Agenda — Richmond City Council, April 1, 2025 (part 5 of 5)

ORDINANCE NO N.S.

AN INTERIM ORDINANCE, ESTABLISHING A 22-MONTH AND 15-DAY EXTENSION OF URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 06-25, IMPOSING A

TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS

REQUIRING NEW SEWER CONNECTIONS TO THE KELLER BEACH
SANITARY SEWER; AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF,
PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65858 (hereinafter “GC Section 65858”) authorizes the City Council to adopt, as an urgency measure, an interim ordinance by a four-fifths vote to temporarily prevent development and/or construction that threatens the public health, safety, and welfare of citizens residing in the Sewer Moratorium Area; and
WHEREAS, on February 18, 2925, in compliance with GC Section 65858, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 06-25 N.S. (hereinafter “Urgency Ord. No. 06-25”), which established a 45-day moratorium on the issuance of building permits requiring new sewer connections to the Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer (hereinafter “KBSS”) and declaring the urgency thereof, and which will expire on April 4, 2025; and
WHEREAS, Urgency Ord. No. 06-25 defined “sewer connection” as the connection of a building’s drainage system, which conveys the discharge from soil, waste, and other drainage pipes of a business or residence to the City’s sewer main and/or other applicable sewer infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, GC Section 65858(b) authorizes the City Council to extend Urgency Ord. No. 06-25 for twenty-two (22) months and fifteen (15) days following notice and a public hearing. Said extension shall require a four-fifths vote of the City Council for adoption, and the City Council may subsequently extend for one (1) year; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to GC Section 65858(a) and GC Section 65090, the City Council provided notice by publication in the East Bay Times on February 8, 2025 and February 18, 2025, as statutorily mandated and held a subsequent public hearing on February 18, 2025, where it took public comment; and WHEREAS, pursuant to GC Section 65858(c), the City Council shall not extend an interim ordinance unless said ordinance contains legislative findings that there is a current and immediate threat to public health, safety, or welfare; and that the approval of additional subdivisions, use permits, variances, building permits, or any other applicable entitlement for use that is required for zoning ordinance compliance would result in such threat to public health, safety, or welfare; and
856

Page 2 of 7 ends

WHEREAS, on January 18, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 08-22, thereby accepting the findings of the Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer CCTV review and assessment report (hereinafter “KBSS Review and Assessment Report”) prepared by NCE-Coastland, dated January 3, 2022, and hereby incorporated within; and
WHEREAS, the KBSS Review and Assessment Report identified a severely compromised pipe and concluded that KBSS should undergo extensive repairs, which would address critical issues; or a pipe replacement and relocation, which would alleviate the critical issues but incur cost and time considerations; and WHEREAS, the City will perform an in-depth study of alternatives and seek expert consultation; hire contractors; and perform evaluative assessments to devise the best solution, while taking into consideration environmental and public health concerns. By necessity, the City needs time to coordinate its study efforts in a reasonable way with federal, state, and local agencies; affected property owners; and other interested stakeholders to preserve public health, safety, and welfare; and
WHEREAS, the moratorium is a burden on the right of property owners to develop their property so the immediate objective of the moratorium is not to complete the long term remedial plan to develop a short term plan which, if implemented, would allow the permit of new temporary connections until the ultimate upgrade to KBSS can be made, maybe seven years hence; and WHEREAS, the leading suggested temporary plan is the Holding Tank Option and consultant shall review this but consultant shall consider other possible alternatives based on cost, practicability and speed of implementation; and WHEREAS, the sanitary sewer issues presented by KBSS’ condition create an imminent threat to the public health, safety, and welfare as well as the environment in the Sewer Moratorium Area (incorporated herein by reference); and a moratorium on the issuance of building permits requiring a new connection to KBSS will prevent further deterioration and pipe destruction; and WHEREAS, GC Section 65858(c) provides that the legislative body shall not extend an ordinance unless it contains legislative findings of a current and immediate threat to public health, safety, or welfare, and that the approval of additional subdivisions, use permits, variances, building permits, or any other applicable entitlement for use which is required in order to comply with a zoning ordinance would result in that threat to public health, safety, or welfare; and WHEREAS, GC Section 65858(d) requires the City Council to issue a written report (“Report”) describing measures taken to alleviate the condition that led to the adoption of the Urgency Ord. No. 06-25 ten (10) days prior to its expiration or extension. The City Council’s Report is incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, GC Section 66300 authorizes a moratorium impacting housing 857

Page 3 of 7 ends

development only where such a moratorium would protect against an imminent threat to the health and safety of person residing in, or within the immediate vicinity of, the area subject to the moratorium and after the California Department of Housing and Community Development (hereinafter “HCD”) has reviewed said moratorium; and
WHEREAS, development requiring additional sewer connections to the KBSS would result in specific and quantifiable adverse impacts to sanitation infrastructure; the ability to safely and timely repair infrastructure failures; environmental degradation; and pose an immediate threat to the public’s health, safety, and welfare for the above-stated reasons; and
WHEREAS, to protect the public’s health, safety, and welfare, it is necessary to extend Urgency Ordinance No. 06-25 to ensure that any future development in the Sewer Moratorium Area does not further impact the community and the health and safety of those residing in the Sewer Moratorium Area; and WHEREAS, feasible alternatives to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impacts with respect to public health and safety, sanitation infrastructure, ability to safely and timely repair infrastructure failures, and environmental degradation, have yet to be fully identified; and WHEREAS, the City has not yet been able to identify any less burdensome or restrictive actions other than the adoption of this moratorium extension; and WHEREAS, the most important and immediate objective of the moratorium is to determine a temporary solution implementable in the period of the moratorium, and the consultant shall identify the options to be considered based on cost, practicability, and ability to carry out within the moratorium period; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that a temporary moratorium on the issuance of building permits requiring a new sewer connection to KBSS is necessary to preserve public health, safety, and welfare, and to protect against the imminent threat to the health and safety of person residing in the Sewer Moratorium Area, and the “Whereas” clauses above taken together constitute the City Council’s statements and reasons constituting such necessity and urgency.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. The City Council finds, and determines to be in full force and effect, the Recitals set forth in Urgency Ord. No. 06-25, and as above, and hereby incorporates them herein.

SECTION 2. The City Council finds and determines for the reasons stated in the Recitals, that the adoption of this Interim Ordinance is exempt from CEQA under Section(s) 15061(b)(3), 15307, and 15308 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 858

Page 4 of 7 ends

SECTION 3. The City Council finds that a Report was issued by the City on March 25, 2025, describing measures taken to alleviate the condition which led to the adoption of the urgency ordinance.

SECTION 4. The City Council further finds that the extension of the Urgency Ord. No. 06-25 is necessary to mitigate and/or avoid the specific adverse impacts identified herein, and that there is no feasible alternative to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact identified herein as well or better, with a less burdensome or restrictive effect, than the adoption of the extension of the urgency ordinance.

SECTION 5. Exceptions. The following development activities within the City limits requiring a sewer connection to Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer are exempt from the moratorium:

A. All projects (if any) that have vested rights to a new sewer connection because of previously submitted and fully complete applications and issued building permits;
B. Projects ordinarily requiring a connection to the Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer for which the owner/developer submits a design for the extension of a sewer main to an alternative segment, the design which is approved by the City Engineer and/or Public Works Director, and the property owner/developer agrees to be solely responsible for all costs and expenses of installing and maintaining said sewer main, among other terms and conditions provided by the City in an executed and recorded written agreement between the City and property owner/developer to this effect.

SECTION 6. Except subject to procedures provided in Section 8 hereof, a development application for which a sewer connection to the Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer is required may be processed during the moratorium and any extension of the moratorium. However, the application shall be processed at the applicant’s sole cost and expense and with the understanding that no building permit shall be issued until the moratorium, including any extension of the moratorium, has expired and that, such permit may not be issued if it is inconsistent with any amendments to the municipal code, ordinances, or regulations that are amended by reason of the review that occurs during the moratorium.

SECTION 7. Term of Moratorium. In accordance with Government Code Section 65858, this Interim Ordinance shall be in full force and effect for a period of twenty-two (22) months and fifteen (15) days from the date of its adoption. The City Council may extend this Interim Ordinance subsequently for one (1) year, pursuant to Section 65858. Any extension shall also require a public hearing and a four-fifths vote for adoption.

SECTION 8. Petition for Relief from Moratorium.
859

Page 5 of 7 ends

A. Any person (“Applicant”) who has applied for a permit from the City to construct a project requiring a KBSS sewer connection, on or before February 18, 2025, may submit to the Planning Commission a written application requesting relief from the Moratorium (“Request for Relief” or “Request”). The Request for Relief shall identify the Applicant’s name, address, and affected permit application number; and it shall state how the Moratorium, as applied to Applicant, would affect Applicant’s project (“Project”).

B. In deciding the question of whether relief shall be provided from the Moratorium, the Planning Commission shall make findings as to the Applicant’s:

1. Reasonable, investment-backed expectation;

2. Reasonable, economic use of subject property;

3. The timing and the impact of adding the KBSS connection; and

4. If the impacts to the Project are reasonable under the circumstances.

C. Public Hearing.

1. In deciding Applicant’s Request for Relief, the City Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing on the Request and shall set a time and place for such hearing to be held within thirty (30) days of the City’s receipt of a complete Request.

2. At least ten (10) days before the public hearing, the City shall make available to the public copies of the Request for Relief in the office of the City Clerk.

3. Notice of the public hearing shall be provided in accordance with Richmond Municipal Code Chapter, Article 15.04.803.

4. After receiving public comment, the Planning Commission shall approve, deny, or modify the Request for Relief based on the required findings of Section 8(B)(1-4) above within thirty (30) days following the hearing.

5. The City shall promptly notify Applicant in writing of the Planning Commission’s decision on the Request for Relief and shall state the reasons and grounds therefore. The City shall also mail notice of its decision to members of the public who have requested notice.

D. Appeal.

1. Any person aggrieved by the Planning Commission’s decision on Applicant’s Request for Relief may appeal to the City Council by submitting a written appeal to the City Clerk within ten (10) days of the date of decision date. The appellant shall remit the appeal fee listed in the City's Master Fee Schedule when submitting the appeal.

SECTION 9. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Interim Ordinance, causing it to be posted as required by law; thereafter, it shall be in full force and effect. As an urgency measure, the Interim Ordinance shall become effective immediately to ensure protection of the public’s health, safety, and welfare.
860

Page 6 of 7 ends

SECTION 10. For the term of this Interim Ordinance, as set forth in Section 7 hereof, the provisions herein shall govern. To the extent any conflict exists between the provisions of this Interim Ordinance and those of any City Code or any other ordinance, resolution, or policy, then all such conflicting provisions shall be suspended with respect hereto.

SECTION 11. This Interim Ordinance is enacted pursuant to the City of Richmond’s general police powers; Article II for the City’s Charter; Article XI of the California Constitution; and Government Code Section 65858.

SECTION 12. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Interim Ordinance is, for any reason, held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the Interim Ordinance’s remaining portions. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this Interim Ordinance, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section(s), subsection(s), sentence(s), clause(s), or phrase(s) be declared invalid. -----------------------------
861

Page 7 of 7 ends

I hereby certify that the foregoing Interim Ordinance was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting thereof held April 1, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:

CLERK OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
Approved:

Mayor
Approved as to form:

City Attorney
862

CITY COUNCIL REPORT

ISSUED PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 65858(d)
DATE: March 5, 2023
SUBJECT: Report on Measures Taken Following Adoption of Interim Urgency Ordinance Number 06-25 N.S. Establishing a Temporary, 45-Day Moratorium BACKGROUND: On February 18, 2025, the Richmond City Council adopted urgency-measure Interim Ordinance Number 06-25 N.S. (“Ord. No. 06-25 N.S.”), which established a temporary moratorium on the issuance of building permits requiring sewer connections to the Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer (“KBSS”); and further declaring an urgency thereof. Ord. No. 06-25 N.S. is set to expire on April 4, 2025.

Pursuant to California Government Code § 65858(b), an interim ordinance remains in effect for forty-five (45) days from its adoption date and may be extended for twenty-two (22) months and fifteen (15) days following a noticed, public hearing and with a four-fifths (4/5) vote for adoption from the City Council, which would require six (6) of seven (7) votes. If adopted, the proposed extended interim ordinance would take effect immediately.

California Government Code § 65858(d) requires the City Council to issue a written report ten (10) days before the earliest of either: the interim ordinance’s expiration; or, prior to the extension’s adoption. The report shall describe measures the City is taking to alleviate the condition(s) that led to the interim ordinance’s adoption.

Ordinance Number 06-25 N.S. will expire on April 4, 2025; thus, this report’s date of issue satisfies the requirements of California Government Code § 65858(d).

DISCUSSION: The Public Works and Planning Department(s) (collectively, the “Departments”) are actively reviewing and analyzing the totality of circumstances facing the KBSS line.

The Departments face a complex situation with this pipeline, especially given the seriousness of the sanitary sewer issues it presents. The lack of straightforward, easy solutions adds to the complexity. Challenges include but are not limited to: defining and evaluating potentially viable solutions; the cost of any such proposed solution; the geographical difficulties the site presents both on land and in water; and, the inherently sensitive environmental and public health concerns central to this situation. The Departments will take a multi-pronged approach to addressing the matter; specific activities being undertaken currently include the following:
 Analyzing and evaluating NCE-Coastland’s Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer CCTV Review and Assessment Report, dated January 3, 2022 to understand and define the critical issues and to prioritize the myriad issues impacting the KBSS line and public safety;  Researching and evaluating best-practices for addressing pipeline engineering and identifying proven technological or mechanical interventions while maintaining public-safety protections;
 Analyzing the need for additional information and studies and determining which categories of consultants would be most useful and at which point in the process.

The above reflects actions undertaken during the short period necessary to extend the interim urgency ordinance in effect currently.

OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT: Members of the public will have the opportunity to comment on the drafted extension of the Urgency Ordinance at the City Council's Public Hearing to be held on April 1, 2025, in person or online via Zoom. The City will publish notice for this meeting pursuant to Government Code § 65090.
863
To participate in the Zoom video conference online meeting and obtain detailed information on how to provide public comment, please visit the City of Richmond, City Clerk’s Office website, Council Agenda Documents webpage at http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/151/Council-AgendaDocuments and review the published agenda for the April 1, 2025 meeting. 864
ORDINANCE NO. 06-25 N.S.

AN URGENCY ORDINANCE, PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858, BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND, ESTABLISHING A

TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS

REQUIRING A NEW SEWER CONNECTION TO THE KELLERBEACH SANITARY SEWER; AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEROF
WHEREAS, the Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer was constructed in 1959 and consists of 5,392 linear feet of 8 to 12 inch concrete-encased cast iron interceptor pipe and twenty five (25) sewer structures located within the pipeline, consisting of seventeen (17) manholes and eight (8) cleanouts ("KBSS"); and
WHEREAS, KBSS is located off of Keller Beach in the San Francisco Bay, and remains submerged during ordinary tides, making repair and maintenance of the sewer very difficult due to the limited hours where the sewer can be reached and hazardous conditions; and WHEREAS, given the location ofthe KBSS, pipe failure and/or sewage leaks would result in significant environmental harm with the limited ability to quickly remediate the damage and/or leaks due to limited accessibility; and
WHEREAS, additional development requiring sewer connections to KBSS poses an immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare, as these new sewer flows could exacerbate the potential for a catastrophic failure which could cause a significant public health and safety threat to existing residences; and
WHEREAS, on November 17, 2021, the City received a commissioned assessment and CCTV analysis regarding KBSS. The report recommended performing immediate repairs to the KBSS and potential removal and replacement of portions ofKBSS to a different location; and WHEREAS, on January 18, 2022, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 01- 22 N.S., establishing a temporary moratorium on the issuance of building permits requiring new sewer connections to the Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer (KBSS) due to concerns about system capacity, structural integrity, and regulatory compliance; and WHEREAS, on March 1, 2022, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 05-22 N.S., to extend Urgency Ordinance No. 01-22 N.S. in accordance with Government Code Section 65858 for an additional 10 months and 15 days, expiring on January 17, 2023; WHEREAS, on February 21, 2023, in accordance with Government Code Section 65858 the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 02-23 N.S., establishing a 45-day moratorium on the issuance of building permits requiring new sewer connections to the Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer (KBSS) due to concerns about system capacity, structural integrity, and regulatory compliance;
WHEREAS, on April 4, 2023, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 03-23 N.S. to extend Urgency Ordinance No. 02-23 N.S. in accordance with Government Code Section 65858 for an additional 22 months and 15 days, expiring on February 19, 2025; and WHEREAS, since the adoption of the moratorium, the City has worked with consultants and engaged in community outreach to explore long-term solutions for rehabilitating or replacing the KBSS; and
WHEREAS, a study initiated under a contract with Coastland Engineers was disrupted when the firm withdrew in March 2024, citing concerns about public engagement and project direction following City Council action on December 19, 2023, that mandated further review of alternatives under the Baykeeper Settlement Agreement; and WHEREAS, following the withdrawal ofCoastland Engineers, City staffhas been working to identify a new consultant to conduct a peer review and develop an actionable replacement plan, Ord. No. 06-25 N.S.

Page I of 5
865
but delays have resulted due to extensive public and political engagement, as well as the need to secure qualified facilitation and engineering expertise; and WHEREAS, on July 31, 2024, the City hosted a public outreach meeting facilitated by Kearns and West to provide updates and gather feedback, but additional focus group meetings and coordination efforts remain ongoing; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that a final scope of design and construction for the KBSS replacement or rehabilitation is currently undetermined, and the estimated completion of the replacement project will take multiple additional years beyond the current moratorium expiration date; and
WHEREAS, City staff is in the process of developing an interim solution in the form of sewage holding tanks that could allow affected property owners to proceed with development, but this solution requires technical standards, regulatory approvals, and implementation planning, which is expected to take six to nine months before it is brought to City Council for approval; and may also explore other options to ·ensure that new sewer connections do not increase the sewage load in the KBSS; and
WHEREAS, allowing new connections to the KBSS, which are not authorized by this Ordinance and which increase sewage flow to the KBSS, before it is repaired or replaced could result in further deterioration, potential system failures, and environmental risks, as well as noncompliance with regulatory requirements, including those enforced by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and US Army Corps of Engineers; and
WHEREAS, these issues constitute a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare, within the meaning of Government Code Section 65858; and WHEREAS, on February 18, 2025 the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider adoption of this Ordinance, including providing a public notice pursuant to Government Code § 65090; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65858 authorizes the City Council to adopt an urgency ordinance by a four-fifths vote to temporarily prevent development and/or construction that threatens the public health, safety, and welfare of citizens residing in the Sewer Moratorium Area (attached and incorporated as Exhibit A); and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 66300 authorizes a moratorium impacting housing development only where such a moratorium would protect against an imminent threat to the health and safety of person residing in, or within the immediate vicinity of, the area subject to the moratorium and after the Department of Housing and Community Development has reviewed said moratorium; and
WHEREAS, the City has consulted with and submitted this Ordinance to the Department of Housing and Community Development for review and approval pursuant to Government Code Section 66300, and this Ordinance shall not be enforceable against housing development until the City has received said approval of this moratorium; and WHEREAS, the Richmond City Council has determined that a temporary moratorium on the issuance of building permits requiring a new sewer connection to KBSS is necessary to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare, and to protect against the imminent threat to the health and safety of person residing in the Sewer Moratorium Area, and the "Whereas" clauses above taken together constitute the City Council's statements and reasons constituting such necessity and urgency.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Richmond does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. The City Council finds and determines the foregoing recitals to be true and correct are incorporated herein by reference as it set forth in full.

Ord. No. 06-25 N.S.

Page 2 ends

866
SECTION 2. The City Council finds and determines the Ordinance is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), in that it maintains the existing physical environment and prevents changes in the environment and so does not have the potential for resulting in either a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(a)). It is also exempt under Guidelines Sections 15060(c)(2), as the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and Section 15061 (b )(3 ), as there is no possibility that the adoption of this Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment because it maintains the existing condition of the environment.

SECTION 3. Moratorium. A 45-day moratorium is hereby imposed on the issuance and approval of all building permits that would require a new sewer connection to the Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer, further identified in the attached and incorporated Exhibit A. Accordingly, no such permit may be issued or approved while this moratorium, as it may be extended, is in effect. For the purposes of this Ordinance, "sewer connection" means connecting a building's drainage system which conveys the discharge from soil, waste, and other drainage pipes of a business or residence, to the City's sewer main or other applicable sewer infrastructure.

SECTION 4. Term of Moratorium. In accordance with Government Code Section 65858, this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect for a period of 45 days from the date of its adoption, i.e., from February 18, 2025 through and including April 4, 2025, or, for housing developments, from the date when the Department of Housing and Community Development approves this moratorium, whichever occurs later. This 45-day period may be extended by the City Council in accordance with the provisions in Government Code Section 65858.

SECTION 5. Exceptions. The following development activities within the City limits requiring a sewer connection to Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer identified in Exhibit A are exempt from the moratorium established in Sections 3 and 4:
a. Any projects that have vested rights to a new sewer connection because of previously issued building permits; and
b. Projects ordinarily requiring a connection to the Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer for which an application is submitted that proposes a design for the extension of a sewer main to an alternative segment, or which proposes a temporary or permanent solution that meets health & safety standards and creates no more sewage into the Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer than existing development on the site, the design which is approved by the City Engineer or Public Works Director, and the applicant agrees to be solely responsible for all costs and expenses of installing and maintaining said sewer main or temporary or permanent solution, among other terms and conditions provided by the City in an executed and recorded written agreement between the City and property owner/developer to this effect.

SECTION 6. During the term of this moratorium, the Department of Public Works is hereby directed to prepare a scope of work for a feasibility study to determine if the existing sewage flow into the Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer may be reduced, through measures including but not limited to rerouting sewage flow from homes located on Golden Gate A venue, Bishop Avenue, Bishop Aly, and Washington Ct.; and to report to the City Council prior to the expiration of the moratorium on actions needed to complete the feasibility study.

SECTION 7. A development application for which a sewer connection to the Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer is required may be processed during the moratorium and any extension of the moratorium. However, the application shall be processed at the applicant's sole cost and expense and with the understanding that no building permit shall be issued until the moratorium, including any extension of the moratorium, has expired and that such permit may not be issued if it is inconsistent with any amendments to the municipal code, ordinances, or regulations that are amended by reason of the review that occurs during the moratorium. During the effective period of this moratorium, time periods requiring the commencement of a proposed use or construction shall be tolled for existing entitlements and for entitlements approved during the effective period of the moratorium, for the duration of time that the moratorium is in effect.

Ord. No. 06-25 N.S.

Page 3 ends

867
SECTION 8. Petition for Relief from Moratorium.
a. Any person who has applied for a permit or entitlement which would be affected by this Ordinance, and who contends that the Ordinance as applied to them would unlawfully restrict the use of the subject property may submit a written application to the Planning Commission requesting relief from this Ordinance. The petition for relief from the moratorium shall identify the name and address of the applicant, the affected application number, and shall state how the Ordinance as applied to them would affect the applicant's reasonable use and economic value of the subject property. The Planning Commission, or their designee, shall mail to the applicant a written determination accepting or rejecting the request for relief from Ordinance. b. In deciding the question of whether relief shall be provided from the moratorium, the Planning Commission shall make the findings as to the applicant's:

1. Reasonable, investment-backed expectation;

2. Reasonable, economic use of the subject property;

3. The timing and the impact of adding the KBSS connection; and

4. Whether the impacts are reasonable under the circumstances. c. Public Hearing.

1. In deciding the petition for relief, the Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing and shall set a time and place for such hearing to be held within thirty (30) days of the City's receipt of a complete petition for relief;

2. At least ten (10) days before the public hearing, the City shall make available to the public copies of the petition for relief in the office of the City Clerk;

3. Notice of the public hearing shall be provided in accordance with Richmond Municipal Code Article 15.04.803;

4. After receiving public comment, the Planning Commission shall approve, deny, or modify the petition for relief based on the required findings of Section 7(b) above within thirty (30) days following the hearing;

5. The City shall promptly notify the applicant in writing of the Planning Commission's decision on the petition for relief and shall state the reasons and grounds therefore. The City shall also mail notice of its decision to members of the public who have requested notice.
d. Appeal.

1. Any person aggrieved by the Planning Commission's decision on the applicant's petition for relief may appeal to the City Council by submitting a written appeal to the City Clerk within ten (10) days of the decision date. The appellant shall remit the appeal fee listed in the City's Master Fee Schedule when submitting the appeal.

SECTION 9. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance, causing it to be posted, as required by the law, and it shall thereafter be in full force and effect.

This Ordinance shall become effective immediately as an urgency ordinance, in order to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.

SECTION 10. For the term of this Ordinance, as set forth in Section 4 hereof, the provisions of this Ordinance shall govern, to the extent there is any conflict between the provisions of this Ordinance and the provisions of any other City Code, ordinance, resolution or policy, and all such conflicting provisions shall be suspended.

SECTION 11. This Ordinance is enacted pursuant to the City of Richmond's general police powers, Article II of the Charter of the City of Richmond, Article XI of the California Constitution, and Government Code Section 65858.

SECTION 12. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase be declared invalid.

Ord. No. 06-25 N.S.

Page 4 ends

868
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 February 18, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:

Approved:

EDUARDO MARTINEZ
Mayor
Approved as to form:

DA VE ALESHIRE
City Attorney
State of California }
County of Contra Costa
City of Richmond }
Councilrnembers Bana, Brown, Jimenez, Robinson, Wilson, Vice Mayor Zepeda, and Mayor Martinez.

None.

PAMELA CHRISTIAN

CLERK OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
(SEAL)
: ss.

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of Urgency Ordinance No. 06-25 N.S., passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting held on February 18, 2025.

Exhibit A: Sewer Moratorium Area
Pamela Christian, Clerk of the City of Richmond
Ord. No. 06-25 N.S.

Page 5 ends

869
8 6
8"-14.5'
6"-35'
8"-28'
12"-37'
6"-50'
6"-'
6"-48'
6"-40'
6"-73'
6"-58'
6"-65'
8"-65'
6"-55'
6"-73'
8"-'
6-"72'
6-"72'
12"-73'
6"-74'
6"-70'
6"-77'
6"-133'
6"-90'
6"-100'
8"-84'
6"-87'
6"-86.8'
6"-93'
6"-100'
6"-100'
6"-103'
6"-102'
6"-81'
6"-101'
6"-101'
6"-99'
6"-113'
6"-100'
6"-103'
6"-105'
6"-114'
6"-104'
6"-121' 6"-122'
21"-124'
36-"130'
6"-145'
12"-127.9'
21"-132'
6"-133'
6"-154'
6"-134'
6"-141'
6"-139'
6"-'
4"-146'
6"-150'
6"-149'
8"-106'
6"-137.5'
6"-151'
8"-150.5'
6"-150'
8"-152'
8"-159'
6"-155'
6"-155'
6"-257'
8"-152'
6"-165'
6"-176'
6"-170'
6"-161'
6"-172'
8"-170'
6"-175'
12"-173'
6"-176'
6"-178'
6"-181'
6"-175'
6"-157'
6"-160'
8"-344' 10"-185'
6"-196'
6"-215'
6"-175'
8"-201'
6"-200'
8"-205'
6"-216'
6"-192'
6"-193'
10"-207'
6"-220'
39"-227'
8"-219'
6"-220'
12"-218'
6"-220'
6"-218'
6"
16"-223'
-201'
6"-217'
6"-235'
6"-233'
6"-230'
6"-235'
6"-235'
10"-246'
12"-242'
6"-244'
6"-145'
10"-252'
6"-254'
6"-250'
6"-239'
6"-415'
12"-261'
8"-268'
12"-223'
6"-263'
8"-273'
6"-263'
10"-275'
6"-280'
6"-283'
6"-243'
6"-293'
6"-288'
6"-289'
6"-290'
6"-292'
12"-292'
10"-295'
6"-295.38'
6"-300'
8"-301'
12"-306'
8"-308.54'
6"-311'
10"-297'
6"-315'
12"-328'
6"-328'
8"-337'
6"-363'
12"-356'
6"-346'
8"-345'
6"-400'
6"-356'
6"-375'
8"-369'
6"-370'
6"-371'
12"-393'
15"-454'
6"-380'
36-"406'
12"-393'
6"-409'
6"-422'
10"-422'
36"-418'
6"-434'
36"-441'
8"-456'
6"-476'
8"-250'
12"-514'
6"-518'
21"-674'

CASTRO ST

TEWKSBURY AVE

PACIFIC AVE
GOLDEN

GATE AVE
I 580
S

GARRARD
BLVD

CONTRA COSTA ST

WASHINGTON
AV
E
W

RICHMOND AVE
D
O
RNAN
D
R
MARINE
ST

GRANDVIEW CT

WESTERN DR

SANTA FE AVE

CREST AVE

LEB VED

ERE AVE

HIGH ST

TREMONT AVE

LOBOS CT

CYPRESSPOINT RD

MARTINA ST

CLARENCE
ST

SUMMIT PL

LOBOS AVE

COTTAGE AVE
SCENIC
AVE

BISHOP ALY

OCEAN AVE

CASEYDR

NICHOLL AVE

PIEDMONT PL
RAILR
O
A
D
AV
E
TU
N
N
E
L
AVE

EDDY ST

DELFINO AVE
PA
R
K
PL

TERRACE AVE

VINE AVE
ALLEY

WATER ST

CHEVRON WAY

BISHOP AVE
F7SS1
Ke lle rBe a ch
P u m p Sta tion
1 inch = 350 feet
0 350 700
Feet
Legend
Sewer Fitting
La m phole ,Active
La m phole ,P riva te
La m phole ,Bu rie d
Othe r
W ye
Sewer Manhole
Active
Bu rie d
Aba nd one d
Sewer Structure
P u m pSta tion
Sewer Force Main
Force Ma in
Sewer Gravity Main
Active
Re lie f
Aba nd one d
PUBLIC
WORKS

DEPARTMENT

KELLER BEACH LINE
P a rce lLine s
Moratorium Parcels by Use Code
Fou rple x
Sing le fa m ily,1re sid e nce on 2orm ore site s
Sing le fa m ilyon othe rtha n sing le fa m ilyla nd
Sing le fa m ilyre sid e ntia l,d e ta che d ,w/com m on a re a (norm a lSu bd ivision type P UD);d u e ts w/com m on a re a Sing le fa m ily,2orm ore re sid e ntia lon 1orm ore site s Atta che d P UD’s,clu ste rhom e s,co-ops,cond os,townhou se s,e tc.

Du ple x
Triple x
Sing le fa m ily,1re sid e nce on 1Site a nd Du e ts w/o com m on a re a s Apa rtm e nts,5-12u nits,inclu sive
Re sid e ntia lV a ca nt,1site (inclu d e s P UDsite s) Re sid e ntia lV a ca nt,2orm ore site s
Re sid e ntia lV a ca nt,u nbu ild a ble
Ind u stria lV a ca ntLa nd (notpa rtof ind u stria lpa rk orP .a nd D.) N o Da ta
Com m on a re a pa rce ls in P UD’s (ope n spa ce s,re cre a tiona lfa cilitie s) Gove rnm e nt-owne d ,with orwithou tbu ild ing s (fe d e ra l,sta te ,city,BART) Misce lla ne ou s im prove m e nts,1site
Ja nu a ry2022
870
8 6
8"-14.5'
6"-35'
8"-28'
12"-37'
6"-50'
6"-'
6"-48'
6"-40'
6"-73'
6"-58'
6"-65'
8"-65'
6"-55'
6"-73'
8"-'
6-"72'
6-"72'
12"-73'
6"-74'
6"-70'
6"-77'
6"-133'
6"-90'
6"-100'
8"-84'
6"-87'
6"-86.8'
6"-93'
6"-100'
6"-100'
6"-103'
6"-102'
6"-81'
6"-101'
6"-101'
6"-99'
6"-113'
6"-100'
6"-103'
6"-105'
6"-114'
6"-104'
6"-121' 6"-122'
21"-124'
36-"130'
6"-145'
12"-127.9'
21"-132'
6"-133'
6"-154'
6"-134'
6"-141'
6"-139'
6"-'
4"-146'
6"-150'
6"-149'
8"-106'
6"-137.5'
6"-151'
8"-150.5'
6"-150'
8"-152'
8"-159'
6"-155'
6"-155'
6"-257'
8"-152'
6"-165'
6"-176'
6"-170'
6"-161'
6"-172'
8"-170'
6"-175'
12"-173'
6"-176'
6"-178'
6"-181'
6"-175'
6"-157'
6"-160'
8"-344' 10"-185'
6"-196'
6"-215'
6"-175'
8"-201'
6"-200'
8"-205'
6"-216'
6"-192'
6"-193'
10"-207'
6"-220'
39"-227'
8"-219'
6"-220'
12"-218'
6"-220'
6"-218'
6"
16"-223'
-201'
6"-217'
6"-235'
6"-233'
6"-230'
6"-235'
6"-235'
10"-246'
12"-242'
6"-244'
6"-145'
10"-252'
6"-254'
6"-250'
6"-239'
6"-415'
12"-261'
8"-268'
12"-223'
6"-263'
8"-273'
6"-263'
10"-275'
6"-280'
6"-283'
6"-243'
6"-293'
6"-288'
6"-289'
6"-290'
6"-292'
12"-292'
10"-295'
6"-295.38'
6"-300'
8"-301'
12"-306'
8"-308.54'
6"-311'
10"-297'
6"-315'
12"-328'
6"-328'
8"-337'
6"-363'
12"-356'
6"-346'
8"-345'
6"-400'
6"-356'
6"-375'
8"-369'
6"-370'
6"-371'
12"-393'
15"-454'
6"-380'
36-"406'
12"-393'
6"-409'
6"-422'
10"-422'
36"-418'
6"-434'
36"-441'
8"-456'
6"-476'
8"-250'
12"-514'
6"-518'
21"-674'

CASTRO ST

TEWKSBURY AVE

PACIFIC AVE
GOLDEN

GATE AVE
I 580
S

GARRARD
BLVD

CONTRA COSTA ST

WASHINGTON
AV
E
W

RICHMOND AVE
D
O
RNAN
D
R
MARINE
ST

GRANDVIEW CT

WESTERN DR

SANTA FE AVE

CREST AVE

LEB VED

ERE AVE

HIGH ST

TREMONT AVE

LOBOS CT

CYPRESSPOINT RD

MARTINA ST

CLARENCE
ST

SUMMIT PL

LOBOS AVE

COTTAGE AVE
SCENIC
AVE

BISHOP ALY

OCEAN AVE

CASEYDR

NICHOLL AVE

PIEDMONT PL
RAILR
O
A
D
AV
E
TU
N
N
E
L
AVE

EDDY ST

DELFINO AVE
PA
R
K
PL

TERRACE AVE

VINE AVE
ALLEY

WATER ST

CHEVRON WAY

DEPARTMENT

Page 1 of 2 ends

March 25, 2025
Police Department
DATE: March 25, 2025
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM: Bisa French, Chief of Police
Timothy Simmons, Assistant Chief of Police
John Lopez, Police Captain
Subject: AB 481 “Military Equipment Use” Annual Report
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

October 4, 2022
October 18, 2022
May 7, 2024
January 7, 2025

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

The annual military equipment inventory report and
department policy no. 707 are subject to annual City
Council review.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: ADOPT a resolution (1) accepting the 2024 Annual Military Equipment Report; (2) determining that the Police Department’s use of military equipment in 2024 complied with the Department’s Military Equipment Policy No. 707 and state law; and (3) to renew the authorizing ordinance No. 12-22 N.S. / Military Equipment Use Policy - Police Department (Bisa French 510-621-1802).

AGENDA
REPORT
872

Page 2 of 2 ends

March 25, 2025
DISCUSSION:

Background:

In response to the City Council’s directive for the previous 2023 Military Equipment Annual Report, the police department has updated the military equipment use policy (No. 707) with the following update (Attachment 1):

The Richmond Police Department (RPD) added information relating to each individual use of equipment that is required to be tracked by Assembly Bill 481 (Government Code § 7070 et seq.) (Attachment 2). This additional detail/information was requested by members of the public and is updated monthly by the police department. This allows usage to be tracked by the public throughout the year prior to the release of the required annual report.

These changes have been incorporated into the 2024 annual report which is being submitted for approval along with the updated police department military equipment use policy (no. 707) (Attachment 3).

In response to the City Council’s directive on January 7, 2025, the police department has developed a process to collect data for when the police rifle is displayed in public during a call for service. After each display of a police rifle, the on-duty watch commander will submit a completed AB 481 Reporting – Equipment Use form documenting the circumstances of the display. This information will be tracked and presented in the next AB481 annual report.

Discussion:

City staff recommends that the City Council review and adopt a resolution accepting the 2024 Military Equipment Annual Report and renew the authorizing ordinance Military Equipment Use Policy (no. 707) to ensure that the Richmond Police Department will continue to have access to each of its existing pieces of qualifying equipment and to affirm the corresponding policies and procedures applicable to maintenance and use of the equipment (Attachment 4).

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – RPD Policy 707
Attachment 2 – RPD AB 481 Reporting – Equipment Use Form Attachment 3 – RPD Military Equipment Annual Report
Attachment 4 – Resolution
873
Policy
707
Richmond Police Department
Richmond PD CA Policy Manual
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/01/09, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Richmond Police Department ***DRAFT*** Military Equipment Use Policy - 1 Military Equipment Use Policy
707.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This policy is provided to fulfill the obligations set forth in Assembly Bill No. 481 and establish guidelines for the funding, acquisition, use, and reporting requirements of "military equipment" as the term is defined in Government Code §7070. These obligations include but are not limited to seeking approval on specific items deemed by statute to be military equipment and requirements related to compliance, annual reporting, and complaints regarding these items. 707.1.1 DEFINITIONS
Definitions related to this policy include (Government Code § 7070):

Governing Body – The Richmond City Council.

Military Equipment – Shall have the same meaning as defined by California Government Code §7070, which includes but is not limited to the following:
• Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial or ground vehicles. • Mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles or armored personnel carriers. • High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWV), two-and-one-half-ton trucks, five-ton trucks, or wheeled vehicles that have a breaching or entry apparatus attached. • Tracked armored vehicles that provide ballistic protection to their occupants. • Command and control vehicles that are either built or modified to facilitate the operational control and direction of public safety units. • Weaponized aircraft, vessels, or vehicles of any kind. • Battering rams, slugs, and breaching apparatuses that are explosive in nature. This does not include a handheld, one-person ram.
• Firearms and ammunition of_.50 caliber or greater, excluding standard-issue shotguns and standard-issue shotgun ammunition.
• Specialized firearms and ammunition of less than_.50 caliber, including firearms and accessories identified as assault weapons in Penal Code § 30510 and Penal Code § 30515, with the exception of standard-issue firearms.
• Any firearm or firearm accessory that is designed to launch explosive projectiles. • Noise-flash diversionary devices and explosive breaching tools. • Munitions containing tear gas or OC, excluding standard, service-issued handheld pepper spray.
• TASER® Shockwave, microwave weapons, water cannons, and long-range acoustic devices (LRADs).
• Kinetic energy weapons and munitions (e.g., 40MM launcher, bean bag shotgun, foam-tipped projectiles).
874
Richmond Police Department
Richmond PD CA Policy Manual
Military Equipment Use Policy
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/01/09, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Richmond Police Department ***DRAFT*** Military Equipment Use Policy - 2 • Any other equipment as determined by a governing body or a state agency to require additional oversight.
707.2 POLICY
It is the policy of the Richmond Police Department that members of this department comply with the provisions of Government Code §7071 with respect to military equipment. Violations of this policy by member(s) of the Richmond Police Department will be investigated in accordance with the Department's Personnel Complaints policy.
707.3 MILITARY EQUIPMENT COORDINATOR
The Chief of Police shall designate a member of this department to act as the military equipment coordinator. The responsibilities of the military equipment coordinator include but are not limited to:
(a) Acting as a liaison to the City Council for matters related to the requirements of this policy.
(b) Identifying department equipment that qualifies as military equipment in the current possession of the Department, or the equipment the Department intends to acquire that requires approval by the City Council.
(c) Conducting an inventory of all military equipment at least annually. (d) Collaborating with any allied agency that may use military equipment within the jurisdiction of Richmond Police Department.
(e) Preparing for, scheduling, and coordinating the annual community engagement meeting to include:

1. Publicizing the details of the meeting.

2. Preparing for public questions regarding the department's funding, acquisition, and use of equipment.
(f) Preparing the annual military equipment report for submission to the Chief of Police (prior to submission to the City Council) and ensuring the report is made available on the departmentwebsite.
707.4 MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY
The following constitutes a list of qualifying equipment for the Richmond Police Department, as well as provides legal and procedural rules for use and training requirements.

See attachment: Military Equipment Inventory Updated 09012024 (002).pdf 707.5 APPROVAL OF THIS POLICY
The Chief of Police or authorized designee shall obtain approval from the City Council by way of an ordinance approving the military equipment policy. As part of the approval process, the Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall ensure the proposed military equipment policy is submitted to the City Council, a public hearing is held, and the policy is available on the Department's website for at least 30 days prior to any public hearing concerning the military equipment at issue 875
Richmond Police Department
Richmond PD CA Policy Manual
Military Equipment Use Policy
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/01/09, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Richmond Police Department ***DRAFT*** Military Equipment Use Policy - 3 (Government Code §7071). The military equipment policy must be approved by the City Council prior to engaging in any of the following (Government Code §7071):
(a) Requesting military equipment made available pursuant to 10 USC § 2576a (b) Seeking funds for military equipment, including but not limited to applying for a grant, soliciting or accepting private, local, state, or federal funds, in-kind donations, or other donations or transfers.
(c) Acquiring military equipment either permanently or temporarily, including by borrowing or leasing.
(d) Collaborating with another law enforcement agency in the deployment or other use of military equipment within the jurisdiction of this department. (e) Using any new or existing military equipment for a purpose, in a manner, or by a person not previously approved by the City Council.
(f) Soliciting or responding to a proposal for, or entering into an agreement with, any other person or entity to seek funds for, apply to receive, acquire, use, or collaborate in the use of military equipment.
(g) Acquiring military equipment through any means not provided above.

The City Council must be able to make the following findings in approving the Military Equipment Use policy as required by Government Code §7071(d)(1) in order to use military equipment:
(a) The military equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety. (b) The proposed military equipment use policy will safeguard the public's welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties.
(c) If purchasing the equipment, the equipment is reasonably cost-effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety. (d) Prior military equipment use complied with the military equipment use policy that was in effect at the time, or if prior uses did not comply with the accompanying military equipment use policy, corrective action has been taken to remedy nonconforming uses and ensure future compliance.
707.6 COORDINATION WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS
Military equipment used by any member of this jurisdiction shall be approved for use and in accordance with this Department policy. Military equipment used by other jurisdictions that are providing mutual aid to this jurisdiction shall comply with their respective military equipment use policies in rendering mutual aid.
707.7 MILITARY EQUIPMENT ANNUAL REPORT
Upon approval of this military equipment policy, the Chief of Police or the authorized designee should submit a military equipment report to the City Council for each type of military equipment approved within one year of approval, and annually thereafter for as long as the military equipment 876
Richmond Police Department
Richmond PD CA Policy Manual
Military Equipment Use Policy
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/01/09, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Richmond Police Department ***DRAFT*** Military Equipment Use Policy - 4 is available for use (Government Code § 7072). In considering the annual report and ordinance annually, the City Council needs to consider whether it can continue to make the findings in California Government Code §7071(d)(1).

The Chief of Police or the authorized designee should also make each annual military equipment report publicly available on the department website for as long as the military equipment is available for use. The report shall include all information required by Government Code § 7072 for the preceding calendar year for each type of military equipment in department inventory. 707.8 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Within 30 days of submitting and publicly releasing the annual report, the Department shall hold at least one well-publicized and conveniently located community engagement meeting, at which the Department should discuss the report and respond to public questions regarding the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment.
707.9 COMMUNITY CONCERNS AND COMPLAINTS
Pursuant to Government Code §7070(d)(7), members of the public may register complaints or concerns or submit questions by any of the following means:

1. Email: [email protected]

2. In-person or mail:

Richmond Police Department
Attn: AB481 Coordinator
1701 Regatta Boulevard, Richmond, CA 94804
The Department is committed to responding to complaints, concerns, and/or questions received and should respond within ten business days of receiving the correspondence. Any complaints shall be referred to the Community Police Review Commission as the independent oversight body.

All instances of non-compliance with the policy will also be reported to the City Council via the annual military equipment report.
707.10 MILITARY EQUIPMENT TRAINING
Military equipment shall only be used after applicable training, including any course required by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (P.O.S.T.), has been completed unless exigent circumstances exist.
707.11 CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL
Pursuant to California Government Code §7071, the City Council of Richmond approved this Policy pursuant to Ordinance 12.22 N.S. on October 19, 2022. The City Attorney and City Council should be notified in writing of any changes to this policy. All amendments to the policy must be reviewed and approved by City Council.
877
Richmond Police Department
Richmond PD CA Policy Manual
Military Equipment Use Policy
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/01/09, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Richmond Police Department ***DRAFT*** Military Equipment Use Policy - 5 707.12 COMPLIANCE
The Department's AB481 Coordinator will ensure that Department members comply with this policy. The AB481 Coordinator will conduct an annual audit with assistance from members of the Office of Professional Accountability. Any violations will be referred to the Office of the Chief of Police and handled in accordance with the Department's Personnel Complaints policy. All instances of non-compliance will be reported to the City Council via the annual military equipment report.
878
Richmond PD CA Policy Manual
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/01/09, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Richmond Police Department ***DRAFT*** Attachments - 6 Attachments
879
Attachment
Richmond PD CA Policy Manual
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/01/09, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Richmond Police Department ***DRAFT*** Military Equipment Inventory Updated
09012024 (002).pdf - 7
Military Equipment Inventory
Updated 09012024 (002).pdf
Military Equipment Inventory Updated 09012024 (002).pdf 880
Richmond Police Department

MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY
881
1 | P A G E
Background
Assembly Bill 481 was adopted by the California Legislature and approved by Governor Gavin Newsom in September 2021. It went into effect on January 1, 2022. AB 481 is designed to increase community awareness and oversight over the possession and use by local police departments of certain types of equipment that AB 481 labels as “military” equipment. It requires the City Council to provide both authorization and oversight of the equipment used.

The law, codified in California Government Code sections 7070 through 7075, requires law enforcement agencies to produce a military equipment use policy that identifies and describes: each type of military equipment; its authorized use; fiscal impact; rules/laws that govern use of such equipment; training required; and mechanisms to ensure compliance with the policy. (See Gov. Code section 7070(d)). The City Council is required to approve the policy for the Department to continue using this equipment.

Additionally, the law requires an annual report and annual review by the governing body for continued use of the equipment. AB 481 requires every local law enforcement agency in California to post its proposed military equipment use policy no later than May 1, 2022. The law also requires at least a 30-day period for public comment on the proposed policy before the governing body discusses the proposed policy in a public meeting.

Police agencies across the state have developed similar policies to comply with this new law. The Department’s proposed policy describes the equipment that has already been in the Department’s possession. The Department does not possess any equipment that is atypical for the region.

The City of Richmond possesses fewer types of this equipment than many other Bay Area agencies.
882
2 | P A G E
Definitions
Pursuant to AB-481, the following definitions are applicable only to the Department’s current military equipment inventory and potential future military equipment acquisitions for operational needs. (For a more detailed list, refer to Government Code section 7070, for “military equipment” as defined within the Assembly Bill.)
“Governing body” means the Richmond City Council and Mayor. “Military equipment” means the following:

1. Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial or ground vehicles.

This definition applies to the Department’s inventory of small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS) and SWAT robots.

2. Mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles or armored personnel carriers. (Not applicable to the Richmond Police Department)

3. High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWV), 2 ½, ton trucks, five-ton trucks, or wheeled vehicles that have breaching or entry apparatus attached. (Not applicable to the Richmond Police Department)

4. Tracked armored vehicles that provide ballistic protection to their occupants (Not applicable to the Richmond Police Department)

5. Command and control vehicles that are either built or modified to facilitate the operational control and direction of public safety units. (Mobile Command Vehicle)

6. Weaponized aircraft, vessels, or vehicles of any kind. (Not applicable to the Richmond Police Department)

7. Battering rams, slugs, and breaching apparatuses that are explosive in nature. This does not include a handheld, one-person ram. (Breaching Shotguns)
883
3 | P A G E

8. Firearms and ammunition of .50 caliber or greater, excluding standard-issue shotguns and standard-issue shotgun ammunition. (Not applicable to the Richmond Police Department)

9. Specialized firearms and ammunition of less than .50 caliber, including firearms and accessories identified as assault weapons in Penal Code 30510 and Penal Code 30515, with exception of standard-issue firearms.

10. Any firearm or firearm accessory that is designed to launch explosive projectiles. (Not applicable to the Richmond Police Department)

11. Noise-flash diversionary devices and explosive breaching tools.

12. Munitions containing tear gas or OC, excluding standard, serviceissued handheld pepper spray.

13. Taser Shockwave, microwave weapons, water cannons, and long range acoustic devices also known as LRADs. (Not applicable to the Richmond Police Department)

14. Kinetic energy weapons and munitions to include 40mm launcher, beanbag shotgun, foam-tipped projectiles.

15. Any other equipment as determined by a governing body (Richmond City Council) or a state agency to require additional oversight. (Not applicable to the Richmond Police Department) 884
4 | P A G E
Military Equipment Use Policy
Military equipment use policy means a publicly released, written document governing the use of military equipment by the Department that addresses, at a minimum, all of the following:

1. A description of each type of military equipment, the quantity sought its capabilities, expected lifespan, and product descriptions from the manufacturer of the military equipment.

2. The purposes and authorized uses for which the Department proposes to use each type of military equipment.

3. The fiscal impact of each type of military equipment, including the initial costs of obtaining the equipment and estimated annual costs of maintaining the equipment.

4. The legal and procedural rules that govern each authorized use.

5. The training, including any course required by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, that must be completed before any sworn member is allowed to use each specific type of military equipment to ensure the full protection of the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties and full adherence to the military equipment use policy.

6. The mechanisms to ensure compliance with the military equipment use policy, including which independent persons or entities have oversight authority, and, if applicable, what legally enforceable sanctions are put in place for violations of the policy.

The following are various types, descriptions, and guidelines for usage of military equipment currently employed by the Richmond Police Department:
886
6 | P A G E

TACTICAL ROBOT
Equipment Type: Small unmanned tracked robot of any type that is capable of being remotely controlled as well as all of the supporting or attached systems designed for gathering information through imaging, recording or by any other means.

Quantity Owned: One (1) Lifespan: Approximately 5-7 Years Equipment Capabilities: Can support first responders in any hazardous incident, which would benefit from a ground level perspective. These uses could include barricaded suspects or high-risk tactical operations, disasters response, and use in crawl spaces or confined isolated areas to assist in searches for suspects or evidence.

Manufacturer Product Description: Small throwable reconnaissance robot designed and manufactured by Recon Robotics, is for use in law enforcement and military applications. The robot can be used by Law Enforcement First Responders, dismounted patrols, special weapons and tactics (SWAT) and other special operations teams.

Purpose: Used to remotely gain visual and audio data, open doors, and clear buildings.

Uses: This equipment is a battery powered, remote operated device equipped with cameras and communication capabilities. This equipment is for (potential) use during high-risk incidents and use is authorized for all members of the department who have been trained in its use. Incidents that may qualify for its use include, but are not limited to, high-risk warrant services, barricaded subjects, and hostage negotiation/rescue operations. Before entering a structure, particularly in a tactically compromised and dangerous situation, knowledge of a subject’s location is very important, and the robot can provide that without placing anyone at risk. Cameras can also help determine if a subject is armed and if there are other subjects inside that need assistance. Only assigned S.W.A.T. operators who have been trained shall be permitted to operate the smallunmanned tracked robot. Use is established by the S.W.A.T team commander, and or Incident Commander. Robots shall not be used as a Use of Force on a person.

Fiscal Impact: Initial Cost $7,500 Annual Maintenance Cost: $0 Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: It is the policy of the Richmond Police Department to utilize the robot only for official law enforcement purposes, and in a manner, that respects the privacy of our community, pursuant to State and Federal law.

Training Required: S.W.A.T. officers authorized to operate tracked robots are required to successfully complete SWAT Basic school and are subject to practical application training in the use of the robot. Additionally, SWAT Officers regularly train on safe robot deployment in a variety of operational settings.

Other Notes: Recon Robotics Recon Scout
887
7 | P A G E

UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEM (UAS)
Equipment Type: An unmanned aircraft of any type that is capable of sustaining directed flight, whether pre-programmed or remotely controlled, and all of the supporting or attached systems designed for gathering information through imaging, recording or by any other means.

Quantity Owned: Eight (8) Lifespan: Approximately 3-5 Years Manufacturer Product Description:

DJI INSPIRE – Small Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) is an unmanned aircraft of any type that is capable of sustaining directed flight, whether pre-programmed or remotely controlled, and all of the supporting or attached systems designed for gathering information through imaging, recording or by any other means.

QUANTITY – 1 (One)
INITIAL COST – $11,000
DJI Matrice 210 – Equipped with both an aerial zoom and thermal camera, first responders can now quickly locate missing people in remote areas and plan the safest approach path.

QUANTITY – 1 (One)
INITIAL COST – $16,000
DJI Mavic Pro M1P – The Mavic is smaller, lighter, and easier to carry with you thanks to its foldable design. Its new OcuSync transmission system has a longer transmission range and 1080p resolution. Due to its larger size, the Phantom 4 has a higher maximum speed and can withstand stronger winds.

QUANTITY – 1 (One)
INITIAL COST – Donated
DJI Mini 2 – The Mini 2 can resist 29-38kph winds and take off at a max altitude of 4,000 meters, so your footage is stable even when flying along a windy coastline or high above an alpine forest. With a max battery life of 31 minutes, DJI Mini 2 grants more than enough time to compose the perfect shot.

QUANTITY – 2 (Two)
INITIAL COST – $550 x 2
DJI Mavic Enterprise DUAL – Integrated Radiometric FLIR Thermal Sensor with adjustable parameters for emissivity and reflective surfaces.

QUANTITY – 2 (Two)
INTITIAL COST – $3,338 x 2
DJI Mavic 2 Enterprise ADVANCED – A highly versatile yet compact tool that packs a whole lot of performance upgrades. With high-resolution thermal and visual cameras, the M2EA supports up to 32 times digital zoom and is capable of centimeter-level positioning accuracy with the RTK module.

QUANTITY – 1 (One)
INITIAL COST – $7,300
Purpose: UAS can support first responders in any hazardous incident, which would benefit from an aerial perspective. These uses could include search and rescue, barricaded suspects or high-risk tactical operations, disaster response, and video and photographic documentation of crime scenes.
888
8 | P A G E
Uses: Only authorized operators who have completed the required training shall be permitted to operate the UAS.

1. All flights will be approved in advance by a lieutenant and in the absence of management personnel; the sergeant will have the authority to approve missions.

2. All flights will be documented on the mission dispatch form designed for the purpose and all flight time shall be accounted for on the form. The reason for the flight and type of mission as specified and the name of the police manager or supervisor approving the mission will also be documented.

3. The manager or supervisor approving any flight missions, UAS operators and observers will consider the protection of individual civil rights and the reasonable expectation of privacy as a key component of any decision made to deploy the UAS. Each UAS operator and observer will ensure that the operation of the UAS is consistent with local, state, and federal laws.

4. The use of the UAS will be limited to the authorized missions described herein. The authorized missions for the RPD UAS are:
• Post-incident crime scene preservation and documentation • Explosive Ordinance Disposal (EOD) missions
• Response to hazardous materials spills
• Search and Rescue (SAR) missions defined in California Government Code Section 26614 Public safety and life preservation missions to include barricaded suspects, hostage situations, civil unrest incidents, active shooters, apprehension of armed and dangerous and/or violent fleeing suspects, and high-risk search warrants • Disaster response and recovery to include natural or human caused disasters including a full overview of a disaster area for post-incident analysis and documentation • Training missions
• In response to specific requests from local, state, or federal fire authorities for fire response and prevention
• When there is probable cause to believe that (1) the UAS will record images of a place, thing, condition, or event; and (2) that those images would be relevant to proving that a certain felony had occurred or is occurring, or that a particular person committed or is committing a certain felony and the use of the UAS does not infringe upon the reasonable expectation of privacy
• Pursuant to a search warrant
889
9 | P A G E

MOBILE COMMAND CENTER
Equipment Type: Completely self-contained command posts designed to provide the Incident Commander with a mobile base of operation. Some major incidents engender special management challenges and require an on-site incident command structure to assist senior personnel in addressing the circumstance presented by the incident.

Quantity Owned: 1 (One) Lifespan: The EVI Spartan Mobile Command Center was purchased in 2013
and has a 20-year lifespan on chassis and
vehicle structure. Upgrades will be needed
in time to maintain IT systems.

Equipment Capabilities: This vehicle is designed to be a stand-alone mobile command post for large-scale high risk or natural disasters.

Manufacturer Product Description: 2012 EVI Spartan is a 40-foot non-armored vehicle used as an Incident Command Post for preplanned events or unplanned high - risk incidents. As a mobile base of operation, these vehicles contain specialized command, control, and communications equipment to assist with various missions.

Purpose: The Mobile Command Center is a vital component to the police mission when major emergencies, natural and man-made disasters or special events in the community trigger the mobilization and coordination of significant resources in the field. Its primary use is to facilitate the management and coordination of personnel, communications, and equipment resources at complex incidents.

Uses: Instances that require the mobilization and coordination of significant resources in the field. Its primary use is to facilitate the management and coordination of personnel, communications, and equipment resources at complex incidents. It is the policy of the Richmond Police Department to have the Mobile Command Center ready and available for use at any emergency, special operation, special event, or other function requiring the use of an on scene incident command post.

Fiscal Impact: Initial Cost $402,152.52 Annual Maintenance Cost: $3,000 Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: It is the policy of the Richmond Police Department to use the mobile command vehicles only for official law enforcement purposes, and in accordance with California State law regarding the operation of motor vehicles.

Training Required: The driver/operator shall receive training in the safe handling of the vehicle on a closed training course. Once the operator has shown competence in vehicle handling, the driver/operator will drive the vehicle throughout the city.

Authorized drivers will possess a valid Class B California Driver license with an airbrake endorsement and complete requisite training on the operation of the MCC and its systems.
890
10 | P A G E

BREACHING SHOTGUN & PROJECTILES
Equipment Type: Remington 870 Breaching Shotgun and TESAR Breaching Rounds Quantity Owned:

Shotguns - 2 (Two)
Lifespan:
25 years or dependent on operational usage
Breaching Rounds - 300 Approximately 5 Years
Equipment Capabilities: This weapon allows breachers to safely utilize shotgunbreaching rounds in order to destroy deadbolts, locks, and hinges. The standoff that is attached to the end of the barrel allows for positive placement of the gun into the correct position and vents gases to prevent overpressure. This weapon can also defeat windows and sliding glass doors with a flash bang round.

Manufacturer Product Description:

Remington 870 Police Magnum – Pump-action shotgun is a rugged 12gauge with a short, tactical 14” barrel backed by a stout 3” chamber.

TESAR 2 Breaching Rounds – Black Cap 2-3/4” 425 Grain Compressed Copper Frangible 12 Ga Shotgun Slug.

TESAR 1 Breaching Rounds – Orange Cap 2-3/4” 275 Grain Compressed Copper Frangible 12 Ga Shotgun Slug.

Purpose: Shotgun breaching, the use of a breaching shotgun to affect a breach, can be an effective option in SWAT Unit tactics. An effective breach is a design where the least amount of breaching shotgun rounds are used and still accomplishes its goal. An effective shotgun breach can defeat fortified doors and locks.

Uses: Breaching shotguns shall only be used on a door, gate, or other entry in the following circumstances:

1. Barricaded suspect and/or hostage situations.

2. High-risk warrant services

3. When the SRT Commander or SWAT Commander deems their use necessary to safely resolve an incident.

Fiscal Impact:

Breaching Shotguns - Initial Cost $550
(Each)
Breaching Rounds – Initial Cost $2,000
Annual Maintenance Cost:
$100
$500
Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: It is the policy of the Richmond Police Department to utilize breaching tools only for official law enforcement purposes, and pursuant to State and Federal law.

Training Required: SWAT Officers that are trained in the use of breaching shotguns must successfully complete a SWAT Breaching course or in-house training from a breaching instructor. Furthermore, SWAT Officers must undergo live fire proficiency training in its application.
891
11 | P A G E

PATROL RIFLES & AMMUNITION
Equipment Type: A semi-automatic shoulder-fired long gun that fires a rifle caliber cartridge. The Department-approved AR-15 style (Colt M4) weapon system is designed to fire a .223/5.56 caliber projectile.

Quantity Owned:

Rifles - 98 (Ninety-eight) total
.223 Ammunition – 10,000 Rounds
.308 Ammunition – 2,000 Rounds
Lifespan:
15+ Years
Varies
Varies
Equipment Capabilities:

The rifle caliber carbine provides officers the ability to engage hostile suspects at distances generally greater than the effective distance of their handguns. Additionally, patrol rifles offer advantages over handguns, such as increased accuracy potential and the ability to defeat soft body armor but are not appropriate for every situation. .223 Ammunition - Operational Range from 0-500 yards
.308 Ammunition - Operational Range from 0-1000 yards
Manufacturer Product Description:

COLT M4 Carbine / Patrol Rifle– This carbine provides officers the ability to engage hostile suspects at distances generally greater than the effective distance of their handguns. Colt’s reliability, performance and accuracy provide officers the confidence required to accomplish any mission.

QUANTITY: 50
INITIAL COST: $895 each
COLT M4 / M16 A2E / (Exclusive to trained SWAT operators) – The SWAT M4 rifle provides officers the ability to engage hostile suspects at distances generally greater than the effective distance of their handguns. Additionally, rifles offer advantages over handguns, such as increased accuracy potential and the ability to defeat soft body armor but are not appropriate for every situation.

QUANTITY: 13
INITIAL COST: $1,025 each
COLT Commando / (Exclusive to trained SWAT operators) – The Colt Commando is a very short variant of the M16A1 assault rifle. The dimensions and shorter effective range make more akin to a sub machine gun than an assault rifle.

QUANTITY: 2
INITIAL COST: $1,199 each
DPMS M-160 / (Exclusive to trained SWAT operators) – The DMPS is a very short variant of the M16A1 assault rifle. The dimensions and shorter effective range make more akin to a sub machine gun than an assault rifle.

QUANTITY: 5
INITIAL COST: $1,199 each
892
12 | P A G E
COLT M16 A2 / (Exclusive to trained SWAT operators) – The Colt M16 A2 is a very short variant of the M16A1 assault rifle. The dimensions and shorter effective range make more akin to a sub machine gun than an assault rifle.

QUANTITY: 2
INITIAL COST: $1,199 each
COLT AR-15 Match Target Competition Rifle – This rifle is a Colt Match Target (flattop) with 16″ heavy barrel with 1 in 9 twist. It has a removable handle so that a scope or optical site can be easily mounted. It comes with match rear sights and regular front site.

QUANTITY: 8
INITIAL COST: $1,199 each
H&K MP5 (Exclusive to trained SWAT operators) – Tremendously reliable, with maximum safety for the user, easy to handle, modular, extremely accurate and extraordinarily easy to control when firing.

QUANTITY: 17
INITIAL COST: $965 each
H&R Arms M14 – Weapon is decommissioned
QUANTITY: 1
INITIAL COST: N/A
Gold Dot Soft Point 55 or 62 grain .223 & Federal / Winchester 55 grain FJM .223 - Only ammunition that meet RPD specifications, approved by the Chief of Police, and issued by the Department may be used by officers in their law enforcement responsibilities.

INITIAL COST: $358 per 1,000 rounds
ANNUAL COST: $8,000
Federal Tactical Tru 168 grain .308 & Federal Tactical Bonded Tip 168 grain .308 (Exclusive to trained SWAT operators) - Federal Cartridge .308 Win Tactical Bonded Tip 168 Grain Duty Ammunition is made exclusively for law enforcement and achieves accuracy and terminal performance unmatched by any other ammunition. Designed to defeat the toughest barriers with minimal deflection, Tactical Bonded Tip ammo has quickly become the choice for some of the most intense conditions.

INITIAL COST: $450 per 500 rounds
ANNUAL COST: $2,000
Purpose: In order to more effectively and accurately address the increasing level of firepower and body armor utilized by criminal suspects, the Richmond Police Department (RPD) will make patrol rifles available to qualified patrol officers as an additional and more immediate tactical resource.

Uses: Officers may use rifles in the following situations:
a) When there is an objectively reasonable anticipation of an armed encounter.
b) When an officer is faced with a situation that may require the delivery of accurate and effective fire at long range.
c) Situations where an officer reasonably expects the need to meet or exceed a suspect’s firepower.
893
13 | P A G E
d) When an officer reasonably believes that there may be a need to deliver fire on a barricaded suspect or a suspect with a hostage. e) When an officer reasonably believes that a suspect may be wearing body armor.
f) When authorized or requested by a supervisor
g) When needed to euthanize an animal
Fiscal Impact: Listed above Annual Maintenance Cost: $250 Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: It is the policy of the Richmond Police Department to utilize rifles only for official law enforcement purposes, and pursuant to State and Federal law regarding the use of force.

Training Required: Officers shall not carry or use the patrol rifle unless they have successfully completed departmental training. This training shall consist of an initial 40- hour patrol rifle user's course and qualification score with a certified patrol rifle instructor. Officers shall thereafter be required to successfully complete quarterly training and qualification conducted by certified patrol rifle instructors. 894
14 | P A G E

DIVERSION DEVICES
Equipment Type: Canisters that emit a loud noise and bright light Quantity Owned: 150 (One hundredfifty)Lifespan: 5 Years Equipment Capabilities: Diversionary Devices are capable of releasing large amounts of stored energy in the form of heat, light, pressure, and noise. They are intended to temporarily distract, confuse, and disorient subjects. They can also be used as “attentiongetting” devices. Light Level 6 – 8 million Candelas Light Duration 10 milliseconds.

Manufacturer Product Description: This compact version of the 8933 Low Roll body is the newest version of the original reusable non-bursting canister that limits movement and rolling once deployed. The compact Distraction Device unit packs all the power of the full size 12-Gram Distraction Device unit.

Purpose: A distraction device is ideal for distracting dangerous suspects during assaults, hostage rescue, room entry or other high-risk arrest situations. To produce atmospheric over-pressure and brilliant white light and, as a result, can cause short-term physiological/psychological sensory deprivation to give officers a tactical advantage.

Uses: Generally, flash/sound diversionary devices may be considered whenever the use of a less lethal diversion would help facilitate entry, enabling arrest and potentially reducing the risk of injury by disorientation of potentially dangerous suspects and/or animals. Diversion devices shall only be used for distraction purposes.

Circumstances for the use of flash/sound diversionary devices include:

1. Barricaded suspect and/or hostage situations.

2. High-risk warrant services.

3. Disperse potentially violent animals.

4. When the SRT Commander or SWAT Commander deems their use necessary to safely resolve an incident.

A Barricaded suspect is defined as an individual who is inside a structure and is actively preventing law enforcement from entering, typically posing a threat to themselves or others.

A High-risk warrant services is defined as operations with significant risk of violence or harm, necessitating specialized equipment and tactics to ensure safety and compliance with the service of the warrant.

An SRT or SWAT Commander may authorize the use of diversion devices for the above mentioned circumstances or when there is a high likelihood of a violent confrontation or when a diversion device is needed to mitigate risk to citizens and officers.

Fiscal Impact: Initial Cost $6,800 per 120
devices
Annual Maintenance Cost: $0
Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: It is the policy of the Richmond Police Department’s policy to utilize diversion devices only for official law enforcement purposes, and pursuant to State and Federal law regarding the use of force.

Training Required: Diversionary Device Trainers must successfully complete a Diversionary Device Course that has been approved by the SWAT Commander. 895
15 | P A G E
Diversionary Device Trainers are responsible for maintaining and updating the SWAT Team's training and qualification as they pertain to the deployment of diversionary devices.

Diversionary Device Trainers will attend at least one course related to diversionary devices every three years for updating training and maintenance of their training skills.

CHEMICAL AGENTS
Equipment Type: Canisters or projectile rounds containing chemical agents that are released when deployed
Quantity Owned: 675 Lifespan: 5 Years
Equipment Capabilities: Depending on the delivery method, chemical agents are capable of being introduced in close proximity or from a distance. Depending on the type of delivery system and/or quantity, chemical agents can be used to saturate individual suspects, violent crowds, or areas of varied size.

Manufacturer Product Description: Examples of chemical agents include CN, CS and OC. Delivery methods include Ferret rounds, blast dispersion rounds/canisters, burning canisters and barricade penetrating rounds.

Defense Tech SPEDE-HEAT – Pyro Burning CS gas
Canister
Quantity: 10
Defense Tech HAN-BALL – Pyro Burning CS gas Quantity: 20 Defense Tech Flameless Tri-Chamber – Pyro Internal
Burn CS gas
Quantity: 10
CTS Indoor 5230B – Pyro Indoor Safe CS gas with dense
cardboard to prevent heat/outside flame
Quantity: 25
Defense Tech Aerosol Vapor – Non-Pyro OC gas Quantity: 25 Defense Tech Maximum Smoke – Pyro high volume
white smoke
Quantity: 10
CTS 40mm Liquid Ferret Rounds – Non-Pyro CS gas
Launchable Munition with instantons delivery once
ruptured
Quantity: 100
Defense Tech 40mm Direct Impact OC – Direct impact
OC gas
Quantity: 100
896
16 | P A G E
Pepperball – Pepper ball live projectiles .2% PAVA Quantity: 375 Purpose:

Chemical agenda are to be used exclusively by SRT team members. Generally, during high-risk tactical incidents, chemical agents can be used to dislodge a suspect from a stronghold location with the least possible danger to citizens, police and the suspect.

Chemical agents can be also used to prevent an armed suspect from accurately firing at citizens and/or officers.

Uses: Chemical agents may be used for crowd control, crowd dispersal or against barricaded suspects in certain circumstances. Only the Patrol Sergeant, Incident Commander or Crisis Response Unit Commander may authorize the delivery and use of tear gas, and only after evaluating all conditions known at the time and determining that such force reasonably appears justified and necessary. When practicable, fire personnel should be alerted or summoned to the scene prior to the deployment of tear gas to control any fires and to assist in providing medical aid or gas evacuation if needed.

Kinetic energy projectiles and chemical agents for crowd control purposes shall only be deployed by officers who have received POST training for crowd control if the use is objectively reasonable to defend against a threat to life or serious bodily injury to any individual, including an officer, or to bring an objectively dangerous and unlawful situation safely and effectively under control and in accordance with the following requirements of Penal Code § 13652:
(a) De-escalation techniques or other alternatives to force have been attempted, when objectively reasonable, and have failed.
(b) Repeated, audible announcements are made announcing the intent to use kinetic energy projectiles and chemical agents and the type to be used, when objectively reasonable to do so. The announcements shall be made from various locations, if necessary, and delivered in multiple languages, if appropriate. (c) Individuals are given an objectively reasonable opportunity to disperse and leave the scene.
(d) An objectively reasonable effort has been made to identify individuals engaged in violent acts and those who are not, and kinetic energy projectiles or chemical agents are targeted toward those individuals engaged in violent acts. Projectiles shall not be aimed indiscriminately into a crowd or group of individuals.
(e) Kinetic energy projectiles and chemical agents are used only with the frequency, intensity, and in a manner that is proportional to the threat and objectively reasonable. (f) Officers shall minimize the possible incidental impact of their use of kinetic energy projectiles and chemical agents on bystanders, medical personnel, journalists, or other unintended targets.
(g) An objectively reasonable effort has been made to extract individuals in distress. (h) Medical assistance is promptly provided, if properly trained personnel are present, or procured, for injured persons, when it is reasonable and safe to do so. (i) Kinetic energy projectiles shall not be aimed at the head, neck, or any other vital organs.
(j) Kinetic energy projectiles or chemical agents shall not be used solely due to any of the following:

1. A violation of an imposed curfew.

2. A verbal threat.
897
17 | P A G E

3. Noncompliance with a law enforcement directive.
(k) If the chemical agent to be deployed is tear gas, only an Incident Commander at the scene of the assembly, protest, or demonstration may authorize its use.

Fiscal Impact: Initial Cost $5,000 Annual Maintenance Cost: $3,000 Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: It is the policy of the Richmond Police Department to utilize chemical agents only for official law enforcement purposes, and pursuant to State and Federal law, including those regarding the use of force.

Training Required: Kinetic energy projectiles and chemical agents for crowd control purposes shall only be deployed by officers who have received POST training for crowd control. Proficiency training must be conducted and documented by a Department approved instructor.

LESS LETHAL IMPACT DEVICES & KINETIC ENERGY

PROJECTILES
Equipment Type: Less than lethal tool to launch impact rounds Quantity Owned:

Less lethal impact devices: (35) Thirty-five
Kinetic energy projectiles: 700
Lifespan:
10 Years and dependent on operational
usage
5 Years
Manufacturer Product Description, Capabilities, Quantity, Cost:

Remington 870 Bean Bag Shotgun – Beanbag shotguns are capable of firing a 12-gauge beanbag round with a maximum effective range of sixty feet.

QUANTITY: 17
INITIAL COSTS: $550
Remington 870 Chemical Shotgun (Exclusive to trained SWAT operators) – Beanbag shotguns are capable of firing a 12-gauge beanbag round with a maximum effective range of sixty feet.

QUANTITY: 2
INITIAL COSTS: $550
Penn Arms 40mm, 6-cylnder Pump Multi-Launcher – Capable of firing a variety of munitions with a maximum effective range of 120 feet. The launchers can deliver munitions in the form of chemical agents, sponge baton rounds, or combined QUANTITY: 3
INITIAL COSTS: $1,531 each
Penn Arms 40mm, single-shot launcher – Capable of firing a variety of munitions with a maximum effective range of 120 feet. 40mm launchers can deliver 40mm munitions in the form of chemical agents, sponge baton rounds, or combined QUANTITY: 7
INITIAL COSTS: $1,302 each
898
18 | P A G E
FN 303 Launcher – The lightweight polymer magazine holds 15 projectiles and offers a clear rear cover to allow the operator to instantly verify both the payload type and the number of projectiles remaining
QUANTITY: 4
INITIAL COSTS: $1,299 each
Federal Laboratories 37mm – The long range projectile has a 150 yard range (Decommissioned)
QUANTITY: 2
INITIAL COSTS: $299 each
Defense Tech 40mm Exact Impact Round -
6325 – Safe Range 5 ft – 131 ft; 325 fps
6325-A (Marking) – Safe Range Open 5 Ft – 131 Ft 315 fps Closed 131 Ft – 230 Ft; 425 fps
QUANTITY: 150
INITIAL COST: $3,000
Defense Tech 12 gauge Bean Bag – Drag Stabilized round / Safe Range 20 ft – 75 ft, 270 fps, tear shaped bag filled with #9 shot
QUANTITY: 250
INITIAL COST: $1,000
CTS 12 gauge Bean Bag – Super-sock round / Effective Range up to 75 ft, 270-290 fps, shot filled ballistic fiber
QUANTITY: 300
INITIAL COST: $1,200
Purpose: This department is committed to reducing the potential for violent confrontations. Kinetic energy projectiles, when used properly, are less likely to result in death or serious physical injury and can be used in an attempt to de-escalate a potentially deadly situation. Only department-approved kinetic energy munitions shall be carried and deployed. Approved munitions may be used to compel an individual to cease his/her actions when such munitions present a reasonable option. Officers are not required or compelled to use approved munitions in lieu of other reasonable tactics if the involved officer determines that deployment of these munitions cannot be done safely.

Uses: The safety of hostages, innocent persons and officers takes priority over the safety of subjects engaged in criminal or suicidal behavior. Circumstances appropriate for deployment include:
(a) The suspect is armed with a weapon and the tactical circumstances allow for the safe application of approved munitions.
(b) The suspect has made credible threats to harm him/herself or others. (c) The suspect is engaged in riotous behavior or is throwing rocks, bottles or other dangerous projectiles at people and/or officers.
(d) There is probable cause to believe that the suspect has already committed a crime of violence and is refusing to comply with lawful orders.

Kinetic energy projectiles and chemical agents for crowd control purposes shall only be deployed by officers who have received POST training for crowd control if the use is objectively reasonable to defend against a threat to life or serious bodily injury to any individual, including an officer, or to bring an objectively dangerous and unlawful 899
19 | P A G E
situation safely and effectively under control and in accordance with the following requirements of Penal Code § 13652.
(a) De-escalation techniques or other alternatives to force have been attempted, when objectively reasonable, and have failed.
(b) Repeated, audible announcements are made announcing the intent to use kinetic energy projectiles and chemical agents and the type to be used, when objectively reasonable to do so. The announcements shall be made from various locations, if necessary, and delivered in multiple languages, if appropriate. (c) Individuals are given an objectively reasonable opportunity to disperse and leave the scene.
(d) An objectively reasonable effort has been made to identify individuals engaged in violent acts and those who are not, and kinetic energy projectiles or chemical agents are targeted toward those individuals engaged in violent acts. Projectiles shall not be aimed indiscriminately into a crowd or group of individuals.
(e) Kinetic energy projectiles and chemical agents are used only with the frequency, intensity, and in a manner that is proportional to the threat and objectively reasonable. (f) Officers shall minimize the possible incidental impact of their use of kinetic energy projectiles and chemical agents on bystanders, medical personnel, journalists, or other unintended targets.
(g) An objectively reasonable effort has been made to extract individuals in distress. (h) Medical assistance is promptly provided, if properly trained personnel are present, or procured, for injured persons, when it is reasonable and safe to do so. (i) Kinetic energy projectiles shall not be aimed at the head, neck, or any other vital organs.
(j) Kinetic energy projectiles or chemical agents shall not be used solely due to any of the following:

1. A violation of an imposed curfew.

2. A verbal threat.

Less lethal impact devices and kinetic energy projectiles shall not be used in the following circumstances:
• On a person who is under restraint
• Targeted at a person’s head, neck or vital organs
• Within 20 feet or a distance that could cause death or serious bodily injury • On a person only engaged in non-compliance or passive resistance • On a person who has made credible threats to harm themselves but is not imminently carrying out this threat
Fiscal Impact: Initial cost Listed above Annual Maintenance Cost: $0 Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: It is the policy of the Richmond Police Department to utilize the less lethal impact devices only for official law enforcement purposes, and pursuant to State and Federal law, including those regarding the use of force.

Training Required: Only personnel trained and having shown proficiency in the use of any control device are authorized to carry the device. Proficiency training must be conducted and documented by a Department approved instructor. 900

RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT
AB 481 REPORTING – EQUIPMENT USE
The Richmond Police Department is required by law to publish an annual report to the public and the governing body (City Council) detailing the police department’s inventory and use of police equipment defined by California legislators as “Military Equipment”.

Watch Commanders (or their designee) shall complete this form when any of the equipment listed below is used or a patrol rifle is displayed. The form shall be submitted via email to [email protected] before their tour of duty.

DATE: ______________ TIME: _______________ CASE/INCIDENT NUMBER: _____________________ PATROL RIFLE DISPLAY ONLY DISPLAY COUNT: ___________
EQUIPMENT USED:

EQUIPMENT TYPE COUNT EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION
Armored Personnel Carrier
Breaching Shotgun Projectiles
Chemical Agents
Diversion Devices (Flashbangs)
Less Lethal Impact Devices & Kinetic Energy
Projectiles
Mobile Command Center (MCC)
Patrol Rifles & Ammunition
Tactical Robot
Unmanned Aerial System (UAS)
BRIEF SUMMARY:

Watch Commander: ___________________________________
901
Annual Military
Equipment Report
Jan. 1, 2024 – Dec. 31, 2024
Richmond Police Department
902
Richmond Police Department
Annual Military Equipment Use Report
Jan.1, 2024 – December 31, 2024
2 CONTENTS
Introduction_________________________ 3
Definitions__________________________ 4
Equipment Inventory by Type___________ 6
Military Equipment Use Summary _______ 9
Projected Acquisitions for 2024 ________ 12
Summary of Complaints / Concerns_____ 13
Fiscal Impact ______________________ 14
Training Costs _____________________ 15
Conclusion ________________________ 16
903
Richmond Police Department
Annual Military Equipment Use Report
Jan.1, 2024 – December 31, 2024
3 INTRODUCTION
The Richmond Police Department maintains and deploys a wide variety of military equipment to assist in safely achieving the furtherance of its mission statement to “prevent crime and maintain order. We work in partnership with our diverse community to help solve neighborhood problems, address root causes of crime and improve the quality of life in Richmond. We strive to perform in a manner that promotes public trust, confidence and a sense of safety and security.” While the inventory of military equipment is varied, the mere possession of the equipment does not warrant its use for every incident.

The Richmond Police Department recognizes that critical incidents are unpredictable and can be very dynamic in nature. A variety of military equipment options can greatly assist incident commanders, officers, and specific units in bringing those incidents to a swift resolution in a safe manner.

The use of military equipment is restricted for use only in certain instances and in some cases only by certain units. While the military equipment procedure is wide-ranging, it is not all inclusive. There may be instances wherein unpredictable critical incidents demand the need for incident commanders to authorize military equipment to be used in a manner not outlined within procedure. In scrutinizing those particular instances, the judgment of the incident commander influenced by the totality of the circumstances, public safety, officer safety, civil rights, and information available at the time will be used.

It is incumbent upon incident commanders, supervisors, individual officers, and specific units to recognize the particular circumstances wherein military equipment should be employed to enhance the safety of the public and officers, and to bring critical incident to a safe resolution.

This annual report outlines a summary of military equipment usage guidelines, inventory, fiscal impact, complaints, and reported concerns from Jan. 1, 2024 through December 31, 2024. 904
Richmond Police Department
Annual Military Equipment Use Report
Jan.1, 2024 – December 31, 2024
4 DEFINITIONS
Pursuant to AB-481, the following definitions are applicable only to the Department’s current military equipment inventory and potential future military equipment acquisitions for operational needs. (For a more detailed list, refer to Government Code section 7070, for “military equipment” as defined within the Assembly Bill.)
“Governing body” means the Richmond City Council and Mayor. “Military equipment” means the following:

1. (UAS) Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial or ground vehicles. This definition applies to the Department’s inventory of small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS) and SWAT robots.

2. Mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles or armored personnel carriers. (Not applicable to the Richmond Police Department)

4. Tracked armored vehicles that provide ballistic protection to their occupants (Not applicable to the Richmond Police Department)

5. (Mobile Command Center) Command and control vehicles that are either built or modified to facilitate the operational control and direction of public safety units. (Mobile Command Vehicle)

6. Weaponized aircraft, vessels, or vehicles of any kind. (Not applicable to the Richmond Police Department)

7. (Breaching Shotguns) Battering rams, slugs, and breaching apparatuses that are explosive in nature. This does not include a handheld, one-person ram.

8. Firearms and ammunition of .50 caliber or greater, excluding standard-issue shotguns and standard-issue shotgun ammunition. (Not applicable to the Richmond Police Department)

9. (Patrol Rifles) Specialized firearms and ammunition of less than .50 caliber, including firearms and accessories identified as assault weapons in Penal Code 30510 and Penal Code 30515, with exception of standard-issue firearms.

10. Any firearm or firearm accessory that is designed to launch explosive projectiles. (Not applicable to the Richmond Police Department)

11. (Flash-bangs) Noise-flash diversionary devices and explosive breaching tools.

12. (Chemical Agents) Munitions containing tear gas or OC, excluding standard, serviceissued handheld pepper spray.

13. Taser Shockwave, microwave weapons, water cannons, and long range acoustic devices also known as LRADs. (Not applicable to the Richmond Police Department)

14. Kinetic energy weapons and munitions to include 40mm launcher, bean bag shotgun, 905
Richmond Police Department
Annual Military Equipment Use Report
Jan.1, 2024 – December 31, 2024
5 foam-tipped projectiles.

15. Any other equipment as determined by a governing body (Richmond City Council) or a state agency to require additional oversight. (Not applicable to the Richmond Police Department)
“Military Equipment Use Policy” refers to the Richmond Police Department’s Military Equipment Use Policy (PM 707) and means a publicly released, written document governing the use of military equipment by the Department that addresses, at a minimum, all of the following:

1. A description of each type of military equipment, the quantity sought, its capabilities, expected lifespan, and product descriptions from the manufacturer of the military equipment.

2. The purposes and authorized uses for which the Department proposes to use each type of military equipment.

3. The fiscal impact of each type of military equipment, including the initial costs of obtaining the equipment and estimated annual costs of maintaining the equipment.

4. The legal and procedural rules that govern each authorized use.

7. The procedures by which members of the public may register complaints or concerns or submit questions about the use of each specific type of military equipment, and how the Department will ensure that each complaint, concern, or question receives a response in a timely manner.
906
Richmond Police Department
Annual Military Equipment Use Report
Jan.1, 2024 – December 31, 2024
6 EQUIPMENT INVENTORY BY TYPE
Note: The inventory of certain items of consumable military equipment (e.g. ammunition, diversionary devices, chemical agents, etc.) frequently fluctuates throughout the year due to operational usage, training, operational wear, or manufacturer recommended replacement guidelines. While the Richmond Police Department strives to provide accuracy in its inventory reporting, this report reflects approximations of certain consumable items of military equipment. Quantities listed are ending quantities from the reporting period of January 1, 2024 through December 31, 2024.

Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS / Drones)
Equipment Name and Model Quantity
DJI Avata 3
DJI Mini 2 2
DJI Mavic Enterprise DUAL 2
DJI Mavic 2 Enterprise Advanced 1
Tactical Robot
Equipment Name and Model Quantity
Recon Robotics 1
Mobile Command Center (MCC)
Equipment Name and Model Quantity
2013 EVI Spartan Mobile Command Center 1
Breaching Shotguns
Equipment Name and Model Quantity
Remington 870 Police Magnum Shotgun 4
Shotgun Breaching Munitions
Equipment Name and Model Quantity
TESAR-2 / Model FE183 150 Rounds
TESAR – 1 / Model FE182 175 Rounds
907
Richmond Police Department
Annual Military Equipment Use Report
Jan.1, 2024 – December 31, 2024
7 Rifles
Equipment Name and Model Quantity
COLT M4 Carbine 5.56mm 50
COLT M16 A2E 5.56mm (SWAT Only) 13
COLT Commando 5.56mm (SWAT Only) 2
DPMS M-160 (SWAT Only) 5
COLT M16 A2 (SWAT Only) 2
COLT AR-15 Match Target Competition Rifle 8
SIG SAUER MCX Rifle 5.56mm (Traffic Unit) 2
Rifle Ammunition
Equipment Name and Model Quantity
Gold Dot Soft Point 62 grain .223 10,000 Rounds
FMJ 55 grain .223 40,000 Rounds
Federal Tactical Tru 168 grain .308 2,500 Rounds
Federal Tactical Bonded Tip 168 grain .308 2,500 Rounds Diversionary Devices (Flash Bangs)
Equipment Name and Model Quantity
Defense Technology Model #8933 120
Chemical Agents and Smoke Canisters
Equipment Name and Model Quantity
Defense Tech SPEDE-HEAT – Pyro Burning CS Gas #1072 10 Canisters Defense Tech HAN-BALL – Pyro Burning CS Gas #1092 20 Canisters Defense Tech Flameless Tri-Chamber – Pyro Internal CS Gas #1032 10 Canisters CTS Indoor 5230 B – Pyro Indoor Safe CS Gas #5230B 50 Canisters Defense Tech Aerosol Vapor – Non-Pyro OC Gas #1056 25 Canister Defense Tech Maximum Smoke – Pyro High Volume #1083 10 Canisters CTS 40mm Liquid Ferret Rounds – Non-Pyro CS gas Launchable Munition #4330 100 Rounds Defense Tech 40mm Direct Impact OC – Direct Impact OC Gas #6320 100 Rounds Pepperball Live Projectiles .2% PAVA 375 Rounds
908
Richmond Police Department
Annual Military Equipment Use Report
Jan.1, 2024 – December 31, 2024
8 40mm Launchers and Munitions
Equipment Name and Model Quantity
Penn Arms 40mm, 6-cylnder Pump Multi-Launcher 3
Penn Arms 40mm, single-shot launcher 7
Defense Tech 40mm Exact Impact Sponge Round #6325 100
Defense Tech 40mm Exact Impact (Marking) #6325-A 50
Federal Laboratories 37mm (Decommissioned) 2
Less Lethal Shotguns and Rounds
Equipment Name and Model Quantity
Remington Model 870, 12-guage Shotgun 17
CTS 12-guage Bean Bag Super-sock 500 Rounds
Chemical Shotgun
Equipment Name and Model Quantity
Remington Model 870, 12-guage Shotgun 2
Less Lethal Launcher
Equipment Name and Model Quantity
FN 303 4
909
Richmond Police Department
Annual Military Equipment Use Report
Jan.1, 2024 – December 31, 2024
9 MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE SUMMARY
This section outlines the military equipment Usage for January 1, 2024 – December 31, 2024 by the Richmond Police Department. Certain items of military equipment, particularly consumables (ammunition, diversionary devices, chemical agents, etc.) are used throughout the year on a regular basis for training in order to maintain proficiency. Training usage is NOT captured in this section. This section ONLY provides data for the OPERATIONAL USE of military equipment listed within this annual report. The mere possession of the equipment does not warrant its use for every incident.

1. UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS (UAS / DRONES)
 Collect aerial photographic and video evidence in support of an investigation (e.g., crime scene documentation of shootings, homicides, officer-involved shootings). (6 uses)  Support SWAT and patrol during high-risk, tactical, or other public safety life-preservation missions (e.g., interior visual assessments of structures or outdoor areas to gain intelligence prior to officers entering a dwelling or contacting a potentially armed, or resistive subject that may be hiding). (42 uses)
 Conduct overwatch and intelligence gathering for investigative, specialty units, and SRT during critical incidents and investigations. (6 uses)
 Assisting patrol with establishing overwatch during perimeter searches. (66)

2. TACTICAL ROBOT
 Small Unmanned Tracked Robots are to be used exclusively by the SWAT unit during high risk operations.

3. ARMORED PERSONNEL CARRIER (RESCUE VEHICLE)
 Support SWAT during critical incidents and pre-planned operations by providing greater safety to community members and officers.
 Higher degree of ballistic protection during high-risk operations.  The use of a rescue vehicle is extremely vital to ensure the communities safety and ensure mission success.

4. MOBILE COMMAND CENTER
 Serves as a command post for critical incidents during complex events.  Special Events (RPD Connect, Cinco De Mayo, Juneteenth).  DUI Checkpoint command post.

5. BREACHING SHOTGUN
 SWAT Team operations for High Risk warrant services.

6. LESS LETHAL SHOTGUNS AND MUNITIONS
 Confront armed person and the tactical circumstances allow for the safe application of approved munitions.
910
Richmond Police Department
Annual Military Equipment Use Report
Jan.1, 2024 – December 31, 2024
10 7. DIVERSIONARY DEVICES
 To facilitate high-risk entries during warrant services, enabling arrest and reducing the risk of injury by disorientation of potentially dangerous suspects and/or animals.  Used as a distraction device during all incidents.

8. RIFLES AND AMMUNITION
 There is an objectively reasonable anticipation of an armed encounter.  Used in accordance with California Penal Code § 835 and RPD PM 300.3.2.

9. CHEMICAL AGENTS AND SMOKE CANISTERS
 Compounds, devices, and delivery systems utilized by the RPD SRT team members. The deployment of chemical agents is a tactical option that may be selected with the goal of protecting life and property and/or restoration of order per AB 48.

10. 40mm LAUNCHERS AND MUNITIONS
 Encountering an armed person with a weapon and the tactical circumstances allow for the safe application.
 There is probable cause to believe that the person has already committed a crime of violence and is refusing to comply with lawful orders.

11. PEPPERBALL LAUNCHERS AND PROJECTILES
 Decommissioned
911
Richmond Police Department
Annual Military Equipment Use Report
Jan.1, 2024 – December 31, 2024
11 The following is the data for military equipment usage by category for this reporting period:

Monthly Incident Summary Logs can be viewed at the following link:
https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/4706/Military-Equipment-Use-Statistics Use Type Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total Armored Personnel Carrier 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 6
Breaching Shotgun 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chemical Agents 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 0 4 13
Diversionary Devices 0 4 0 0 8 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 18
Less Lethal Impact Devices & Kinetic
Energy Projectiles
1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5
Mobile Command Center 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2
Patrol Rifles and Ammunition 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tactical Robot 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Unmanned Aerial System 4 6 2 4 11 1 1 6 13 4 2 5 59
Total 5 14 2 5 20 1 2 22 14 4 2 12 103
912
Richmond Police Department
Annual Military Equipment Use Report
Jan.1, 2024 – December 31, 2024
12 PROJECTED ACQUISITIONS FOR 2025
While some purchases and acquisitions can be anticipated, the unanticipated replacement of existing AB 481 equipment may be necessary due to damage beyond that of repair. Replacement of these items will be handled on a case-by-case basis dependent on operational and departmental need.

These unexpected needs-based acquisitions will be in accordance with department policy and AB 481.

CONSUMABLE MILITARY EQUIPMENT
Consumable AB 481 military equipment acquisitions in the next 12-months will remain consistent with current department replenishment schedules and policies. Acquisitions and purchasing of these consumables will replenish quantities previously approved by the department.

Categories of consumables are as follows:
 Ammunition- all calibers
 Diversionary Devices
 Chemical Agents and Smoke Canisters
 Specialty Munitions (40mm and Less Lethal Munitions)
 Kinetic Energy Rounds
Non-consumable are as follows:
 Multipurpose Response & Rescue Vehicle
- As the SWAT team is responsible for responding to all incidents that exceed the capability of patrol within our jurisdiction, including terrorist attacks, hostage situations, and mass shooting incidents, we hereby request permission to seek funding to purchase a tactical multipurpose Response and Rescue Vehicle. - Projected funding source: State/Federal Grants, Asset Seizure, General Fund  Requests the borrowing of a Ballistic Armored Tactical Transport vehicle) from the Department of East Bay Regional Parks Police Department for use with the clear understanding that such equipment will be solely used by the Richmond SWAT team for highrisk tactical situations (high-risk warrant services or critical incidents such as hostage rescues, active shooters, barricaded shooters) to preserve life and protect the community members of Richmond.
 Daniel Defense Rifle Replacement Upper Receivers for SWAT Rifles (QTY 20) - Projected funding source: Budgeted for FY2024-25
 Penn Arms 40mm Single Shot Launcher (QTY 10)
- Projected funding source: Budgeted for FY2024-25
913
Richmond Police Department
Annual Military Equipment Use Report
Jan.1, 2024 – December 31, 2024
13 SUMMARY OF COMPLAINTS / CONCERNS
The Richmond Police Department is committed to responding to complaints, concerns and/or questions received in a timely manner. During this reporting period, there were 0 formal complaints.

The Richmond Police Department did not have any policy violations with the deployment or use of military equipment.

Pursuant to California Government Code §7070(d)(7), members of the public may register complaints or concerns or submit questions about the use of each specific type of military equipment in this policy by any of the following means:

1. Via email to: [email protected]

2. Via phone call to: 510-620-6675

3. Via mail sent to: Richmond Police Department, 1701 Regatta Blvd, Richmond, CA, 94801 Officer-Involved Shootings (OIS) and Discharge of Military Equipment Firearm:

There were no OIS incidents during this reporting period that involved the use of military equipment. 914
Richmond Police Department
Annual Military Equipment Use Report
Jan.1, 2024 – December 31, 2024
14 FISCAL IMPACT
The Richmond Police Department is budgeted for 145 sworn officers and 67 professional staff members. The proposed operating budget for the police department for the FY 2024 was $77,662,890. The chart below reflects the Richmond Police Department’s cost for Military Equipment during this reporting period.

The following were the equipment related expenditures for January 1, 2024 to December 31, 2024.

Also listed is the total costs for the equipment listed. Equipment expenditures include the acquisition of new equipment, the replacement or repair of damaged equipment, and the ongoing maintenance of our AB 481 military equipment which are captured in our Annual Maintenance/Replacement column.

Updated: 01062025
Equipment Quantity Acquisitions Annual Maintenance /
Replacement Cost Total Cost

1. UAS 5 $ 189.50 $ - $ 189.50

2. Mobile Command Center 0 $ - $ - $ -

3. Tactical Robot 0 $ - $ - $ -

4. Breaching Shotguns 2 $ 550.00 $ - $ 550.00

5. Breaching Rounds 125 $ 775 .00 $ - $ 775.00

6. Rifles 2 $ 6,789.14 $ - $ 6,789.14

7. Rifle Ammunition 1,465 $ 19,908.94 $ - $ 19,908.94

8. Diversion Devices 200 $ 17,422.82 $ - $ 17,422.82

9. Chemical Agents 274 $ 7,766.24 $ - $ 7,766.24

10. Beanbag Shotgun 0 $ - $ - $ -

11. Beanbag Rounds 310 $2,499.63 $ 2,499.63

12. Direct Impact munitions 100 $ 2,864.13 $ - $ 2,864.13

13. Direct Impact Launchers 0 $ - $ - $ -
915
Richmond Police Department
Annual Military Equipment Use Report
Jan.1, 2024 – December 31, 2024
15 TRAINING COST
The safe and proficient use of the equipment outlined by AB 481 requires initial and on-going training as well as required certifications. Most training for department personnel is conducted internally by department personnel to ensure adherence to law and policy. There are times when department personnel are sent to required external training courses and to enhance/supplement internal trainings as well as to obtain train the trainer certifications.

Consumable and non-consumable equipment are used during training to ensure proficiency and competency during real-life emergencies. Funding sources for all internal and external training are reflected in the Richmond Police Department’s operations budget. Budget information is available at the following link: https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/183/Budget-Documents A table compiling the applicable training for 2024 is listed below:

Course Name No. of
Attendees Course Location Registration Cost Other Costs Total Chemical Agents Instructor
Course 2 San Diego, CA $3,762.00 $4,312.15 $8,074.15
Basic SWAT 3 McClellan Park, CA $3,000.00 $7,578.16 $10,578.16 Basic SWAT 1 Dublin, CA $1,030.00 $2,040.00 $3,070.00
UAS Basic Pilot Course 1 Fairfield, CA $1,199.00 $155.00 $1,354.00 UAS Managers Course & UAS
Crowd Management 1 Fountain Valley, CA $350.00 $1,420.44 $1,770.44 Basic Pilots Course 1 Pittsburg, CA $1,234.85 $276.00 $1,510.85 Basic Pilots Course 2 Oakley, CA $2,398.00 $552.00 $2,950.00 Less Lethal ICP Instructor 1 Olympia, WA $995.00 $2,010.92 $3,005.92 Grand Total 12 - - - $32,313.52
916
Richmond Police Department
Annual Military Equipment Use Report
Jan.1, 2024 – December 31, 2024
16 CONCLUSION

This Military Equipment Report reaffirms the Richmond Police Department’s commitment to providing transparency and information to our communities and elected officials in addition to ensuring compliance with the law. The equipment, resources, and training outlined in this report allow Richmond Police Officers to better protect our communities, enhance the safety of the public and officers, and bring critical incidents to a safe resolution.

Public safety is and always has remained a shared responsibility. The strength of our Department is structured with the willingness of our communities to work in partnership with our officers to address crime in their neighborhoods. This shared partnership with the community and continued support has helped the COR be an example of community policing to not only the Bay Area, but to the entire Nation.

Since our founding in August of 1905, the Richmond Police Department has stood watch and protected our community with Pride & Purpose. Every day, first responders put their own lives on the line to ensure the community’s safety. It is vital that the City of Richmond ensures that our First Responders have the necessary tools, equipment, and training to protect the community they have sworn to serve.

Understanding law enforcement is a partnership between the police and community, we will continue to serve and do all we can to guard against harmful actions of a few individuals. The Richmond Police Department is proud to work in partnership with our diverse community to help solve problems, address root causes of crime and improve the quality of life in Richmond.

For more information on RPD Military Equipment visit:
https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/4248/Assembly-Bill-AB-481---Military-Equipmen

917
DocID #27702v1
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA ACCEPTING THE 2024 ANNUAL MILITARY EQUIPMENT REPORT WHEREAS, on September 30, 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill 481 ("AB 481") now codified in California Government Code Sections 7070 through 7075, relating to the use of military equipment by law enforcement in California; and WHEREAS, requires the Richmond Police Department to have a military equipment use policy approved by the City Council prior to requesting, seeking funding, acquiring, collaborating with other jurisdiction about the deployment of military equipment, or using military equipment; and
WHEREAS, on October 18, 2022, the City Council adopted Ordinance 12-22 approving the Police Department’s Policy 707: Military Equipment Use Policy; and WHEREAS Policy 707 adheres to the requirements of California Government Section 7070 et. seq. with respect to the funding, acquisition, and use of military equipment; and WHEREAS, Policy 707, Ordinance 12-22, and Government Code Section 7072 requires the City to publish annually a military equipment report for the prior calendar year. This report summarizes the use of each type of military equipment approved by Policy 707, any complaints or concerns received about the military equipment, provides the results of any internal audits and information about violations of Policy 707, and any actions taken in response, provides the total annual cost for each type of approved military equipment and the source of funds for military equipment in the upcoming year, and inventories the quantity of each type of military equipment possessed and listing the quantity to be acquired in the upcoming year; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Richmond that it approves the Richmond Police Departments 2024 Annual Military Equipment Report.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that based on the 2024 Annual Military Equipment Report and Policy 707, the City Council determines as follows:

1. Each type of military equipment identified in Policy 707 is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety;

2. Policy 707 will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties;

3. The equipment described in Policy 707 is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objectives of officer and civilian safety; and

4. The Department’s use of military equipment has complied with Policy 707 and the projected acquisition request for 2024 are approved.
918
DocID #27702v1
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby determines that Richmond Police Department Policy 707: Military Equipment Use Policy – which was approved by City Council upon adoption of Ordinance 12-22 on October 18, 2022 – shall be accepted. *******
ADOPTED this 25th day of March, 2025, by the following votes:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:

CLERK OF THE CITY OF

RICHMOND
(SEAL)
Approved:

Mayor
Approved as to form:

City Attorney
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of Resolution No. _____, finally passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting held on … 919

Page 1 of 3 ends

April 1, 2025
Public Works
DATE: April 1, 2025
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM: Daniel Chavarria, Director of Public Works
Tawfic Halaby, Deputy Director of Public Works for
Operations & Maintenance
Robert Chelemedos, Streets Maintenance
Superintendent
Carlos Castro, Streets Maintenance Supervisor
Subject: Update on Street Sweeping Sign Installation & Data Collection
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The proposed expenditure will appropriate $564,131.17 from the SB 1 fund (11931031-400645) for city-wide
roadway sign, streetlight, and traffic signal pole data collection.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

February 6, 2024

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

City Council directed staff to enforce street sweeping
parking restrictions in an equitable manner throughout all neighborhoods in the City. The first step was to install street sweeping signs in fifteen areas that did not have signage.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: RECEIVE a presentation on the status of the installation of street sweeping signs citywide; and ADOPT a
resolution and APPROPRIATE $564,131.17 from the
fund balance in the SB1 fund for citywide sign, streetlight, and traffic signal pole data collection – Public Works
Department (Daniel Chavarria/Tawfic Halaby/Robert
Chelemedos 510-231-3008).

AGENDA
REPORT
920

Page 2 of 3 ends

April 1, 2025
DISCUSSION:

On March 19, 2020, City Council directed staff to temporarily cease enforcing street sweeping parking restrictions, due to Governor Newsom’s “shelter-in-place order.” On February 6, 2024, City Council allocated $550,000 to install street sweeping signs in fifteen areas (i.e., Bristlecone, Canyon Oaks, Carriage Hills South, Country Club, Greenridge, Hasford Heights, Hilltop Bayview, Hilltop Green, Lenora, Marina Bay, Metro Richmore Village, Panhandle Annex, Quail Hill, Richmond Annex, Via Verdi) of the City that lacked street sweeping signage altogether (Attachment 2). Since that time, the City has:
 Contracted with Concrete Cutting to walk 85 miles of sidewalk and provide maps showing placement locations for new street sweeping signs in the fifteen areas  Contracted with First Vanguard to fabricate the 1,330 street-sweeping signs  Contracted with Bay Hawk to install the signs in the fifteen areas The City’s anticipates that the installation of street sweeping signs in all fifteen areas of will be completed by April 15, 2025.

Additionally, Public Works staff has been coordinating with Richmond Police Department staff to ensure an equitable citywide street sweeping parking enforcement roll-out. In March 2025, Parking Enforcement staff began placing notices on vehicles to alert residents that enforcement would initiate in April 2025.

Given that there are approximately 500 miles of sidewalk in the City, City staff is requesting an allocation of $564,131.17 to collect data for all roadway signs, streetlights, and traffic signal poles throughout the City (Attachment 3). Collection of this data will benefit the City in the following ways:
 Establishing an inventory of all signs, including street sweeping signs, along 415 miles of sidewalk that already have street sweeping signs, some of which are missing or faded. The City can then fabricate and place new street sweeping signs along the 415 miles of sidewalk so that all 500 miles of sidewalk have new and legible street sweeping signs
 Establishing accurate inventory of all roadway signs, streetlights, and traffic signal poles, and the inventories of all roadway signs, streetlights, and traffic signal poles to be stored in an asset management system  Making available roadway signs, streetlight, and traffic signal pole data City employees for mapping and for planning purposes
 Performing condition assessments of all roadway signs, streetlights, and traffic signal poles throughout the City and incorporating the condition data into the asset management system
 Generating budget projections based on asset condition and useful life for roadway signs, streetlights, and traffic signal poles, and developing a budget and implementation strategy for the replacement of citywide roadway signs, 921

Page 3 of 3 ends

April 1, 2025
streetlights, and traffic signal poles, increasing street safety for all modes of transportation.

SYNERGISTIC POLICIES:

Street sweeping is required as stated in the Contra Costa County Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) Version 3.0, Section C10, Trash Load Reduction. The Permit states that permittees, such as the City of Richmond, are to implement practices to “control and reduce non-stormwater and polluted stormwater discharges into storm drains and watercourses.” Additionally, the Permit states that permittees shall evaluate street sweeping effectiveness and that examples of evaluations should include “effectiveness associated with enhanced street/curb accessibility via proper signage, ticketing, and towing vehicles when appropriate.”
Better roadway signage, streetlighting, and traffic signal data will help initiate efforts to make streets safer for all modes of transportation, including motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – DRAFT Presentation
Attachment 2 – Signage Mapping
Attachment 3 – Resolution
922
Public Works Department
Street Sweeping Program
Update
923
Public Works Department
Street Sweeping Program Update
• Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) Version 3.0,
Section C10, Trash Load Reduction.
• The permit states that permittees, such as the
City of Richmond, are to implement practices to
“control and reduce non-stormwater and polluted
stormwater discharges into storm drains and
watercourses.”
924
Public Works Department
Street Sweeping Program Update
• In March 2020, the City discontinued street
sweeping parking enforcement
• In February 2024, City Council allocated
$550,000 to initiate a street sweeping sign
installation project, on the condition of
equitable citywide enforcement of parking
restrictions.
• Most areas in Richmond have street sweeping
signs, some do not 925
Public Works Department
Street Sweeping Program Update
• Staff evaluated the need for equitable
enforcement of street sweeping parking
restrictions:
• 415 sidewalk miles – with street sweeping signs
• 85 sidewalk miles – no street sweeping signs
• 500 miles total
• No citywide sign inventory
• No sign condition assessment
926
Public Works Department
Street Sweeping Program Update
• Staff proposed installing missing street
sweeping signs and then developing the
inventory and condition assessment of all
signs:
• Phase 1 – Install street sweeping signs
• 85 miles of sidewalk
• 15 different areas/neighborhoods
• Phase 2 – Citywide Inventory & Condition Assessment
• All 500 miles of sidewalk
• Use software to collect inventory
• Assess condition 927
Public Works Department
Street Sweeping Program Update
• Phase 1
928
Public Works Department
Street Sweeping Program Update
• Phase 1
929
Public Works Department
Street Sweeping Program Update
930
Public Works Department
Street Sweeping Program Update
• Phase 1 costs
• Data collection $42,000
• Fabrication $37,000
• Installation: $470,137
• Total anticipated Phase 1 costs: $549,137
• Phase 1 allocation: $550,000
• Balance remaining: $863
931
Public Works Department
Street Sweeping Program Update
• Phase 1
• Progress to date
• 1,330 signs fabricated and delivered
• All poles and signs installed by end of March 2025
• March 2025 – Richmond Police Department began
issuing “mock” parking tickets
• April 15, 2025 – Begin parking enforcement
932
Public Works Department
Street Sweeping Program Update
933
Public Works Department
Street Sweeping Program Update
• Phase 2
• Propose to collect data for a full inventory
for all roadway signs along 500 miles of
sidewalk, including the original 85 miles:
• street sweeping signs
• street name signs
• regulatory signs
• warning signs
• etc.
934
Public Works Department
Street Sweeping Program Update
• Phase 2 (cont’d)
• Identify locations of missing street sweeping
signs and designate locations for future
installation
• This will help establish an inventory and
condition assessment of all signs in the City
• Condition assessment:
• Replace or not
• Reflectivity
935
Public Works Department
Street Sweeping Program Update
936
Public Works Department
Street Sweeping Program Update
• Phase 3
• Due to economies of sale, staff recommends
collecting additional data along the 500 miles
of sidewalk, for additional assets that the
City maintains
• Propose to collect data for a full inventory
for all streetlights and traffic signal poles
• This will help establish an inventory and
condition assessment of streetlights and
traffic signal poles
937
Public Works Department
Street Sweeping Program Update
• Phase 2 & Phase 3 Combined Cost Estimate
• $ 325,000 Street sign inventory
• $ 62,500 Street sweeping sign placement
• $250,000 Streetlights and Traffic Signal
inventory
• $1,920 Software
• Total Phase 2 Cost Estimate (with discount):
$575,670 938
Public Works Department
Street Sweeping Program Update
• Establish a full, comprehensive inventory and
condition assessment for all roadway signs,
streetlights, and traffic signal poles
• This will allow staff to properly budget for:
• replacing existing roadway signs that are
deteriorated/faded or don’t meet current standards
• replacing streetlight poles and traffic signal poles
• Plan the future replacement schedule for all
roadway signs, streetlights, and traffic signal
poles throughout the City so that staff can
incorporate this information into the annual
Capital Improvement Plan budget
939
Public Works Department
Street Sweeping Program Update
• Further recommendations
• Establish a policy for citywide roadway sign
condition assessment, and streetlight and
traffic signal pole condition assessment (say,
every five years)
• Develop and adopt a strategy for pro-active
life-cycle roadway sign, streetlight, and
traffic signal pole replacement
• Plan for roadway sign, streetlight, and traffic
signal pole program funding on an annual basis
to be able to implement the strategy
940
Bristlecone
Red – 1
st Wednesday
Green = 1st Thursday
941
Canyon Oaks
Red – 1
st Wednesday
Green = 1st Thursday
942
Carriage Hills
South
Red – 1
st Wednesday
Green = 1st Thursday
943
Country Club
Red – 1
st Friday
Green = 2nd Monday
944
Greenridge
Red – 1
st Wednesday
Green = 1st Thursday
945
Hasford Heights
Red – 1
st Wednesday
Green = 1st Thursday
946
Hilltop Green
Red – 1
st Monday
Green = 1st Tuesday
947
Lenora
Red – 1
st Wednesday
Green = 1st Thursday
948
Marina Bay
Red – 3
rd Friday
Green = 4th Monday
949
Metro Richmore
Village
Red – 4
th Tuesday
Green = 4th Wednesday
950
Panhandle Annex
Red – 4
th Thursday
Green = 4th Friday
951
Quail Hill
Red – 1
st Wednesday
Green = 1st Thursday
952
Richmond Annex
Red – 4
th Thursday
Green = 4th Friday
953
Via Verdi
Red – 1
st Wednesday
Green = 1st Thursday
954
Tabulation for Pole Installation
Example
955
Reso. No. XX-24

Page 1 of 2 ends

RESOLUTION NO. XX-25

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA , AUTHORIZING THE ALLOCATION OF SB 1 FUND BALANCE FOR

CITYWIDE ROADWAY SIGN, STREETLIGHT, AND TRAFFIC SIGNAL POLE INVENTORY IN THE AMOUNT OF $564,131.17
WHEREAS, City Council recently directed staff to resume street sweeping parking enforcement throughout the City in an equitable manner and allocated $550,000 for this effort; and WHEREAS, the City’s consultant walked 85 miles of sidewalk in fifteen areas of the City that did not have street sweeping signs and collected data for placement of street sweeping signs in these fifteen areas; and
WHEREAS, the City placed an order for fabrication of 1,330 street sweeping signs and hired a contractor to install them, and the installation of these signs is currently in progress in the fifteen areas of the City; and
WHEREAS, Public Works is coordinating with the Richmond Police Department to roll out an equitable resumption of citywide street sweeping parking enforcement; and WHEREAS, staff desires to collect roadway signage data for all 500 miles of sidewalk throughout the City and this data can be stored in an asset management database; and WHEREAS, staff desires to also collect streetlight and traffic signal pole data along the 500 miles of sidewalk, and the data can be stored in the asset management database; and WHEREAS, having a roadway signage, streetlight, and traffic signal pole asset inventory will allow the City to better plan citywide roadway signage, streetlight, and traffic signal pole replacement based on asset condition and useful life; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council finds the above recitals are true and correct and have served, together with the Agenda Report, as the basis for the findings and actions set forth in this Resolution.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby authorizes the allocation of $564,131.17 from the SB 1 fund balance for the citywide roadway sign, streetlight, and traffic signal pole inventory.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council designates the City Clerk as the custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the decision herein is based. These documents may be found at the office of the City Clerk at the Richmond City Hall, 450 Civic Center Plaza, Richmond, California 94804. *********************
956
Reso. No. XX-24

Page 2 of 2 ends

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 25, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:

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 Resolution No. XX-25, finally passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting held on March 25, 2025.

Pamela Christian, Clerk of the City of Richmond
957

Page 1 of 6 ends

April 1, 2025
Economic Development
DATE: April 1, 2025
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM: James Atencio, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Samantha Carr, Environmental Manager
Yahna Williamson, Management Analyst
Subject: Receive Direction from City Council on Healthy Options at Point of Sale (HOPS).

FINANCIAL IMPACT: The financial impact of implementing a HOPS will depend on the selected enforcement mechanism and may
include administrative and enforcement costs.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

January 25, 2022
March 4, 2025

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

City Council directed City staff to return and present
options and address concerns following the Healthy
Options at Point-of-Sale (HOPS) presentation by youth
advocates. City Councilmembers raised concerns
regarding costs, enforcement, and implementation
logistics. This report outlines options and next steps for City Council consideration.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: DISCUSS and PROVIDE DIRECTION to City staff on the draft Healthy Options at Point-of-Sale (HOPS) ordinance in collaboration with HOPS youth advocates - City
Attorney’s Office/Economic Development Department
(James Atencio 510-620-6509/Samantha Carr 510-620-
5407/Yahna Williamson 510-620-6574).

AGENDA
REPORT
958

Page 2 of 6 ends

April 1, 2025
DISCUSSION:

Background
On January 25, 2022, the City Council received a report from Heathy Options at Pointsof-Sale (HOPS) youth advocates detailing the prevalence of unhealthy food and beverage marketing in Richmond retail stores (Attachment 1). The report highlighted how checkout aisles are stocked with snacks high in salt, saturated fat, and added sugars, disproportionately affecting low-income and communities of color. Following this presentation, the City Council directed staff to draft an ordinance requiring large retail stores to provide healthier checkout options within 60 days. However, due to competing priorities, this directive was not implemented at the time.

On March 4, 2025, a new cohort of HOPS youth advocates presented updated research reaffirming the need for a Healthy Checkout Ordinance in Richmond (Attachment 2).

They provided data on similar policies successfully implemented in Berkeley (2020) and Contra Costa County (2024). The City Council, recognizing the importance of this initiative, directed staff to return within 30 days with policy options addressing concerns around enforcement costs, implementation logistics, and defining key components of the policy.

LOCAL CITY AND COUNTY ORDINANCES:

The City of Berkeley in Alameda County and the City of Perris in Riverside County have adopted Healthy Options at Point-of-Sale Ordinances. On November 5, 2024, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors directed staff to draft an ordinance and bring back for the Board’s approval. Table 1 below provides an overview of each local government’s ordinance.

City Ordinance
Name
Key Provisions Enforcement
Mechanism
Berkeley,
Alameda
Couty
Healthy
Checkout
Ordinance
 Requires grocery stores to offer
healthier food and beverage
options at checkout lines
 limits placement of sugary
snacks and sodas.
 Stores larger than 2,500 Sq.

Ft.

City inspections and
fines for noncompliance
Perris,
Riverside
County
Healthy
Options at
Point-of-Sale
Ordinance
 Mandates retailers to display
healthy food options
prominently.

Retail audits and
financial penalties for
violations
959

Page 3 of 6 ends

April 1, 2025
 Prohibits certain high calorie,
low nutrient products at
checkout.
 Stores Larger than 2,500 Sq.

Ft.

Contra
Costa
County
(Drafting
currently in
progress)
Healthy
Options at
Point-of-Sale
Ordinance
 Initial motion focuses on
2,000SF expected to focus on
improving healthy food
availability at retail points of
sale; inspired by Berkeley and
Perris models.

To be determined by
Contra Costa County
Board of Supervisors
RICHMOND ORDINANCE OPTIONS:

The draft Richmond ordinance is modeled after Contra Costa County’s proposed ordinance, which is modeled after Berkeley’s ordinance (Attachment 3). In drafting the ordinance, City staff identified four policy questions requiring Council direction. City staff are requesting City Council discussion and direction after reviewing the proposed recommendations on the following:

1. Enforcement Entity

2. Definition of “Large Businesses”

3. Definition of “Healthy Foods”

4. Outreach and Education options
City staff will provide additional information on costs based on Council’s direction.

1. Enforcement Entity
Enforcement is a key component of the proposed ordinance, particularly since the City of Richmond does not have its own public health department with environmental inspectors or nutritionists, as the City of Perris, City of Berkeley, and Contra Costa County. City’s current enforcement options include:

1. Coordinating with County’s Environmental Health Division to request enforcement of the ordinance on the City’s behalf

2. Utilizing the City of Richmond’s Code Enforcement Division

3. Hiring vendor or contractors to temporarily complete enforcement Staff Recommendation:

City staff recommend reaching out to Contra Costa County Environmental Health to discuss the potential for them to enforce the City’s ordinance along with the County’s proposed ordinance.

Rationale:
 Partnering with the County on this component would be beneficial, as it aligns with work the County is already planning to undertake.
960

Page 4 of 6 ends

April 1, 2025
 Partnership would also create opportunities for the City and County to collaborate more efficiently on other elements of the ordinance moving forward However, if the County chooses not to enforce the City’s ordinance, the City could explore alternative options. One such option is applying for a Department of Justice (DOJ) grant expected to be released this spring, which may offer enforcement funding for the Healthy Retail policy and similar initiatives. City staff intends to conduct further research into this grant opportunity as more information becomes available.

2. Definition of “Large Businesses”
City staff is seeking City Council direction on defining “Large Businesses” for the purpose of the HOPS ordinance. The definition in draft ordinances defines large businesses as retail stores exceeding 2,000 square feet, based on the County’s definition. However, the City of Berkeley and the City of Perris define large businesses as retail stores exceeding utilize 2,500 sq. ft. for the definition.

Staff Recommendation:

City staff recommends aligning the definition of large business with the proposed Contra Costa County definition, which states that A Healthy Retail Policy is required in all unincorporated food retail stores over 2,000 sq. ft., in which there are nutrition standards for food and beverage items stocked in checkout areas within 3 feet of the point of sale.

Rationale:
 Ensures consistency with the proposed Contra Costa County Healthy Checkout policy
 Targets businesses with sufficient capacity to stock alternative healthy food options
 Provides a clear, enforceable threshold that minimizes ambiguity in implementation

3. Definition of “Healthy Food”
The definition of “Healthy Foods” is critical for ensuring compliance with the ordinance and achieving its intended health benefits. Staff propose the following criteria:

Staff Recommended:

Adopt a definition that aligns with Contra Costa County’s proposed Checkout Ordinance, which is modeled after the City of Berkeley’s ordinance, ensuring consistency with established best practices.

Proposed Definition:

A “healthy food” is a food or beverage that meets one or more of the following guidelines:
961

Page 5 of 6 ends

April 1, 2025
 Foods with 5 or less grams of added sugar AND 200 milligrams or less of sodium per serving
 Gum and mints with no added sugar
 Beverages with no added sugar and no low- to no-calorie sweeteners Rationale:
 Provides an objective standard for businesses to follow  Ensures that retailers can stock compliant products without significant cost burden
 Aligns with evidence-based dietary recommendations for improving public health City Council feedback is requested to refine or approve this definition.

4. Outreach and Education
To ensure successful implementation and compliance with this policy, effective outreach and education are key. Efforts will focus on engaging retailers, community organizations, and residents through informational materials, workshops, and direct support. The goal is to build awareness, provide technical assistance, and reinforce the benefits of the policy for both public health and local businesses. Collaboration with Contra Costa County and other stakeholders will help create a seamless transition and long-term success.

Staff Recommendation:

The City will implement a 1-year outreach period before enforcement begins, during which it will take several steps to ensure businesses are informed and prepared to comply with the ordinance. Informational postcards will be sent to businesses affected by the new regulations, providing key details about compliance requirements.

Additionally, educational workshops will be conducted to offer resources and guidance to businesses on how to meet the ordinance's standards. To further support compliance, the City will facilitate partnerships with local health organizations and grocers, increasing access to qualifying healthy products. A public awareness campaign will also be launched, utilizing digital platforms, community meetings, and in-store signage to inform both businesses and the public about the ordinance and its benefits.

Rationale:
 Mirrors Contra Costa Counties proposed approach as well as the City of Berkeley’s approach, which successfully allowed businesses to transition without financial hardship
 Provides businesses with a clear timeline to adjust product offerings  Builds community buy-in by educating residents on the health benefits of the policy
 Helps to emphasize that this is not intended to be punitive for retailers but rather a collaborative effort aimed at improving community health while also supporting the economic interests of store owners.
962

Page 6 of 6 ends

April 1, 2025
SYNERGISTIC POLICIES:

The Healthy Checkout Ordinance aligns with Richmond’s existing Health in All Policies (HiAP) Framework, which prioritizes health equity, community well-being, and reducing chronic disease rates. The Richmond HiAP report highlights the disproportionate burden of diet-related illnesses, such as type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, in low-income neighborhoods. By ensuring healthier retail environments, the proposed ordinance directly supports the HiAP’s goals of improving nutritional access and reducing health disparities.

Furthermore, this initiative complements the City’s broader efforts in food equity, public health promotion, and sustainable economic development. The ordinance would contribute to Richmond’s long-term strategy of fostering a healthier community while reinforcing the City’s commitment to evidence-based policymaking.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 - January 25, 2022, Agenda Report on HOPS
Attachment 2 – HOPS Youth Advocates Presentation (March 4, 2025) Attachment 3 – Ordinance Draft
963

Page 1 of 2 ends

January 25, 2022
City Council
DATE: January 25, 2022
TO: Mayor Butt and Members of the City Council
FROM: Councilmember Gayle McLaughlin
Subject: Healthy Options at Point of Sale
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact to receive the report. Any financial impacts related to policy options will be brought to City Council for consideration.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

Richmond currently has a Health in All Policies Framework of which this policy aligns.

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

In Richmond, unhealthy food and beverages are
promoted repeatedly throughout stores. Over the past
two years, HOPS youth advocates assessed the food
retail landscape and heard from residents. HOPS youth
advocates want to present to the City Council their
findings and policy options.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: RECEIVE a report on research conducted by Healthy Options at Points of Sale (HOPS) youth advocates; and
DIRECT staff to draft an ordinance to be considered by
the Council within 60 days requiring large retail stores to stock healthier checkout items – Councilmember Gayle
McLaughlin (510-620-6636).

DISCUSSION:

AGENDA
REPORT
964

Page 2 of 2 ends

January 25, 2022
In Richmond, unhealthy food and beverages are promoted repeatedly throughout stores. Snacks high in salt, saturated fat, and added sugars dominate checkout aisles, which are designed to prompt impulse purchases. Such curated food environments in largely low income communities of color have been shown to contribute to health issues such as dental cavities, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes; these especially impacts families. 1 in 2 children of color in the US will be diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in their lifetime (Attachment 1).

Over the past two years, HOPS youth advocates assessed the food retail landscape and heard from residents. HOPS youth advocates want to present to the City Council their findings and policy options. HOPS youth advocates want to bring the community together and change these numbers by including more healthy foods such as fruits and nuts.

In 2020, the Berkeley City Council unanimously passed a Healthy Checkout Ordinance https://hco-berkeley.org/ with large retail stores in Berkeley having to replace junk foods, candy, and soda in checkout aisles with healthier items containing less added sugar and sodium. The City of Richmond can and should do similarly.

We, in the City of Richmond, are dedicated to health equity and currently have in place a Health in All Polices Framework. A Healthy Checkout Ordinance would be in-line with this framework.

Richmond can implement Healthy Checkout to promote and support the health of all residents!
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Healthy Retail Ed Packet
Attachment 2 – PowerPoint
965
Healthy
Retail
Richmond
There’s an opportunity for checkouts to
offer more choice by expanding access to
healthier options.
2025
Presented by Richmond HOPS and Food Policy Council Youth Advocates! Built on an initial deck provided by Monique Blodgett & Ashley Trousdell 966
Introduction
We’re here today to introduce Healthy Retail, share
its success in other cities, and discuss the opportunity to bring it to the City of Richmond!
We’re seeking your support to join this initiative to
combat the health disparities and enhance health
outcomes.
967
About Us
Richmond Youth Food Policy
Council and Healthy Options at
Point of Sale (HOPS) are youth
advocate teams leading this
initiative, who aim to address health
disparities that are exacerbated by
food inequity in Berkeley, Oakland,
Richmond and unincorporated
areas of Contra Costa County.
968
2018
History of the Coalitions
HOPS was
launched to
address health
disparities in
Berkeley, CA
2020
In October 2020,
Berkeley City
Council passed HCO!
2019
HOPS expands to
Richmond, CA
to address health disparities
2020
Berkeley became the
world’s first city to
implement a healthy
checkout policy.
2024
Contra Costa Board
of Supervisors vote
unanimously in favor
of Healthy Retail
2025
HRO heads to
Richmond
City Council!
HOPS expands to
Oakland, CA
to address health disparities
HCO heads to
Oakland City
Council!
969
Promote healthier
options
Raise
awareness
to underserved
communities
Increase nutrition
equity
Healthy
Retail
Objectives
In application, these objectives look like:

Requiring products sold at checkout contain
5 grams of sugar or less
200 milligrams of sodium or less
Beverages with no added sugar or
sweetener
(In stores over 2,000 sq ft.)
Keep soda in the soda aisle!
970
Success in
Berkeley, CA
Pre-Ordinance Post-Ordinance
Compliance Rate of Retailers
0 20
40 60
80 100
63 83
Pre-Ordinance Post-Ordinance
Healthy Foods and Beverages Sold at Checkout
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
29 62
In percentages
971
Berkeley (2020)
Perris (2023)
Positive
Results
972
Expansion Opportunities
Passed and Implemented
Berkeley
Perris
Richmond
Contra Costa County
Ordinance Draft In Progress
Pending A Vote
Oakland
973
Why Richmond?
About 34 percent of
Richmond or 32,000 people
(some in this room) reside in
“critical food access areas” or
“areas considered underserved
when compared to the study
area as a whole.”
Source: Food Justice & Community Health in Richmond by Othering & Belonging Institute On average, Richmond residents must
travel almost a mile to reach a full
service grocer, though some residents
must travel even further to access food.

Given that approximately 10 percent of
households in Richmond do not have a
vehicle, these distances to food retailers
have a significant impact on accessibility
to whole and healthy foods.
974
Why not Richmond?
A recent study found that “for every one supermarket or farmer’s market located in Richmond, there are at least six fast food restaurants and convenience stores.” These food challenges, and resulting health complications, disproportionately impact Richmond’s low-income residents and communities of color.

Source: Food Justice & Community Health in Richmond by Othering & Belonging Institute 975
Comparing Diabetes Rates
Across Richmond Districts (2022)
Sources: PLACES by CDC, Healthy Alameda County, Latino Diabetes Association: Diabetes Stats, Data and Statistics FAQs | Diabetes - CDC This graph illustrates the prevalence
of diabetes among adults aged 18 and
older.

In Richmond, half of the districts
(3 out of 6) have a higher percentage
of diabetes prevalence compared to
the state average, with District 2
closely aligning with the state
average.

Locations
District 1 - Richmond
District 2 - Richmond
District 3 - Richmond
District 4 - Richmond
District 5 - Richmond
District 6 - Richmond
Berkeley
Alameda
Oakland
California
Percentages

13.3 10.6

15.8 12

8.8 9.5

6.7 11.2

12.3 10.7
976
Seven Letters
National Survey
of HRO
Shoppers Shoppers w/ Kids
Switch to a store with Healthier Checkout options
0 20
40 60
80 44
78 In percentages
977
5 grams of
sugar or less
200mg of
sodium or less
Beverages with
no added sugar
or sweetener

HEALTHY

CHECKOUT ITEMS
ACCEPTED...
45 grams of
sugar
330 mg of
sodium
40 grams
added
sugar

HEALTHY

CHECKOUT ITEMS
NOT ACCEPTED...
978
Enforcement Options
Annual Inspections by:

Code Enforcement
Public Health
Community-Based
979
We ask for your unwavering
support to prioritize this initiative!
980
Thank You!
981
Q&A
Session
982
01337.0001/764269.2
DocID #39879v1DocID #39879v1
Formatte
ORDINANCE NO. ________

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

RICHMOND ADDING TO THE CITY OF RICHMOND MUNICIPAL
CODE A NEW CHAPTER 7.112 (“HEALTHY RETAIL PLACEMENT
AND CHECKOUT”) OF ARTICLE VII, REQUIRING RETAIL FOOD
STORES TO ABIDE BY A “HEALTHY CHECKOUT” PROGRAM BY

PLACING HEALTHY EATING OPTIONS AT POINTS OF SALE
WHEREAS, the Richmond City Council, pursuant to police powers delegated to it by the California Constitution, has the authority to enact legislation that promotes the public health, safety, and general welfare of its residents; and
WHEREAS, in Richmond, unhealthy food and beverages are promoted repeatedly throughout stores. Snacks high in salt, saturated fat, and added sugars particularly dominate checkout aisles, which are designed to prompt impulse purchases; and
WHEREAS, such curated food environments in largely low income communities of color have been shown to contribute to health issues such as dental cavities, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes; these especially impacts families. 1 in 2 children of color in the US will be diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in their lifetime; and
WHEREAS, over at least the last two years, a Healthy Options at Points of Sale (“HOPS”) youth advocacy group has reviewed, made findings, and reported to the City Council policy options for improving community health by including more healthy food choices conveniently located at food retail points of sale and checkout aisles; and
WHEREAS, the HOPS youth advocates have recommended a “Healthy Checkout” program, which would require stores to increase access to healthier food options at checkout, thus supporting the health of the Richmond community; and
WHEREAS, Richmond Municipal Code Article VII addresses general and specific business regulations for the protection of public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, the City Council now, through this Ordinance, seeks to implement a “Healthy Checkout” program through the adoption of a new Chapter 7.112 of Article VII in the Richmond Municipal Code.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The City Council finds and determines that the foregoing Recitals are true and correct and incorporates the recitals herein.

SECTION 2. A new Chapter 7.112 (Healthy Retail Placement and Checkout) is hereby added to Article VII (Businesses) of the Richmond Municipal Code to read in its entirety as follows:
983
01337.0001/764269.2
DocID #39879v1DocID #39879v1
Formatte
“Chapter 7.112 - HEALTHY RETAIL PLACEMENT AND CHECKOUT

7.112.010- Findings.

A. Diets with an excess of added sugars and sodium are correlated with chronic health issues including hypertension, type 2 diabetes, tooth decay, and stroke.

B. The environments in which food choices are made aff ect those choices. The placement of unhealthy snack foods and beverages near the checkout registers increase the likelihood that consumers will make unplanned purchases of unhealthy foods. The placement of unhealthy snack foods and sugar-sweetened beverages at checkout, therefore, undermines public health initiatives, and consumers’ desire to make healthy choices.

C. Providing customers with the choice to avoid undue pressure to purchase highcalorie, low-nutrient food when they shop is in the interest of the health, safety, and welfare of all who live, work, and do business in Richmond.

7.112.020- Purpose.

A. The purpose of this Ordinance is to encourage healthy purchases and improve the health of Richmond by providing healthy alternatives to consumers in checkout areas and limiting consumer exposure to sugar-sweetened beverages and unhealthy foods at Small Retail Stores and Large Retail Stores in Richmond.

7.112.030- Definitions.

A. “Added Sugars” means sugars added during the processing of food and beverages, or are packaged as such, and include sugars (free, mono and disaccharides), sugars from syrups and honey, and sugars from concentrated fruit or vegetable juices that are in excess of what would be expected from the same volume of 100 percent fruit or vegetable juice of the same type, as defined in Section 101.9 of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

B. “Artificial Sweeteners” means sweeteners with few to no calories that have a higher intensity of sweetness per gram than sucrose.

C. “Checkout Area” means any area that is accessible to a customer of the Retail Store that is:

1. Within 3 feet in any direction of any Register; or

2. Designated primarily for or utilized primarily by customers to wait in line to make a purchase at a Register; up to and including the Checkout Endcap. 984
01337.0001/764269.2
DocID #39879v1DocID #39879v1
Formatte
D. “Checkout Endcap” means product displays placed at endpoints of areas designated primarily for or utilized primarily by customers to wait in line to make a purchase.

E. “Large Retail Store” means a commercial establishment selling goods to the public with a total floor area of 4001 square feet or more and selling 25 linear feet or more of food and beverage products.

F. “Prepared Foods” refer to foods sold or served that are produced by the retailer for immediate consumption.

G. “Register” means a device used for monetary transactions that calculates the sales of goods and displays the amount of sales for the customer.

H. “Retail Store” means a commercial establishment selling goods to the public and selling 25 linear feet or more of food and beverage products.

I. “Small Retail Store” means a commercial establishment selling goods to the public with a total floor area between 0 and 4000 square feet and selling 25 linear feet or more of food and beverage products.

7.112.040- Healthy Checkout Area Standards.

Each Retail Store shall at all hours during which the Retail Store is open to the public ensure that all food and beverage items displayed forsale in the Checkout Areas meet the following standards:

A. Beverages with no Added Sugars and no Artificial Sweeteners.

B. Beverages must be in the following categories: waters, milk and milk alternatives, 100% juice, coff ee, and tea.

C. Food items with no more than 5 grams of Added Sugars and 200 milligrams of sodium per labeled serving.

D. Prepared foods are exempted from the above requirements.

The City of Richmond will conduct an annual review of qualifying food and beverage categories meeting the standards provided in this Section 7.112.040. There will be a 180- day phase-in period if changes to these healthy checkout area standards are made.

7.112.050- Enforcement.

A. The City is authorized to issue all rules and regulations consistent with this Chapter.

A. [HOW WILL COMPLIANCE BE ADMINISTERED, e.g. during regular inspections by Contra Costa Environmental Health of Retail Stores] 985
01337.0001/764269.2
DocID #39879v1DocID #39879v1
Formatte
B. The City may require information necessary to determine compliance with this Chapter.

7.112.060- Violations; Penalties.

A. A Retail Store found to be in violation of this Chapter may be subject to citation procedures pursuant to Chapter 1.04 of this Code.

B. This section shall not limit the City from recovering costs from implementing this Chapter or investigating complaints.

C. Remedies and penalties under this chapter are cumulative and not exclusive.

7.112.070- Effective Date.

This Chapter and the legal requirements set forth herein shall take effect and be in force ___ __, 2025. Enforcement pursuant to 7.112.060 shall commence no sooner than ____ __, 2026.”
SECTION 3. This action is exempt pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which states that a project is exempt from CEQA if the activity is covered by the common-sense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. This action makes policy changes to the City’s rules and regulations pertaining to the display of foods in retail food markets to better protect the public health, safety and welfare.

SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of any competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance.

The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance, and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall go into effect on the date stated in RMC Section 7.112.070.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council on this ___ day of ______________, 2025.

________________________________
Eduardo Martinez, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Pamela Christian, City Clerk
986
01337.0001/764269.2
DocID #39879v1DocID #39879v1
Formatte
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
David Aleshire, City Attorney
987

Page 1 of 2 ends

April 1, 2025
City Council
DATE: April 1, 2025
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM: Vice Mayor Cesar Zepeda
Council Member Doria Robinson (co-sponsor)
Subject: Incorporate Tree Wells for Sidewalk Development to Increase Tree Canopies
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Cost and impact will be evaluated by City Staff.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None.

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

It is a priority for the City of Richmond to have more trees to help cool and clean the air by including tree wells for all CIP projects that included sidewalks and have not yet completed their design, or where a non-cost prohibitive change order could be used to adjust the design to
include tree wells where it is feasible.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: DIRECT staff to immediately include tree wells for all CIP projects that include sidewalks and have not yet
completed their design, or where a non-cost prohibitive change order could be used to adjust the design to
include tree wells where it is feasible. Feasibility should be based on our new sidewalk standards and policy once
they are completed. DIRECT staff to create a clear
definition of what feasibility is as it relates to ADA
accessibility, legal, and safety constraints. DIRECT staff to work with local non-profits, community groups, and
residents, to plant trees in these new and old tree wells AGENDA
REPORT
988

Page 2 of 2 ends

April 1, 2025
and create and implement a regular tree maintenance
plan to take care of the trees once they are planted
- Vice Mayor Cesar Zepeda (510-620-6593)
Councilmember Doria Robinson (510-620-6568).

DISCUSSION:

As we move into a time when it is increasingly more important for the City of Richmond to have more trees to cool our city and help clean our air it is important to plan ahead and include in the infrastructure that we are building today more places to plant trees.

Not only do trees help improve air quality, but they also reduce flooding, and help create a more walkable and livable community. The City of Richmond needs more trees to improve air quality, reduce flooding, and cool the city. Trees also help create a more livable community.

We need to make space to plant trees all over the city, especially in marginalized communities. Richmond’s air quality is worse than other parts of the Bay Area, and the city has been designated as a “Tree City USA” since 2009. Benefits of more trees include:
 Air quality: Trees remove air pollutants and improve air quality  Temperature: Trees cool the city by providing shade and releasing water vapor  Flooding: Trees reduce flooding by filtering stormwater  Community: Trees create green spaces, encourage outdoor activity, and provide homes for wildlife
 Noise: Trees reduce noise pollution
 Property values: Trees increase property values
Once this item is approved, staff must:
 Immediately include tree wells for all CIP projects that have not yet completed their design, or where a non-cost prohibitive change order could be used to adjust the design to include tree wells where it is feasible.  Create a clear definition of what feasibility is as it relates to Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility, legal, and safety constraints.  Work with local non-profits, community groups, and residents, to plant trees in these new and old tree wells and create and implement a regular tree maintenance plan to take care of the trees once they are planted.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

None
989

Richmond City CouncilApril 1, 2025

Richmond City Council
April 1, 2025