January 2020 319
Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHBIT 10-1
Notice to Proposers DBE Information
D. A DBE joint venture partner must be responsible for specific contract items of work or clearly defined portions thereof. Responsibility means actually performing, managing, and supervising the work with its own forces. The DBE joint venture partner must share in the capital contribution, control, management, risks and profits of the joint venture commensurate with its ownership interest.
E. A DBE must perform a commercially useful function pursuant to 49 CFR 26.55, that is, a DBE firm must be responsible for the execution of a distinct element of the work and must carry out its responsibility by actually performing, managing and supervising the work.
F. The proposer shall list only one subconsultant for each portion of work as defined in their proposal and all DBE subconsultants should be listed in the bid/cost proposal list of subconsultants.
G. A prime consultant who is a certified DBE is eligible to claim all of the work in the Contract toward the DBE participation except that portion of the work to be performed by non-DBE subconsultants.
5. RESOURCES
A. The CUCP database includes the certified DBEs from all certifying agencies participating in the CUCP.
If you believe a firm is certified that cannot be located on the database, please contact the Caltrans Office of Certification toll free number 1-866-810-6346 for assistance.
B. Access the CUCP database from the Department of Transportation, Office of Civil Rights website
1. Click on the link titled Disadvantaged Business Enterprise;
2. Click on Search for a DBE Firm link;
3. Click on Access to the DBE Query Form located on the first line in the center of the page.
Searches can be performed by one or more criteria. Follow instructions on the screen.
6. MATERIALS OR SUPPLIES PURCHASED FROM DBES COUNT TOWARDS THE DBE GOAL UNDER THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
A. If the materials or supplies are obtained from a DBE manufacturer, count 100 percent of the cost of the materials or supplies. A DBE manufacturer is a firm that operates or maintains a factory, or establishment that produces on the premises the materials, supplies, articles, or equipment required under the Contract and of the general character described by the specifications.
B. If the materials or supplies purchased from a DBE regular dealer, count 60 percent of the cost of the materials or supplies. A DBE regular dealer is a firm that owns, operates or maintains a store, warehouse, or other establishment in which the materials, supplies, articles or equipment of the general character described by the specifications and required under the Contract are bought, kept in stock, and regularly sold or leased to the public in the usual course of business. To be a DBE regular dealer, the firm must be an established, regular business that engages, as its principal business and under its own name, in the purchase and sale or lease of the products in question. A person may be a DBE regular dealer in such bulk items as petroleum products, steel, cement, gravel, stone or asphalt without owning, operating or maintaining a place of business provided in this section.
C. If the person both owns and operates distribution equipment for the products, any supplementing of regular dealers' own distribution equipment shall be, by a long-term lease agreement and not an ad hoc or Agreement-by-Agreement basis. Packagers, brokers, manufacturers' representatives, or other persons who arrange or expedite transactions are not DBE regular dealers within the meaning of this section.
D. Materials or supplies purchased from a DBE, which is neither a manufacturer nor a regular dealer, will be limited to the entire amount of fees or commissions charged for assistance in the procurement of the materials and supplies, or fees or transportation charges for the delivery of materials or supplies required on the job site, provided the fees are reasonable and not excessive as compared with fees charged for similar services.
January 2020 320
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 10-O1
Consultant Proposal DBE Commitment
EXHIBIT 10-O1 CONSULTANT PROPOSAL DBE COMMITMENT
1. Local Agency: 2. Contract DBE Goal:
3. Project Description:
4. Project Location:
5. Consultant's Name: 6. Prime Certified DBE:
7. Description of Work, Service, or Materials
Supplied
8. DBE
Certification
Number
Local Agency to Complete this Section
17. Local Agency Contract Number:
18. Federal-Aid Project Number:
19. Proposed Contract Execution Date:
20. 21. Local Agency Representative's Signature 22. Date
23. Local Agency Representative's Name 24. Phone
25. Local Agency Representative's Title
Cons
ultant’s Ranking after Evaluation: __________________________ Local Agency certifies that all DBE certifications are valid and information on this form is complete and accurate.
9. DBE Contact Information
11. TOTAL CLAIMED DBE PARTICIPATION
10. DBE %
%
IMPORTANT: Identify all DBE firms being claimed for credit, regardless of tier. Written confirmation of each listed DBE is required.
12. Preparer's Signature 13. Date
14. Preparer's Name 15. Phone
16. Preparer's Title
DISTRIBUTION: Original – Included with consultant’s proposal to local agency.
ADA Notice: For individuals with sensory disabilities, this document is available in alternate formats. For information call (916) 654-6410 or TDD (916) 654- 3880 or write Records and Forms Management, 1120 N Street, MS-89, Sacramento, CA 95814.
LPP 18-01 Page 1 of 2
January 2019
321
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 10-O2
Consultant Contract DBE Commitment
EXHIBIT 10-O2 CONSULTANT CONTRACT DBE COMMITMENT
1. Local Agency: 2. Contract DBE Goal:
3. Project Description:
4. Project Location:
5. Consultant's Name: 6. Prime Certified DBE: 7. Total Contract Award Amount:
8. Total Dollar Amount for ALL Subconsultants: 9. Total Number of ALL Subconsultants:
10. Description of Work, Service, or Materials
Supplied
11. DBE
Certification
Number
12. DBE Contact Information
13. DBE
Dollar
Amount
Local Agency to Complete this Section
14. TOTAL CLAIMED DBE PARTICIPATION
$20. Local Agency Contract
Number:
21. Federal-Aid Project Number:
22. Contract Execution
Date:
Local Agency certifies that all DBE certifications are valid and information on this form is complete and accurate.
23. Local Agency Representative's Signature 24. Date
25. Local Agency Representative's Name 26. Phone
27. Local Agency Representative's Title
%
IMPORTANT: Identify all DBE firms being claimed for credit, regardless of tier. Written confirmation of each listed DBE is required.
15. Preparer's Signature 16. Date
17. Preparer's Name 18. Phone
19. Preparer's Title
DISTRIBUTION: 1. Original – Local Agency
2. Copy – Caltrans District Local Assistance Engineer (DLAE). Failure to submit to DLAE within 30 days of contract execution may result in de-obligation of federal funds on contract.
ADA Notice: For individuals with sensory disabilities, this document is available in alternate formats. For information call (916) 654- 6410 or TDD (916) 654- 3880 or write Records and Forms Management, 1120 N Street, MS-89, Sacramento, CA 95814.
July 23, 2015
322
□ □ □
□ □
□ □ --
-
B
----
□ □
Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHBIT 10-Q
Disclosure of Lobbying Activities
EXHIBIT 10-Q D ISCLOSURE OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES
COMPLETE THIS FORM TO DISCLOSE LOBBYING ACTIVITIES PURSUANT TO 31 U.S.C. 1352
1. Type of Federal Action: 2. Status of Federal Action: 3. Report Type:
a. contract a. bid/offer/application a. initial
b. grant b. initial award b. material change
c. cooperative agreement c. post -award
d. loan For Material Change Only:
e. loan guarantee year ____ quarter _________
f. loan insurance date of last report __________
4. Name and Address of Reporting Entity 5. If Reporting Entity in No. 4 is Subawardee, Enter Name and Address of Prime:
Prime Subawardee
Tier _______ , if known
Congressional District, if known Congressional District, if known
6. Federal Department/Agency: 7. Federal Program Name/Description:
CFDA Number, if applicable ____________________
8. Federal Action Number, if known: 9. Award Amount, if known:
10. Name and Address of Lobby Entity 11. Individuals Performing Services (If individual, last name, first name, MI) (including address if different from No. 10) (last name, first name, MI)
(attach Continuation Sheet(s) if necessary)
12. Amount of Payment (check all that apply) 14. Type of Payment (check all that apply) $ _____________ actual planned a. retainer
b. one -time fee
13. Form of Payment (check all that apply): c. commission a. cash d. contingent fee
b. in -kind; specify: nature _______________ e deferred Value _____________ f. other, specify _________________________
15. Brief Description of Services Performed or to be performed and Date(s) of Service, including officer(s), employee(s), or member(s) contacted, for Payment Indicated in Item 12:
(attach Continuation Sheet(s) if necessary)
16. Continuation Sheet(s) attached: Yes No
17. Information requested through this form is authorized by Title 31 U.S.C. Section 1352. This disclosure of lobbying reliance was placed by the tier above when his transaction was made or entered into. This disclosure is required pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1352. This information will be reported to Congress
semiannually and will be available for public inspection. Any person who fails to file the required disclosure shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.
Signature: ________________________________ ________
Print Name: ________________________________ _______
Title: ________________________________ ____________
Telephone No.: ____________________ Date:___________
Authorized for Local Reproduction
Federal Use Only: Standard Form - LLL
Standard Form LLL Rev. 04-28-06
Distribution: Orig- Local Agency Project Files
LPP 13-01 May 8, 2013 323
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 10-R
A&E Boilerplate Agreement Language
public accommodation, and certain testing entities (42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 – 12189) as implemented by Department of Transportation regulations 49 C.F.R. parts 37 and 38; • The Federal Aviation Administration’s Non-discrimination statute (49 U.S.C. § 47123) (prohibits di
scrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, and sex); • E
xecutive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority P
opulations and Low-Income Populations, which ensures discrimination against minority popul
ations by discouraging programs, policies, and activities with disproportionately high and adv
erse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations; • E
xecutive Order 13166, Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English P
roficiency, and resulting agency guidance, national origin discrimination includes discrimination bec
ause of Limited English Proficiency (LEP). To ensure compliance with Title VI, you must t
ake reasonable steps to ensure that LEP persons have meaningful access to your programs (
70 Fed. Reg. at 74087 to 74100);
• Ti
tle IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended, which prohibits you from di
scriminating because of sex in education programs or activities (20 U.S.C.1681 et seq).
A
RTICLE XXXIII NOTIFICATION
All notices hereunder and communications regarding interpretation of the terms of this AGREEMENT and changes thereto, shall be effected by the mailing thereof by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, and addressed as follows:
CONSULTANT:
(CONSULTANT)
(NAME) ,Project Manager
(ADDRESS)
LOCAL AGENCY:
(LOCAL AGENCY)
(NAME) , Contract Administrator
(ADDRESS)
ARTICLE XXXIV CONTRACT
The two parties to this AGREEMENT, who are the before named CONSULTANT and the before named LOCAL AGENCY, hereby agree that this AGREEMENT constitutes the entire AGREEMENT which is made and concluded in duplicate between the two parties. Both of these parties for and in consideration of the payments to be made, conditions mentioned, and work to be performed; each agree to diligently perform in accordance with the terms and conditions of this AGREEMENT as evidenced by the signatures below.
May 2023 324
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 10-R
A&E Boilerplate Agreement Language
ARTICLE XXXV SIGNATURES
(Name of LOCAL AGENCY) (Name of CONSULTANT)
(Signature)
(Name of Signer)
(Signature)
(Name of Signer)
Date: Date:
May 2023 325
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 15-H
Proposer/Contractor Good Faith Effort
EXHIBIT 15-H: PROPOSER/CONTRACTOR GOOD FAITH EFFORTS
Cost Proposal Due Date ___________________ PE/CE
Federal-aid Project No(s). _____________________ Bid Opening Date ___________________ CON The established a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) goal of ___% for this contract. The information provided herein shows the required good faith efforts to meet or exceed the DBE contract goal.
Proposers or bidders submit the following information to document their good faith efforts within five (5) calendar days from cost proposal due date or bid opening. Proposers and bidders are recommended to submit the following information even if the Exhibit 10-O1: Consultant Proposal DBE Commitments or Exhibit 15-G:
Construction Contract DBE Commitment indicate that the proposer or bidder has met the DBE goal. This form protects the proposer’s or bidder’s eligibility for award of the contract if the administering agency determines that the bidder failed to meet the goal for various reasons, e.g., a DBE firm was not certified at bid opening, or the bidder made a mathematical error.
The following items are listed in the Section entitled “Submission of DBE Commitment” of the Special Provisions, please attach additional sheets as needed:
A. The names and dates of
each publication in which a request for DBE participation for this project was placed by the bidder (please attach copies of advertisements or proofs of publication):
Publications Dates of Advertisement
B. The names and dates of written notices sent to certified DBEs soliciting bids for this project and the dates and methods used for following up initial solicitations to determine with certainty whether the DBEs were interested (please attach copies of solicitations, telephone records, fax confirmations, etc.):
Names of DBEs Solicited Date of Initial Solicitation Follow Up Methods and Dates
May 2020
326
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 15-H
Proposer/Contractor Good Faith Effort
C. The items of work made available to DBE firms including those unbundled contract work items into economically feasible units to facilitate DBE participation. It is the bidder's responsibility to demonstrate that sufficient work to facilitate DBE participation in order to meet or exceed the DBE contract goal.
Items of Proposer or Bidder Breakdown of Amount Percentage Work Normally Performs Item Items ($) Of
(Y/N) Contract
D. The names, addresses and phone numbers of rejected DBE firms, the reasons for the bidder's rejection of the DBEs, the firms selected for that work (please attach copies of quotes from the firms involved), and the price difference for each DBE if the selected firm is not a DBE:
Names, addresses and phone numbers of rejected DBEs and the reasons for the bidder's rejection of the DBEs:
Names, addresses and phone numbers of firms selected for the work above:
E. Efforts (e.g. in advertisements and solicitations) made to assist interested DBEs in obtaining information related to the plans, specifications and requirements for the work which was provided to DBEs:
May 2020
327
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 15-H
Proposer/Contractor Good Faith Effort
F. Efforts (e.g. in advertisements and solicitations) made to assist interested DBEs in obtaining bonding, lines of credit or insurance, necessary equipment, supplies, materials, or related assistance or services, excluding supplies and equipment the DBE subcontractor purchases or leases from the prime contractor or its affiliate:
G. The names of agencies, organizations or groups contacted to provide assistance in contacting, recruiting and using DBE firms (please attach copies of requests to agencies and any responses received, i.e., lists, Internet page download, etc.):
Name of Agency/Organization Method/Date of Contact Results H. Any additional data to support a demonstration of good faith efforts:
May 2020
328
329
PROJECT LOCATION
WILDCAT
CANYON
REGIONAL PARK
RICHMOND
CITY HALL
CENTER
R I C H M O N D
EL CERRITO
SAN PABLO
80 LINCOLN AVE
PINE AVE
HELLINGS AVE
ALFREDA BLVD
ANDRADE AVE
ALLEY
ESMOND AVE
ARLINGTON
BLVD
EMERIC AVE
BUSH AVE
MARKET AVESUTTER AVE
BONITA
RD
RHEEM AVE
LOWELL AVE
BARRETT AVE
SANPABLOTOWNE CTR
GARVIN AVE
MACDONALDAVE
HAZEL AVE
COSTA AVE
GLENN AVE
38TH ST
23RD ST
MARINA W
AY
MORAN AVE
PENNSYLVANIA AVE
RUM
RILL BLVD
SOLANO AVE
ZARA AVE
PARK AVE
EDW
ARDS
AV
E
35TH ST
22ND ST
POST AVE
MESAWAY
BERNHARD
AVE
SILVA AVE
N ARLINGTON BLVD
GRANT AVE
RALSTON
AVE
HIGHLAND
AVE
CARQUINEZ
AVE
PLYMOUTH
AV
E
BEAU
RIVAGE
ALPINE RD
MONTE CRES TA AVE
BURBECK AVE
KERN ST
YUBA ST
WILDCAT CANYON PKWY
ROOSEVELT AVE
VILLA
DR
YALE AVE
37TH
ST
DOREMUS AV
E
W
ILLOW
RD
HAYES ST
MOUNTST
DOWNER AVE
KIRK LN
PORTOLA
AVE
PATTERSO
N
CIR
33RD
ST
ZINN ST
34TH ST
CERRITO AVE
24TH ST
SANFORD AVE
28TH ST
30TH ST
YUBA
AVE
SIERRA AVE
DIM
M
ST
13TH ST
26TH ST
CALIFORNIA AVE
20TH ST
MARIN
AVE
W
ILSON AVE
36TH ST
19TH
ST
CLINTON AVE
VALERD
AMADOR
ST
NEVIN AVE
CHURCH LN
HOWARDST
SONOM
A ST
MARICOPA AVE
TULARE AVE
M
IRA
VISTA
DR
15TH ST
17TH ST
14TH
ST
18TH ST
KEY
BLVD
MONTEREY
AVE
CASINOAVE
25TH ST
FRANCISCO
W
AY
VILLAGEWAY
32ND
ST
43RD ST
31ST ST
42ND ST
16TH ST
21ST ST
ROSE ARBOR AVE
27TH ST
JOEL CT
29TH ST
41ST ST
HUMPHREY AVE
DUNN AVE
COALINGA AVE
GAYNOR AVE
40TH ST
44TH ST
CALIFO
RNIABLVD
39TH
ST
MCLAUGHLIN ST
VISALIA AVE
WILCOX AVE
CIVIC CENTER ST
TISBURY
LN
WENDELL AVE
DIMM
WAY
VENTURA ST
LASSEN ST
TULLER
AVE
HUMBOLDT ST
VENTURA AVE
CARLSTON
ST
FELIX
AVE
BAYO
VISTA
AVEHILLC
REST
RD
W
ILDC
AT
C
REEK
TRL
M CBRYDE AVE
SAN PABLO AVE
SAN
PABLO
DAM
RD
RICHMOND
WILDCAT CREEK
EAST RICHMOND
HEIGHTS
RICHMOND WILDCAT
CANYON
McBryde Ave Safe-Routes-To-Parks Project Context
1 Inch = 1,250 Feet
0 0.15 0.3
Miles
Equity Priority Community
Priority Development Area
Transit-Rich Outside HRA
Parks/Public Areas
City Boundaries
Watercourse
BART Track
AC Transit Bus Line
Proposed Bikeways
Existing Bikeways
Class 1 Path
Class 2 Lane
Class 3 Sharrow
Class 3 Boulevard330
Install Bike Lanes
Reduce 4 Lanes to 2
Add Center Turn Lane
or Medians
Install Bike Lanes
Reduce 4 Lanes to 2
Add Center Turn Lane
or Medians
Install Bike Lanes
Reduce 4 Lanes to 2
Add Center Turn Lane
or Medians
Install Protected Bike Lanes
Build Curb Extensions
to Shorten Crosswalks
at Skewed Intersections
Close Gap in Sidewalk
Install Crosswalks
And Traffic Calming
Install ADA-Compliant Curb Ramps
On Entire Corridor
EAST
RICHMOND
HEIGHTS
80 SAN PABLO AVENUE
PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT AREA
SAN PABLO
R I C H M O N D
WILDCAT CANYON
REGIONAL PARK
AMADOR ST
ANDRADE AVE
NATALIE CT
CASINOAVE
MCBRYDE AVE
SAN PABLO AVE
BERNHARDAVE
HUMBOLDT ST
GLENN AVE
MONTOYA AVE
PARK AVE
ARLINGTONBLVD
YUBAAVE
KIRK LN
VENTURA ST
RAMP
RALSTON
AVE
ESMOND AVE
MARIN
AVE
MCLAUGHLIN ST
SONOM
A ST
LASSEN ST
SHASTAAVE
37TH ST
W
ILSON AVE
BROOKSIDE AVE
JOEL CT
KERN ST
YUBA
ST
GERALD AVE
RIVERSIDE
ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
SAINT DAVIDS
ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
WILDCAT CREEK
WILDCAT CREEK
RICHMOND WILDCAT
CANYON
McBryde Ave Safe-Routes-To-Parks Project Concept
1 Inch = 325 Feet
0 200 400
Feet
Proposed Curb Extension
Proposed Traffic Circle
Existing Speed Hump
ADA Compliant
Needs Detectable Warning Surface
Build Curb Ramp
Rebuild Non-Compliant Ramp
New Trees
Traffic Signal
City Boundaries
Watercourse
PDA
Parcel Owner
EBRPD
WCCUSD
Existing Bikeways
Class 2 Lane
Class 3 Sharrow
The goal of this project is to provide a safe and comfortable walking and biking route from Wildcat Canyon Regional Park to the amenities and bus service along San Pablo Ave and an existing crosstown bike route on 37th St. Project will improving pavement condition, calm traffic, add audible pedestrian signals, restripe the roadway with bike lanes, and build curb ramps, high visibility crosswalks, and other pedestrian improvements. If funded, design will be finalized with community input, and additional protected bike lanes are possible.
331
March 11, 2025
Finance Department
DATE: March 11, 2025
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:
Shasa Curl, City Manager
Nickie Mastay, Deputy City Manager, Internal Services
LaShonda White, Deputy City Manager, Community Services Andrea Miller, Director of Finance
Mubeen Qader, Deputy Director of Finance
Jerry Gurule, Accounting Manager
SUBJECT:
Fiscal Year (FY) 2023-24 Audited Unspent Funds
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Appropriate General Fund FY 2023-24 audited unspent funds of $5,571,504 and Increase the General Fund loan
commitment to Homekey Project by $1,400,000 for total
unspent funds of $6,971,504.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
October 1, 2024, November 19, 2024, December 17, 2024,
February 4, 2025, and March 4, 2025.
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
City staff are presenting the Fiscal Year (FY) 2023-24
Audited Unspent Funds and recommending appropriations
totaling $6,971,504
RECOMMENDED
ACTION:
DISCUSS and ADOPT resolutions to APPROPRIATE Fiscal
Year 2023-24 audited unspent funds in the amount of
$5,571,504 and COMMITTING an additional $1,400,000 to
the Homekey Project loan, for total unspent funds of
$6,971,504 – Finance Department (Andrea Miller 510-620- 6790/Mubeen Qader 510-412-2077/Jerry Gurule 510-620-
6591).
DISCUSSION:
The Fiscal Year (FY) 2023-24 budget was adopted on June 20, 2023, and later revised during the mid-year budget review on March 5, 2024. Serving as a financial blueprint, the budget outlines projected revenues and planned expenditures for the fiscal year while aligning with City Council’s priorities. During the budget development process, the City Council identified a set of high-priority expenditures to be funded if additional AGENDA
REPORT
332
March 11, 2025
revenue became available. On October 1, 2024, City staff presented estimated unspent funds of $5,735,634, which the City Council appropriated to various programs and projects (Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 110-24).
On February 4, 2025, City staff presented the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) to the City Council for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2024 (City-of-Richmond- ACFR-FY2024). The ACFR includes the City of Richmond’s basic financial statements, auditor’s report, and key supplemental information, providing a comprehensive overview of the City’s financial position and activities.
The City’s General Fund cash reserve policy requires the City to maintain a minimum year-end contingency reserve balance of 21 percent ($52.3 million) of next year’s budgeted General Fund expenditures, including transfers out. As of June 30, 2024, the City’s cash reserve, a component of the unassigned fund balance, is $65.3 million or
26.2 percent.
The $6.9 million in unspent funds is available after (1) calculating the difference between the 21 percent fund balance target and the 26 percent ending unassigned fund balance amount; (2) adjustments made for approved policies on Pension and Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) contributions; and (3) appropriations approved by the City Council on November 19, 2024, and December 17, 2024 (Attachment 2).
Table 1 below details the appropriations approved by the City Council through December 2024.
Table 1: Appropriations approved by the City Council
Item Amount
Operating Costs Appropriated during Q1 update - November 19, 2024 (334,464) Library Renovation Project - November 19, 2024* (4,100,000) Legal Costs - Nevers, Palazzo, Packard, Wildermuth & Wynner, PC - December 17, 2024 (200,000) Legal Costs - Bertrand, Fox, Elliot, Osman, & Wenzel - December 17, 2024 (200,000) Legal Costs - Dave Aleshire - December 17, 2024 (154,626) Total (4,989,091)
* Adopted a resolution to appropriate $4,100,000 from the General Fund to the General Capital Fund to the Revitalizing the Historic Main Library Project – Public Works.
Table 2 below summarizes the ACFR and audited unspent funds.
Table 2: Audited Amounts
Item Audited Amount
FY 2023-24 Ending Unassigned Fund Balance (Reserve) (26%) 65,262,325 FY 2024-25 Policy Target Beginning Fund Balance (Reserve) (21%) 52,276,428 Reserve Above Policy Target (12,985,897)
Unspent from FY 2023-24 (12,985,897)
Additional Contribution to OPEB @ 10% of Unspent Funds 512,651 Additional Contribution to Pension @ 10% of Unspent Funds 512,651 Additional Appropriations from 11/19/24 and 12/17/24 (See table 1 above) 4,989,091 Total Available Unspent Funds (6,971,504)
333
March 11, 2025
Recommendations for Unspent Funds
Economists note that the tariff threats, federal government worker layoffs, and federal contractors’ terminations are cooling the economy. Businesses find it hard to plan costs, delaying investments, and hiring. These uncertainties may impact the City’s revenues negatively and also increase costs for existing services and projects.
In addition, prior year unspent funds are considered one-time funding and per the Government Finance Officers Association, the best practice is to appropriate one-time funds to one-time expenditures (i.e., non-recurring projects or programs). To help guide the City Council’s discussion, City staff are recommending a commitment of funds or an appropriation that may include the following projects in the amount of $5,971,504:
Homekey Project - $1.4 million (loan)
Boorman Park Remediation - $250,000
Boorman Park Revitalization - $400,000
Booker T. Anderson Community Center (Phase III) - $2.7 million Carlson Blvd Crosstown Connection (Phase II) - $1.22 million
The remaining $1 million was allocated to support immigration services per City Council direction during its March 4, 2025, City Council meeting.
Homekey Project
The City’s Homekey project, which includes the acquisition of Motel 6 at 425 24th Street, to convert it into a 48-unit permanent supportive housing development serving the chronically homeless, has been identified as requiring additional funding. Currently, it is estimated that an additional $3.4 million can be divided into two phases of the project: 1) rehabilitation (capital costs), and 2) operations. As such, $1.4 million can be allocated to fund capital costs related to the conversion and rehabilitation of the former motel, which is anticipated to begin construction in April 2025. The remaining $2 million needed can be spread over the first 7 years, from occupancy to support operating costs, including rent and capital reserves.
Table 3: Homekey Project Funding
Current Budget/
Sources
Funding
Shortfall
Total
Budget
Unspent
Funds
STATE HOMEKEY 14,512,660 14,512,660
Capital (Development Costs) 12,093,460 12,093,460
Operating (Capitalized Reserve) 2,419,200 2,419,200
CITY OF RICHMOND 4,900,000 3,400,000 8,300,000 1,400,000 Capital 2,343,460 1,400,000 3,743,460 1,400,000
Operating 2,556,540 2,000,000 4,556,540
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 1,000,000 1,000,000
Capital 1,000,000 1,000,000
TOTAL COSTS 20,412,660 3,400,000 23,812,660 1,400,000
334
March 11, 2025
To move forward, City staff recommend committing an additional General Fund loan in the amount of $1,400,000 to the Housing In-Lieu fund, to be repaid as fees are collected from new development, which requires amending resolution 63-23 and adopting the attached resolution reflecting the additional $1.4 million loan (Attachment 3). The remaining $2 million loan can be committed from the General Fund to the Housing In- Lieu fund in the coming months. The amended resolution increases the total General Fund loan amount to $8.3 million.
Capital Improvement Project Funding Shortfalls
A list of Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) with funding shortfalls is provided as a draft (Attachment 4). Some projects have a funding shortfall due to increased costs from the original estimates, whereas other projects’ funding shortfall is due to the expanded scope of work. The projects below are recommended for further funding from the FY 2023-24 unspent funds based on the ability of staff to move the projects forward within the current fiscal year, potential cost increases, the urgency of funding needed to complete the work and/or meet grant requirements, commitments to and input from residents, and inclusion of the projects in the City Council Goals and Objectives.
Table 4: Capital Improvement Projects Funding Shortfalls for Unspent Funds Project Total
Shortfall Unspent Funds
Boorman Park Site Remediation 250,000 250,000
Boorman Park Revitalization 400,000 400,000
Booker T. Anderson Community Center (Phase III) 2,700,000 2,700,000 Carlson Blvd Crosstown Connection (Phase II) 3,000,000 1,221,504 Total 6,350,000 4,571,504
Boorman Park Site Remediation – Project Summary
Originally constructed in 1976, Boorman Park was designed to serve the surrounding neighborhood. Before becoming a park, the site was home to a tile manufacturing business and is bound by industry to the north and a railroad corridor to the north and east.
Currently, the City of Richmond’s design team worked with the park’s neighbors, the Cortez-Stege Neighborhood Council, and members of three non-profit groups: the West County Regional Group of First5, Rising Juntos, and Healthy & Active Before Five to design the park. This park project aims to improve health and wellness for people of all ages and abilities, safety, beauty, and access to outdoor recreation.
The Park plan identifies berm removal to provide clear visibility to and throughout the site. The project will assess and remove soil contaminants in the park, ensuring it meets safety standards for the revitalization of the park. Construction rubble from the old tile facility requires disposal and clean-up. The site is currently being cleaned up through a Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) permitted project. Funds are needed to support an anticipated cost increase in Q4 FY2024-25 due to the project's complexity in dealing with soil remediation.
335
March 11, 2025
Boorman Park Revitalization – Project Summary
The Richmond Parks Master Plan (2010) identifies a major renovation and master planning effort to revitalize the park. Boorman Park serves multiple user groups: it currently includes a children’s play area, grassy lawns for informal sports and play, and basketball courts. The park accommodates senior and teen activities and provides space for passive recreation, socializing, and group gatherings.
The City of Richmond worked with First5, Rising Juntos, and Healthy & Active Before Five in a series of five public meetings to prepare a schematic design for the park that reflected the neighborhood's wants and needs. The design was submitted for a grant, and in 2020, the City of Richmond was awarded the very competitive Proposition 68 grant funds for the Revitalization of Boorman Park.
The project will create a new recreation area with a trail, skate park, sports facilities, play areas, and community space. It emphasizes sustainability through green infrastructure, low-water landscaping, and recycled materials.
Funds support projected bid alternate costs, which include resilient surfacing, a concrete-paved pathway, a chain-link fence around the grass field, and mile marks on the pathway.
Booker T. Anderson Community Center (Phase III) – Project Summary
The project aims to significantly enhance the aesthetic appeal, exterior integrity, and resident experience of the Booker T. Anderson (BTA) complex. The next phase of BTA includes outer work focusing on critical exterior improvements, including roof and gutter replacement, complete exterior building repainting, and a transformative exterior courtyard renovation with new fencing.
Carlson Blvd. Crosstown Connection (Phase II) – Project Summary
This project intends to complete Carlson Blvd Crosstown Connection Improvements Project from Broadway to Tehama Ave by installing bicycle lanes, pedestrian ramp facilities, bus shelter connections for future make-ready installation, asphalt paving, sidewalk and root repairs, signing and striping, and streetlight study. Broadway to Tehama will feature a Class II bike lane, and Class IV bike lanes where feasible. This corridor will be upgraded to enhance safety and improve traffic flow along Carlson Boulevard. The new bikeway will connect existing bike lanes on Carlson Boulevard at San Pablo Avenue in El Cerrito north to Broadway, near Richmond Civic Center.
The original scope of work did not include the funds needed to address the paving needs for the corridor. The cost consists of the associated increase in design, construction management, and adherence to the 1.5 percent public art ordinance allocation requirement
336
March 11, 2025
Carlson Blvd. Crosstown Connection (Phase III) – Future Funding
This project is currently in the planning phase from Broadway through San Jose Ave (the City Limit). It will include traffic signal upgrades and safety enhancements.
Summary of the Staff Report
A summary of the potential FY 2023-24 unspent funds is as follows:
Table 5: Summary of Unspent Appropriations/Commitments
Item Action Amount
Immigration Services (City Council Action March 4, 2025) Appropriate 1,000,000 Project Homekey Loan Commitment 1,400,000
Capital Projects Appropriate 4,571,504
Total 6,971,504
Next Steps
Staff recommend the City Council appropriate remaining unspent funds for immigration services, Capital Projects, and an additional loan amount for the Homekey project.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – Resolution 110-24
Attachment 2 – Appropriations approved by the City Council Attachment 3 – Homekey resolution
Attachment 4 – CIP project Budget shortfalls
Attachment 5 – Unspent funds resolution
337
Attachment 1 – Resolution 110-24
338
Attachment 1 – Resolution 110-24
339
Attachment 2 – Appropriations approved by the City Council Item Amount
Operating Costs Appropriated during Q1 update - November 19, 2024 (334,464) Library Renovation Project - November 19, 2024 (4,100,000) Legal Costs - Nevers, Palazzo, Packard, Wildermuth & Wynner, PC - December 17, 2024 (200,000) Legal Costs - Bertrand, Fox, Elliot, Osman, & Wenzel - December 17, 2024 (200,000) Legal Costs - Dave Aleshire - December 17, 2024 (154,626) Total (4,989,091)
Attachment 3 – Homekey resolution
Reso No.
4924-5633-7183 v1
RESOLUTION NO._____
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
AUTHORIZING A LOAN FROM THE CITY GENERAL FUND TO THE CITY
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND, AND THE PROVISION OF A LOAN TO
PROVIDE OPERATING AND CAPITAL SUBSIDIES FOR A HOMEKEY
PROGRAM PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) issued a Notice of Funding Availability for the Homekey Program (“Homekey”) pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 50675 et seq.; and
WHEREAS, in response to an application jointly submitted by the City and 425 Civic Center LP, a California limited partnership (“Developer”), HCD awarded $14,512,660 in Homekey funds to support the acquisition, rehabilitation, and operation of a permanent supportive housing project at 425 24th Street (the “Property”) consisting of 48 units for people experiencing homelessness or at-risk of homelessness and one manager’s unit (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the City Council previously authorized the provision of funding for the Project in the amount of $4,900,000 (“Original City Funding”), including capital funding and an operating subsidy; and
WHEREAS, the provision of an operating and a capital loan for the Project are allowable uses of inclusionary housing and affordable housing linkage fees collected by the City and deposited into City’s Affordable Housing Fund established pursuant to Richmond Municipal Code Section 15.04.603.130 (the “Affordable Housing Fund”); and
WHEREAS, at present the Affordable Housing Fund lacks sufficient resources to fund the Original City Funding; and
WHEREAS, the City Council previously authorized a loan from the City’s general fund to the Affordable Housing Fund in order to provide the total Original City Funding for the Project; and
WHEREAS, available funds in the Affordable Housing Fund will be used first and the general fund will loan the Affordable Housing Fund the delta amount needed to fund the Original City Funding; and
WHEREAS, additional funds are needed for rehabilitation and operation of the Project; and
341
Attachment 3 – Homekey resolution
Reso No.
4924-5633-7183 v1
WHEREAS, at present the Affordable Housing Fund lacks sufficient resources to provide the additional subsidies needed for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council previously authorized a waiver of Transient Occupancy Taxes and late fees in the approximate amount of $177,185 owed by the seller of the Property (the “Seller”) accrued as of the originally anticipated date of closing for the City’s acquisition of the Property; and
WHEREAS, the closing for the City’s acquisition of the Property has been delayed, and the Seller has agreed to extend the closing date provided that the City agrees to authorize a waiver of Transient Occupancy Taxes and late fees accrued through the new closing date and reimbursement of sewer lateral charges incurred by the Seller.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE
RICHMOND CITY COUNCIL, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, THAT:
1. The City general fund (“General Fund”) will provide an interfund loan of One Million, Four Hundred Thousand ($1,400,000) in FY 24/25 and an additional Two Million ($2,000,000) in future commitment based on occupancy, currently anticipated to occur in April 2026 for a total amount of up to Three Million, Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($3,400,000) (the “Interfund Loan”) to the Affordable Housing Fund in order to make funds available to finance the additional operating and capital subsidies for the Project.
2. As the Affordable Housing Fund receives deposits of inclusionary housing and affordable housing linkage fees, the Interfund Loan will be repaid via interfund transfers from the Affordable Housing Fund to the General Fund until the Interfund Loan is paid in full and the General Fund is restored.
3. The City will use the proceeds of the Interfund Loan to provide an additional loan to Developer in the amount of Three Million, Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($3,400,000) to the already committed amount of Four Million, Nine hundred Thousand Dollars ($4,900,000) to provide a capital and operating subsidy for the Project totaling $8,300,000.
4. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute and implement amendments to the Purchase and Sale Agreement for the City’s acquisition of the Property to provide for (a) the City’s waiver of Transient Occupancy Taxes and late fees in the amount accrued through the closing date for the City’s acquisition of the Property, and (b) reimbursement to the Seller of sewer lateral charges in the amount of $19,215.22.
5. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to take all such actions and to execute, acknowledge, deliver, and record such instruments, including without limitation, a Loan Agreement and a Regulatory Agreement as the City Manager may deem necessary or appropriate in order to carry out and perform the purposes and intent of this Resolution.
*******************************
342
Attachment 3 – Homekey resolution
Reso No.
4924-5633-7183 v1
I certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Richmond at a meeting thereof held on ______, 2025, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
Chairperson
[SEAL]
ATTEST:
Secretary
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
343
Attachment - 4 CIP Projects with Budget Shortfall DRAFT; Order to be determined by the City Council at subsequent study session. Present Value Project Project
Number Project Phase
Project
Construction
Completion
Grant
Funded
Budget
Priority
Strategic
Goals and
Objectives
City Council
Project
Criteria
Total
Approved
Project
Funding
Increase Cost
from the
Original Scope
Increase Cost
Due to Added
Scope or
Funding Future
Phase
Estimated
Total
Shortfall
FY2024-25 FY2025-26 FY2026-27 FY2027-28 FY2028-29 FY2029-30 1 23030 Boorman Park Site Remediation Construction * June 2025 Yes A 3 LC, FO, HS, QL 7,400,643 250,000 250,000 250,000
2 23006 Boorman Park Revitalization Bid/Award * March 2026 Yes A 3 LC, FO, HS, QL 7,165,000 400,000 400,000 400,000
3 23061 Booker T. Anderson Community
Center Phase III Design December 2026 No A 3 HF, HS, QL 321,606 2,700,000 2,700,000 400,000 2,300,000 4 New Martin Luther King Jr. Community
Center Planning Funding Dependent Yes A 3 HF, HS, QL 527,703 50,000,000 50,000,000 25,000,000 25,000,000 5 23033 Carlson Blvd Crosstown
Connection Phase II Design December 2026 No A 4 HS, QL 4,134,927 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 6 New Carlson Blvd Crosstown
Connection Phase III Planning Funding Dependent No A 4 HS, QL - 3,200,000 3,200,000 900,000 2,300,000 7 New Parchester Area Infrastructure
Plan
Planning Funding Dependent No A 3 HS, QL - 10,400,000 10,400,000 400,000 1,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 8 16G 11
16G12
Complete Streets Project (Harbour
Way South)/Richmond Wellness
Trail Phase II
Design May 2027 Yes A 3 FO, HS, QL 14,740,655 2,200,000 6,000,000 8,200,000 8,200,000 9 05G01 Fire Station 66 Restroom > Fire
Station 66 Rebuild/Rehab
Planning -
Needs
Assessment
Funding Dependent No A 3 HF, HS 777,052 13,000,000 13,000,000 200,000 900,000 11,900,000 10 05C01
Fire Station 63 Geotech Study &
Maintenance > Fire Station 63
Improvements
Planning -
Needs
Assessment
Funding Dependent No A 3 HF, HS 300,000 5,250,000 5,250,000 100,000 350,000 4,800,000 11 New Nicholl Park Renovation
Planning -
Needs
Assessment
Funding Dependent Yes A 3 FO, HS, QL - 20,000,000 20,000,000 400,000 2,000,000 17,600,000 12 23052
Corp Yard Fence - Crime
Prevention Through
Environmental Design (CPTED)
Design Funding Dependent No A 5 HF, HS 37,500 400,000 400,000 400,000 13 23050 Dornan Tunnel Lighting Design Funding Dependent No A 4 HS, QL 60,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 14 23042 Barrett Ave Road Improvements Design September 2026 Yes A 4 FO, HS, QL 1,721,880 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 15 23039 McBryde Safe Routes to Parks Design June 2027 Yes A 4 FO, HS, QL 1,288,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 16 23040 Bayview to BART Design June 2027 Yes A 4 FO, HS, QL 1,944,702 300,000 300,000 300,000 17 23060 Downtown Point Richmond
Bicycle Connectivity Design Funding Dependent Yes A 4 FO, HS, QL 445,900 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 18 23012 Corp Yard Fuel Sites Upgrades Design Funding Dependent No A 6 LC, HS 179,211 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 ***19 23004 Harbour 8 Park Expansion Construction* Funding Dependent Yes A 3 FO, HF, QL 8,800,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 20 01A14 Point Molate Bay Trail Beach
Stabilization
Design Funding Dependent Yes B 3 FO, HS, QL 500,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 21 16G16 E-Bike Lending Library Design Funding Dependent Yes C 3 FO, HF, QL 1,088,013 1,310,000 1,310,000 1,310,000 Total 51,432,791 7,560,000 122,550,000 130,110,000 3,650,000 17,310,000 40,850,000 62,300,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 Notes:
* Even after a project goes through the bid/award process and construction begins, budgetary concerns can still significantly impact its trajectory due to market volatility in bids, estimating, unforeseen site conditions, delays and regulatory issues. ** Please note that the timeline for implementation of these projects is contingent on project feasibility, staff capacity, and funding availability. *** MOU needed
City Council Proposed Project Criteria Budget Priority Levels Strategic Goals LC = Legal Compliance A - Mandatory: Legal/Regulatory Obligation, Safety, Ongoing 1. Improve Quantity and Quality of Housing, Especially Low-Income Housing and Reduce Homelessness FO = Funding Obligation B - Necessary: Relies on outside agencies for funding. 2. Increase Revenue and Improve Economic Development HF = Housing/Facility C - Desirable: Enhance the appearance of City Facilities. 3. Improve the Quality of Life and Community Health/Improve Social Determinants of Health HS = Health and Safety 4. Improve Public Safety
QL = Quality of Life 5. Strengthen the City’s Internal Infrastructure and Processes (Per March 5, 2024 Council Meeting) 6. Address Shoreline Issues and Ecological Sustainability Type of Shortfall Present Value Estimated Shortfall **
1 344
Attachment 5 – Unspent Funds Resolution
Reso. No.
RESOLUTION NO. ________
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA,
TO APPROPRIATE IMPACT FEES FUNDS TO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS IN FY 2024-25 AND APPROPRIATE REMAINING GENERAL FUND FY 2023-24 UNSPENT FUNDS TO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 1(b) of Article IV of the Richmond City Charter the City Manager is required to prepare an annual budget for the review and approval by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Audited financials for Fiscal Year 2023-24 reported an unassigned fund balance of Sixty-Five Million, Two Hundred Sixty-Two Thousand, Three Hundred Twenty-Five Dollars ($65,262,325); and
WHEREAS, the General Fund unspent funds are available for Council goals and priorities; and
WHEREAS, the City Council previously authorized a loan from the City’s General Fund to the Affordable Housing Fund in order to make the Original City Funding available for the Homekey Program (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, at present the Affordable Housing Fund lacks sufficient resources to provide the additional subsidies needed for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City General Fund will provide a commitment of One Million, Four Hundred Thousand Dolars ($1,400,000) in FY2024-25 and Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) in future years to increase the interfund loan in the amount of Three Million, Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($3,400,000) to the Affordable Housing Fund in order to make funds available to finance operating and capital subsidies for the Project: and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the list of capital improvement projects with a projected funding shortfall in FY 2024-25, totaling One Hundred Thirty Million, One Hundred Ten Thousand Dollars ($130,110,000); and
WHEREAS, General Fund unspent funds were identified as sources to fund estimated capital projects shortfall in the amount of Four Million, Five Hundred Seventy-One Thousand, and Five Hundred and Four Dollars ($4,571,504); and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE
RICHMOND CITY COUNCIL, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, THAT:
1. The City Council hereby Commits FY2023-24 Unspent General Fund to Homekey Project in the amount of One Million, Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,400,000) to the Affordable Housing Fund in FY24-25 to provide an interfund loan. 345
Attachment 5 – Unspent Funds Resolution
Reso. No.
2. The City Council approves in future years, Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) to the affordable Housing Fund after annual operating cost appropriations are better known for a Loan amount up to Eight Million, Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($8,300,000).
3. The City Council hereby appropriates Unspent Funds in the amount of Five Million, Five Hundred Seventy-One Thousand, and Five Hundred and Four Dollars ($5,571,504) as follows:
General Fund Appropriations
Fund FY 2024-25
General Fund - Transfers Out to General Capital 4,571,504 General Fund – Immigration Services (Council Direction on March 4, 2025) 1,000,000 Total 5,571,504
Fund FY 2024-25
General Capital Fund - Transfers In (4,571,504)
General Capital Fund – Booker T. Anderson Community Center Phase III 2,700,000 General Capital Fund – Boorman Park Remediation 250,000 General Capital Fund – Boorman Park Revitalization 400,000 General Capital Fund – Carlson Blvd Crosstown Connection Phase II 1,221,504 Total -
General Fund Commitment
Fund FY 2024-25
General Fund – Commitment to Homekey Project 1,400,000
Total 1,400,000
**********************
I certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting thereof held March 11, 2025, by the following vote:
AYES:
346
Attachment 5 – Unspent Funds Resolution
Reso. No.
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
______________________________
City Clerk of the City of Richmond
(SEAL)
Approved:
__________________________________
Mayor
Approved as to form:
___________________________________
City Attorney
347
March 11, 2025
City Attorney's Office
DATE: March 11, 2025
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:
City Attorney, Dave Aleshire
Subject:
Extension of Interim Urgency Ordinance for a Moratorium on Parklets within City Limits
FINANCIAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
On January 7, 2025, the City Council voted to request that the City Attorney draft a temporary moratorium on parklets to address various concerns . On January 28, 2025, the
City Council passed an Interim Urgency Ordinance
implementing a 45-day moratorium on parklets.
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
Parklet structures created without careful planning can result in immediate threats to public health, safety, or welfare because they encroach upon the public right-of- way, including roadways, which may undermine traffic
safety, create nuisances of various kinds, and impact
local aesthetics. Prior City parklet regulations and
procedures have been controversial and inadequate.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
ADOPT an Interim Urgency Ordinance regarding
parklets, establishing a 10-month and 15-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.
AGENDA
REPORT
348
March 11, 2025
DISCUSSION:
The City of Richmond’s current processes for receiving and reviewing applications for the installation of parklets is inadequate to protect the public health, safety and welfare, and to retain or enhance the aesthetics of areas where parklets might be developed.
This Urgency Ordinance extending the current 45-day moratorium on parklets, including the establishment of new parklets and the expansion or the extension of the term of any currently permitted parklet for an additional 10 months and 15 days, is needed to provide City staff the time necessary to conduct a thorough review of the beneficial uses and appropriate location, design and construction of parklets, as well as other factors necessary to ensure the public’s health, safety and welfare such as (i) requirements for management and oversight, and inspection and review to ensure compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and other State and federal laws, (ii) procedures for fire safety, and (iii) procedures for responding to community concerns, as well as other requirements necessary to protect public health, safety and welfare and to prevent nuisances (Attachment 1). The City recognizes that several other cities in the regional have developed effective parklet ordinances and wishes to examine how these ordinances operate.
“Parklet” is broadly described on the City’s website as a “removeable platform made available to the public for recreational use that occupies a portion of a parking lane that is closed to motor vehicle parking.” The current procedure to obtain a parklet permit from the City entails completing a simple Parklet Application consisting of five basic questions pertaining to the applicant’s name, Parklet location, current permit status, whether the applicant has received a notice of violation from any state or local authority, the name of the property owner and signatures, along with a simple site map reflecting the area impacted, and two photographs. It requires no indication of type of use, hours of operation, manner in which the owner will monitor the use, aesthetic impacts to the local commercial area, impacts on how potential complaints from local businesses or residents will be tracked or handled, what the potential impacts to vehicle or pedestrian traffic may be, or any other nuisances or detrimental impacts to public health, safety and welfare. Although it requires “letter(s)” of community support, it does not specify the level of support needed or the process for managing community concerns once the parklet is established. Finally, enforcement procedures have been cumbersome.
This current process is inadequate to ensure the protection of public health, safety and welfare.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – Urgency Ordinance (proposed)
Attachment 2 – 45-Day Initial Extension
349
01337.0010/1038560.3 1
ORDINANCE NO. 2025-________
AN INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA, ENACTED PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858 ESTABLISHING A 10 -MONTH AND 15 -DAY MORATORIUM ON THE
ESTABLISHMENT, EXPANSION OR TERM EXTENSION OF P ARKLETS WITHIN CITY LIMITS DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE CITY’S REVIEW AND ADOPTION
OF PERMANENT ZONING REGULATIONS FOR SUCH USES
WHEREAS, the City of Richmond (“City”) has the authority, u nder its police power, to enact regulations for the public peace, morals, and welfare of the City pursuant to its Charter and California Constitution Article XI, section 7; and
WHEREAS, the City has a compelling interest in protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of its citizens, residents, visitors and businesses, and in preserving the peace and quiet of the neighborhoods within the City, as well as mitigating impacts to or enhancing the aesthetics of City streets, by regulating the establishment and expansion of parklets (as defined in this Urgency Ordinance below) within City limits; and
WHEREAS, the City is responsible for adopting and implementing land use regulations within its boundaries; and
WHEREAS, Richmond Municipal Code (“ RMC”) section 14.46.090 regulates parklet approvals and installations by requiring a parklet permit from the City’s Transportation Services Department, an encroachment permit from the City Engineer or designee, as well as the receipt of a final inspection and installation approval from the City’s Engineering department; and WHEREAS, the City has no other development standards or regulations applicable to the installation or use of parklets and both the conflict in regulatory standards along with enforcement issues with existing installations point to the need for review of the existing enforcement regime; and
WHEREAS, the City’s permissive policy towards parklets could result in a proliferation or oversaturation of said uses within the City; and
WHEREAS, the proliferation of parklets throughout the City without due consideration presents an immediate threat to public health, safety, or welfare because parklets allow encroachments into public right s-of-way, including roadways, which may undermine traffic safety, create nuisances, increase the risk of fires and parklet user safety, decrease parking in already congested commercial areas thereby creating increased vehicular traffic, reduce driver visibility thereby compromising driver and pedestrian safety, violate provisions of the American with Disabilities Act, compromise nearby crosswalks, complicate intersections, and in some instances may violate other state laws; and
WHEREAS, absent clear regulation, the proliferation of parklets within the City poses a threat to the public peace, health, and safety, and may impact the aesthetics of City streets, and, unless the City takes regulatory action, the impacts described above are likely to occur; and 350
01337.0010/1038560.3 2
WHEREAS, the City desires to further regulate parklets to ensure that public roadways and public property remain free of public nuisances, safe and accessible for all users, and clear of conditions that pose threats to public health, safety, and welfare, to ensure that future development is undertaken in a manner con sistent with the City’s General Plan, and to ensure that any parklet developments or installations comply with S tate and City regulations that in ure to the public’s health, safety, and welfare, and do not detract from, but enhance the aesthetics of City streets and commercial area; and
WHEREAS, there is currently a pending application for a permit to establish or extend a parklet before a non-urgency ordinance would become effective; and WHEREAS, Government Code Sections 36934, 36937 and 65858 expressly authorize the City Council to adopt an urgency ordinance for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety and to prohibit a use that is in conflict with a contemplated General Plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal that the legislative body, planning commission or the planning department is considering or studying or intends to study within a reasonable time; and WHEREAS, the City is aware of other cities in the area/region who have developed parklet ordinances and established successful attractive parklet districts which could be a good model for the City and City staff require time to study these ordinances and issues with our current regulations and develop more appropriate regulations for the installation of parklets consistent with State and federal law; and
WHEREAS, on March 11, 2025 the City Council conducted a public hearing pursuant to Government Code Section 65090(b) and 65094, concerning this Ordinance; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the above -described express statutory authority and its police power, the City Council desires, on an urgency basis, to temporarily prohibit (1) the establishment of new parklets, the expansion of existing parklets, or extending the term of exi sting parklets, as well as (2) the acceptance of parklet permit applications for new or expanded parklets, or for the extension of the term for existing parklets, and (3) the processing of parklet permit applications for new or expanded P arklet permits, or for the extension of the term of existing parklet permit applications for parklets within the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS
The City Council finds and determines the recitals above are true and correct, and are hereby incorporated by reference. Additionally, based on the for egoing, both verbal and written testimony at the public hearing, including the staff report, exhibits, and any materials provided by members of the public, the City Council finds as follows:
A. This Urgency Ordinance is being adopted in order to allow the City time to thoroughly study and develop the City’s laws, rules, procedures and fees related to the operation, expansion, extension and establishment of parklets within the City, to enable the City to adequately 351
01337.0010/1038560.3 3
and appropriately preserve the health, safety and welfare of the communit y in the City of Richmond.
B. For the purposes of this Urgency Ordinance, the term “parklet” shall encompass all removeable platforms made available to the public for recreational use that occupy a portion of a parking lane that is closed to motor vehicle parking.
C. The City finds that without the improvement of the regulatory framework to govern parklets, the adverse impacts frequently associated with parklets likely will occur, resulting in unregulated and significant negative impact s upon the public health, safety, and welfare of the community.
D. The City finds that the improvement of the parklet regulations includes the review of other cities’ parklet regulations.
E. The City finds that the adverse impacts from parklets include the following:
(1) The proliferation of parklets throughout the City without due consideration presents an immediate threat to public health, safety, or welfare because parklets encroachment into the public right-of-way including roadways, which may undermine traffic safety, create nuisances, decrease parking in already congested commercia l areas thereby creating increased vehicular traffic; and
(2) The use of parklets tends to reduce driver visibility, compromise nearby crosswalks, and complicate intersections further impacting driver, pedestrian and parklet user safety; and (3) Parklets may violate provisions of the American with Disabilities Act as well as State law.
(4) Parklets may pose a fire safety risk due to possible use of heaters or other outdoor cooking or food smoking activities.
(5) Parklets may post a public safety risk due to the consumption of alcohol near outdoor walkways adjacent to public streets and vehicular traffic. (6) Parklets may negatively impact the aesthetics of City streets and commercial areas.
E. The City needs time to draft a proposed text amendment to th e Zoning Code to preserve the health, safety and welfare of the community in the City of Richmond with respect to the installation or expansion of parklets to control for the risks stated above, as well as the possible creation of other nuisances.
SECTION 2. AUTHORITY AND EFFECT
The State Planning and Zoning Law (Cal. Gov’t Code Sections 65000, et seq.) broadly empowers the City to plan for and regulate the use of land in order to provide for orderly 352
01337.0010/1038560.3 4
development, the public health safety and welfare, and a balancing of property rights and the desires of the community and how its citizens envision their city.
SECTION 3. MORATORIUM
A. During the Effective Period of this Urgency Ordinance as specified below, no permit application shall be issued, accepted, or processed to establish a new parklet, expand an existing parklets, or extend the term of an existing parklet within the City. The foregoing shall explicitly prohibit the issuance of any zoning, land use, discretionary permit, building permit, environmental approval, business license or any other entitlement involving parklets, during the Effective Period.
B. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the fact that a business within the City of Richmond currently legally operates an existing parklet shall not constitute an obstacle to obtaining their annual City of Richmond business license. Additionally, permits may be issued for minor construction, rehabilitation and landscaping or other purposes not involving the expansion of the building area of an existing parklet. Any parklet currently under construction with a valid building permit on the effective date of this Urgency Ordinance shall be exempt from this Urgency Ordinance. However, the foregoing exemption shall not apply to a parklet illegally operating and out of compliance particularly with regard to time limitations.
SECTION 4. STUDY AND DEVELOPMENT
During the period of this Urgency Ordinance, the City shall study and develop as necessary City laws, rules, procedures and fees related to parklets, to enable the City to adequately and appropriately preserve the health, safety and welfare of the community in the City of Richmond.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65858 the Director of Public Works will issue a report for the legislative body on what has been accomplished during the renewal of the moratorium before it is extended.
SECTION 5. URGENCY MEASURE
It is hereby declared that this Urgency Ordinance is necessary as an urgency measure for the preservation of the public health, safety and welfare. The City Council finds that current zoning regulations and land use plans do not adequately regulate the establishment and operation of parklets and therefore do not adequately protect the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the City or in communities around the City. The City Council finds the urgency measure is necessary in order to ensure adequate regulation of installation and operation of parklets. The facts constituting the urgency are:
A. The City of Richmond does not currently have clear standards in the Richmond Municipal Code related specifically to the details of establishing, expanding, or extending parklets within the City, beyond requiring them to apply for parklet permits and encroachment permits.
B. The negative impacts frequently associated with parklets will likely increase as they continue to proliferate throughout the City , resu lting in unregulated and potentially significant negative impact upon public health, safety, and welfare of the community. 353
01337.0010/1038560.3 5
C. To permit additional parklets within the City without being subject to specific regulations that are consistent with the General Plan, and that take into account the impa cts that such installations have, constitutes a threat to the public’s health, safety, and welfare. Parklets create a threat to public health, safety, or welfare because parklets encroachment into the public right-of-way including roadways, which may undermine traffic safety, create nuisances, decrease parking in already congested commercial areas thereby creating increased vehicular traffic.
D. Additionally, to permit additional parklets within the City without being subject to specific design and aesthetic guidelines may undermine the aesthetics of City streets and commercial areas.
E. As a part of developing new and more comprehensive regulations, it is necessary to look at parklet standards in other cities which have developed successful Parklet districts and this will take time and there should not be new installations in the interim. .
F. Absent the adoption of this Urgency Ordi nance, the expansion, extension or installation of parklets would likely result in the negative and harmful seconda ry effects, as identified above, including, but not limited to, threats to public health, safety, or welfare due to the encroachment into the public right -of-way including roadways, which may undermine traffic safety, create nuisances, decrease parking in already congested commercial areas thereby creating increased vehicular traffic, as well as reduce driver vis ibility, compromise nearby crosswalks, complicate intersections further impacting driver, pedestrian and parklet user safety, violate State and federal law, and create fire safety issues.
G. As a result of the negative and harmful secondary effects associated with improperly regulated or unregulated parklets, the current and immediate threat s to the pub lic health, safety and welfare, it is necessary to adopt a temporary, ten (10) month and fifteen (15) day moratorium on the establishment of new parklets and th e expansion or extensions of existing parklets.
H. A moratorium is immediately required to preserve the public health, safety and welfare, as well as the aesthetics of City streets and commercial areas and should be adopted immediately as an urgency ordinance , t o make certain that the establishment, expansion or extensions of parklets is pro hibited for the period of this Urgency Ordinance. Imposition of a moratorium will allow the City sufficient time to conclude the preparation of a comprehensive ordinance for the regulation of such activities.
SECTION 6. SEVERABILITY
The City Council hereby declares, if any provision, section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, phrase or word of this Urgency Ordinance is rendered or declared invalid or unconstitutional by any final action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by reason of any preemptive legislation, then the City Council would have independently adopted the remaining provisions, sections, subsections, paragraphs, sente nces, phrases or words of this Urgency Ordinance and as such they shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 7. CEQA COMPLIANCE
354
01337.0010/1038560.3 6
Pursuant to Section 15001 of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines, this Interim Urgency Ordinance is exempt from CEQA based on the following: (i) this Urgency Ordinance is not a project within the meaning of CEQA Section 15378 because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment , either directly or indirectly and (ii) this Urgency Ordinance is also exempt pursuant to CEQA Section 15061(b)(3) since the proposed ordinance involves an Interim Urgency Ordinance establishing a 10-month and 15-day temporary moratorium on the expansion or installment of parklets and does not have the potential to significantly impact the environment.
SECTION 8. EFFECTIVENESS OF ORDINANCE.
This Urgency Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by a 4/5 vote , pursuant to the authority conferred upon the City Council by Government Code Section s 36934, 36937, and 65858. This Urgency Ordinance shall be effective during the Effective Period which shall be from its adoption and shall be of no further force and effect ten (10) months and fifteen (15) days following the date of its adoption unless extended in accordance with the provisions set forth in Government Code Section 65858(b).
SECTION 9. PUBLICATION
The City Clerk shall certify as to the passage and adoption of this Interim Urgency Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published in a manner prescribed by law.
[SIGNATURES LOCATED ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE]
355
01337.0010/1038560.3 7
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED as an URGENCY ORDINANCE this __ day of__________, 2025.
________________________________
Eduardo Martinez, Mayor
City of Richmond, California
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Pamela Christian, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
David J. Aleshire, City Attorney
356
01337.0010/1038560.3 8
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA ) ss.
CITY OF RICHMOND )
I, Pamela Christian, City Clerk, of the City of Richmond, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. __________was introduced, and adopted upon at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Bell, held on the ____ day of __________, 2025. Said Ordinance was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Dated this ____ day of ________, 2025.
________________________________
Pamela Christian, City Clerk
357
Ord. No. 05-25 N.S.
ORDINANCE NO. 05-25 N.S.
AN INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND,
CALIFORNIA, ENACTED PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858 ESTABLISHING A 45-DAY TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE
ESTABLISHMENT, EXPANSION OR TERM EXTENSIONS OF PARKLETS WITHIN CITY LIMITS DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE CITY’S REVIEW AND ADOPTION
OF PERMANENT ZONING REGULATIONS FOR SUCH USES
______________________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, the City of Richmond (“City”) has the authority, under its police power, to enact regulations for the public peace, morals, and welfare of the City pursuant to its Charter and California Constitution Article XI, section 7; and
WHEREAS, the City has a compelling interest in protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of its citizens, residents, visitors and businesses, and in preserving the peace and quiet of the neighborhoods within the City by regulating the establishment and expansion of Parklets (as defined in this Urgency Ordinance below) within City limits; and WHEREAS, the City is responsible for adopting and implementing land use regulations within its boundaries; and
WHEREAS, Richmond Municipal Code (“ RMC”) section 14.46.090 regulates Parklet approvals and installations by requiring a Parklet permit from the City’s Tr ansportation Services Department, an encroachment permit from the City Engineer or designee, as well as the receipt of a final inspection and installation approval from the City’s Engineering department; and WHEREAS, the City has no other development standards or regulations applicable to the installation or use of Parklets; and
WHEREAS, the City’s permissive policy towards Parklets could result in a proliferation or oversaturation of said uses within the City; and
WHEREAS, the proliferation of Parklets throughout the City without due consideration presents an immediate threat to public health, safety, or welfare because Parklets allow encroachments into public right-of-way, including roadways, which may undermine traffic safety, create nuisances, increase the risk of fires and parklet user safety, decrease parking in already congested commercial areas thereby creating increased vehicular traffic, reduce driver visibility thereby compromising driver and pedestrian safety, violate provisions of the American with Disabilities Act, compromise nearby crosswalks, complicate intersections, and in some instances may violate other state laws; and
WHEREAS, Parklet structures encroaching on roadways and on -street parking provides little economic benefit to the City or City residents; and WHEREAS, absent clear regulation, the proliferation of Parklets within the City poses a threat to the public peace, health, and safety, and, unless the City takes action to regulate the impacts described above are likely to occur; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to further regulate Parklets to ensure that public roadways and public property remain free of public nuisances, safe and accessible for all users, and clear of conditions that pose threats to public health, safety, and welfare, to ensure that future development is undertaken in a manner consistent with the City’s General Plan, and to ensure that any Parklet developments or installations comply with S tate and City regulations that in ure to the public’s health, safety, and welfare; and
WHEREAS, there is currently a pending application for a Parklet permit to establish a new Parklet before a non-urgency ordinance would become effective; and WHEREAS, Government Code Sections 36934, 36937 and 65858 expressly authorize the City Council to adopt an urgency ordinance for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety and to prohibit a use that is in conflict with a contemplated general plan, specific 358
Ord. No. 05-25 N.S.
plan, or zoning proposal that the legislative body, planning commission or the planning department is considering or studying or intends to study within a reasonable time; and WHEREAS, City staff require time to study and develop appropriate regulations for the installation of Parklets consistent with State and federal law; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the above -described express statutory authority and its police power, the City Council desires, on an urgency basis, to temporarily prohibit (1) the establishment of new Parklets, the expansion of existing Parklets, or extending the term of existing Parklets, as well as (2) the acceptance of Parklet permit applications for new or expanded Parklets, or for the extension of the term for existing Parklets, and (3) the processing of Parklet permit applications for new or expanded P arklet permits, or for the extension of the term of existing Parklet permit applications for Parklets within the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS
The City Council finds and determines the recitals above are true and correct, and are hereby incorporated by reference. Additionally, based on the for egoing, both verbal and written testimony at the public hearing, including the staff report, exhibits, and any materials provided by members of the public, the City Council finds as follows:
A. This Urgency Ordinance is being adopted in order to allow the City time to thoroughly study and develop the City’s laws, rules, procedures and fees related to the operation, expansion and establishment of Parklets within the City , to enable the City to adequately and appropriately preserve the health, safety and welfare of the community in the City of Richmond.
B. For the purposes of this Urgency Ordinance, the term “Parklet” shall encompass all removeable platforms made available to the public for recreational use that occupy a portion of a parking lane that is closed to motor vehicle parking.
C. The City finds that in the absence of a regulatory framework to govern Parklets, the adverse impacts frequently associated with Parklets likely will occur, resulting in unregulated and significant negative impacts upon the public health, safety, and welfare of the community.
D. The City finds that the adverse impacts from Parklets include the following:
(1) The proliferation of Parklets throughout the City without due consideration presents an immediate threat to public health, safety, or welfare because Parklets encroachment into the public right-of-way including roadways, wh ich may undermine traffic safety, create nuisances, decrease parking in already congested commercial areas thereby creating increased vehicular traffic; and
(2) The use of Parklets tends to reduce driver visibility , compromise nearby crosswalks, and comp licate intersections further impacting driver, pedestrian and Parklet user safety; and
(3) Parklets may violate provisions of the American with Disabilities Act as well as State law.
(4) Parklets may pose a fire safety risk due to possible use of heaters or other outdoor cooking or food smoking activities.
(5) Parklets may post a public safety risk due to the consumption of alcohol near outdoor walkways adjacent to public streets and vehicular traffic.
E. The City needs time to draft a proposed text amend ment to the Zoning Code to preserve the health, safety and welfare of the community in the City of Richmond with respect to the installation or expansion of Parklets to control for the risks stated above, as well as the possible creation of other nuisances.
359
Ord. No. 05-25 N.S.
SECTION 2. AUTHORITY AND EFFECT
The State Planning and Zoning Law (Cal. Gov’t Code Sections 65000, et seq.) broadly empowers the City to plan for and regulate the use of land in order to provide for orderly development, the public health safety and welfare, and a balancing of property rights and the desires of the community and how its citizens envision their city.
SECTION 3. MORATORIUM
A. During the Effective Period of this Urgency Ordinance as specified below, no permit application shall be issued, accepted, or processed to establish a new Parklet, expand an existing Parklets, or extend the term of an existing Parklet within the City. The foregoing shall explicitly prohibit the issuance of any zoning, land use, discretionary permit, building permit, environmental approval, business license or any other entitlement involving Parklets, during the Effective Period.
B. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the fact that a business within the City of Richmond currently operates an existing Parklet shall not constitute an obstacle to obtaining their annual City of Richmond business license. Additionally, permits may be issued for minor construction, rehabilitation and landscaping or other purposes not involving the expansion of the building area of an existing Parklet . Any Parklet currently under construction with a valid building permit on the effective date of this Urgency Ordinance shall be exempt from this Urgency Ordinance.
SECTION 4. STUDY AND DEVELOPMENT
During the period of this Urgency Ordinance, the City shall study and develop as necessary City laws, rules, procedures and fees related to Parklets, to enable the City to adequately and appropriately preserve the health, safety and welfare of the community in the City of Richmond.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65858 the Director of Public Works will issue a report for the legislative body on what has been accomplished during the renewal of the moratorium before it is extended.
SECTION 5. URGENCY MEASURE
It is hereby declared that this Urgency Ordinance is necessary as an urgency measure for the preservation of the public health, safety and welfare. The City Council finds that current zoning regulations and land use plans do not adequately regulate the establishment and operation of Parklets and therefore do not adequately protect the pea ce, health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the City or in communities around the City. The City Council finds the urgency measure is necessary in order to ensure adequate regulation of installation and operation of Parklets. The facts constituting the urgency are:
A. The City of Richmond does not currently have clear standards in the Richmond Municipal Code related specifically to the details of establishing or expanding Parklets within the City, beyond requiring them to apply for Parklet permits and encroachment permits.
B. The negative impacts frequently associated with Parklets will likely increase as they continue to proliferate throughout the City , resu lting in unregulated and potentially significant negative impact upon public health, safety, and welfare of the community.
C. To permit the additional Parklets within the City without being subject to specific regulations that are consistent with the General Plan, and that take into account the impacts that such installations have, constitutes a threat to the public’s health, safety, and welfare. Parklets create a threat to public health, safety, or welfare because Parklets encroachment into the public right-of-way including roadways, which may undermine traffic safety, create nuisances, decrease parking in already congested commercial areas thereby creating increased vehicular traffic.
D. New or expanded Parklets in the City with minimal regulations are likely to be sought within the City, which will further exacerbate the impacts of such installations.
E. Absent the adoption of this Urgency Ordinance, the expansion or installation of Parklets would likely result in the negative and harmful seconda ry effects, as identified above, including, but not limited to, threats to public health, safety, or welfare due to the encroachment 360
Ord. No. 05-25 N.S.
into the public right -of-way including roadways, which may undermine traffic safety, create nuisances, decrease parking in already congested commercial areas thereby creating increased vehicular traffic, as well as reduce driver visibility, compromise nearby crosswalks, complicate intersections further impacting driver, pedestrian and Parklet user safety, violate State and federal law, and create fire safety issues.
F. As a result of the negative an d harmful secondary effects associated with improperly regulated or unregulated Parklets, the current and immediate threat s to the pub lic health, safety and welfare, it is necessary to adopt a temporary, forty-five (45) day moratorium on the establishment of new Parklets and the expansion of existing Parklets.
G. A moratorium is immediately required to preserve the public health, safety and welfare and should be adopted immediately as an urgency ordinance, t o make certain that the establishment, expansion or extensions of Parklets is prohibited for the period of this Urgency Ordinance. Imposition of a moratorium will allow the City sufficient time to conclude the preparation of a comprehensive ordinance for the regulation of such activities.
SECTION 6. SEVERABILITY
The City Council hereby declares, if any provision, section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, phrase or word of this Urgency Ordinance is rendered or declared invalid or unconstitutional by any final action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by reason of any preemptive legislation, then the City Council would have independently adopted the remaining provisions, sections, subsections, paragraphs, sente nces, phrases or words of this Urgency Ordinance and as such they shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 7. CEQA COMPLIANCE
Pursuant to Section 15001 of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines, this Interim Urgency O rdinance is exempt from CEQA based on the following: (i) This Urgency Ordinance is not a project within the meaning of CEQA Se ction 15378 because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment , either directly or indirectly and (ii) this Urgency Ordinance is also exempt pursuant to CEQA Section 15061(b)(3) since the proposed o rdinance involves an Interim Urgency O rdinance establishing a 45 -day temporary moratorium on the expansion or installment of Parklets and does not have the potential to significantly impact the environment.
SECTION 8. EFFECTIVENESS OF ORDINANCE.
This Urgency Ordinance shall take effect immedi ately upon its adoption by a 4/5 vote , pursuant to the authority conferred upon the City Council by Government Code Section s 36934, 36937, and 65858. This Urgency Ordinance shall be effective during the Effective Period which shall be from its adoption and shall be of no further force and effect forty-five (45) days following the date of its adoption unless extended in accordance with the provisions set forth in Government Code Section 65858(b).
SECTION 9. PUBLICATION
The City Clerk shall certify as to the passage and adoption of this Interim Urgency Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published in a manner prescribed by law.
I hereby certify that the foregoing Urgency Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Richmond was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting thereof held January 28, 2025, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Bana, Brown, Jimenez, Robinson, Wilson, Vice Mayor Zepeda, and Mayor Martinez.
361
Ord. No. 05-25 N.S.
NOES: None.
ABSTENTIONS: None.
ABSENT: None.
PAMELA CHRISTIAN
CLERK OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
(SEAL)
Approved:
EDUARDO MARTINEZ
Mayor
Approved as to form:
DAVE ALESHIRE
City Attorney
State of California }
County of Contra Costa : ss.
City of Richmond }
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of Urgency Ordinance No. 05-25 N.S., passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting held on January 28, 2025. .
Pamela Christian, Clerk of the City of Richmond
362
March 11, 2025
DocID #36738v3
City Attorney's Office
DATE: March 11, 2025
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:
Dave Aleshire, City Attorney
Shannon L. Moore, Chief Assistant City Attorney
Kimberly Y. Chin, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Chris Dykzeul, Assistant City Attorney
Subject:
Adopt Sanctuary City Ordinance.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no immediate financial impact, but there is a risk of withdrawal, rescission, or loss of federal grant funds.
Federal responses are evolving. Approximately
$62,278,429 in federal funding could be at risk.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
August 20, 1990 (Ordinance No. 29-90)
June 5, 2018 (Ordinance No. 12-18)
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
Adopt an ordinance limiting the use of City resources for federal immigration enforcement that is consistent with state and federal law.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
INTRODUCE an ordinance (first reading) adding Chapter
2.30 entitled “Limitations on Use of City Resources for Federal Immigration Enforcement” to the Richmond
Municipal Code – City Attorney’s Office (Dave
Aleshire/Shannon L. Moore/ Kimberly Y. Chin/Chris
Dykzeul 510-620-6509.
AGENDA
REPORT
363
March 11, 2025
DocID #36738v3
DISCUSSION:
At the Council meeting on January 28, 2025, the Richmond City Council unanimously directed the City Attorney’s Office to review the City of Richmond’s current legislation protecting undocumented immigrants and to examine current activity at the federal, state and local l evels and to provide recommendations on additional protections for undocumented immigrants in line with the State of California and other local communities (See Item N.2.a)
Consistent with Council’s direction, the City Attorney’s Office evaluated the City of Richmond’s current sanctuary city protections and provided recommendations in ordinance form adding additional protections for undocumented immigrants that is consistent with state and federal law.
Background
The Richmond City Council adopted Ordinance No. 29-20 (Attachment 1) and Ordinance No. 12-18 (Attachment 2) which provide certain sanctuary city protections at the local level to the immigrant community.
Additionally, the State of California has named its elf a “sanctuary state,” following the passage of Senate Bill 54 in 2017. In 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal rejected the first Trump administration ’s challenge to SB 54’s limitations on local assistance with federal immigration enforcement efforts and underscored the right of state and local jurisdictions not to assist federal authorities, particularly when local resources are already scarce. U.S. v. California , 921 F.3d 865 (9th Cir. 2019). The following counties have passed legislation limiting assistance to federal immigration enforcement efforts :
Alameda, Los Angeles, Monterey and San Francisco. A number of California cities have also passed similar legislation, including Alameda, Berkeley, Davis, Emeryville, Hayward, Oakland, Petaluma, San Jose, Santa Cruz, San Leandro and Santa Rosa.
In light of the current Trump administration’s threats of mass deportations and its recission of the long -standing federal poli cy restricting Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and the potential of ICE arrests in sensitive areas such as schools, after -school programs, hospitals, community health centers, and places of worship, the City by its ordinance would reaffirm to the community its status as a Sanctuary City and bolster existing policies should ICE officials contact city officials or visit city offices to ask questions, collect information, or request assistance with arresting any undocumented or naturalized resident or visitor beyond what is legally required.
From reviewing various ordinances, sanctuary is fundamentally about public safety: the need for the community to feel safe. When all community members, documented or undocumented, are able to attend school and after -school programs, hospitals and health centers, and places of worship without the threat of deportation, a more connected thriving community results.
364
March 11, 2025
DocID #36738v3
The City has an interest in ensuring that confidential information collected in the course of carrying out its municipal functions, including but not limited to public programs and criminal investigations, is not used for unintended purposes that could hamper collection of information vital to those functions . T he City must be able to r eliably collect confidential information from all residents. To solve crimes and protect the public, local law enforcement depends on the cooperation of all City residents. Information gathering and cooperation may be jeopardized if release of personal information results in a person being taken into immigration custody.
Assisting federal immigration endeavors also come at a cost to the City. Pursuant to Section 287.7 of Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the City is not reimbursed by the federal government for the costs associated with civil immigration detainers alone.
The full cost of responding to a civil immigration detainer can include, but is not limited to, extended detention time, the administrative costs of tracking and responding to detainers, and the legal liability for erroneously holding an individual who is not subject to a civil immigration detainer. Compliance with civil immigration detainers and involvement in civil immigration enforcement diverts limited local resources from programs that are beneficial to the City. The Richmond Police Department has affirmed that its mission is to protect the safety of all people in the community irrespective of document status.
Finally, there are legal concerns with leveraging City resources fo r federal immigration endeavors. Given that civil immigration detainers are issued by immigration officers without judicial oversight, and the regulation authorizing civil immigration detainers provides no minimum standard of proof for their issuance, there are serious questions as to the ir constitutionality. Unlike criminal warrants, which must be supported by probable cause and issued by a neutral magistrate, there are no such requirements for the issuance of a civil immigration detainer. Several federal courts have ruled that because ci vil immigration detainers and other ICE “Notice of Action ” documents are issued without probable cause of criminal conduct, they do not meet the Fourth Amendment requirements for state or local law enforcement officials to arrest and hold an individual in custody. Miranda-Olivares v. Clackamas Co. , No. 3:12 -cv-02317-ST, 2014 WL 1414305 (D.Or. April 11, 2014) (finding that detention pursuant to an immigration detainer is a seizure that must comport with the Fourth Amendment) ; see also Morales v. Chadbourne , 996 F. Supp. 2d 19 (D .R.I 2014); Villars v. Kubiatowski , No. 12-cv-4586, 2014 WL 1795631 (N.D. Ill. May 5, 2014).
Accordingly, the purpose of the proposed ordinance, adding Chapter 2.30, Limitations on Use of City Re sources for Federal Immigration Enforce ment, to Article II, Administration and City Government, within the City’s municipal code, is to foster respect and trust between the City, its programs, and law enforcement and residents, to protect limited local resources, to encourage cooperation betwee n residents and City officials, including especially law enforcement and public health officers and employees, and to ensure community security and due process for all. The proposed ordinance is not intended to prohibit the City or its personnel from complying with state or federal law.
365
March 11, 2025
DocID #36738v3
The current administration has stated they will act against those interfering with enforcement of federal immigration law and has threatened to withhold or condition federal funds from jurisdictions that limit assistance with federal immigration efforts. E.g., Executive Order 14,159, Protecting the American People Against Invasion, 90 Fed. Reg. 8237. (Jan. 20, 2025). However, such efforts have been successfully challenged in the past, resulting in injunctions preventing the federal government and Department of Justice from withholding or conditioning those funds. E.g., City and County of San Francisco v.
Garland, 42 F. 4th 1078 (9th Cir. 2022); City and County of San Francisco v. Barr , 965 F.3d 753 (9th Cir. 2020); City of Los Angeles v. Barr , 941 F.3d 931 ( 9th Cir. 2019). The legal status of the current efforts will be subject to judicial review. It will be the intent of the City of Richmond to follow all binding legal precedent.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – Ordinance No. 29-90
Attachment 2 – Ordinance No. 12-18
Attachment 3 – Proposed Ordinance
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
DocID #36694v2
ORDINANCE NO. N.S.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
LIMITING THE USE OF CITY RESOURCES FOR FEDERAL IMMIGRATION
ENFORCEMENT
The City Council of the City of Richmond do ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. AUTHORITY. This Ordinance is authorized by the City’s authority under California Constitution, article XI, sections 5 (charter cities) and 7 (police power), and in conformity with California Senate Bill No. 54, codified in California Government Code Sections 7282 – 7284.10.
SECTION 2. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT. Chapter 2.30 of Article II of the Richmond Municipal Code , Administration and City Government, is hereby added to read as follows:
Section 2.30.010 — City Council Findings and Declarations
(a) The City of Richmond is home to people of diverse racial, ethnic, and national backgrounds, including a large immigrant population.
(b) Immigrants are valuable and essential members of the City of Richmond community.
(c) A relationship of trust between the City of Richmond’s immigrant community and the City of Richmond, its departments, programs, and personnel is central to the public safety of Richmond residents.
(d) This trust is threatened when state and local agencies are entangled with federal Immigration enforcement, with the result that immigrant community members fear approaching police when they are victims of, and witnesses to, crimes, seeking basic health services, or attending school, to the detriment of public safety and the well-being of all Californians, including Richmond residents.
(e) Entangling state and local agencies with federal immigration enforcement programs diverts already limited resources and blurs the lines of accountability between local, state, and federal governments.
(f) There are legal concerns with leveraging the City of Richmond’s resources for federal immigration endeavors, including but not limited to the prospect of Richmond 373
DocID #36694v2
residents being detained in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution or targeted on the basis or race or ethnicity in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
(g) This chapter seeks to ensure effective policing, to protect the safety, well-being, and constitutional rights of Richmond residents, and to direct the City’s limited resources to matters of greatest concern.
Section 2.30.020 – Definitions
For purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases are defined as follows:
(a) "Administrative warrant" means a document issued by the federal agency charged with the enforcement of the Federal immigration law that is used as a non-criminal, civil warrant for immigration purposes.
(b) "Eligible for release from custody" means that the individual may be released from custody because one of the following conditions has occurred:
(1) All criminal charges against the individual have been dropped or dismissed.
(2) The individual has been acquitted of all criminal charges filed against him or her.
(3) The individual has served all the time required for his or her sentence.
(4) The individual has posted a bond or has been released on his or her own recognizance.
(5) The individual has been referred to pre-trial diversion services.
(6) The individual is otherwise eligible for release under state or local law.
(c) "Citizenship or Immigration Status" shall mean all information or classification regarding citizenship of the United States or any other country, place of birth, the authority to reside in or otherwise be present in the United States, including visa status, and the time or manner of a person's entry into the United States.
(d) "Civil immigration detainer" means a non-mandatory request issued by an authorized federal immigration officer under Section 287.7 of Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations, to a local law enforcement official to maintain custody of an individual for a period not to exceed 48 hours and advise the authorized federal 374
DocID #36694v2
immigration officer prior to the release of that individual.
(e) "Convicted" means the state of having been proved guilty in a judicial proceeding, unless the convictions have been expunged or vacated pursuant to applicable law. The date that an individual is Convicted starts from the date of release.
(f) "Firearm" means a device, designed to be used as a weapon, from which is expelled through a barrel, a projectile by the force of an explosion or other form of combustion as defined in Penal Code Section 16520.
(g) "Immigration Agent" means any federal, state, or local officer, employee, or person performing immigration enforcement functions including, but not limited to, agents employed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
(h) "Immigration Enforcement" means any and all efforts to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or enforcement of any federal civil immigration law against natural persons, and also includes any and all efforts to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or enforcement of any federal criminal immigration law that pen alizes a natural person's presence in, entry, or reentry to, or employment in, the United States.
(i) "Law enforcement official" means any City Department or officer or employee of a City Department, authorized to enforce criminal statutes, regulations, or l ocal ordinances; operate jails or maintain custody of individuals in jails; and operate juvenile detention facilities or maintain custody of individuals in juvenile detention facilities.
(j) "Notification request" means a non-mandatory request issued by an authorized federal immigration officer to a local law enforcement official asking for notification to the authorized immigration officer of an individual's release from local custody prior to the release of an individual from local custody. Notification requests may also include informal requests for release information by the Federal agency charged with enforcement of the Federal immigration law.
(k) "Personal information" means any confidential, identifying information about an individual, including, but not limited to, home or work contact information, and family or emergency contact information.
Section 2.30.030 – Limitations on the Use of City Resources.
Unless required by federal or state law, no City resources, including, but not limited to, City person nel and City property, shall be utilized to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration law or to gather or disseminate information regarding release status of individuals or 375
DocID #36694v2
any other such personal information as defined in Section 2.030.20, unless such assistance is required by federal or state statute, regulation, or court decision. The limitations set forth in this Section shall include, but shall not be limited to:
(a) Inquiring into or collecting information about an individual’s Citizenship or Immigration Status, unless such information is necessary to provide a City service, including the provision of immigration and naturalization assistance, for election -related purposes or appointment to a City office or commission, or as required for purposes of City employment or the disbursement of City funds.
(b) Assisting or cooperating, in one’s official capacity, with any investigation, detention or arrest procedures, public or clandestine, conducted by the federal agency charged with enforcement of federal immigration law and relating to alleged violations of the civil provisions of the federal immigration law, except as permitted under this Chapter
2.30 and applicable state or federal law.
(c) Assisting or cooperating, in one’s official capacity, with any investigation, surveillance, or gathering of information conducted by foreign governments, except for cooperation related to an alleged violation of City, state, or federal criminal laws.
(d) Requesting information about, or disseminating information, in one's official capacity, regarding the release status of any individual, except as permitted under this Chapter 2.30, or conditioning the provision of services or benefits by the City upon immigration status, except as required by federal or state statute or regulation, City public assistance criteria, or applicable court decision.
(e) Providing any Immigration Agent access to any non-public areas of property owned or controlled by the City for the purpose of Immigration Enforcement.
Section 2.30.040 – Limitations on Law Enforcement Officials
(a) The City of Richmond’s Police Department, consistent with California Government Code section 7284.6(a), shall not:
(1) Use agency or department moneys or personnel to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes, including any of the following:
(A) Inquiring into an individual’s immigration status.
(B) Detaining an individual on the basis of a hold request.
376
DocID #36694v2
(C) Providing information regarding a person’s release date or responding to requests for notification by providing release dates or other information unless that information is available to the public or is in response to a notification request from immigration agents in accordance with California Government Code Section 7282.5.
Responses are never required, but are permitted under this subdivision, provided that they do not violate any local law or policy.
(D) Making or intentionally participating in arrests based on civil immigration warrants.
(E) Assisting immigration agents in the activities described in Section 1357(a)(3) of Title 8 of the United States Code.
(F) Performing the functions of an immigration officer, whether pursuant to Section 1357(g) of Title 8 of the United States Code or any other law, regulation, or policy, whether formal or informal.
(2) Place Richmond police officers under the supervision of federal agencies or employ peace officers deputized as special federal officers or special federal deputies for purposes of immigration enforcement. All Richmond police officers remain subject to California law governing conduct of peace officers and the policies adopted by the City of Richmond.
(3) Use immigration agents as interpreters for law enforcement matters relating to individuals in agency or department custody.
(4) Transfer an individual to immigration agents unless authorized by a judicial warrant or judicial probable cause determination, or in accordance with California Government Code Section 7282.5.
(5) Provide office space exclusively dedicated for immigration agents for use within a Police Department facility.
(6) Contract with the federal government for use of Police Department facilities to house individuals as federal detainees, except pursua nt to Chapter 17.8 of the California Government Code (commencing with Section 7310).
(b) Notwithstanding the limitations in subsection (a), this section is not intended to prevent personnel or officers of the City of Richmond’s Police Department from taking actions consistent with or permitted by federal and state law, including, but not limited to, those actions enumerated within California Government Code Sections 7282.5 and 7284.6(b) 377
DocID #36694v2
(e), as amended.
Section 2.30.050 – Confidentiality and Protection of City Data.
Except as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1373 or other applicable federal or state law, no City personnel or law enforcement official shall provide access to any City data or information that can be used to determine or trace a person ’s Citizenship or Immigration Status to any Immigration Agent. In furtherance of this restriction, as of the effective date of this ordinance, City personnel shall not provide City data or information that can be used to determine or trace a person's Citizenship or Immigration Status to any City contractor unless the contractor first agrees in writing to prohibit the contractor's employees and subcontractors from providing that data or information to any Immigration Agent, to the extent permitted by law. All City employees shall treat information that can be used to distinguish or trace a person's Citizenship or Immigration Status, either on its own or when combined with other information, as confidential information, to the extent permitted by law.
Section 2.30.060 – Judicial Warrants and Presiding Law.
Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit or otherwise restrict the City or City personnel from complying with a valid warrant issued by a federal or state judge, or other order evidencing a judicial determination of probable cause, nor shall this chapter prohibit the City or its personnel from complying with state or federal law.
SECTION 3. CEQA FINDINGS. The City Council finds that adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from CEQA because: (i) it is not a project wit hin the meaning of Public Resources Code, section 21065 because it has no potential to alter the physical environment; (ii) and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3), the so-called “common sense” exemption, for this same reason.
SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision sha ll not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or its application to other persons and circumstances. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or port ion thereof despite the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional and, to that end, the provisions hereof are hereby declared to be severable.
378
DocID #36694v2
SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect 30 days after its adoption under Chapter 2.30, Administration and City Government, Article II of the City of Richmond’s Municipal Code.
SECTION 6. PUBLICATION. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published once in the East Bay Times, a newspaper of general circulation printed, published, and circulated within the City.
SECTION 7. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after passage and adoption.
*****************************
(This section to be completed by Clerk’s Office)
First introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Richmond held on _____________ and finally passed and adopted at a regular meeting held on ___________ by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
________________________________________
Clerk of the City of Richmond
(SEAL)
Approved:
_______________________________
Mayor
Approved as to form:
____________________________
City Attorney
379