProjectSounding: RT-CPT-2Cone: 446:T1500F15U500 Max Depth: 15.400 m / 50.52 ftDepth Inc: 0.025 m / 0.082 ftAvg Int: Every PointFile: 20-56-21677_CP02.CORUnit Wt: SBTQtn (PKR2009)SBT: Robertson, 2009 and 2010Coords: UTM 10N N: 4196635m E: 556127m Undefined
Clays
Sands
Sand Mixtures
Sands
Sand Mixtures
Clays
Clays
Silt Mixtures
Silt Mixtures
Clays
Silt Mixtures
Sand Mixtures
Silt Mixtures
Clays
Sands
Clays
Clays
Silt Mixtures
Clays
Silt Mixtures
Silt Mixtures
Silt Mixtures
Clays
Silt Mixtures
Clays
Silt Mixtures
Clays
Silt Mixtures
Silt Mixtures
Sands
Gravelly Sand to Sand
Sand Mixtures
Clays
Clays
Silt Mixtures
32.7 Ueq(ft)
Target Depth
Target Depth
Target Depth
Target Depth
Equilibrium Pore Pressure (Ueq)
Assumed Ueq
Hydrostatic Line
Dissipation, Ueq not achieved
Dissipation, Ueq achieved
Drill Out
Drill Out
Drill Out
Drill Out
67 Advanced Cone Penetration Test Plots with Ic, Phi, Su(Nkt), and N1(60)Ic
68 The reported coordinates were acquired from consumer grade GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes. 01002003000
10 20
30 40
50 60
qt (tsf)
Depth (feet)
01002003000 u (ft)
0.01.02.03.04.0Ic (PKR 2009)
2030405060Phi (deg)
04 812Su (Nkt) (tsf)
0204060N160 (Ic RW1998) (bpf)
Anchor QEAJob No: 20-56-21677Date: 2020-12-01 12:03Site: Port of Richmond Terminal 2 ProjectSounding: RT-CPT-1Cone: 446:T1500F15U500 Max Depth: 15.400 m / 50.52 ftDepth Inc: 0.025 m / 0.082 ftAvg Int: Every PointFile: 20-56-21677_CP01.CORUnit Wt: SBTQtn (PKR2009)Su Nkt: 15.0 SBT: Robertson, 2009 and 2010Coords: UTM 10N N: 4196722m E: 556119m
32.5 Ueq(ft)
Target Depth
Target Depth
Target Depth
Target Depth
Target Depth
Target Depth
Equilibrium Pore Pressure (Ueq)
Assumed Ueq
Hydrostatic Line
Dissipation, Ueq not achieved
Dissipation, Ueq achieved
N(60) (bpf)
Drill Out
Drill Out
Drill Out
Drill Out
Drill Out
Drill Out
69 The reported coordinates were acquired from consumer grade GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes. 01002003000
10 20
30 40
50 60
qt (tsf)
Depth (feet)
01002003000 u (ft)
0.01.02.03.04.0Ic (PKR 2009)
2030405060Phi (deg)
04 812Su (Nkt) (tsf)
0204060N160 (Ic RW1998) (bpf)
Anchor QEAJob No: 20-56-21677Date: 2020-12-01 09:19Site: Port of Richmond Terminal 2 ProjectSounding: RT-CPT-2Cone: 446:T1500F15U500 Max Depth: 15.400 m / 50.52 ftDepth Inc: 0.025 m / 0.082 ftAvg Int: Every PointFile: 20-56-21677_CP02.CORUnit Wt: SBTQtn (PKR2009)Su Nkt: 15.0 SBT: Robertson, 2009 and 2010Coords: UTM 10N N: 4196635m E: 556127m
32.7 Ueq(ft)
Target Depth
Target Depth
Target Depth
Target Depth
Target Depth
Target Depth
Equilibrium Pore Pressure (Ueq)
Assumed Ueq
Hydrostatic Line
Dissipation, Ueq not achieved
Dissipation, Ueq achieved
N(60) (bpf)
Drill Out
Drill Out
Drill Out
Drill Out
Drill Out
Drill Out
70 Soil Behavior Type (SBT) Scatter Plots
71 Anchor QEAJob No: 20-56-21677Date: 2020-12-01 12:03Site: Port of Richmond Terminal 2 ProjectSounding: RT-CPT-1Cone: 446:T1500F15U500 Legend
Sensitive, Fine Grained
Organic Soils
Clays
Silt Mixtures
Sand Mixtures
Sands
Gravelly Sand to Sand
Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand
Very Stiff Fine Grained
Depth Ranges
>0.0 to 5.0 ft
>5.0 to 10.0 ft
>10.0 to 15.0 ft
>15.0 to 20.0 ft
>20.0 to 25.0 ft
>25.0 to 30.0 ft
>30.0 to 35.0 ft
>35.0 to 40.0 ft
>40.0 to 45.0 ft
>45.0 to 50.0 ft
>50.0 ft
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 Qtn,cs = 70
Ic = 2.6
0.10 1.0 10.01.0
10.0 100
1000
Fr (%)
Qtn
Qtn Chart (PKR 2009)
Legend
Sensitive Fines
Organic Soil
Clay
Silty Clay
Clayey Silt
Silt
Sandy Silt
Silty Sand/Sand
Sand
Gravelly Sand
Stiff Fine Grained
Cemented Sand
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
0.02.04.06.08.01.0 10.0
100
1000
Rf(%)
qt (bar)
Standard SBT Chart (UBC 1986)
Legend
CCS (Cont. sensitive clay like)
CC (Cont. clay like)
TC (Cont. transitional)
SC (Cont. sand like)
CD (Dil. clay like)
TD (Dil. transitional)
SD (Dil. sand like)
CCS
CC
TC
SC
CD
TD
SD
0.10 1.0 10.01.0
10.0 100
1000
Fr (%)
Qtn
Modified SBTn (PKR 2016)
72 Anchor QEAJob No: 20-56-21677Date: 2020-12-01 09:19Site: Port of Richmond Terminal 2 ProjectSounding: RT-CPT-2Cone: 446:T1500F15U500 Legend
Sensitive, Fine Grained
Organic Soils
Clays
Silt Mixtures
Sand Mixtures
Sands
Gravelly Sand to Sand
Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand
Very Stiff Fine Grained
Depth Ranges
>0.0 to 5.0 ft
>5.0 to 10.0 ft
>10.0 to 15.0 ft
>15.0 to 20.0 ft
>20.0 to 25.0 ft
>25.0 to 30.0 ft
>30.0 to 35.0 ft
>35.0 to 40.0 ft
>40.0 to 45.0 ft
>45.0 to 50.0 ft
>50.0 ft
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 Qtn,cs = 70
Ic = 2.6
0.10 1.0 10.01.0
10.0 100
1000
Fr (%)
Qtn
Qtn Chart (PKR 2009)
Legend
Sensitive Fines
Organic Soil
Clay
Silty Clay
Clayey Silt
Silt
Sandy Silt
Silty Sand/Sand
Sand
Gravelly Sand
Stiff Fine Grained
Cemented Sand
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
0.02.04.06.08.01.0 10.0
100
1000
Rf(%)
qt (bar)
Standard SBT Chart (UBC 1986)
Legend
CCS (Cont. sensitive clay like)
CC (Cont. clay like)
TC (Cont. transitional)
SC (Cont. sand like)
CD (Dil. clay like)
TD (Dil. transitional)
SD (Dil. sand like)
CCS
CC
TC
SC
CD
TD
SD
0.10 1.0 10.01.0
10.0 100
1000
Fr (%)
Qtn
Modified SBTn (PKR 2016)
73 Pore Pressure Dissipation Summary and Pore Pressure Dissipation Plots
74 Job No: 20-56-21677
Client: Anchor QEA
Project: Port of Richmond Terminal 2 Project
Start Date: 01-Dec-2020
End Date: 01-Dec-2020
CPTu PORE PRESSURE DISSIPATION SUMMARY
Sounding ID File Name Cone Area
(cm 2)
Duration
(s)
Test
Depth
(ft)
Estimated
Equilibrium Pore
Pressure U eq
(ft)
Calculated
Phreatic
Surface
(ft)
RT-CPT-1 20-56-21677_CP01 15 300 40.19 32.6 7.6
RT-CPT-2 20-56-21677_CP02 15 300 41.01 32.7 8.3
Sheet 1 of 1 75
0 100 200 300
0.0 20.0
40.0 60.0
0.0 -20.0 Time (s)
Pore Pressure (ft)
Anchor QEAJob No:20-56-21677Date:12/01/2020 12:03Site:Port of Richmond Terminal 2 ProjectSounding:RT-CPT-1Cone:446:T1500F15U500 Area=15 cm² Trace Summary: Filename:20-56-21677_CP01.PPFDepth:12.250 m / 40.190 ftDuration:300.0 s u Min:-15.0 ftu Max:35.2 ftu Final:32.6 ftWT: 2.323 m / 7.621 ftUeq:32.6 ft 76 0 100 200 300
0.0 20.0
40.0 60.0
0.0 -20.0 Time (s)
Pore Pressure (ft)
Anchor QEAJob No:20-56-21677Date:12/01/2020 09:19Site:Port of Richmond Terminal 2 ProjectSounding:RT-CPT-2Cone:446:T1500F15U500 Area=15 cm² Trace Summary: Filename:20-56-21677_CP02.PPFDepth:12.500 m / 41.010 ftDuration:300.0 s u Min:-10.1 ftu Max:32.8 ftu Final:32.7 ftWT: 2.521 m / 8.271 ftUeq:32.7 ft 77 RFP – Permitting for Dredging and Terminal 2 Slope Analysis
ATTACHMENT D
STANDARD CONTRACT
78 CITY OF RICHMOND
STANDARD CONTRACT
Department: Project Manager:
Project Manager E-mail: Project Manager Phone No:
Vendor No: 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, a municipal corporation (“the City”), and the following named Contractor:
Contractor Name:
Street Address:
City, State, Zip Code:
Contact Person:
Telephone: Email:
Business License No:
2. Term. The effective date of this Contract is ________________________ and terminates ______________ unless terminated earlier as set forth herein.
3. Payment Limit. City’s total payments to Contractor under this Contract shall not exceed $______________ (“Contract Payment Limit”) unless a Contract Amendment has been approved by the City Council or City Manager. If this amount includes a contingency, Contractor acknowledges that any use of such contingency shall be for work beyond the original scope of services and requires prior written authorization by the City. If noted below, Compensation for work done under this Contract, shall not exceed as follows:
FY
total compensation shall not exceed $
FY total compensation shall not exceed $
FY total compensation shall not exceed $
4. Contractor’s Obligations. Contractor agrees to perform all work at its own cost and expense, to furnish all labor, tools, equipment, materials, except as otherwise specified, in accordance with Exhibit A:
Service Plan which is attached hereto and incorporated herein. [ ] A California corporation , [ ] limited liability corporation, [ ] general partnership, [ ] limited partnership, [ ] individual, [ ] non-profit corporation, [ ] individual dba as [specify:]______________________________ [ ] other [specify:]__________________________________ 79 5. City Obligations. City shall make payments to the Contractor in accordance with the Payment Provisions set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein.
6. Authorized Representatives and Notices. This Contract is subject to the Authorized Representatives and Notices Provisions (Exhibit C), attached hereto and incorporated herein.
7. General Conditions. This Contract is subject to the General Conditions (Exhibit D) which are attached hereto and incorporated herein.
8. Special Conditions. This Contract is subject to the Special Conditions (Exhibit E) (if any) which are attached hereto and incorporated herein.
9. Insurance Provisions. This Contract is subject to the Insurance Provisions (Exhibit F) which are attached hereto and incorporated herein.
10. Signatures. These signatures attest the parties' agreement hereto:
CITY OF RICHMOND,
a municipal corporation [BUSINESS NAME]
(* The Corporation Chairperson of the Board,
President or Vice President should sign below)
By:
Title By:
I hereby certify that this Contract Title:
has been approved by City Council
or the City Manager. Date Signed:
By:
City Clerk
(* The Corporation Chief Financial Officer, Secretary or Assistant Secretary should sign below)
Approved as to form:
By:
By: Title:
City Attorney
Date Signed:
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
Sanctuary City Compliance Statement Exhibit G 80
Contract No: For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
EXHIBIT A
SERVICE PLAN
Contractor shall, to the satisfaction of the Project Manager (set forth in Exhibit B), perform the following services and be compensated as outlined below [or attach service plan if necessary]:
81 Contract No: For the Contract between the City of
Richmond and
EXHIBIT B
PAYMENT PROVISIONS
1. COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR:
a. Provided Contractor is not in default under this Contract, Contractor shall be compensated in the manner set forth herein.
b. 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.
c. All City vendors receiving new contracts shall sign up to receive electronic payments through the City’s Automated Clearinghouse (ACH) payments service/provider.
2. SUBMISSION OF INVOICES:
Contractor shall submit timely invoices by email to
[email protected] and/or to the following address: Attention:
City of Richmond Finance/Account Payable
Project Manager:
P.O. Box 4046
Richmond, CA 94804
3. All invoices that are submitted by Contractor shall be subject to the approval of the City Project Manager, before payments shall be authorized.
4. The City will pay invoice(s) within 45 days after completion of services to the City’s satisfaction. The City shall not pay late fees or interest.
5. All appropriate permits, certificates, and licenses, including a City business license shall be obtained and maintained for the duration of this Contract before any payment is authorized.
6. All insurance coverage required by this Contract shall be provided by the Contractor before this Contract is executed by the City. The insurance coverage required by this Contract shall be maintained by Contractor for the duration of this Contract and must be in place before any payment is authorized. 82 Contract No: For the Contract between the City of
Richmond and
EXHIBIT C
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES AND NOTICES
1. All required written notices shall be delivered: (i) by hand; or (ii) sent by registered, express, or certified mail, with return receipt requested or with delivery confirmation requested from the U.S. postal service; (iii) sent by overnight or same day courier service at the party’s respective address listed in this Section.
2. Each notice shall be deemed to have been received on the earlier to occur of: actual delivery or the date on which delivery is refused; or three (3) days after notice is deposited in the U.S. mail or with a courier service in the manner described above (Sundays and City holidays excepted).
3. Either party may, at any time, change its notice address (other than to a post office box address) by giving the other party three (3) days prior written notice of the new address.
4. All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from Contractor to the City shall be addressed to the City at:
City of Richmond –
Richmond, CA 94804
Email: ______________________________________________________
5. All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from the City to Contractor shall be addressed to Contractor at:
Business Name
Street Address
City, State Zip
Email: ______________________________________________________ 83 Contract No: For the Contract between the City of
Richmond and
EXHIBIT D
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. INDEPENDENT PARTIES:
Contractor hereby declares that Contractor is engaged as an independent business and Contractor agrees to perform the services as an independent contractor. The manner and means of conducting the services and tasks are under the control of Contractor exce pt to the extent they are limited by statute, rule or regulation and the express terms of this Contract. No civil service status or other right of employment will be acquired by virtue of Contractor’s services. None of the benefits provided by the City t o its employees, including but not limited to unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation plans, vacation and sick leave, are available from the City to Contractor, its employees or agents. Deductions shall not be made for any state or federal taxes, FICA payments, PERS payments, or other purposes normally associated with an employer - employee relationship from any compensation due to Contractor. Payments of the above items, if required, are the responsibility of Contractor.
2. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE:
Contractor and the City agree that time is of the essence regarding the performance of this Contract.
3. STANDARD OF CARE:
Contractor agrees to perform all services hereunder in a manner commensurate with the prevailing standards of like professionals or service Contractors, as applicable, in the San Francisco Bay Area and agrees that all services shall be performed by qualified and experienced personnel who are not employed by the City.
4. IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL ACT (IRCA):
Contractor assumes all responsibility for verifying the identity and employment authorization of all of its employees performing work hereunder, pursuant to all applicable IRCA or other federal, or state rules and regulations. Contractor shall indemnify, defend, and hold the City harmless from and against any loss, damage, liability, costs or expenses arising from any noncompliance of this provision by Contractor.
5. NON-DISCRIMINATION:
Consistent with the City’s policy and state and federal law that harassment and discrimination are unacceptable conduct, Contractor and its employees, contractors, and agents shall not harass or discriminate against any job applicant, City employee, or any other person on the basis of any kind of any statutorily (federal, state or local) protected class, including but not limited to: race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, disability (both mental and physical) including HIV and AIDS, medi cal condition (e.g. cancer), genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, pregnancy, political 84 Contract No: For the Contract between the City of
Richmond and
affiliation, military and veteran status or legitimate union activities . Contractor agrees that any violation of this provision shall constitute a material breach of this Contract.
6. CITY PROPERTY:
a. Each and every report, draft, work product, map, record, applicable plans, drawings, calculation, data, specification, video, graphic or any other material or document produced, prepared or caused to be prepared by Contractor pursuant to or in connection with this Contract shall be the exclusive property of the City.
b. 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 11 below, indemnify, defend and hold the City harmless from and against any discovery or Public Records Act request seeking the disclosure of such proprietary software or data. c. No report, information or other data given to or prepared or assembled by Contractor pursuant to this Contract shall be made available to any individual or organization by Contractor without prior approval of the City Manager or their designee. d. Contractor shall, at such time and in such form as City Manager or their designee may require, furnish reports concerning the status of services and tasks required under this Contract.
7. RECORDS:
a. Contractor shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to the services, tasks, work, documents and data in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of Contractor’s performance under the Contract, as well as maintain books and records related to sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by the City that relate to the performance of the services and tasks under this Contract (collectively the “Records”). b. All Records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Contractor shall provide free access to the Records to the representatives of the City or its designees during regular business hours upon reasonable prior notice. The City has the right to examine and audit the Records, and to make copies or transcripts therefrom as necessary, and t o allow inspection of all proceedings and activities related to this Contract. Such Records, together with supporting documents, shall be kept separate from other documents and records and shall be maintained by Contractor for a period of five (5) years after receipt of final payment. c. If supplemental examination or audit of the Records is necessary due to concerns raised by the City’s preliminary examination or audit of records, and the City’s supplemental examination or audit of the records discloses a failure to adhere to appropriate internal financial controls, or other breach of this Contract or failure to act in good faith, then Contractor shall reimburse the City for all reasonable costs and expenses associated with the supplemental examination or audit.
85 Contract No: For the Contract between the City of
Richmond and
8. PERMITS AND LICENSES:
Contractor, at its sole expense, shall obtain and maintain during the term of this Contract, all appropriate permits, certificates and licenses, including a City business license , required in connection with the performance of the services and tasks hereunder . The failure to obtain such permits and licenses 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 circumst ances without necessitating any modification of this Contract to reflect such waiver.
9. TERMINATION:
a. Termination Without Default. Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, the 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 transmission of written notice to Contractor as provided in Exhibit C “Authorized Representatives and Notices”.
b. 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 Exhibit B; 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.
10. 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.
11. HOLD HARMLESS:
a. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Contractor shall indemnify, defend (with counsel acceptable to the City) and hold harmless the City, its City Council, boards, commissions, officials, employees, agents and volunteers (“Indemnitees”) from and against any and all loss, damages, liability, obligations, claims, suits, judgments, costs and expenses 86 Contract No: For the Contract between the City of
Richmond and
whatsoever, including attorney’s fees and costs of litigation (“Claims”), arising from or in any manner connected to Contractor’s performance of its obligations under this Contract or failure to comply with any of its obligations under this Contract or out of the operations conducted by Contractor even if the City is found to have been negligent. If the Claims filed against Indemnitees allege negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct on the part of Contractor, Contractor shall have no right of reimbursement against Indemnitees for the costs of defense even if negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct is not found on the part of Contractor.
Contractor shall not have any obligations to indemnify Indemnitees if the loss or damage is found to have resulted solely from the negligence or the willful misconduct of the City. The defense and indemnification obligations of this Contract are undertaken in addition to, and shall not in any way be limited by, the insurance obligations contained in this Contract. b. This indemnification obligation shall survive this Contract and shall not be limited by any term of any insurance policy required under this Contract; provided however, that if this Contract is for design professional services, this indemnity provision is limited to claims that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the design professional (as defined in California Civil Code section 2782.8).
12. LIMITATIONS UPON SUBCONTRACTING AND ASSIGNMENT:
a. This Contract binds the heirs, successors, assigns and representatives of Contractor. The Contractor shall not enter into subcontracts for any work contemplated 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. b. Contractor shall not assign, sublease, hypothecate, or transfer this Contract, or any interest therein, directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise, without prior written consent of the City Manager. Contractor shall submit a written request for consent to transfer to the City Manager at least thirty (30) days in advance of the desired transfer. The City Manager or their designee may consent or reject such request in their sole and absolute discretion. Any attempt to do so without said consent shall be null and void, and any assignee, sublessee, hypothecate or transferee shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer. However, claims for money against the City under this Contract may be assigned by Contractor to a bank, trust company or other financial institution without prior written consent.
c. 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. d. Only those persons and/or businesses whose names and resumés are attached to this Contract shall be used in the performance of this Contract. However, if after the start of this Contract, Contractor wishes to use sub-contractors, at no additional costs to the City, then 87 Contract No: For the Contract between the City of
Richmond and
Contractor shall submit a written request for consent to add sub-contractors including the names of the sub-contractors and the reasons for the request to the City Manager at least five (5) days in advance. The City Manager may consent or reject such requests in their sole and absolute discretion.
e. Each sub-contractor shall be required to furnish proof of workers’ compensation insurance and shall also be required to carry general, automobile and professional liability insurance (as applicable) in reasonable conformity to the insurance carried by Contractor. f. In addition, any tasks or services performed by sub-contractors shall be subject to each provision of this Contract. Contractor shall include the following language in their Contract with any sub-contractor: “Sub-Contractors hired by Contractor agree to be bound to Contractor and the City in the same manner and to the same extent as Contractor is bound to the City.” g. The requirements in this Section 12 shall not apply to persons who are merely providing materials, supplies, data or information that Contractor then analyzes and incorporates into its work product.
13 SAFETY:
a. Contractor acknowledges that the City is committed to the highest standards of workplace safety. Contractor will be solely and completely responsible for conditions of all vehicles owned or operated by Contractor, including the safety of all persons and property during performance of the services and tasks under this Contract. Contractor shall assume sole and complete responsibility for the safety of Contractor's employees and any of subcontractor's employees This requirement will apply continuously and not be limited to normal working hours.
In addition, Contractor will comply with all safety provisions in conformance with U.S.
Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Act, any equivalent state law, and all other applicable federal, state, county and local laws, ordinances, codes, and any regulations that may be detailed in other parts of the Contract. Where any of these are in conflict, the more stringent requirements will be followed. Contractor’s failure to thoroughly familiarize itself with the aforementioned safety provisions will not relieve it from compliance with the obligations and penalties set forth herein.
b. Contractor will immediately notify the City (in no event less than 24 hours) of any incident of death, serious personal injury or substantial property damage that occurs in connection with the performance of this Contract. Contractor will promptly submit to the City a written report of all incidents that occur in connection with this Contract. This report must include the following information: (i) name and address of injured or deceased person(s); (ii) name and address of Contractor’s employee(s) involved in the incident; (iii) name and address of Contractor’s liability insurance carrier; (iv) a detailed description of the incident; and (v) a police report.
c. Contractor acknowledges that the City shall have the right to impose, at the City’s sole discretion, requirements that it deems are necessary to protect the health and safety of the City employees, residents, and visitors. Contractor agrees to comply with all such requirements, 88 Contract No: For the Contract between the City of
Richmond and
including, but not limited to, mandatory vaccinations, the use of personal protective equipment (e.g. masks), physical distancing, and health screenings. Contractor also agrees to make available to the City, at the City’s request, records to demonstrate Contractor’s compliance with this Section.
14. 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.
15. COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE LAWS:
a. During the term of this Contract, Contractor shall keep fully informed of all existing and future state and federal laws and all municipal ordinances and regulations of the City of Richmond which affect the manner in which the services or tasks are to be performed by Contractor, as well as all such orders and decrees of bodies or tribunals having any jurisdiction or authority over the same. Contractor shall comply with all applicable laws, state and federal and all ordinances, rules and regulations enacted or issued by the City. 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. b. Contractor acknowledges that under § 2.60.070 of the Municipal Code ("Living Wage Ordinance"), Contractor is required to provide the City with documents and information verifying its compliance with the Living Wage Ordinance. 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 as prescribed in § 2.60.070 of the Municipal Code. c. Contractor shall comply with § 2.28.030 of the Municipal Code, obligating every Contractor or sub-Contractor under an agreement or sub-agreement with the City for public works, goods or services to refrain from discriminatory employment or 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 sub-contractor .
d. 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.
16. INTEGRATED CONTRACT:
The Recitals and exhibits are a material part of this Contract and are expressly incorporated herein. This Contract represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or nature whatsoever between the parties hereto, and all preliminary negotiations and agreements of whatsoever kind or nature are merged herein. No verbal agreement or implied covenant shall 89 Contract No: For the Contract between the City of
Richmond and
be held to vary the provisions hereof. Any modification of this Contract will be effective only by written execution signed by both the City and Contractor.
17. 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 Condition 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.
18. 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.
19. CONFLICT OF LAW:
This Contract shall be interpreted under, and enforced by the laws of the State of California without regard to any choice of law rules which may direct the application of laws of another jurisdiction. The Contract and obligations of the parties are subject to all valid laws, orders, rules, and regulations of the authorities having jurisdiction over this Contract (or the successors of those authorities). Any suits brought pursuant to this Contract shall be filed with the courts of the County of Contra Costa, State of California.
20. 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.
21. INTERPRETATION:
This Contract shall be interpreted as if drafted by both parties.
22. WARRANTY:
If any product is 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 90 Contract No: For the Contract between the City
of Richmond and
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.
23. 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 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.
24. 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 they are duly authorized to enter into and execute this Contract on behalf of Contractor, and shall be personally liable to City if they are not duly authorized to enter into and execute this Contract on behalf of Contractor.
25. 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 payment 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.
26. COUNTERPARTS:
This Contract may be executed in any number of counterparts (including by fax, PDF, DocuSign, or other electronic means), each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument.
27. SANCTUARY CITY CONTRACTING ORDINANCE (SCCO):
The Richmond Sanctuary City Contracting Ordinance No. 12-18 prohibits the City from granting and or retaining contracts with any person or entity that provides Data Broker or Extreme Vetting services to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the 91 Contract No: For the Contract between the City
of Richmond and
United States Department of Homeland Security (“ICE”). Contractor must submit the Sanctuary City Compliance Statement, attached hereto as Exhibit G. 92 Contract No: 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, otherwise please state “NONE”):
93 Contract No: For the Contract between the City
of Richmond and
EXHIBIT F
INSURANCE PROVISIONS
___ Check here if Risk Management has approved waiving insurance requirements for this contract.
a. Before the commencement of the terms of this Contract, and during the entire term of this Contract and any extension or modification thereof, Contractor shall furnish the City’s Risk Manager with certificates showing the type, amount, class of operations covered, effective dates and dates of expiration of insurance coverage in compliance with Sections 10.b. (1) through (5) Such certificates, which do not limit Contractor’s indemnification, shall also contain substantially the following statement:
“Should any of the above insurance covered by this certificate be canceled or coverage reduced before the expiration date thereof, the insurer affording coverage shall provide thirty (30) days’ advance written notice to the City of Richmond. Attention: Risk Manager.” Contractor shall maintain in force at all times during the performance of this Contract all appropriate coverage of insurance required by this Contract with an insurance company licensed to offer insurance business in the State of California with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII or Standard & Poor’s Rating (if rated) of at least BBB unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Contractor shall deliver updated insurance certificates to the City at the address described in Section 17.f. prior t o the expiration of the existing insurance certificate for the duration of the term of Contract. Endorsements naming the City, its City Council, boards, commissions, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers as additional insured shall be submitted with the insurance certificates.
b. COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS:
Contractor shall maintain insurance coverage and limits at least as broad as:
(1) Workers’ Compensation:
Statutory coverage as required by the State of California. (2) Liability:
Commercial general liability coverage in the following minimum limits:
Bodily Injury: $1,000,000 each occurrence
$2,000,000 aggregate - all other
Property Damage: $1,000,000 each occurrence
$2,000,000 aggregate
If submitted, combined single limit policy with per occurrence limits in the amounts of $2,000,000 and aggregate limits in the amounts of $4,000,000 will be considered equivalent to the required minimum limits shown above. Additional 94 Contract No: For the Contract between the City
of Richmond and
Insured Endorsement naming the City, its City Council, boards, commissions, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers is required. (3) Automotive:
Comprehensive automobile liability coverage (any auto) in the following minimum limits:
Bodily injury: $1,000,000 each occurrence
Property Damage: $1,000,000 each occurrence
or
Combined Single Limit: $2,000,000 each occurrence
Additional Insured Endorsement naming the City, its City Council, boards, commissions, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers is required. (4) Professional Liability:
Professional liability insurance which includes coverage appropriate for the professional acts, errors and omissions of Contractor’s profession and work hereunder, including, but not limited to, technology professional liability errors and omissions if the services being provided are technology -based, in the following minimum limits:
$2,000,000 each occurrence
Technology professional liability errors and omissions shall include, or be endorsed to include: property damage liability coverage for damage to, alteration of, loss of, or destruction of electronic data and/or information “property” of the City in the care, custody, or control of Contractor. If not covered under Contractor’s liability policy, such “property” coverage of the City may be endorsed onto Contractor’s Cyber Liability Policy as covered property as follows: cyber liability coverage in an amount sufficient to cover the full replacement value of damage to, alteration of, loss of, or destruction of electronic data and/or information “property” of the City that will be in the care, custody, or control of Contractor. (5) Cyber Liability:
Coverage shall be sufficiently broad to respond to the duties and obligations as are undertaken by Contractor in this Contract and shall include, but not be limited to, claims involving infringement of intellectual property, copyright, trademark, trade dress, invasion of privacy violations, information theft, damage to or destruction of electronic information, release of private information, alteration of electronic information, extortion and network security. The policy shall provide coverage for breach response costs as well as regulatory fines and penalties as well as credit monitoring expenses with limits sufficient to respond to these obligations with the following minimum limits:
$2,000,000 per occurrence or claim.
95 Contract No: For the Contract between the City
of Richmond and
As to commercial general liability and automobile liability insurance, such insurance will provide that it constitutes primary insurance with respect to claims insured by such policy, and, except with respect to limits, that insurance applies separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought. Such insurance is not additional to or contributing with any other insurance carried by or for the benefit of the City.
c. SUBROGATION WAIVER:
Contractor hereby agrees to waive rights of subrogation that any insurer of Contractor may acquire from Contractor by virtue of the payment of any loss. Contractor agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to affect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether the City has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.
The Workers’ Compensation policy shall be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation in favor of the City for all work performed by Contractor, its employees, agents and subcontractors. d. FAILURE TO SECURE:
If Contractor at any time during the term hereof should fail to secure or maintain the foregoing insurance, the City shall be permitted to obtain such insurance in Contractor’s name or as an agent of Contractor and shall be compensated by Contractor for the costs of the insurance premiums at the maximum rate permitted by law and computed from the date written notice is received that the premiums have not been paid.
e. ADDITIONAL INSUREDS:
The City, its City Council, boards, commissions, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers shall be named as additional insured(s) under all insurance coverages, except workers’ compensation and professional liability insurance. The naming of an additi onal insured shall not affect any recovery to which such additional insured would be entitled under this policy if not named as such additional insured. An y additional insured named herein shall not be held liable for any premium, deductible portion of any loss, or expense of any nature on this policy or any extension thereof. Any other insurance held by an additional insured shall not be required to contribute anything toward any loss or expense covered by the insurance provided by this policy.
Additional Insured coverage under Contractor’s policy shall be primary and non-contributory and will not seek contribution from the City’s insurance or self -insurance. Any available insurance proceeds broader than or in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverage requirements and/or limits shall be available to the additional insured(s). f. SUFFICIENCY OF INSURANCE:
The insurance limits required by the City are not represented as being sufficient to protect Contractor. Contractor is advised to consult Contractor’s insurance broker to determine adequate coverage for Contractor. The coverage and limits shall be (1) the minimum coverage and limits specified in this Contract; or (2) the broader coverage and maximum limits of the coverage carried by or available to Contractor; whichever is greater. 96 EXHIBIT G
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:
97 RFP – Permitting for Dredging and Terminal 2 Slope Analysis
ATTACHMENT E
RICHMOND SANCTUARY CITY CONTRACTING ORDINANCE NO. 12-18
98 99
100
101
RFP – Permitting for Dredging and Terminal 2 Slope Analysis
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:
102
RFP – Permitting for Dredging and Terminal 2 Slope Analysis
ATTACHMENT F
RESOLUTION NO. 86-21 - DISCLOSURE STATEMENT OF LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES FORM
103
104
105
RFP – Permitting for Dredging and Terminal 2 Slope Analysis
Disclosure Statement for Limited Liability Companies
This Statement Shall be included with all Bid and Proposal Submissions Is your Business a Limited Liability Company (LLC)? YES NO If you answered YES, please provide the City with the names and business addresses of any and all shareholders, directors, officers, members, managers, other authorized persons, partners, and “Beneficial Owners” of the applying LLC. A Beneficial Owner is any person or entity who: (1) exercises substantial control over the applying LLC; (2) owns 25% or more of the interest in the applying LLC; or (3) receives substantial economic benefits from the assets of the applying LLC.
If any LLC shareholder, director, officer, member, manager, other authorized person, partner, or Beneficial Owner is itself an LLC or other business entity, the names and business addresses must also be provided for any and all shareholders, directors, officers, members, managers, other authorized persons, partners, and Beneficial Owners of that LLC or other business entity all the way up through each entity in the organizational chart until ultimate ownership by individual people is disclosed.
Name: _____________________
Title: _____________________
Address:__________________________________________
Name: _____________________
Title: _____________________
Address:__________________________________________
Name: _____________________
Title: _____________________
Address:__________________________________________
☐ Check this box if additional ownership information is attached to this Disclosure Statement.
In signing this Disclosure Statement, I represent that the information submitted in this Disclosure Statement, and any attachments, is true and correct.
Signature: _____________________
Printed Name: _____________________
Title: _____________________
Date: _____________________
106
RFP – Permitting for Dredging and Terminal 2 Slope Analysis
ATTACHMENT G
10-YEAR DREDGE PERMIT FOR TERMINALS 2, 3, 7, AND 8
107
ENG FORM 1721, Nov 86 1 (33 CFR Part 325 (Appendix A))
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT
PERMITTEE: Port of Richmond
PERMIT NO.: 2016-00302S
ISSUING OFFICE: San Francisco District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
NOTE: The term "you" and its derivatives, as used in this permit, means the permittee or any future transferee. The term "this office" refers to the appropriate District or Division office of the Corps of Engineers having jurisdiction over the permitted activity or the appropriate official of that office acting under the authority of the commanding officer.
You are authorized to perform work in accordance with the terms and conditions specified below:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The permittee is authorized to initially remove approximately 70,000 cubic yards of sediment, and a total of approximately 171,000 cubic yards over the 10-year life of the permit, from 9.7 acres (approximately) within the Port of Richmond’s Terminals 2, 3, 7 and 8 Berths located on Harbour Way in the Richmond Inner Harbor, in the City of Richmond, Contra Costa County, California. The permitted project design depth is -35 feet mean lower low water (MLLW) plus a 2-foot overdepth allowance in the Terminals 2, 7 and 8 Berths, and -38 feet MLLW plus a 2 -foot overdepth allowance in the Terminal 3 Berth. The dredged material will be removed using a mechanical dredge. The dredged material will be transported to an appropriate disposal site by dredged material scows pushed or towed by tug boats. The permittee is hereby authorized to place suitable dredged material at the Alcatraz Island Dredged Material Disposal Site (SF -11), the San Pablo Bay Dredged Material Disposal Site (SF -10), the San Fran cisco Deep Ocean Disposal Site (SF-DODS), a permitted beneficial reuse site, or at an appropriate upland disposal location outside Corps jurisdiction. All work shall be conducted in accordance with the attached drawings entitled, “Applicant: Port of Richmond; Project: Terminals 2, 3, 7 and 8 Maintenance Dredging; USACE File No.: 2016-00302S; Date: March 2, 2017,” in eleven sheets dated March 2, 2017 (Attachment 1).
Prior to each dredging episode, the Dredge Material Management Office (DMMO) will evaluate the sediments to be dredged for disposal or reuse suitability. The DMMO includes representatives from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco Bay Con servation and Development Commission (BCDC), San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The DMMO is tasked with approving sampling and analysis plans in conformity with testing manuals, rev iewing the test results and reaching consensus regarding a suitable disposition for the material.
PROJECT LOCATION: Port of Richmond, Richmond, Contra Costa County, California.
GENERAL CONDITIONS:
1. The time limit for completing the work authorized ends on June 1, 2027. If you find that you need more time to complete the authorized activity, submit your request for a time extension to this office for consideration at least one month before the above date is reached.
2. You must maintain the activity authorized by this permit in good condition and in conformance with the terms and conditions of this permit. You are not relieved of this requirement if you abandon the permitted activity, although you may make a good faith transfer to a third party in compliance with General Condition 4 below. Should you wish to cease to maintain the authorized activity or should you desire to abandon it without a good faith transfer, you must obtain a modification of this permit from this office, which may require restoration of the area.
108
ENG FORM 1721, Nov 86 2 (33 CFR Part 325 (Appendix A))
3. If you discover any previously unknown historic or archeological remains while accomplishing the activity authorized by this permit, you must immediately notify this office of what you have found. We will initiate the Federal and State coordination required to determine if the remains warrant a recovery effort or if the site is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
4. If you sell the property assoc iated with this permit, you must obtain the signature of the new owner in the space provided and forward a copy of the permit to this office to validate the transfer of this authorization.
5. If a conditioned water quality certification has been issued f or your project, you must comply with the conditions specified in the certification as Special Conditions to this permit. For your convenience, a copy of the certification is attached if it contains such conditions. (Conditional Water Quality Certificati on for Maintenance Dredging at the Port of Richmond Terminal 2 , issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, under CIWQS Place No. 817785 on September 4, 2015 and Conditional Water Quality Certification for Maintenance Dredging at the Port of Richmond Terminals 7 and 8 , issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, under CIWQS Place No. 409471 on October 20, 2016 (Attachments 2 and 3).)
6. If a conditioned coastal zone consistency concurrence or determination has been issued for your project, you must comply with the conditions specified in the concurrence or determination as Special Conditions to this permit. For your convenience, a copy of the concurrence or determination is attached if it contains such conditions. (Conditioned Coastal Zone Consistency Determination for the Port of Richmond Terminal s 2, 3, 7 and 8 Berths Maintenance Dredging Project issued by the S.F. Bay Conservation and Developme nt Commission (BCDC), Permit No.
M1997.017.00, issued July 10, 1996 amended through February 28, 2017, Amendment No. 3 (Attachment 4).)
7. You must allow representatives from this office to inspect the authorized activity at any time deemed necessary to ensure that it is being or has been accomplished in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of your permit.
8. You understand and agree that, if future operations by the United States require the removal, relocation or other alteration of the structure or work authorized herein, or if, in the opinion of the Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative, said structure or work shall cause unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation of the navigable waters, you will be required, upon due notice from the Corps of Engineers, to remove, relocate, or alter the structural work or obstructions caused thereby, w ithout expense to the United States. No claim shall be made against the United States on account of any such removal or alteration (Section 10 only).
SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
1. All dredging operations shall be limited to June 1 through November 30 each year for the following reasons:
a. In order to minimize impacts to federally listed steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), dredging and disposal operations shall occur from June 1 through November 30. Dredging outside this environmental work window would require consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act) and approval from the NMFS and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
b. In order to minimize impacts to federally listed Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tschwytscha), dredging and disposal operations shall occur from June 1 through November 30. Dredging outside this environmental work window would require consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act) and approval from the NMFS and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
c. In order to minimize impacts to federally listed North American green sturgeon (Acipenser medirosrtis), dredging and disposal operations shall occur only from June 1 through November 30. Dredging outside this environmental work window would require consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act) and approval from the NMFS and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
c. No dredging activities shall occur during the sensitive Pacific herring spawning season, December 1 to March 1.
Dredging outside this environmental work window would be determined by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
109
ENG FORM 1721, Nov 86 3 (33 CFR Part 325 (Appendix A))
2. Additional Standard DMMO Conditions for dredging projects are found on pages 4A-4E of this permit, and shall be adhered to at all times.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
1. Congressional Authorities: You have been authorized to undertake the activity described above pursuant to:
(X) Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. § 403). Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act generally regulates all structures and work occurring below the plane of mean high water in tidal waters of the United States; in former diked baylands currently below mean high water ; outside the limits of mean high water but affecting the navigable capacity of tidal waters ; or below the plane of ordinary high water in non -tidal waters designated as navigable waters of the United States. Navigable waters of the United States generally include all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; and/or all waters presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for future use to transport interstate or foreign commerce. The term "structure" includes, without limitation, any pier, boat dock, boat ramp, wharf, dolphin, weir, boom, breakwate r, bulkhead, revetment, riprap, jetty, artificial island or reef, permanent mooring structure, power transmission line, permanently moored floating vessel, piling, or any other obstacle or obstruction. The term "structure" does not include bridges and cau seways constructed in or over navigable or tidal waters of the United States, since this regulatory responsibility has been delegated to the U.S. Coast Guard under the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. No. 89 -670). The term "work" includes , without limitation, any dredging or disposal of dredged material, filling, or other modification of a navigable water of the United States.
(X) Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1344). Section 404 of the Clean Water Act generally regulates all discharges of dredged or fill material occurring below the plane of ordinary high water in non -tidal waters of the United States; or below the high tide line in tidal waters of the United States ; and within the lateral extent of wetlands adjacent to these waters. Waters of the United States generally include the territorial seas; all traditional navigable waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including waters subje ct to the ebb and flow of the tide; wetlands adjacent to traditional navigable waters; non -navigable tributaries of traditional navigable waters that are relatively permanent, where the tributaries typically flow year -round or have continuous flow at least seasonally; and wetlands directly abutting such tributaries. Where a case -specific analysis determines the existence of a "significant nexus" effect with a traditional navigable water, waters of the United States may also include non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent; wetlands adjacent to non -navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent; and wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting a relatively permanent non -navigable tributary. The term "dredged material" means material that is excavated or dredged from waters of the United States. The term "fill material" means material placed in waters of the United States where the material has the effect of replacing any portion of a water of the United States with dry land or of changing the bottom elevation of any portion of a water of the United States. Examples of such fill material include, but are not limited to, rock, sand, soil, clay, plastics, constructio n debris, and materials us ed to create any structure or infrastructure in waters of the United States. The term "fill material" does not include trash or garbage.
(X) Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research , and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. § 1413). Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act generally regulates the transport of dredged material for the purpose of disposal in ocean waters. Ocean waters is defined as those waters of the open seas lying seaward of the base line from which t he territorial seas is measured, as defined in the Convention of the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone (15 UST 1606; TIAS 5639).
110
ENG FORM 1721, Nov 86 4 (33 CFR Part 325 (Appendix A))
2. Limits of this authorization:
a. This permit does not obviate the need to obtain other Federal, State, or local authorizations required by law.
b. This permit does not grant any property rights or exclusive privileges.
c. This permit does not authorize any injury to the property or rights of others.
d. This permit does not authorize interference with any existing or proposed Federal project.
3. Limits of Federal Liability: In issuing this permit, the Federal Government does not assume any liability for the following:
a. Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of other permitted or unpermitted activities or from natural causes.
b. Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of current or future activities undertaken by or on behalf of the United States in the public interest.
c. Damages to persons, property, or to other permitted or unpermitted activities or structures caused by the activity authorized by this permit.
d. Design or construction deficiencies associated with the permitted work.
e. Damage claims associated with any future modification, suspension, or revocation of this permit.
4. Reliance on Applicant's Data: The determination of this office that issuance of this permit is not contrary to the public interest was made in reliance on the information you provided.
5. Reevaluation of Permit Decision: This office may reevaluate its decision on this permit at any time the circumstances warrant. Circumstances that could require a reevaluation include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. You fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this permit.
b. The information provided by you in support of your permit application proves to have been false, incomplete, or inaccurate. (See Item 4 above.)
c. Significant new information surfaces which thi s office did not consider in reaching the original public interest decision.
Such a reevaluation may result in a determination that it is appropriate to use the suspension, modification, and revocation procedures contained in 33 C.F.R. Section 325.7 or en forcement procedures such as those contained in 33 C.F.R. Sections 326.4 and 326.5. The referenced enforcement procedures provide for the issuance of an administrative order requiring you to comply with the Terms and Conditions of your permit and for the initiation of legal action where appropriate. You will be required to pay for any corrective measures ordered by this office, and if you fail to comply with such directive, this office may in certain situations (such as those specified in 33 C.F.R. Sectio n 209.170) accomplish the corrective measures by contract or otherwise and bill you for the cost.
6. Extensions: General Condition 1 establishes a time limit for the completion of the activity authorized by this permit. Unless there are circumstances requiring either a prompt completion of the authorized activity or a reevaluation of the public interest decision, the Corps will normally give favorable consideration to a request for an extension of this time limit.
111
ENG FORM 1721, Nov 86 5 (33 CFR Part 325 (Appendix A))
Your signature below, as permittee, indicates that you accept and agree to comply with the Terms and Conditions of this permit.
_____________________________________________________ _________________________________________ (PERMITTEE) (DATE)
Jim Matzorkis
Port of Richmond
This permit becomes effective when the Federal official, designated to act for the Secretary of the Army, has signed below.
_____________________________________________________ _________________________________________ (DISTRICT ENGINEER) (DATE)
John C. Morrow
Lieutenant Colonel, US Army
District Engineer
When the structures or work authorized by this permit are still in existence at the time the property is transferred, the ter ms and conditions of this permit will continue to be binding on the new owner(s) of the property. To validate the transfer of this permit and the associated liabilities associated with compliance with its terms and conditions, have the transferee sign and date below.
_____________________________________________________ _________________________________________ (TRANSFEREE) (DATE)
112
PERMITTING FOR DREDING AND TERMINAL 2 SLOPE ANALYSIS
Submittal date 12.16.2024
Contacts
Haley Alrich Scott Bodensteiner (415) 748-2193
Moffat and Nichol Jackly Gnusti 925.944.5411 [email protected] Scoring
Element
Total Points
Possible Haley Aldrich
Moffat and
Nichol
The overall experience of the team as
evidenced by recent representative projects 50 48 46
Strategy to acquire permits allowing for
maintenance dredging as quickly as
possible 50 47 46
Adherence to the parameters contained in
this RFP. 10 10 10
110 105 101
113
CITY OF RICHMOND
STANDARD CONTRACT
Department: City Project Manager:
City Project Manager E-mail: City Project Manager Phone No:
Vendor No: 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, a municipal corporation (“the City”), and the following named Contractor:
Contractor Name:
Street Address:
City, State, Zip Code:
Contact Person:
Telephone: Email:
Business License No:
☐ 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 terminates _________________ unless terminated earlier as set forth herein.
3. Payment Limit. City’s total payments to Contractor under this Contract shall not exceed $______________ (“Contract Payment Limit”) unless a Contract Amendment has been approved by the City Council or City Manager. If this amount includes a contingency, Contractor acknowledges that any use of such contingency shall be for work beyond the original scope of services and requires prior written authorization by the City. If noted below, Compensation for work done under this Contract, shall not exceed as follows:
FY _________ total compensation shall not exceed $_________________ FY _________ total compensation shall not exceed $_________________ FY _________ total compensation shall not exceed $_________________
4. Contractor’s Obligations. Contractor agrees to perform all work at its own cost and expense, to furnish all labor, tools, equipment, materials, except as otherwise specified, in accordance with the Service Plan set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein.
5. City Obligations. City shall make payments to the Contractor in accordance with the Payment Provisions set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein.114
6. Authorized Representatives and Notices. This Contract is subject to the Authorized Representatives and Notices Provisions (Exhibit C), attached hereto and incorporated herein.
7. General Conditions. This Contract is subject to the General Conditions (Exhibit D), which are attached hereto and incorporated herein.
8. Special Conditions. This Contract is subject to the Special Conditions (Exhibit E) (if any), which are attached hereto and incorporated herein.
9. Insurance Provisions. This Contract is subject to the Insurance Provisions (Exhibit F), which are attached hereto and incorporated herein.
10. Sanctuary City Compliance Statement. This Contract is subject to the Sanctuary City Compliance Statement (Exhibit G), which is attached hereto and incorporated herein.
11. Signatures. These signatures attest the parties' agreement hereto:
CITY OF RICHMOND,
a municipal corporation [BUSINESS NAME]
(* The Corporation Chairperson of the Board, President, or Vice President should sign below)
By: _________________________ By: ___________________________ Title: ________________________ Title: __________________________ Date Signed: _________________ Date Signed: ___________________ I hereby certify that this Contract (* The Corporation Chief Financial Officer or Assistant has been approved by City Council Treasurer, or Secretary or Assistant Secretary should or the City Manager. sign below)
By: _________________________ By: ___________________________ City Clerk Title: __________________________
Date Signed: ____________________
Approved as to form:
(NOTE: Pursuant to California Corporations Code Section By: _________________________ 313, if Contractor is a corporation or nonprofit organization, City Attorney this Contract (1) must be signed by (a) the Chairperson of the Board, President, or Vice-President and (b) the
Chief Financial Officer or Assistant Treasurer, or
Secretary or Assistant Secretary)
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
Sanctuary City Compliance Statement Exhibit G
115
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
EXHIBIT A
SERVICE PLAN
Contractor shall, to the satisfaction of the Project Manager ( set forth in Exhibit B) , perform the following services and be compensated as outlined below [or attach service plan if necessary]:
116
D
ecember 16, 2024
Subject: Permitting for Dredging and Terminal 2 Slope Analysis Dear Director Gerard and Port of Richmond staff:
Haley & Aldrich is a geotechnical engineering and environmental consulting services firm specializing in marine construction projects. In this proposal, we outline our understanding and approach to characterizing sediments and obtaining episode approvals under existing permits as needed for the Port of Richmond (Port) to complete maintenance dredging at Terminals 2, 7, and 8 and the Marina Bay Yacht Harbor (MBYH) in 2025. We will obtain amendments to add MBYH to the existing permits, and we are also ready to prepare the Dredged Material Management Office (DMMO) permit application for any dredging beyond the 2027 expiration of the current permits. We have also reviewed the geotechnical report from the RFP and have developed initial recommendations for advancing 10% design plans for improving slope stability at Terminal 2. Among our competitors, Haley & Aldrich stands alone with decades of marine geotechnical engineering experience coupled with local, Bay Area sediment quality scientists all under one roof.
Strategic sampling and analysis techniques and approach that could significantly reduce construction costs We understand that the 2020 Terminal 2 sediment characterization study did not include sampling and analysis techniques that could have delineated the reported DDT pesticide contamination. Consequently, the Port was forced to accept the DMMO’s decision to use the most expensive dredged material management option for all Terminal 2 sediments. This could be avoided by using high-resolution sampling methods where contamination is expected—an approach we have used on several of over 150 Sampling and Analysis Plans (SAPs) we have prepared for San Francisco Bay dredging projects, including recent projects at the other three seaports in the Bay. In cases where contamination has been observed, these techniques allowed us to isolate the area(s) exhibiting elevated contaminants and minimize the sediment volume requiring a more costly disposal option. Using previous Port Sediment Characterization Reports (SCRs) and the vast amount of DDT data we gathered and summarized for sediment testing done throughout Richmond Harbor (on behalf of Levin-Richmond Terminal), we will develop a strategic SAP allowing us to delineate any DDT contamination that may be observed in the Port sediment samples to be collected in 2025 , which will potentially save the Port hundreds of thousands of dollars .
Bay Area sediment quality scientists, permitting specialists, and marine engineers under one local roof For over 20 years, our local permit specialists and sediment experts have overseen planning, permitting, and approval of dredging projects at maritime facilities throughout San Francisco Bay, including completion of projects for the International Matex Tank Terminals (IMTT) upstream from Terminal 2, the Port of San Francisco, the Port of Redwood City, and the Port of Oakland. This group, together with our trusted driller and laboratory subcontractors, forms a one-stop shop for acquiring maintenance dredging permits and efficiently conducting the sediment characterization studies required for episode approval under those permits.
Decades of subsurface engineering experience on marine construction projects Haley & Aldrich’s team of geotechnical engineers are well qualified to interpret and synthesize the data from the geotechnical reports included with the RFP. We have fully designed slope stabilization projects for a multitude of other ports and federal navigation projects and are confident we can provide the recommendations necessary for achieving your targeted 10% level of design for improving slope stability at Terminal 2.
Based on our qualifications and approach described in this proposal, our track record for effective collaboration, and our understanding of relevant regulations and regulator expectations, we will become your trusted partner—a team the Port of Richmond staff can rely on to meet your dredging project objectives, budget, and schedule ; to improve the Port; to maintain safe, navigable berths; and to positively impact Richmond’s economy. Following your review of our proposal, we welcome any opportunity to further discuss the advantages our team offers, and please do not hesitate to contact Scott Bodensteiner at (415) 748-2193 if you require any further information.
Sincerely yours,
HALEY & ALDRICH, INC.
Scott Bodensteiner, M.S.
Project Manager
Douglas D. Lindquist, P.E., G.E., LEED AP
Principal Geotechnical Engineer
HALEY & ALDRICH, INC.
2033 N. Main Street, Suite 309
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
925.949.1012
117
B. UNDERSTANDING
The Haley & Aldrich team offers several advantages to expeditiously obtain all necessary approvals for the Port’s 2025 maintenance dredging episode, allowing you to successfully dredge Terminals 2, 3, and 8 and the MBYH entrance channel.
Our team of geotechnical engineers, permit specialists, sediment chemists, and sediment toxicologists has decades of experience supporting seaport dredging projects in Richmond Harbor and throughout San Francisco Bay. Under the leadership of Project Manager and Sediment Toxicologist Scott Bodensteiner, our expert team is regularly relied on by port facilities to resolve challenging dredging issues, such as side-slope integrity and sediment contamination, under condensed schedules and limited budgets while meeting regulatory expectations and compliance requirements. These and other qualifications outlined below will allow us to quickly and easily complete the objectives outlined in your RFP:
» Unlike our competitors, we rely on local sediment scientists who understand the unique regulatory environment of San Francisco Bay. Scott’s experience and our team’s overall commitment and expertise within the arena of seaport navigation allows us to provide several qualifications that will uniquely benefit the expeditious completion of the objectives specified in the RFP: A project manager and sediment toxicologist who has not only been managing maintenance dredging support projects in the Bay for 26 years, but has also been the Bay Planning Coalition’s Co-Chair of their Dredging and Beneficial Reuse Committee for the past eight years and brings a big-picture understanding of issues affecting the Bay and its seaports.
» Dredging project experience with other terminals on Richmond Inner Harbor and throughout the Bay Area using all local staff, which will allow us to anticipate site-specific issues we may encounter. » Award-winning waterfront geotechnical engineers—including the co-author of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) design standard 61-14 Seismic Design of Piers and Wharves—known for their abilities to communicate to both lay and technical audiences.
» Familiarity with recent regulatory developments that allow for expedited permit acquisition and dredging at lower cost. » In-depth understanding of historical sediment contamination in Richmond Inner Harbor from reviewing the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Feasibility Study for a DDT cleanup plan on behalf of a potentially responsible party.
» Practiced at developing and executing phased, strategic approaches to sediment characterization that can minimize the volume of potentially contaminated sediments in need of more expensive disposal options. » Sediment scientists who made significant contributions to the U.S. EPA’s sediment testing guidelines .
Sediment Characterization. We understand that the Port wants to obtain a 2025 maintenance dredging episode approval via the sediment characterization process for Terminals 2, 7, and 8, and if permittable, the MYBH entrance channel. We have also reviewed report data from the 2020 sediment characterization study performed by Anchor’s San Diego staff . Our understanding is that it was conducted without the high-resolution sampling strategy our local team would have proposed for a San Francisco Bay dredging area with potential contaminant issues. Due to th e observation of elevated DDT contamination, this shortcoming prevented the Port from isolating the contamination and minimizing the costly option of beneficially reusing the sediments for wetlands foundation compared to the lower-cost options of in-Bay disposal or beneficial reuse as wetland cover. Our team has the technical understanding to implement a sampling and testing approach that will be acceptable to the regulatory agencies and allow for delineation of any sediment contamination encountered.
Based on our synthesis of Richmond Inner Harbor’s historical DDT data (on behalf of the Levin Richmond Terminal for their response to the U.S. EPA’s DDT cleanup Feasibility Study) and our data generated from previous Port investigations, we have a solid understanding of the lateral and vertical extent of DDT contamination in and around all of the Port’s terminals, including the MBYH entrance channel.
Permit Amendment and/or Acquistion. The Port’s existing maintenance dredging permits for Terminals 2, 3, 7, and 8 do not expire until 2027. However, in response to the item (4) of the RFP scope of services, we are prepared to amend the permits to include the MBYH, and/or prepare the DMMO permit application for acquiring new permits for dredging beyond 2027. Through our involvement with the Bay Planning Coalition and recent permit ting efforts for the Port of Redwood City [Haley & Aldrich staff] have an excellent understanding of the regulatory process and excellent working relationships with owners and agencies that result in a collaborative process. They are responsive to our needs and helped us accomplish our project objective: Start our dredging project as soon as the window opens.” – Imee Osantowski, Principal Engineer, Port of Oakland
118
and the City of San Rafael (2023 and 2024), we are very familiar with the new maintenance dredging permit application requirements that will help expedite the permit acquisition process so that the Port can dredge where necessary before the 2025 environmental work window closes. Chief among the new requirements is the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (RWQCB’s) Pre-Filing Meeting Request, which now must be submitted after completion and approval of an Integrated Alternatives Analysis but before submitting the DMMO consolidated dredging permit application. Since the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) cannot issue permits until after the RWQCB completes their Water Quality Certification, sequencing these steps is critical to obtaining all maintenance dredging permits in a timely manner.
Slope Stability Recommendations. The Port is looking for a firm that has the experience and expertise to provide recommendations for improving the slope stability at Terminal 2 to the 10% level of design. Haley & Aldrich is that firm. Our team of waterfront engineers have worked on over 50 dredging projects requiring slope stability assessment for dozens of ports, the U.S. Navy, and other maritime facilities with deep draft navigation access . This includes three projects with toe walls installed and another two in design. Our toe wall designs have been published with Western Dredging Association and PORTS conferences.
C. SCOPE OF SERVICES
Based on our understanding of the Port’s objectives and our experience achieving similar objectives for ports and harbors throughout San Francisco Bay, we are confident this scope of services will result in the prompt regulatory approval of a 2025 dredging episode that can be completed well before the end of the 2025 environmental work window and give the Port an optimal number of sediment disposal options. In addition to the technical approaches for each task described below, our project management approach will include regular status meetings between the Port and our key personnel to evaluate progress and assess availability of resources necessary to complete each milestone. With dependence on regulator feedback for completing several project tasks, we will also incorporate regular outreach to agency representatives until actionable feedback or approval has been provided.
Authorization of San Francisco Bay maintenance dredging projects requires the completion of two separate processes:
1. Acquiring maintenance dredging permits from USACE and BCDC and a Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB by completing and submitting the DMMO’s consolidated dredging and disposal application for multi-year permits. RFP Tasks 3 and 4 address this process, including amending existing permits .
2. As a condition of all three agency permits/certifications, individual dredging episodes must be approved through the characterization of sediment quality within the areas proposed for dredging. RFP Tasks 1 and 2 address this process.
TASK 1. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN
The primary element of an episode approval is the sediment quality characterization. With DMMO credibility built on experience implementing over 150 SAPs for dredging projects throughout the Bay, we will prepare the Port’s SAP to address the specific contaminant challenges facing the 2025 dredging project. With the understanding that elevated concentrations of DDT will likely be present in the sediments within the dredge prism, we will use the Richmond Inner Harbor DDT database we developed for the Levin Richmond Terminal and previous Port sediment studies to develop a sampling plan designed to isolate DDT contamination.
Per the prevailing sediment guidelines, dredge units representing Terminals 2, 7 , and 8 will be mapped along with one representing the MBYH entrance channel so that the Port will have the option to dredge there once it is permitted. T he SAP will call for compositing of samples from within each dredge unit for chemical and biological analysis, but subsamples will be taken and archived from the top and bottom segments of each individual sediment core sample. This will give the Port the option to conduct high-resolution analysis if DDT or other contaminants are detected at elevated concentrations in any of the dredge unit composite samples. This approach has minimized the volume of sediment determined to be too contaminated for lower cost disposal options for the Port of Oakland and other maritime facilities , saving them hundreds of thousands of dollars in dredging and disposal costs. Once the Port has reviewed the SAP, our project manager will present it to the DMMO for approval.
TASK 2. SEDIMENT SAMPLING & ANALYSIS AND SEDIMENT CHARACTERIZATION REPORT Sample Collection and Analysis. Under the oversight of Haley & Aldrich’s field manager, skilled field technicians will collect sediment samples. In accordance with the SAP, the following steps will be taken:
» Each sample location will be pre-plotted and entered into the vessel operators GPS system. » Once the vessel reaches each sample location, anchors will be used to maintain positioning. 119
» An electric vibracore will then be deployed and submersed to the permitted dredge depth plus a two -foot overdepth and z-layer depth (the z-layer represents the post-dredge sediment surface). » The vibracore will be retrieved and the sediment core will be removed onto a clean tray and assessed for sensory observations by a Haley & Aldrich sediment scientist.
» The sediment core will be divided into top and bottom segments at a depth pre-determined with the Port. » Subsamples from the top and bottom segments will be isolated and archived, and the remainder of the core will be homogenized and then composited with the other core homogenates from that dredge unit. » Dredge unit composites will then be split and shipped separately to the chemi stry and biological laboratories (the archived subsamples will be shipped for archiving to the chemistry laboratory). » All dredge unit composite samples will be analyzed for chemical constituents and biological parameters necessary for in - Bay aquatic disposal site, ocean disposal, and beneficial reuse as cover and non-cover at one of the two habitat restoration projects permitted to receive dredged material. » Biological and chemical analyses will be performed by Pacific Eco Risk and Eurofins Calscience, respectively. Both labs are nationally accredited and staffed with technicians familiar with handling measures for minimizing confounding factors that lead to inaccurate results.
Contaminant Delineation and Episode Approval. If we detect DDT or other contaminants in any of the dredge unit composites at concentrations that exceed the criteria for lower-cost disposal options, we will also analyze the top and bottom segments from each location within that dredge unit. Results of this high-resolution analysis will be used to delineate the lateral and vertical extent of the contamination, allowing us to identify the lowest-cost combination of sediment disposal options. Our scientists will compare all chemical and biological data to appropriate reference databases.
All data will undergo quality control review, then be tabulated and evaluated in a SCR. Our project manager will then present the SCR to the DMMO requesting approval for specific disposal option(s).
TASKS 3 AND 4. PERMITTING SUPPORT
MBYH Permitting for 2025. Haley & Aldrich can easily add the MBYH to the existing USACE and BCDC permits by submitting permit amendment requests to the agencies’ respective permit managers whom we regularly work with. Although the RWQCB does not allow for Water Quality Certification (WQC) amendments under their new guidelines, they have developed a process that allows for “modification” to the WQC. The Haley & Aldrich project manager will work with our GIS team and the Port to prepare the amendment and modification requests, and then regularly engage each of the permit managers until the process is complete. Based on our previous experience, we anticipate it would take three to four months to add the MBYH to the two permits and the WQC, and should be completed by the end of May 2025.
Episode Approval. The sediment quality results generated under Task 2 will be used to obtain disposal and beneficial reuse suitability determinations from the DMMO as part of the maintenance dredging episode approvals under the existing permits for Terminals 2, 7, and 8. The MBYH sediment quality results will also be used for episode approval if the Port wishes to incorporate it into the existing permits by amendment or permit it independently. The second step of the episode approval process is preparation and DMMO authorization of the Dredging Operations Plan (DOP). The dredging contractor typically prepares the DOP, but Haley & Aldrich can prepare this document if necessary. Under the assumption that the Port’s contractor acquisition process will be approximately two months , we anticipate episode approval by mid-September.
New Permit Acquisition. The Haley & Aldrich team will also be ready to prepare and submit the DMMO’s Consolidated Dredging and Disposal Permit Application to acquire new permits for the Port to continue maintenance dredging at all four terminals and the MBYH beyond the 2027 expiration of the existing permits. This process involves the following steps:
» A project description will be developed primarily from previous permits and will include the target dredge depths and side slopes, which may require updating after the slope improvement design is complete. » Our CAD analysts will create plan view drawings by plotting the most recent bathymetric data onto a base map using GIS data interpolation methods specifically designed for the creation of hydrologically correct digital elevation models (DEMs), and cross-section drawings will subsequently be created as well. » The DMMO application will include the Port’s preferred disposal and beneficial reuse options, which will be informed by the preparation of an Integrated Alternatives Analysis (IAA) as required by the long-term management strategy (LTMS). » Relying on our understanding of the expectations and preferences of the regulators, we will prepare a comprehensive IAA that adheres to the LTMS Management Plan goals while honoring the Port’s fiscal obligations. Unit pricing will be developed for each dredged material management options based on our in-depth understanding of pricing established since the recent inflation spike by the five to six contractors operating in San Francisco Bay. 120
» Our team is sensitive to the regulatory staffing challenges often slowing the process and will use proven measures to closely correspond with assigned permit managers to ensure timely approvals.
ADDITIONAL TASK: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING SLOPE STABILITY AT TERMINAL 2 We have reviewed the Terminal 2 slope stability memorandum attached to the RFP. While there are some deficiencies in the memorandum (e.g., no slope stability cross sections presented, possibly using the incorrect seismic hazard level, no mention of soil liquefaction and its effects, and inability to calculate an acceptable seismic factor of safety), we can and will use the soil exploration data to provide a recommendation to improve slope stability to support the project to the “10% level of design” as specified in the RFP.
Slope stability is always a concern for routinely maintained waterfront facilities and dredging projects. The approach we recommend for improving slope stability at Terminal 2 would involve three steps. Step 1 will be to work with the authority having jurisdiction to identify the appropriate performance criteria (e.g., factor of safety and/or slope movement) and design seismic hazard level. The analysis included in the RFP used a 2,475- year return period seismic hazard level that may be larger than necessary. For example, design following the International Building Code and ASCE 7 use the “Design Earthquake” that is defined as 2/3 of the 2,475-year return period hazard. Step 2 will be to collect and evaluate all subsurface exploration logs available to us to inform ourselves of the subsurface conditions and assess data gaps. Any data gaps will be filled by new explorations as part of a later design phase. Step 3 will be to qualitatively evaluate methods to improve slope stability. These methods may include a strong toe wall at the base of the slope or ground improvement methods such as shear reinforcing piles in the slope intercepting the critical failure surface, upland deep soil mixing, upla nd jet grouting, and stone columns upland or in the slope. We will include recommendations for additional slope stability analysis that were left out of the 2020 investigation for the next phase of design.
D. SCHEDULE
Assumptions
» Notice to Proceed on
2/10/25
» *Dredge contractor
solicitation and award
approximately two
months after DMMO
approval of sediment
quality.
» New permit acquisition
for dredging beyond
2027 permit expiration
date is optional.
121
E. KEY PERSONNEL
HALEY & ALDRICH PERSONNEL
SCOTT BODENSTEINER, M.S. | PROJECT MANAGER/SEDIMENT QUALITY LEAD 26 years’ experience Scott will be the Port’s main point of contact and accountable for all tasks outlined in the project scope. He has spent his entire 26-year career supporting dredging projects in San Francisco Bay and written and implemented over 150 SAPs for Bay Area ports and harbors, including all three of the other San Francisco Bay ports and recent projects within the Richmond Inner Harbor. His experience and understanding of new environmental policies have led to positive negotiations with key regulatory agencies to readily obtain permits, and when necessary, resolve issues associated with permit conditions, sediment contaminants, and preferred disposal/reuse option approvals. His expertise as an environmental toxicologist and skilled statistician has been instrumental for eliminating uncertainty related to beneficial use and aquatic disposal sites, enabling him to provide his clients clear-cut options for managing dredged material. Scott routinely works with design engineers to ensure dredge project plans meet the navigational needs of our clients while complying with design restrictions and environmental conditions of the dredge permit. Scott also led or assisted the Bay Planning Coalition with several initiatives aimed at developing or amending dredging policies to protect the environment without overburdening the proponents of shoreline development and maintenance efforts.
DARCY METZLER, M.A. | PROJECT COORDINATOR/PERMITTING SUPPORT 18 years’ experience Darcy will assist the team with coordinating task orders, subcontractor interactions, and invoice processing. Darcy offers expertise coordinating diverse project teams on complex sediment investigations, and ensuring permit and contract compliance including adherence with prevailing wage requirements. She will also prepare our health and safety plans prior to each sample collection effort. Her experience leading projects for a diversity of coastal infrastructure projects gives her a solid understanding of marine construction, sediment environmental impacts, coastal zone management, cultural resources, and spill response and analysis. By maintaining close relationships wi th client representatives and the project team, she strives to achieve client satisfaction with every project.
HELDER COSTA, M.S. | SENIOR SEDIMENT CHEMIST 39 years’ experience Helder is Haley & Aldrich’s national sediment practice leader, advising and overseeing the work of our entire sediment team. After realizing he grew up a stone’s throw from a marine Superfund site in New Bedford Harbor, Massachusetts, Helder began his career as an environmental chemist specializing in contaminated sediments. His work has taken him on investigations of sediment quality in waterways across the United States, where he has seen just about everything his clients are likely to encounter. Though his work has involved both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, for the past decade he has worked almost exclusively in the San Francisco Bay. His Bay Area project experience with waterfront sediment sites requiring maintenance or remediation dredging has required in-depth interaction and collaboration with agencies that will be reviewing and approving the Port’s projects. Helder’s experience includes being part of the group of sediment specialists that developed the U.S. EPA and USACE testing guidance still used for all dredged material disposal assessments, which helped establish trust with regulatory agency representatives of the DMMO.
122
JENNIFER GALVIN, P.G. | FIELD MANAGER 7 years’ experience Jen will lead all sediment sampling operations, help position the vessel, prepare a health and safety plan, and oversee vibracoring, sediment core depth calculations, core logging, and sample processing. She has a background in coastal and marine geology, including nearshore core sampling and interpretation in San Francisco Bay. Jen’s experience organizing and supervising large-scale field investigations and coordinating subcontractors, laboratories, and heavy equipment operators makes her an effective field manager. Jen is keenly familiar with sediment sample collection equipment and procedures, enabling her to ensure sample integrity from collection to delivery to the analytical laboratories.
VANESSA GODARD | PROJECT CHEMIST AND DATA MANAGER 10 years’ experience Vanessa will work with our other scientists and our labs to track, analyze, and compile sediment sample data that will stand up to DMMO scrutiny. Vanessa works diligently to identify potential analytical anomalies and strives for error- free data so we can confidently prepare and present our SCRs to the DMMO and help our clients make their case for their preferred disposal options. Critical to the Port’s dredging projects, Vanessa is familiar with the DMMO online database upload —a complex system designed to integrate dredging data from any consultant to the DMMO website with limited oversight on their end. She has knowledge of the systems’ very specific templates that must be populated with very particular fields.
Without a firm understanding of this process, project approvals can experience significant delays.
DOUG LINDQUIST, P.E., G.E., LEED AP | PRINCIPAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER 27 years’ experience Doug is a leader and innovator in slope stability assessment using finite element and finite differen ce methods to calculate expected static and seismic displacements of waterfront structures. He has published papers on geotechnical design for waterfront facilities, and, for the past 12 years, he has been a member of the ASCE 61 code committee that authored the ASCE 61-14 standard Seismic Design of Piers and Wharves. He works closely with the U.S. Navy, ports, and other waterfront owners to optimize foundation and structural systems to improve safety and lower costs. At the North Bay Operations and Maintenance Facility at Mare Island in Vallejo, Doug designed pile foundations for a new gangway and dock floats, which required a seismic evaluation and soil explorations. By using an innovative testing approach for characterizing soils and recommending pile locations, he saved the facility significant cost compared to mobilizing a barge to take new soil borings.
He has also led dredging, pier extension, and berth deepening projects at the Port of Seattle and the Port of Tacoma. His projects have won awards for design excellence and ability to overcome difficult site conditions.
SUBCONSULTANTS
LEVIATHAN ENVIRONMENTAL | SAMPLING VESSEL OPERATOR 20 years’ experience Based in Pleasant Hill, California, Leviathan employs a vast array of vessels and sampling equipment. They will provide our team the means to efficiently collect sediment samples to the necessary depths throughout the Port’s dredge area.
EUROFINS CALSCIENCE | MARINE SEDIMENT TESTING AND ANALYTICAL SERVICES 20 years’ experience Specializing in analytical techniques that eliminate interferences associated with marine sediments, Eurofins Calscience has analyzed sediments for dredging investigations at nearly every California port, including the Port of Richmond.
PACIFIC ECORISK LABS | AQUATIC BIOLOGY AND TOXICOLOGY TESTING AND RESEARCH 30 years’ experience Pacific EcoRisk has conducted biology and toxicology testing in the Bay Area for over 30 years. Their 41 scientists and lab assistants have forged a reputation for expertise in devising innovative solutions to complex environmental issues.
F. SIMILAR PROJECT EXPERIENCE
PORT OF REDWOOD CITY | Comprehensive Dredging Support Services To accommodate bulk cargo ships and recreational vessels, the Port of Redwood City has relied on Haley & Aldrich’s local staff for the past 10 years to obtain permits, conduct sediment quality studies, prepare plans and specs and provide construction management for maintenance dredging at their deep-draft wharves and municipal marina.
Strategic SAP preparation to contend with legacy industrial contamination Elevated concentrations of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the marina sediment samples could have compromised the entire project. However, because we prepared the SAP with a strategic sampling approach, we were able to precisely delineate both the vertical and lateral extent of impacted sediments. With careful statisti cal analysis and graphical data presentation in the SCR, we addressed specific criteria for dredged Services
Sampling and analysis plan
Sediment quality evaluation
Field sampling and analysis
DMMO dredging permit
application and acquisition
Plans and specifications
Contractor acquisition support
Construction management
Haley & Aldrich staff
123
material disposal and persuaded the DMMO to accept our contaminant delineation design.
Optimized Port’s sediment disposal and beneficial reuse options Our strategy minimized the dredge volume that would have needed more costly disposal considerations and provided a roadmap for future dredging. Additionally, we were able to obtain a DMMO in-Bay suitability determination for the Port’s entire footprint for the first time in over four dredging cycles.
Complex permit acquisition process and Integrated Alternatives Analysis preparation This project also required both an IAA and a Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The dredged material management strategy proposed in the IAA was prepared to minimize programmatic cost to the Port and was deemed acceptable the LTMS agencies. Negotiations with CDFW became necessary to demonstrate that many proposed SAA permit conditions were overly stringent and redundant. Based on our focused engagement with CDFW, permits were issued with minimal permit conditions, allowing the Port to proceed with an expedited schedule and avoid implementing additional costly conservation measures.
Scott Bodensteiner
Helder Costa
Darcy Metzler
Vanessa Godard
Subconsultants
Leviathan
Pacific EcoRisk
Eurofins Calscience
PORT OF OAKLAND | Sediment Quality Characterization
For the past nine years, the Port of Oakland has relied on Haley & Aldrich to obtain episode approval for annually dredging shoaled sediments from multiple shipping berths.
To ensure dredging operations comply with all regulations and conclude within the work window, several obstacles must be overcome. Hydrographic surveys must be scheduled around variable and frequent vessel traffic. Sampling sediments proposed for dredging requires penetrating consolidated clays and hard-packed sand to reach the permitted dredge depth of -50 feet MLLW plus a 2-foot over-dredge layer where the native hard- packed sediments typically reside. These sediment samples occasionally exhibit moderately elevated concentrations of legacy contaminants.
Quickly approved SAP documents
For each episode, we obtain a Tier I testing exemption for any recently evaluated berths, which significantly reduces the Port’s sampling and analysis costs. For the other berths, our sediment scientists prepare an SAP. Our decades of experience characterizing sediments in Oakland Harbor and our role assisting the EPA and the USACE with the development of testing guidelines allows us to anticipate and address DMMO concerns and objections, leading to quick approval with minimal delays.
Obtained DMMO approval for Port’s preferred disposal/beneficial reuse options Following SAP approval, our field team collects up to 30 sediment cores using a vibracore capable of penetrating consolidated clays at infrequently dredged berths and the hard- packed sand present at design depth for berths deepened to -50 feet. We then vertically delineate samples collected in potentially contaminated areas to give the Port an option to isolate any observed contaminants. In instances where samples exhibit elevated legacy contaminant levels, our sediment chemists and toxicologists have consi stently shown the DMMO that these contaminant levels are not expected to cause significant environmental impacts. This has allowed the multiagency organization to approve the Port’s preferred disposal or beneficial reuse options in a timely manner.
Services
Sampling and analysis plan
Sediment quality evaluation
Field sampling and analysis
Hydrographic surveys
Haley & Aldrich staff
Scott Bodensteiner
Helder Costa
Darcy Metzler
Jennifer Galvin
Vanessa Godard
Subconsultants
Leviathan
Pacific EcoRisk
Eurofins Calscience
SAN RAFAEL CREEK RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL DOCKS | Comprehensive Dredge Support Services The San Rafael Creek is an urban channel and waterfront critical to public safety operations, regional economic growth, and flood control. Allowing commercial and residential access to the creek requires maintenance dredging in conjunction with the USACE maintenance dredging of the San Rafael Federal Navigation Channel. Dredging the channel poses multiple challenges. In addition to the presence of multiple contaminants, the permitting process was complicated by the number of individual dock owners along the Creek. Working closely with USACE, BCDC, CDFW and the RWQCB, we diligently Services
Sampling and analysis plan
Sediment quality evaluation
Field sampling and analysis
DMMO dredging permit
application and acquisition
Hydrographic surveys
124
compiled a massive amount of property information, and completed the DMMO application which resulted in long-term permits with all four agencies.
Enabled cost-effective disposal of dredged sediments
As we expected, we detected elevated contaminants prohibiting in-Bay disposal throughout the dredging footprint. But with careful data evaluation, our sediment scientists demonstrated with statistical analysis and modeling that the potential to elicit ecological effects was not significant enough to prohibit ocean disposal, which had not been allowed with the previous episode.
Saved the city money on sediment importing and disposal cost We negotiated limiting the post-dredge cap to an area within the federal channel.
Regulators also agreed to allow us to use non-impacted sediments as capping material.
This saved the city money they would otherwise have spent importing cap material and transporting unimpacted sediments to the authorized disposal site further away.
Haley & Aldrich staff
Scott Bodensteiner
Helder Costa
Darcy Metzler
Jennifer Galvin
Vanessa Godard
Subconsultants
Leviathan
Pacific EcoRisk
Eurofins Calscience
PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO | Sediment Characterization and Permitting The Port of San Francisco has depended on Haley & Aldrich’s sediment characterization and permitting expertise on two recent projects critical to new tenants. The first was in relocating the historic Klamath Ferry to the port’s Pier 9 so the Bay Area Council could use it as their new headquarters. The other was obtaining approval for emergency dredging at Pier 45 to relocate another historic vessel, the USS Pampanito, a World War II submarine preserved as a maritime museum.
Strategically sequenced permitting and testing to adhere to strict schedule To ensure dredging for both projects was completed on time, our project manager sequenced the various permitting and sediment testing procedures needed to proceed with the most cost-effective and timely options.
Expedited sediment characterization and sediment quality data analysis By anticipating and incorporating their comments and concerns prior to submission, we quickly received DMMO approval of our SAPs without requests for revisions. Within a week, our field team mobilized to collect samples and deliver them to the labs. For the Pier 45 project, Eurofins Calscience sent us data to review in real-time, and we immediately rectified an analytical reporting issue. The DMMO reviewed our reports and data for both projects and accepted all of our disposal recommendations.
Prepared a detailed Integrated Alternatives Analysis
Using a multi-criteria decision analysis approach, we clearly established that dredged material management alternatives to aquatic disposal were not practicable due to the cost burden of a diminutive project like the Klamath Ferry dredging.
Services
Sampling and analysis plan
Sediment quality evaluation
Field sampling and analysis
DMMO dredging permit
application and acquisition
Integrated alternatives analysis
Haley & Aldrich staff
Scott Bodensteiner
Helder Costa
Darcy Metzler
Jennifer Galvin
Vanessa Godard
Subconsultants
Pacific EcoRisk
Eurofins Calscience
INTERNATIONAL MATEX TANK TERMINALS (IMTT), RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA | Dredging Support IMTT needed to dredge their berths adjacent to their bulk liquid handling facility on the Richmond Inner Harbor. They turned to the Haley & Aldrich team to prepare an SAP proposing an innovative sampling and testing strategy aimed at DMMO approving knock- down dredging—a low-cost alternative to conventional dredging and disposal in which crews drag a steel beam over shoals or high spots to scrape sediments into a low area within the dredging footprint.
Because of our history with DMMO, we anticipated their concerns and prepared the SAP accordingly. As such, the DMMO approved our SAP without any significant revision requests, allowing our team to immediately begin sampling. During sampling, we found elevated concentrations of pesticides (DDTs) related to the adjacent United Heckathorn Superfund Site. These results ultimately prevented DMMO approving a knock-down dredging episode. However, our team quickly pivoted and, using sound science and careful analysis, prepared an SCR recommending dredging and beneficial reuse at the Montezuma Wetlands, which the DMMO readily approved.
Services
Sampling and analysis plan
Sediment quality evaluation
Field sampling and analysis
Haley & Aldrich staff
Scott Bodensteiner
Helder Costa
Darcy Metzler
Vanessa Godard
125
LEVIN RICHMOND TERMINAL, RICHMOND INNER HARBOR | Remediation Impacts to Maintenance Dredging Contamination from a former pesticide processing facility in the Richmond Inner Harbor being listed as a Superfund site. Cleanup was completed by the mid -1990s, but soon after, elevated DDT concentrations were again detected in the Lauritzen Channel . This discovery prompted the U.S. EPA to prepare a new feasibility study to assess alternatives for a second cleanup action, including remediation dredging.
The Levin Richmond Terminal (LRT), located at the mouth of the Lauritzen Channel, must regularly dredge their shipping terminals, so they stood to be affected by the study’s outcome. Based on our ability to assess and manage contaminated sediments, LRT hired Haley & Aldrich to comprehensively review the study and comment on the proposed remedies’ impacts to their maintenance dredging.
As one component of this effort, our team reviewed and compiled data generated during previous sediment quality studies performed by U.S. EPA, LRT, USACE, the Port of Richmond, and other terminals on the Inner Harbor. We assessed in detail the constructability and feasibility of remedial alternatives presented in the study. Finally, we determined the impacts of the remedy on LRT’s maintenance dredging and presented these findings to U.S. EPA’s task force.
Services
Sampling and analysis plan
Sediment quality evaluation
Field sampling and analysis
DMMO dredging permit
application and acquisition
Haley & Aldrich staff
Scott Bodensteiner
Darcy Metzler
Helder Costa
BLAIR WATERWAY, PORT OF TACOMA, WASHINGTON | Slope Stability Analysis The Port of Tacoma is deepening berths within the Blair Waterway. They retained Haley & Aldrich geotechnical engineers to evaluate slope stability for the wharf structures at Husky and Washington United Terminals, as well as support the design and evaluation of an underwater toe wall to accommodate up to 10 feet of additional berthing depths.
Similar to what may be needed for the Port of Richmond, properly analyzing geotechnical conditions required subsurface soil explorations, including seismic cone penetration tests (CPTs) and over-water and upland borings. With data from these tests and borings, we are assessing liquefaction and static and seismic slope stability with numerical modeling using two-dimensional, effective-stress analysis that can model the timing and initiation of liquefaction.
Services
Slope stability analysis
Seismic hazard analysis
Ground motion development
Limit equilibrium
Haley & Aldrich staff
Doug Lindquist
SEDIMENT REMEDIATION CAP, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA | Slope Stability Analysis Haley & Aldrich has been evaluating slope stability in support of a sediment cap near the San Francisco shoreline as part of a client’s legacy contamination cleanup. Similar to the Port of Richmond, the slopes are near historic waterfront structures and will need to be maintained as the area is dredged and the cap is constructed. Using limit equilibrium slope stability analyses, we evaluated both static conditions and seismic conditions. We also evaluated the slopes under seismic loading conditions using a probabilistic, performance-based seismic slope displacement procedure. By combining these methods, we designed the constructed slopes to a limiting deformation. Where needed, our design incorporated timber piles to stabilize select slopes and increase their resiliency during an earthquake.
Services
Slope stability analysis
Haley & Aldrich staff
Helder Costa
Darcy Metzler
Jennifer Galvin
Doug Lindquist
G. REFERENCES
PORT OF OAKLAND
Edwin Draper, Supervising Engineer
510.627.1269
[email protected]
PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO
Kathryn Purcell, Sr. Planner
415.518.0484
[email protected]
PORT OF REDWOOD CITY
Don Snaman, Director of Operations
650.642.8600
[email protected]
126
December 16, 2024
Subject: Fee Quotation for Professional Services Agreement to Support Permitting and Dredging at Terminals 2, 7, 8 and the Marina Bay Yacht Harbor
H. FEE QUOTATION (NOT TO EXCEED)*
TASK COST
Sampling and Analysis Plan $14,700
Sampling, Analysis and Sediment Report (Terminals 2, 7 and 8) $158,200 MBYH Entrance Channel Sampling, Analysis and Report $31,700 MBYH Permit Amendment $15,600
Episode Approval (Dredge Operations Plan) $3,800
Terminal 2 Slope Stability Improvement Recommendations $11,000 New Permits for Beyond 2027 (Optional) $19,100
Total $235,000
Total with Optional Task $254,100
ASSUMPTIONS
1. Sampling and analysis includes one sample area for each of four dredge unit s: Terminal 2, Terminal 7, Terminal 8, and the Marina Bay Yacht Harbor (MBYH) Entrance Channel.
2. Per the RFP, the MBYH permit amendment and sampling and testing tasks a re included as separate line-items but part of the total cost.
3. Obtaining new permits for all dredge areas for beyond the 2027 permit expiration dates is an optional task.
4. For Episode Approval, dredging contractor will prepare Dredge Operations Plan (DOP), and we will review the DOP and coordinate with the regulatory agencies during the approval process. We can prepare the DOP if necessary for an additional cost.
5. We will prepare our own health and safety plan for work on the site. Drilling does not require air monitoring.
6. Site-specific security clearance is not required for this project.
7. Our fieldwork can be performed between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday.
8. Haley & Aldrich’s services are professional services and not subject to Prevailing Wage Rate requirements.
Subcontractor services including our drillers and utility locators will be subject to Prevailing Wage Requirements.
9. Haley & Aldrich will produce work that complies with our internal quality assurance/quality control program.
Additional requirements beyond that program are not included in our fee estimate.
10. The Port of Richmond will provide existing geotechnical reports and previous dredge studies for all Port dredging project areas.
www.haleyaldrich.com
HALEY & ALDRICH, INC.
2033 N. Main Street, Suite 309
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
925.949.1012
*All costs are negotiable as we refine the
scope of work with the Port.
127
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
EXHIBIT B
PAYMENT PROVISIONS
1. COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR:
a. Provided Contractor is not in default under this Contract, Contractor shall be compensated in the manner set forth herein.
b. All payments made pursuant to this Contract shall be subject to the Contract Payment Limit. The Payment Limit includes expenses (phones, photocopying, 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.
c. All City vendors receiving new contracts shall sign up to receive electronic payments through the City’s Automated Clearinghouse (ACH) payments service/provider.
2. SUBMISSION OF INVOICES:
Contractor shall submit timely invoices by email to
[email protected] and/or to the following address:
Attention: City of Richmond Finance/Account Payable
Project Manager: _______________________
P.O. Box 4046
Richmond, CA 94804
3. All invoices that are submitted by Contractor shall be subject to the approval of the City Project Manager, _______________________, before payments shall be authorized.
a. The City will pay invoice(s) within 45 days after completion of services to the City’s satisfaction. The City shall not pay late fees or interest.
b. All appropriate permits, certificates, and licenses, including a City business license shall be obtained and maintained for the duration of this Contract before any payment is authorized.
4. All insurance coverage required by this Contract shall be provided by the Contractor before this Contract is executed by the City. The insurance coverage required by this Contract shall be maintained by Contractor for the duration of this Contract and must be in place before any payment is authorized.
128
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
EXHIBIT C
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES AND NOTICES
1. All required written notices shall be delivered: (i) by hand; or (ii) sent by registered, express, or certified mail, with return receipt requested or with delivery confirmation requested from the U.S. postal service; or (iii) sent by overnight or same day courier service at the party’s respective address listed in this Section.
2. Each notice shall be deemed to have been received on the earlier to occur of:
actual delivery or the date on which delivery is refused; or three (3) days after notice is deposited in the U.S. mail or with a courier service in the manner described above (Sundays and City holidays excepted).
3. Either party may, at any time, change its notice address (other than to a post office box address) by giving the other party three (3) days prior written notice of the new address.
4. All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from Contractor to the City shall be addressed to the City at:
City of Richmond
450 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
Email: ________________________________________________
5. All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from the City to Contractor shall be addressed to Contractor at:
Attn:
Email: ________________________________________________ 129
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
EXHIBIT D
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. INDEPENDENT PARTIES:
Contractor hereby declares that Contractor is engaged as an independent business and Contractor agrees to perform the services as an independent contractor.
The manner and means of conducting the services and tasks are under the control of Contractor except to the extent they are limited by statute, rule or regulation and the express terms of this Contract. No civil service status or other right of employment will be acquired by virtue of Contractor’s services. None of the benefits provided by the City to its employees, including but not limited to unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation plans, vacation and sick leave, are available from the City to Contractor, its employees or agents. Deductions shall not be made for any state or federal taxes, FICA payments, PERS payments, or other purposes normally associated with an employer-employee relationship from any compensation due to Contractor. Payments of the above items, if required, are the responsibility of Contractor.
2. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE:
Contractor and the City agree that time is of the essence regarding the performance of this Contract.
3. STANDARD OF CARE:
Contractor agrees to perform all services hereunder in a manner commensurate with the prevailing standards of like professionals or service Contractors, as applicable, in the San Francisco Bay Area and agrees that all services shall be performed by qualified and experienced personnel who are not employed by the City.
4. IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL ACT (IRCA):
Contractor assumes all responsibility for verifying the identity and employment authorization of all of its employees performing work hereunder, pursuant to all applicable IRCA or other federal, or state rules and regulations. Contractor shall indemnify, defend, and hold the City harmless from and against any loss, damage, liability, costs or expenses arising from any noncompliance of this provision by Contractor.
5. NON-DISCRIMINATION:
Consistent with the City’s policy and state and federal law that harassment and discrimination are unacceptable conduct, Contractor and its employees, contractors, and agents shall not harass or discriminate against any job applicant, City employee, or any other person on the basis of any kind of any statutorily (federal, state or local) protected class, including but not limited to: race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, 130
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
disability (both mental and physical) including HIV and AIDS, medical condition (e.g. cancer), genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, pregnancy, political affiliation, military and veteran status or legitimate union activities. Contractor agrees that any violation of this provision shall constitute a material breach of this Contract.
6. CITY PROPERTY:
a. Each and every report, draft, work product, map, record, applicable plans, drawings, calculation, data, specification, video, graphic, or any other material or document produced, prepared or caused to be prepared by Contractor pursuant to or in connection with this Contract shall be the exclusive property of the City. b. 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 11 below, indemnify, defend and hold the City harmless from and against any discovery or Public Records Act request seeking the disclosure of such proprietary software or data. c. No report, information or other data given to or prepared or assembled by Contractor pursuant to this Contract shall be made available to any individual or organization by Contractor without prior approval of the City Manager or their designee. d. Contractor shall, at such time and in such form as City Manager or their designee may require, furnish reports concerning the status of services and tasks required under this Contract.
7. RECORDS:
a. Contractor shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to the services, tasks, work, documents and data in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of Contractor’s performance under the Contract, as well as maintain books and records related to sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by the City that relate to the performance of the services and tasks under this Contract (collectively the “Records”).
b. All Records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Contractor shall provide free access to the Records to the representatives of the City or its designees during regular business hours upon reasonable prior notice. The City has the right to examine and audit the Records, and to make copies or transcripts therefrom as necessary, and to allow inspection of all proceedings and activities related to this Contract. Such Records, together with supporting documents, shall be kept separate from other documents and records and shall be maintained by Contractor for a period of five (5) years after receipt of final payment.
131
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
c. If supplemental examination or audit of the Records is necessary due to concerns raised by the City’s preliminary examination or audit of records, and the City’s supplemental examination or audit of the records discloses a failure to adhere to appropriate internal financial controls, or other breach of this Contract or failure to act in good faith, then Contractor shall reimburse the City for all reasonable costs and expenses associated with the supplemental examination or audit.
8. PERMITS AND LICENSES:
Contractor, at its sole expense, shall obtain and maintain during the term of this Contract, all appropriate permits, certificates and licenses, including a City business license, required in connection with the performance of the services and tasks hereunder.
The failure to obtain such permits and licenses 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.
9. TERMINATION:
a. Termination Without Default. Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, the 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 transmission of written notice to Contractor as provided in Exhibit C “Authorized Representatives and Notices”.
b. 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 Exhibit B; 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.
10. 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 132
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
this Contract shall be forfeited and returned to City forthwith. This provision shall survive the termination of this Contract for one (1) year.
11. HOLD HARMLESS:
a. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Contractor shall indemnify, defend (with counsel acceptable to the City) and hold harmless the City, its City Council, boards, commissions, officials, employees, agents and volunteers (“Indemnitees”) from and against any and all loss, damages, liability, obligations, claims, suits, judgments, costs and expenses whatsoever, including attorney’s fees and costs of litigation (“Claims”), arising from or in any manner connected to Contractor’s performance of its obligations under this Contract or failure to comply with any of its obligations under this Contract or out of the operations conducted by Contractor even if the City is found to have been negligent. If the Claims filed against Indemnitees allege negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct on the part of Contractor, Contractor shall have no right of reimbursement against Indemnitees for the costs of defense even if negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct is not found on the part of Contractor. Contractor shall not have any obligations to indemnify Indemnitees if the loss or damage is found to have resulted solely from the negligence or the willful misconduct of the City. The defense and indemnification obligations of this Contract are undertaken in addition to, and shall not in any way be limited by, the insurance obligations contained in this Contract.
b. This indemnification obligation shall survive this Contract and shall not be limited by any term of any insurance policy required under this Contract; provided however, that if this Contract is for design professional services, this indemnity provision is limited to claims that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the design professional (as defined in California Civil Code section 2782.8).
12. LIMITATIONS UPON SUBCONTRACTING AND ASSIGNMENT:
a. This Contract binds the heirs, successors, assigns and representatives of Contractor. The Contractor shall not enter into subcontracts for any work contemplated 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.
b. Contractor shall not assign, sublease, hypothecate, or transfer this Contract, or any interest therein, directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise, without prior written consent of the City Manager. Contractor shall submit a written request for consent to transfer to the City Manager at least thirty (30) days in advance of the desired transfer.
The City Manager or their designee may consent or reject such request in their sole and absolute discretion. Any attempt to do so without said consent shall be null and void, and any assignee, sublessee, hypothecate or transferee shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer. However, claims for 133
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
money against the City under this Contract may be assigned by Contractor to a bank, trust company or other financial institution without prior written consent. c. 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.
d. Only those persons and/or businesses whose names and resumés are attached to this Contract shall be used in the performance of this Contract. However, if after the start of this Contract, Contractor wishes to use sub-contractors, at no additional costs to the City, then Contractor shall submit a written request for consent to add sub- contractors including the names of the sub-contractors and the reasons for the request to the City Manager at least five (5) days in advance. The City Manager may consent or reject such requests in their sole and absolute discretion. e. Each sub-contractor shall be required to furnish proof of workers’ compensation insurance and shall also be required to carry general, automobile and professional liability insurance (as applicable) in reasonable conformity to the insurance carried by Contractor.
f. In addition, any tasks or services performed by sub-contractors shall be subject to each provision of this Contract. Contractor shall include the following language in their Contract with any sub-contractor: “Sub-Contractors hired by Contractor agree to be bound to Contractor and the City in the same manner and to the same extent as Contractor is bound to the City.”
g. The requirements in this Section 12 shall not apply to persons who are merely providing materials, supplies, data or information that Contractor then analyzes and incorporates into its work product.
13. SAFETY:
a. Contractor acknowledges that the City is committed to the highest standards of workplace safety. Contractor will be solely and completely responsible for conditions of all vehicles owned or operated by Contractor, including the safety of all persons and property during performance of the services and tasks under this Contract.
Contractor shall assume sole and complete responsibility for the safety of Contractor's employees and any of subcontractor's employees This requirement will apply continuously and not be limited to normal working hours. In addition, Contractor will comply with all safety provisions in conformance with U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Act, any equivalent state law, and all other applicable 134
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
federal, state, county and local laws, ordinances, codes, and any regulations that may be detailed in other parts of the Contract. Where any of these are in conflict, the more stringent requirements will be followed. Contractor’s failure to thoroughly familiarize itself with the aforementioned safety provisions will not relieve it from compliance with the obligations and penalties set forth herein.
b. Contractor will immediately notify the City (in no event less than 24 hours) of any incident of death, serious personal injury or substantial property damage that occurs in connection with the performance of this Contract. Contractor will promptly submit to the City a written report of all incidents that occur in connection with this Contract. This report must include the following information: (i) name and address of injured or deceased person(s); (ii) name and address of Contractor’s employee(s) involved in the incident; (iii) name and address of Contractor’s liability insurance carrier; (iv) a detailed description of the incident; and (v) a police report.
c. Contractor acknowledges that the City shall have the right to impose, at the City’s sole discretion, requirements that it deems are necessary to protect the health and safety of the City employees, residents, and visitors. Contractor agrees to comply with all such requirements, including, but not limited to, mandatory vaccinations, the use of personal protective equipment (e.g. masks), physical distancing, and health screenings.
Contractor also agrees to make available to the City, at the City’s request, records to demonstrate Contractor’s compliance with this Section.
14. 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.
15. COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE LAWS:
a. During the term of this Contract, Contractor shall keep fully informed of all existing and future state and federal laws and all municipal ordinances and regulations of the City of Richmond which affect the manner in which the services or tasks are to be performed by Contractor, as well as all such orders and decrees of bodies or tribunals having any jurisdiction or authority over the same. Contractor shall comply with all applicable laws, state and federal and all ordinances, rules and regulations enacted or issued by the City. 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.
b. Contractor acknowledges that under § 2.60.070 of the Municipal Code ("Living Wage Ordinance"), Contractor is required to provide the City with documents and information verifying its compliance with the Living Wage Ordinance. 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 as prescribed in § 2.60.070 of the Municipal Code.
135
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
c. Contractor shall comply with § 2.28.030 of the Municipal Code, obligating every Contractor or sub-Contractor under an agreement or sub-agreement with the City for public works, goods or services to refrain from discriminatory employment or 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 sub-contractor.
d. 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.
16. INTEGRATED CONTRACT:
The Recitals and exhibits are a material part of this Contract and are expressly incorporated herein. This Contract represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or nature whatsoever between the parties hereto, and all preliminary negotiations and agreements of whatsoever kind or nature are merged herein. No verbal agreement or implied covenant shall be held to vary the provisions hereof. Any modification of this Contract will be effective only by written execution signed by both the City and Contractor.
17. 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 Condition 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.
18. 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.
19. CONFLICT OF LAW:
This Contract shall be interpreted under, and enforced by the laws of the State of 136
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
California without regard to any choice of law rules which may direct the application of laws of another jurisdiction. The Contract and obligations of the parties are subject to all valid laws, orders, rules, and regulations of the authorities having jurisdiction over this Contract (or the successors of those authorities). Any suits brought pursuant to this Contract shall be filed with the courts of the County of Contra Costa, State of California.
20. 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.
21. INTERPRETATION:
This Contract shall be interpreted as if drafted by both parties.
22. WARRANTY:
If any product is 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.
23. 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 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.
24. 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 they are duly authorized to enter into and execute this Contract on behalf of Contractor, 137
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
and shall be personally liable to City if they are not duly authorized to enter into and execute this Contract on behalf of Contractor.
25. 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 payment 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.
26. COUNTERPARTS:
This Contract may be executed in any number of counterparts (including by fax, PDF, DocuSign, or other electronic means), each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument.
27. SANCTUARY CITY CONTRACTING ORDINANCE (SCCO):
The Richmond Sanctuary City Contracting Ordinance No. 12-18 prohibits the City from granting and or retaining contracts 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 must submit the Sanctuary City Compliance Statement, attached hereto as Exhibit G. 138
Contract No: ________ 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, otherwise please state “NONE”):
139
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
EXHIBIT F
INSURANCE PROVISIONS
☐ CHECK HERE IF RISK MANAGEMENT HAS APPROVED WAIVING INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS CONTRACT.
1. CERTIFICATES: Before the commencement of the terms of this Contract, and during the entire term of this Contract and any extension or modification thereof, Contractor shall furnish the City’s Risk Manager with certificates showing the type, amount, class of operations covered, effective dates and dates of expiration of insurance coverage in compliance with coverage requirements set forth by the City and incorporated herein.
Such certificates, which do not limit Contractor’s indemnification, shall also contain substantially the following statement:
“Should any of the above insurance covered by this certificate be canceled or coverage reduced before the expiration date thereof, the insurer affording coverage shall provide thirty (30) days’ advance written notice to the City of Richmond.
Attention: Risk Manager.”
Contractor shall maintain in force at all times during the performance of this Contract all appropriate coverage of insurance required by this Contract with an insurance company licensed to offer insurance business in the State of California with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII or Standard & Poor’s Rating (if rated) of at least BBB unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Contractor shall deliver updated insurance certificates to the City at the address set forth in Exhibit C prior to the expiration of the existing insurance certificate for the duration of the term of Contract.
Endorsements naming the City, its City Council, boards, commissions, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers as additional insured shall be submitted with the insurance certificates.
2. COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS: The City’s insurance requirements depend upon the type of service being provided and/or the provider. The City’s insurance requirements will fall into one of the following categories (unless otherwise provided by the City):
Consultants and Contractors – Type 1
Professional Services – Type 2
Environmental Risk/Hazardous Waste Material – Type 3
Lease of City Property – Type 4
Vendors, Suppliers, Small Grant Recipients & Nonprofit Organizations – Type 5 Transportation Providers – Type 6
Professional Services Pyrotechnics – Type 7
Cyber and I.T. Risks – Type 8
140
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
The insurance requirements classification applicable to this Contract shall be attached to this Exhibit F and made a part hereof.
3. FAILURE TO SECURE: If Contractor at any time during the term hereof should fail to secure or maintain the foregoing insurance, the City shall be permitted to obtain such insurance in Contractor’s name or as an agent of Contractor and shall be compensated by Contractor for the costs of the insurance premiums at the maximum rate permitted by law and computed from the date written notice is received that the premiums have not been paid.
4. SUFFICIENCY OF INSURANCE: The insurance limits required by the City are not represented as being sufficient to protect Contractor. Contractor is advised to consult Contractor’s insurance broker to determine adequate coverage for Contractor. The coverage and limits shall be (1) the minimum coverage and limits specified in this Contract; or (2) the broader coverage and maximum limits of the coverage carried by or available to Contractor; whichever is greater.
INSERT INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CLASSIFICATION APPLICABLE TO THIS CONTRACT: (IF NECESSARY, CONFIRM WITH RISK MANAGER)
141
___ Exhibit F
___ Section 8
City of Richmond - Insurance Requirements - Type 2:
Professional Services
Type
2 – Page 1 of 3
R
evised: September 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. Ins
urance 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 i
ts equivalent) with primary and non-contributory language.
4. Workers’ Compensation Insurance as required by the State of California including Employer’s Liability coverage.
5. O
riginal and Separate Waiver of Subrogation for Workers’ Compensation insurance.
6. Professi
onal Liability or Errors & Omissions Liability Insurance appropriate to the CONTRACTOR’s professi
on (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 ($4 million aggregate limit).
Policy shall be endorsed to name the City of Richmond as an additional insured per the conditions detailed below.
142
___ Exhibit F
___ Section 8
City of Richmond - Insurance Requirements - Type 2:
Professional Services
Type
2 – Page 2 of 3
R
evised: September 2011
Automobile Liability $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage.
PROJECT COST REQUIRED 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 Be tter. If the A.M. Best Rating falls below the required rating, CONT
RACTOR must replace coverage immediately and provide notice to City.
Um
brella/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. 143
___ Exhibit F
___ Section 8
City of Richmond - Insurance Requirements - Type 2:
Professional Services
Type 2 – Page 3 of 3
Revised: September 2011
Claims-Made Policies
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.
144
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
EXHIBIT G
SANCTUARY CITY COMPLIANCE STATEMENT
The undersigned, (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.
Printed Name: Title:
Signed: Date:
Business Entity:
145
February 25, 2025
Mayor's Office
DATE: February 25, 2025
TO: Members of the City Council
FROM:
Mayor Eduardo Martinez
Subject:
Proclamation in Honor of June Albonico
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
None
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
This is a proclamation in honor of the life and legacy of June Albonico
RECOMMENDED ACTION: PROCLAMATION in honor of the life and legacy of June Albonico – Mayor’s Office (Mayor Eduardo Martinez 510-
620-6503).
DISCUSSION:
We honor June Albonico for her unwavering dedication and six decades of service that profoundly shaped the Richmond swimming community. As a beloved lifeguard and swim instructor, June impacted the lives of thousands, teaching valuable life skills and fostering confidence, resilience, and a love for swimming. Her tireless advocacy for the Richmond Plunge ensured that future generations would have access to this vital community resource. June’s legacy is one of selfless service, deep community connections, and a lifelong commitment to enriching the lives of others. By honoring June, we acknowledge her immense contributions and ensure that her inspiring example of dedication, kindness, and commitment to the well-being of others continues to inspire future generations.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
AGENDA
REPORT
146
February 25, 2025
Attachment 1 – Proclamation honoring the life and legacy of June Albonico 147
Mayor Eduardo Martinez
City of Richmond
February 25, 2025
PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF JUNE ALBONICO
WHEREAS, in recognition of her unparalleled dedication and six decades of exemplary service to the Richmond community, the City of Richmond proudly honors the life and legacy of June Albonico; and
WHEREAS, June Albonico graduated from Richmond High School in 1945 and soon after met the love of her life, Henry “Hank” Albonico, whom she married on December 1, 1946; and
WHEREAS, in 1956, June began a remarkable career as a lifeguard and swim instructor at the Richmond Plunge and Richmond Swim Center, where she would go on to make a profound impact on countless lives; and
WHEREAS, through her tireless commitment, June became a beloved figure in the Richmond community, known not only for her exceptional teaching skills but also for her steadfast advocacy to ensure the Richmond Plunge remained open for future generations; and
WHEREAS, over the course of her career, June taught thousands of individuals how to swim, instilling in them both a love for the water and the confidence to succeed.
WHEREA, her dedication spanned more than 60 years, during which she joyfully watched her students grow—often teaching multiple generations within the same families; and
WHEREAS, June Albonico’s legacy is one of profound impact, heartfelt service, and selfless generosity. Her contributions have left an indelible mark on the Richmond community, and her spirit will continue to inspire and enrich the lives of future generations.
NOW THEREFORE, I, Eduardo Martinez, Mayor of the City of Richmond, California, do hereby proclaim our deepest appreciation for June Albonico’s lifelong commitment to the betterment of our community and extend our heartfelt condolences to her family and loved ones.
148
February 25, 2025
Mayor's Office
DATE: February 25, 2025
TO: Members of the City Council
FROM:
Mayor Eduardo Martinez
Subject:
Proclamation Recognizing February 2 8, 202 5, as Rare
Disease Day in Richmond, California
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
February 28, 2023
January 23, 2024
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
The observance of Rare Disease Day on the last day of
February each year provides an opportunity to raise
awareness of rare diseases. The occasions highlight the experiences of patients, their families, caregivers, while also advocating for improved policies, research, and
support for those living with rare diseases.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: PROCLAMATION recognizing February 28, 2025, as Rare Disease Day in Richmond, California – Mayor’s
Office (Mayor Eduardo Martinez 510-620-6503).
DISCUSSION:
Rare diseases affect an estimated 400 million people worldwide, with over 7,000 rare diseases identified to date, many of which are life-threatening and have no known cures. The City of Richmond would like to shine a light on this situation and its circumstances by joining municipalities across the nation in recognizing February 28, 2025, as Rare Disease Day. Individuals with rare diseases often face significant challenges in receiving an accurate diagnosis, accessing appropriate treatment and care, and navigating the complexities of the healthcare system. This may also cause significant financial hardship for many individuals and families. While the public is familiar with some rare diseases, many patients, families, and caregivers affected by AGENDA
REPORT
149
February 25, 2025
lesser-known rare diseases bear the burden of funding research and raising public awareness to support the search for treatments. The City must better support individuals with rare diseases and disabilities, their families, their caregivers, and the organizations that work tirelessly to advance research, provide resources and services, and raise awareness of the impacts of living with rare diseases.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – Proclamation declaring February 28, 2025, as Rare Disease Day in the City of Richmond
150
Declaring February 28th, 2025, as Rare Disease Day in
the City of Richmond
WHEREAS, rare diseases affect an estimated 400 million people worldwide, two-thirds of whom are children, with over 7,000 rare diseases identified to date, many of which are life-threatening and have no known cures; and
WHEREAS, individuals with rare diseases often face significant challenges in receiving an accurate diagnosis, accessing appropriate treatment and care, and navigating the complexities of the healthcare system; and
WHEREAS, our country’s for-profit healthcare system makes treatment and care for all diseases overly expensive, burdensome, and is more responsive to corporate profits than human need; and
WHEREAS, people with rare diseases are even more vulnerable to the healthcare industry’s profit motive, as treatments and cures are either not economically appealing to treat or are incredibly expensive to procure; and
WHEREAS, while the public is familiar with some rare diseases, many patients, families, and caregivers affected by lesser-known rare diseases bear the burden of funding research and raising public awareness to support the search for treatments; and
WHEREAS, municipalities, including Richmond, do not adequately anticipate or accommodate the daily needs of disabled people; and
WHEREAS, our city must better support individuals with rare diseases, their families, their caregivers, and the organizations that work tirelessly to advance research, provide resources and services, and raise awareness of the impact of rare diseases; and
WHEREAS, thousands of residents of the City of Richmond are among those affected by rare diseases, as nearly one in 20 people in the United States have rare diseases.
NOW THEREFORE, I, Eduardo Martinez, Mayor of the City of Richmond, do hereby proclaim February 28th, 2025, as Rare Disease Day in Richmond, and call upon all residents to observe this day by learning more about rare diseases, supporting individuals, families, and caregivers affected by these conditions and advocating for increased awareness, research, and access to affordable and quality healthcare for all individuals living with rare diseases.
151
February 25, 2025
Mayor's Office
DATE: February 25, 2025
TO: Members of the City Council
FROM:
Mayor Eduardo Martinez
Subject:
Appointment of Xiao Feng Zhou to the Richmond-
Zhoushan Friendship Commission
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
None
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
Xiao Feng Zhou is applying for a vacant seat on the
Richmond-Zhoushan Friendship Commission
RECOMMENDED ACTION: APPOINT Xiao Feng Zhou to the Richmond-Zhoushan Friendship Commission, with a term ending December
31, 2027 – Mayor’s Office (Mayor Eduardo Martinez 510-
620-6503).
DISCUSSION:
We recommend appointing Xiao Feng Zhou to the Richmond-Zhoushan Friendship Commission. With 35 years of residency in Richmond, California, she brings a deep AGENDA
REPORT
152
February 25, 2025
understanding of the local community and its diverse cultural fabric. As a proud Chinese-American, Xiao Feng is passionate about fostering stronger ties between Richmond and our sister-city Zhoushan, China, particularly in the areas of youth engagement and maritime training, which are crucial to both cities. Her Master of Business degree further equips her with the leadership and organizational skills needed to navigate complex international relations and ensure the success of cross-cultural initiatives. Xiao Feng’s commitment to building bridges and promoting mutual understanding would make her an invaluable asset to the commission.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – Xiao Feng Zhou’s redacted application
153
154
February 25, 2025
Mayor's Office
DATE: February 25, 2025
TO: Members of the City Council
FROM:
Mayor Eduardo Martinez
Subject:
Appointment of Andrew Melendez to the Community Crisis
Response Program Advisory Board
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
None.
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
Andrew Melendez is applying for a vacant seat on the
Community Crisis Response Program Advisory Board
RECOMMENDED ACTION: APPOINT Andrew Melendez to the Community Crisis Response Program Advisory Board, term expires
December 31, 2025 – Mayor’s Office (Mayor Eduardo
Martinez 510-620-6503).
DISCUSSION:
Andrew Melendez is an ideal candidate for the Community Crisis Response Program Advisory Board due to his deep-rooted connection to the Richmond, California AGENDA
REPORT
155
February 25, 2025
community, where he has been a resident for 23 years. His long-standing commitment to the well-being of his neighbors and his genuine belief in the mission of the crisis response team makes him a passionate advocate for effective, compassionate interventions in times of crisis. Andrew’s firsthand understanding of the local challenges, combined with his dedication to improving community safety and mental health outcomes, will enable him to contribute valuable insights and perspectives that will strengthen the program’s impact and ensure it addresses the unique needs of Richmond residents.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – Andrew Melendez’s redacted application
156
157