Agenda — Richmond City Council, April 22, 2025 (part 2 of 4)

team elected to forgo the ride activity and requested that MTC and Rich City Rides share feedback received.

To publicize the engagement opportunities #1-3 above, the project team developed social media ads through WCCTAC’s Facebook page in both English and Spanish, sent emails to the Technical Advisory Committee, PAG members, and neighborhood council contacts, and released a notice to the Executive Director Reports for the WCCTAC Board. The strategies and community members reached are described in further detail below.

Pop-Up Events
The RPTP project team coordinated and attended three pop-up events during this Phase. The following includes a description of each pop-up event:
• North Richmond Flea Market (North Richmond)
o Location: 716 W Gertrude Avenue
o Date/Time: Sunday August 6, 2023, 10:30a-2:30p
o Total Attendance: 38, 89% Spanish
o Total Comments: 68
• Thrive Thursdays (Coronado)
o Location: Martin Luther King, Jr. Park at Harbour Way and Virginia Avenue o Date/Time: Thursday, August 10, 2023, 6:30PM – 8:00 PM o Total Attendance: 12, 25% Spanish
o Total Comments: 41
• Wal-Mart Pop-Up (Hilltop)
o Location: 1400 Hilltop Mall Rd, Richmond, CA 94806
o Date/Time: Saturday August 19, 2023, 12p-4p (when foot traffic is highest) o Total Attendance: 34, 17.6% Spanish
o Total Comments: 61
Three boards were utilized for pop-up engagement to visualize existing conditions findings and to collect feedback from community members. Overall, the project team connected with 84 people and collected 170 comments. At least one Spanish-speaking staff was present at each event and just over half (51%) of participants were Spanish speakers.

Responses Breakdown
The RPTP team collected feedback during the pop-up events and found that most comments received were related to safety or driving/goods movement. One of the top sub-categories for driving/goods movement was congestion, whereas biking and walking comments primarily concerned wayfinding and signage. Of the “Other” category, the most common sub-category comments were related to cleanliness and landscaping along the Parkway. Regarding public health, air quality was the most common sub-category while speed management was the top Appendix A: Community Engagement Summary Notes | 93
351

RICHMOND PARKWAY TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Leah Greenblat
October 19, 2023

Page 3 of 9 ends

sub-category for safety. Finally, transit related comments expressed a common desire for more transit service and connections. Figure 1 shows the overall distribution of the different categories of comments received at pop-ups.

Figure 1: Distribution of Pop-up Comments by Category

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2023.

Webmap
The webmap was hosted on Social Pinpoint between June 15th and September 4th, 2023. Users could drop pins in the webmap and leave a location-specific comment related to the following categories:
• Biking
• Walking
• Driving
• Transit
• Other
A total of 87 people provided 129 comments digitally. As seen in Figure 2, 109 comments were received on the webmap, while the remaining comments were collected from responses left on the Facebook ad post.
17%
25%
15%
4%
29%
10%
Biking and Walking
Driving and Goods Movement
Other
Public Health
Safety
Transit
94 352
Leah Greenblat
October 19, 2023

Page 4 of 9 ends

Figure 2: Webmap Performance Summary

Responses Breakdown
Nearly half of the comments were driving/truck related, of which approximately a third of the comments regarded general safety and speeding. More than a fourth of all comments relate to roadway conditions/comfort using the Parkway. Multiple landscaping comments mention trees blocking signals and creating hard braking incidents. Figure 3 shows the distribution of Webmap comments by category.

Figure 3: Distribution of Webmap Comments by Category

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2023.
48%
13%
17%
6%
16%
Driving/Goods Comment
Walking Comment
Biking Comment
Transit Comment
Other Feedback
Appendix A: Community Engagement Summary Notes | 95
353

RICHMOND PARKWAY TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Leah Greenblat
October 19, 2023

Page 5 of 9 ends

Community Meeting Events
The RPTP project team presented at three community meetings in neighborhoods near/along Richmond Parkway. These include:
• North Richmond Municipal Advisory Council (North Richmond) o Location: North Richmond Senior Center, 515 Silver Avenue, Richmond CA 94801 o Date/Time: Tuesday, September 5, 2023, 5:00p-7:00p
• Parchester Village Neighborhood Council (Parchester Village) o Virtual over Zoom
o Date/Time: Tuesday, September 12, 2023, 7:00p
• Iron Triangle Neighborhood Council Meeting (Iron Triangle) o Location: 598 Nevin Avenue, Richmond, CA 94801
o Date/Time: Wednesday, September 20, 2023, 5:30p-7:30p There were comments regarding debris on sidewalks and roadways, as well as calls for infrastructure that improve biking and pedestrian connectivity, increased signage, and better signal coordination. Many comments expressed concern about speeding cars and unsafe driving behavior along the Parkway. Congestion was brought up as another issue along the Parkway, especially due to the large truck volumes. Aside from collision safety, public health impacts from toxic diesel were stated as equally problematic. In regard to project implementation, residents suggested hiring local residents.

Public Advisory Group
The Public Advisory Group (PAG) meeting for Phase 1 was held on September 21, 2023, though the group previously met once in Phase 0 in June 2023 to provide guidance on the draft Public Engagement Plan. While the Phase 1 meeting focused on existing conditions, feedback relevant to potential strategies was received in both meetings. In Phase 1, following a presentation on existing and future conditions findings, PAG members primarily discussed topics related to safety, maintenance, truck volumes, and community-serving solutions. Regarding trucking impacts, participants noted that a transition to electric fleets would require electrification infrastructure, such as charging stations, along the corridor. One member shared that despite a grant to invest in this, there is difficulty in acquiring the necessary equipment due to material shortages. Another member expressed the community’s concern of trucks cutting through the neighborhoods and briefly touched upon approved projects that involve truck electrification and truck-specific routes to encourage use of Parkway. The topic of electrification also brought about discussion of addressing pollution as a public health concern, to which green infrastructure and planting trees were suggested as mitigation strategies that could also contribute to beautification of the Parkway. Regarding safety, there were suggestions of adjusting signal cycle lengths to curb impatient driving behavior and discussion of methods of slow vehicle speeds. Light indications for crosswalks and blinking pavement lights were suggested for pedestrian safety. Safety and public health were identified as the highest priorities by several members, with maintenance and 96 354
Leah Greenblat
October 19, 2023

Page 6 of 9 ends

beautification suggested as good strategies to consider in the process of addressing these priorities.

Relevant feedback heard in Phase 0 included concerns about gaps in the pedestrian and bicycle networks due to a lack of facilities and outdated equipment. Regarding trucking, there were suggestions to request fair share contributions from distribution centers. Discussion of enforcing clean vehicle requirements also suggested a need for charging stations along the corridor to support truck electrification.

WCCTAC Board
The project team presented to the Board with updates on existing and future conditions findings during Phase 1 on September 29, 2023, though the group previously met once in Phase 0 in May 2023. While the Phase 1 meeting focused on existing conditions and potential strategies, feedback relevant to potential strategies was received in both meetings. Members of the board discussed trucking impacts, safety, and maintenance. Director Bana revealed plans to write to the legislature about banning newer, heavier trucks, while Director Tave suggested exploring time period limits for truck deliveries to reduce truck traffic during peak times. Director Bana added that although electrification could reduce future emissions, there should also be strategies to address existing contaminants from pollution. To address safety related to speed management, Chair Paul Fadelli (City of El Cerrito) suggested looking into lowering vehicle speeds through policies such as adjusting speed limits or designing to lower speeds. Director Cesar Zepeda (City of Richmond) emphasized the importance of bicycle safety as he shared that the Parkway experiences a high volume of fatal bicycle collisions, and that most of them are due to speeding vehicles. Director Bana also reminded the audience that beautification is a priority for Richmond.

There were suggestions to incorporate more trees in the design, which could contribute to both beautification and public health efforts.

Relevant comments heard in Phase 0 included feedback from Director John Gioia (Contra Costa County) who shared that increased trucking is expected due to recent approval of new fulfillment centers. He added that recent studies reveal trucks leaving the congested Parkway to travel through local roads, so there are efforts to design new facilities that produce direct routes to the Parkway. Pavement damage was another trucking concern highlighted by Director Soheila Bana (City of Richmond) and Director Chris Kelley (City of Hercules). Director H.E. Christian Peeples (AC Transit) shared that special pavement for trucks and heavy vehicles can be used to address pavement damage. Director Eduardo Martinez (City of Richmond) additionally suggested passing an extra charge on distribution companies to help with the mitigation of truck impacts. On the topic of safety, Director Anthony Tave (City of Pinole) hoped to see efforts to address pedestrian safety through signage and crosswalk repair and Director Kelley hoped to see protected bikeways and consideration for electric bikes. Director Bana and Gioia also shared hopes of bringing the Parkway up to Caltrans standard so that the corridor could be adopted by Caltrans. Due to funding constraints, they would like to see costs incorporated in the evaluation of priorities in this project.

Appendix A: Community Engagement Summary Notes | 97
355

RICHMOND PARKWAY TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Leah Greenblat
October 19, 2023

Page 7 of 9 ends

Phase 1 Feedback
Most comments received from the public referenced four topic areas:

1. Safety
a. 29% of pop-up comments
b. 37% of online comments

2. Biking & Walking
a. 26% of pop-up comments
b. 35% of online comments

3. Congestion
a. 13% of pop-up comments
b. 16% of online comments

4. Maintenance & Street Beautification
a. 12% of pop-up comments
b. 13% of online comments
A summary of feedback received on these topics is described below.

Safety
Safety was the top safety concern amongst pop-up and online engagement comments, and comments specifically related to speeding were common (15% of pop-up comments and 13% of online comments). PAG and Board members also expressed the desire to prioritize addressing preventable collisions.

Residents cited speeding through intersections and red lights as frequent occurrences. Some specifically pointed out that the stretch of Parkway opening from two lanes to four lanes near Giant Rd often sees speeding. Other speeding hotspots noted include the North Richmond area near Parr Blvd and by I-580 and I-80. Racing has also been reported to be an issue, especially at night, between Hilltop Dr and San Pablo Ave. Furthermore, there is a noticeable lack of police presence or cameras to discourage speeding. On the other hand, drivers remarked on unsafe driving conditions due to faded or nonexistent lane striping, which made lane demarcation barely visible, especially at night.

During peak period congestion, residents pointed out that drivers misuse turning lanes as a route to circumvent traffic. Some suggestions to address speed management include speed limit signs, speed bumps, and rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs). Chair Fadelli suggested adjusting the speed limit and providing better traffic enforcement. Other comments by pedestrians and bicyclists similarly were concerned about bad driving behavior and insufficient traffic enforcement. As a result, they felt that trails, bike lanes, and crosswalks were inadequate in addressing this.
98 356
Leah Greenblat
October 19, 2023

Page 8 of 9 ends

Biking & Walking
The majority of comments related to biking and walking reflected a need for better comfort and safety while using the Parkway and the Bay Trail. Participants mentioned infrastructure issues such as missing sidewalks and curb ramps, poor accessibility to trails, and lack of signage. Director Zepeda’s comment on ADA improvements further underscores the lack of existing disability accommodations. The community found crossing the Parkway to be difficult and would like to see better crossing conditions, especially on Parr Blvd and Goodrick Ave.

Bicyclists also desire better bikeway connectivity to the Parkway and to connecting streets. There was strong interest in addressing unreliable access to the Wildcat Creek tunnel. Due to the tunnel’s tendency to flood, there were requests to investigate strategies that eliminate flooding, or building an overpass that would maintain the trail’s connection across the Parkway. Sidewalk and trail repair was also requested as potholes and railroads tracks on the Bay Trail near Hensley St make it hazardous to bike over. Bicyclists stated that adding more protected and separate lanes on the Parkway, Canal Blvd, and Castro St would make them feel much safer and comfortable.

Director Zepeda also emphasized the importance of addressing bicyclist safety as he called attention to the numerous crash memorials along the Parkway.

Lighting was also noted to be absent or unreliable and the community asked for signalized crossing to have longer crossing times. Several members of the public stated that homeless encampments block portions of the Bay Trail and sidewalk, making walking and biking difficult.

These concerns contributed to an overall sense of feeling unsafe while walking or biking along the Parkway.

Congestion
Congestion during peak periods was reported to be consistent on various intersections throughout the Parkway, including San Pablo Avenue, Giant Road, Canal Blvd, and 23rd Street.

Comments state that congestion is particularly bad during 4:00-7:00PM and identified the signals at the San Pablo Ave intersection to be problematic and a source of traffic back up. There were suggestions to improve and adjust signals for congestion, such as better detection, coordination, and shorter signal cycle lengths. As a result of congestion, residents stated they sometimes take local roads instead.

The community and WCCTAC board would also like to see truck traffic in the area addressed.

Discouraging trucks from cutting through neighborhoods was desired, as well as reducing the public health impacts from trucks. The Board offered a variety of solutions, including truck- specific routes, hour restrictions for trucks, and passing extra charges on distribution companies.

Truck electrification was discussed extensively during the WCCTAC Board and PAG meetings as methods of emissions reductions in the future. A recurring suggestion throughout these meetings is incorporation of trees in design to mitigate air quality impacts to nearby residential areas from congestion.

Appendix A: Community Engagement Summary Notes | 99
357

RICHMOND PARKWAY TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Leah Greenblat
October 19, 2023

Page 9 of 9 ends

Maintenance
There were strong desires to improve street maintenance as pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers all experience hindrances that prevent comfortable navigation of the Parkway. Garbage and overgrown landscaping on the sidewalks and bike lanes pose safety hazards for people walking and biking. Additional trees and greening could also allow for better shade and contribute to overall beautification of the Parkway, which Director Bana and Zepeda confirmed was one of Richmond’s priorities. Director Bana added that this could be a good way to capture diesel pollutants. Drivers requested overgrown trees to be cut back as they block traffic signals and street lights or obstruct view of the intersection corners, contributing to hard braking incidents.

Faded and missing lane striping on the Parkway also make it difficult for drivers to stay in their lanes. Commenters further noted that trucks contribute significantly to poor pavement conditions and discussed the possibility of special pavement as a mitigation method.

Other
Transit was not one of the most common topics, but some commenters suggested providing better transit frequency and improving transit reliability on the Parkway. A few participants also noted the poor conditions of bus stops on and near the Parkway.

Members of the public have expressed frustration that despite multiple planning efforts, there is a lack of project implementation. Additionally, at the Iron Triangle Neighborhood Council meeting, several public speakers and council members expressed strong interest in requiring local hiring for any project implementation.
100
358

2201 Broadway | Suite 602 | Oakland, CA 94612 | (510) 834-3200 | Fax (510) 253-0059 www.fehrandpeers.com
Memorandum

Date: May 24, 2024
To: Leah Greenblat, WCCTAC
From: Karina Schneider and Minnie Chen, Fehr & Peers
Subject: RPTP Phase 2 Engagement Summary
OK23-0506
Phase 2 of the Richmond Parkway Transportation Plan (RPTP) engagement focused on receiving feedback on the draft strategies, including which strategies to prioritize. The goals of this phase were to:
• Share information about the RPTP’s purpose, process, and desired outcomes • Connect with Equity Priority Community residents who live near or use Richmond Parkway
• Confirm draft strategies respond to existing challenges and experiences using Richmond Parkway
• Hear preferences about which strategies to prioritize This phase consisted of both in-person and digital strategies to reach a range of community members along the corridor between March and April 2024. This memorandum provides an overview of the Phase 2 engagement process and summarizes the feedback received.

Phase 2 Engagement Overview
Phase 2 Engagement consisted of the following engagement methods:

1. Public Advisory Group (PAG) Meeting (1)

2. WCCTAC Board Meeting (1)

3. Pop-Ups (2)

4. Community Meetings (4)

5. Online Survey (1)

Appendix A: Community Engagement Summary Notes | 101
359

RICHMOND PARKWAY TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Leah Greenblat
May 24, 2024

Page 2 of 10 ends

To publicize the engagement opportunities #3-5 above, the project team developed social media ads through WCCTAC’s Facebook page in both English and Spanish and posted the details on the project webpage. For each engagement method the strategies were presented in the following categories:

1. Driving and Goods Movement: Strategies that encourage carpooling, optimize signal timing, and improve wayfinding for drivers.

2. Maintenance: Strategies that holistically address corridor and Bay Trail maintenance and reduce illegal dumping.

3. Public Health: Strategies that reduce truck cut-through traffic and reduce or capture vehicle emissions.

4. Safety: Strategies that reduce vehicle speeds, address intersection conflict points, and prioritize emergency vehicle access.

5. Transit: Strategies that improve access and circulation at the Richmond Parkway Transit Center and support and encourage transit ridership.

6. Walking and Biking: Strategies that support comfortable walking and biking on the Parkway and the Bay Trail.

The strategies and community members reached are described in further detail below.

Public Advisory Group
The 3rd Public Advisory Group (PAG) meeting was held on February 22, 2024 as part of Phase 2 Engagement. Following a presentation on the draft strategies and Phase 2 Engagement Plan, the RPTP team requested feedback from participants. The PAG members primarily discussed strategies related to trucking and bicycling.

Although the PAG members generally expressed support for the draft strategies, members believed some trucking strategies would need to be implemented thoughtfully. One member shared that rerouting truck traffic is difficult and would need the City and County involvement to vet truck route updates. Another concern was the possibility of increased truck traffic when converting from diesel to electric trucks.

Some members expressed strong support for the walking and biking strategies as they currently found these modes to be uncomfortable on the Parkway. Another member hoped that proposed upgrades to on-street bikeways would go beyond striping and painting and incorporate physical buffers. The City of Richmond’s new e-bike bikeshare program was also suggested to be incorporated into the strategies. Members would also like to receive updates on available grants that the City and County could secure.

WCCTAC Board
The 3rd WCCTAC Board meeting presentation occurred on March 22, 2024 and focused on the draft strategies. Members of the board wanted to see strategies in the Safety, Driving and Goods 102
360
Leah Greenblat
May 24, 2024

Page 3 of 10 ends

Movement, and Public Health categories prioritized and discussed the feasibility and funding of various strategies. Board members highlighted Safety as a very important category due to speeding on the Parkway and several WCCTAC Directors expressed strong interest in enforcement against speeding, especially speed cameras.

Driving and Goods Movement discussion centered around the enforcement of carpool lanes. A WCCTAC Director shared they may not be effective without proper enforcement and that in person enforcement can be dangerous on a road with such high speeds. There were also suggestions to add lighting to vehicle-oriented wayfinding signage due to low visibility at night.

Another WCCTAC Director supported the strategy to coordinate signals during the peak period and further suggested leaving the signals uncoordinated during off-peak periods due to high speeds during this time.

Comments related to Public Health primarily focused on trucking and incorporation of electric vehicle infrastructure. To help fund ongoing maintenance, a WCCTAC Director raised the possibility of enforcing a special tax on trucks based on their size or weight. There was also interest in new electric vehicle technology involving pad charging stations, which also received support from Director Peeples (AC Transit), as they are expecting to run battery electric buses in the future. Finally, for the topic of Transit strategies, a WCCTAC Director emphasized the importance of improving access to the Richmond Parkway Transit Center for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Some board members emphasized how the Wildcat Creek Trail overpass strategy (as opposed to the on-street crossing alternative) would be costly, although members of the public, including Urban Tilth and the North Richmond Shoreline Levy Project, indicated heavy interest in this strategy due to flooding in that area. For Walking and Biking, Director Peeples (AC Transit) also asked for consideration of paratransit access when proposing separated bikeways and suggested using AC Transit’s guidelines on multi-modal design as a reference.

The board members also shared feedback on how the strategies should be prioritized. A WCCTAC Director agreed with the goals alignment levels assigned to the strategies and suggested prioritization of strategies based on that assignment. Another WCCTAC Director noted that cost of projects should be considered as part of the prioritization process to favor strategies that can be implemented with fewer resources. There were further suggestions to prioritize strategies with the greatest effectiveness in the near-term and can be accomplished in the next five to ten years.

Another WCCTAC Director recommended investigating relevant ongoing projects that could incorporate some strategies, allowing these strategies to be immediately started and providing a funding source. An example provided was the incorporation of the urban greening strategy into an existing landscaping project led by a special assessment district for a section of the Richmond Parkway.

Appendix A: Community Engagement Summary Notes | 103
361

RICHMOND PARKWAY TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Leah Greenblat
May 24, 2024

Page 4 of 10 ends

Pop-Up Events
The RPTP project team coordinated and attended two pop-up events during this Phase. The following includes a description of each pop-up event:
• North Richmond Flea Market
o Location: 716 W Gertrude Avenue
o Date/Time: Sunday March 24, 2024, 10:30AM-2:30PM
o Total Attendance: 23, 78% Spanish
• North Richmond’s Earth Day Festival
o Location: Shields-Reid Park, 1410 Kelsey Street
o Date/Time: Saturday, April 20, 2024, 8:30AM – 12:30 PM o Total Attendance: 35, 29% Spanish
Three boards were utilized for pop-up engagement to visualize draft strategies and collect votes for draft strategies that the participants would most like to see. Participants were asked to vote for their top five strategies and could vote for the same strategy more than once. They were also able leave comments about any strategies that they felt were missing. Overall, the project team connected with 58 people and received a total of 235 votes. At least one Spanish-speaking staff was present at each event and nearly half (48%) of participants were Spanish speakers.

Responses Breakdown
Figure 1 shows the overall distribution of strategy votes by category. The top three strategy categories based on the votes received were Public Health, Maintenance, and Safety. Within the Public Health category, the most popular strategies included expanding urban greening and prohibiting truck parking and idling in neighborhoods. Maintenance strategies that were most popular pertained to illegal dumping, formalizing a cross-jurisdictional roadway maintenance program, and incorporating the latest signal technology. Under Safety, the voting results indicated a preference for reducing speeding and monitoring high-risk intersections for unsafe driving behavior. Top voted strategies in other categories included upgrading on-street facilities for walking and biking, improving biking and walking access to the Richmond Parkway Transit Center, and coordinating traffic signals.
104
362
Leah Greenblat
May 24, 2024

Page 5 of 10 ends

Figure 1: Distribution of Pop-Up Votes by Category

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.

In addition to strategy voting, participants were able to leave open comments. Most open comments suggested a strategy regarding improved lighting conditions, though lighting would be incorporated into existing strategies related to intersection- and segment-level design improvements. A few other comments expressed support for the draft strategies, particularly for speed reduction and maintenance as they either pointed out specific locations experiencing the problems that these strategies addressed or expressed desire for continued maintenance efforts.

A few comments also noted support for Transit strategies, particularly improved bus comfort and publicizing transit information.

Online Survey
The survey was hosted on Social Pinpoint between March 11th and April 29th, 2024. Users could select categories that they were most interested in and rank strategies in the selected categories.

The survey received a total of 124 responses.

Responses Breakdown
Participants were asked to select a minimum of two out of six strategy categories that they were most interested in. Based on the responses to this question, the top three categories selected were: Walking and Biking (27%), Safety (23%), and Maintenance (15%). Figure 3 shows this distribution of votes by category.
22%
19%
17%
16%
14%
12% Public Health
Maintenance
Safety
Walking and Biking
Transit
Driving and Goods
Movement
Appendix A: Community Engagement Summary Notes | 105
363

RICHMOND PARKWAY TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Leah Greenblat
May 24, 2024

Page 6 of 10 ends

Figure 3: Distribution of Survey Votes by Category

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024
Participants were also asked to rank strategies in the categories they selected. For Walking and Biking, the top strategies included upgrading on-street walking and bicycling facilities, spot improvements to the Bay Trail, and construction of a Wildcat Creek Trail overpass. The top Safety strategies were installation of intersection safety improvements and speed reduction measures.

Maintenance was selected by 15% of the responses, of which the top strategies included cross- jurisdictional management programs for roadway maintenance and the Bay Trail.

Although Transit, Public Health, and Driving and Goods Movement category were in the bottom three categories of interest, the top strategies in these categories included upgrading bus stop features for Transit, urban greening for Public Health, and coordinating signals for Driving and Goods Movement.

Survey Demographics
Optional demographic questions were included at the end of the survey. Nearly 70% of survey respondents provided at least one response to these questions. Most respondents live in Richmond/North Richmond (60%) or San Pablo (11%). Over 65% of respondents have a household income of $100,000 or more. Additionally, nearly 70% of respondents identified as White and 16% identified as Hispanic or Latino. Given that 56% of the residents along the study corridor are Hispanic or Latino and 38% are low-income1, the survey results are not representative of residents living adjacent to the corridor. However, the Parkway is also a regional facility serving a broader community whose preferred solutions may look different from residents living along the corridor. Thus, it is important to supplement the results of this digital engagement strategy

1 Low income is defined as 200% of the federal poverty level or below. 27%
23%
15%
13%
11%
11%
Walking and Biking
Safety
Maintenance
Transit
Public Health
Driving and Goods
Movement
106
364
Leah Greenblat
May 24, 2024

Page 7 of 10 ends

with in-person feedback from nearby residents to ensure balanced recommendations that accommodate all users of the Parkway while reducing harm to equity priority populations along the corridor.

Community Meetings
The RPTP project team presented at four community meetings in neighborhoods near/along Richmond Parkway. These include:
• Parchester Village Neighborhood Council (Parchester Village) o Virtual over Zoom
o Date/Time: Tuesday, March 12, 2024, 7:00PM
• North Richmond Municipal Advisory Council (North Richmond) o Location: North Richmond Senior Center, 515 Silver Avenue, Richmond CA 94801 o Date/Time: Tuesday, April 2, 2024, 5:00PM-7:00PM
• City of Richmond District 2 Meeting (Santa Fe)
o Location: Bridge Art Space, 23 Maine Avenue, Richmond CA 94804 o Date/Time: Saturday, April 6, 2024, 10:00AM-12:00PM
• Iron Triangle Neighborhood Council Meeting (Iron Triangle) o Location: 598 Nevin Avenue, Richmond, CA 94801
o Date/Time: Wednesday, April 17, 2024, 5:30PM-7:30PM
Feedback received in the community meetings revealed the following categories to be highest priority: Safety, Maintenance, and Public Health. Community members were concerned about safety related to speeding and wanted traffic calming on the Parkway. Another Safety concern related to personal safety with requests for improved lighting and camera enforcement. For Maintenance, participants discussed the need for roadway repaving and sidewalk repair. For Public Health, truck impacts were a common topic, including negative impacts to roadway pavement, traffic, driving safety, and air quality. Community members in North Richmond asked to be continually included in the discussion of all truck-related strategies, such as location of truck routes and truck enforcement. Additionally, the Wildcat Creek Trail Overpass strategy was repeatedly emphasized as a heavily desired project in multiple meetings. Community members in Iron Triangle added concerns regarding personal safety when using the overpass. They suggested locking up entrances at night and/or adding an emergency button, but felt that this would be insufficient with slow response time.

Strategy voting was conducted at the District 2 meeting, which produced results suggesting Maintenance, Transit, and Driving and Goods Movement as top categories. Maintenance received one-fourth of the votes while the other two categories each received 17% of the votes. Within the Maintenance category, there were equal votes for upgrading signal technology, discouraging illegal dumping, and implementation of a roadway maintenance management program. The top Appendix A: Community Engagement Summary Notes | 107
365

RICHMOND PARKWAY TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Leah Greenblat
May 24, 2024

Page 8 of 10 ends

Transit strategy was publicizing transit options and information while the top Driving and Goods Movement strategy was coordination of traffic signals.

Phase 2 Feedback
Based on a review of feedback received across all engagement opportunities, the top four draft strategy categories include Public Health, Safety, Maintenance, and Walking and Biking. The distribution of votes from the pop-ups and online survey were both considered, though greater weight was given to the pop-up votes given the feedback from equity priority populations living along the corridor. Due to the open-ended nature of the WCCTAC Board and Community Meetings, the results of these discussions were qualitatively measured in terms of level of support.2 The draft strategy categories, ranked in order of greatest preference to least based on all engagement activities, were:

1. Public Health
a. 22% of votes at pop-ups
b. 11% of votes on online survey
c. Strong support from the WCCTAC Board
d. Strong support at Community Meetings

2. Safety
a. 17% of votes at pop-ups
b. 23% of votes on online survey
c. Strong support from the WCCTAC Board
d. Strong support at Community Meetings

3. Maintenance
a. 19% of votes at pop-up
b. 15% of votes on online survey
c. Moderate support from the WCCTAC Board
d. Moderate support at Community Meetings

4. Walking and Biking
a. 16% of votes at pop-ups
b. 27% of votes on online survey
c. Limited discussion from the WCCTAC Board
d. Moderate support at Community Meetings

5. Transit
a. 14% of votes at pop-ups
b. 13% of votes on online survey
c. Limited discussion from the WCCTAC Board
d. Limited discussion at Community Meetings

2 Attendees at the City of Richmond District 2 meeting were able to vote on strategies via boards. These votes are taken into account when assessing the most popular strategy categories across Community Meetings.
108
366
Leah Greenblat
May 24, 2024

Page 9 of 10 ends

6. Driving and Goods Movement
a. 12% of votes at pop-ups
b. 11% of votes on online survey
c. Strong support from WCCTAC Board
d. Limited discussion at Community Meetings
A summary of feedback received on these categories is described below.

Public Health
Public Health was the top category at pop-ups and received 11% of the survey votes in online engagement. This category was also repeatedly discussed at community meetings, the PAG meeting, and the Board meeting. Conversations on Public Health typically focused on truck- related strategies. Participants at community meetings were interested in reducing truck traffic in neighborhoods and reducing emissions. PAG members were interested in these strategies but noted potential difficulties in implementing them. Board members were particularly interested in electric vehicle infrastructure and briefly discussed the issue of truck traffic as truck-generating uses continue to develop along the Parkway. Aside from trucking, urban greening was also a strategy that received support across most engagement events. It was the top Public Health strategy at pop-ups and was strongly supported by a member of the WCCTC Board.

Safety
Safety was the third most popular category in strategy voting at pop-ups and received support from 23% of the survey respondents in online engagement. The Board stated that Safety is a priority category, as they echoed the same concerns as the public regarding speeding and other dangerous driving behavior along Richmond Parkway. Two strategies that stood out in online engagement and pop-up events were speed reduction measures and monitoring of high-risk intersections. The Board discussed methods of enforcing these strategies, specifically installation of cameras and other automated methods. A WCCTAC Director also highlighted the importance of the Emergency Vehicle Preemption strategy. Members at the Iron Triangle community meeting shared concerns of personal safety due to criminal activity and requested improved lighting, which was also a popular comment at the community meeting in Parchester Village and pop-ups.

Maintenance
Maintenance was the second most popular category at pop-up events and received 15% of the votes in the online survey. Recurring strategies that received the most support was implementation of cross-jurisdictional management programs for roadway maintenance and the Bay Trail. Discouraging illegal dumping received a substantial amount of support at pop-ups and there were multiple open comments from the participants asking for continued maintenance of the roadway and abandoned buildings on and near the Parkway. Maintenance, particularly roadway maintenance, received significant support at community meetings. A WCCTAC Director Appendix A: Community Engagement Summary Notes | 109
367

RICHMOND PARKWAY TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Leah Greenblat
May 24, 2024

Page 10 of 10 ends

also shared that the illegal dumping was a strong concern due to how costly it is and would like stronger enforcement to discourage this.

Walking and Biking
Walking and Biking was the fourth most popular category at pop-up events and received votes from 27% of the online survey respondents. PAG members strongly supported this category as they expressed how uncomfortable it is for pedestrians and bicyclists on Richmond Parkway and the Bay Trail. They asked for improved walking and biking infrastructure and suggested that City of Richmond’s newly launched e-bike bikeshare program could be incorporated. The strategies that received the most votes across all engagement events included upgrades to on-street facilities and the Bay Trail as well as the Wildcat Creek Trail overpass. While the Wildcat Creek Trail overpass received a lot of support from the public, the Board expressed concerns over its cost and thus preferred the signalized crossing improvements strategy instead.

Transit
The Transit category did not appear to be a priority category based on limited input and discussion via online engagement, pop-ups, and community meetings. However, the transit strategy to improve bicycling and walking access to the Richmond Parkway Transit Center received support from pop-up engagements and a member of the WCCTAC Board. The strategy to improve bus stop comfort was another transit strategy that received support from pop-up and online engagement.

Driving and Goods Movement
While engagement participants did discuss the impacts of trucks at pop-ups and Community Meetings (e.g. neighborhood emissions, pavement quality, etc.), strategies that support the movement of trucks and vehicles under the Driving and Goods Movement category received limited input from most engagement events. However, the Board discussed this topic at length.

Coordinating traffic signals was a strategy that received consistent support across all engagement events and the WCCTAC Board provided some feedback how to implement this strategy.

Redesigning the merge at the intersection of Richmond Parkway with Castro Street received some support in pop-ups and online engagement. The strategy to add carpool lanes in areas of high congestion was also supported by a WCCTAC Director, but the Board discussed the difficulties of enforcing these lanes.
110
368

2201 Broadway | Suite 602 | Oakland, CA 94612 | (510) 834-3200 | Fax (510) 253-0059 www.fehrandpeers.com
Memorandum

Date: December 23, 2024
To: Leah Greenblat, WCCTC
From: Karina Schneider, Fehr & Peers
Subject: RPTP Phase 3 Engagement Summary
OK23-0506
Phase 3 of the Richmond Parkway Transportation Plan (RPTP) engagement focused on receiving feedback on the priority strategies and the Draft Plan. The goals of this phase were to:
• Confirm priority strategies respond to key challenges using Richmond Parkway • Understand concerns and preferences related to funding and implementation This phase consisted of both in-person and digital strategies to reach community members and policy makers between October and December 2024. This memorandum provides an overview of the Phase 3 engagement process and summarizes the feedback received.

Phase 3 Engagement Overview
Phase 3 Engagement consisted of the following engagement meetings and methods:

1. Public Advisory Group Meeting: October 9, 2024

2. WCCTC Board Meeting: October 25, 2024

3. Richmond City Council Meeting: November 19, 2024

4. Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee Meeting: December 9, 2024

5. Online Survey: November 4, 2024 through November 29, 2024 Presentations given to groups listed under #1 through #4 above focused on the priority strategies in the Draft Plan, suggested next steps for implementation, and an overview of different potential funding sources.

Appendix A: Community Engagement Summary Notes | 111
369

RICHMOND PARKWAY TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Leah Greenblat
December 23, 2024

Page 2 of 5 ends

Phase 3 Engagement Feedback
Feedback received during this phase generally supported the Draft Plan priority strategies with suggestions on how to implement and fund them. A summary of feedback provided by community members and policy makers is described below.

Public Advisory Group
The 4th Public Advisory Group (PAG) meeting was held on October 9, 2024. Following a presentation, the project team requested feedback from participants on the priority projects and implementation strategies. The PAG members primarily discussed strategies related to trucking and active transportation.

PAG members were appreciative to see strategies addressing truck-related impacts included in the priority strategy list as truck impacts continue to be a consistent topic raised in community discussions. Members noted that North Richmond community leaders would like to be involved during the implementation phase of the truck-related strategies.

Some members expressed strong support for the walking and biking strategies, specifically the strategy to realign the Bay Trail between Hensley Street and Gertrude Avenue. One member noted that they supported the signalized Wildcat Creek Trail crossing strategy as an alternative to a grade separated bicycle and pedestrian crossing recommended in previous planning efforts, which would be more expensive and difficult to implement. They noted the importance of going after grant funding to advance these types of strategies.

WCCTC Board
The 4th WCCTAC Board meeting presentation occurred on October 25, 2024. Some members of the board supported the near-term implementation of less expensive strategies, such as the truck route update strategy and signal coordination, and strategies that could be implemented through ongoing efforts like tree planting to be able to communicate early wins with the public. Other members noted the importance of strategies that aim to protect vulnerable roadway users, like safety improvements at intersections, but recognize the relatively high cost and longer implementation horizon for these infrastructure strategies. They expressed the desire to identify opportunities to implement these types of strategies in batches and in conjunction with other strategies where feasible.

Specific funding and implementation feedback recommended tapping into Regional Measure 3 funding with approximately $10M dedicated to Richmond Parkway projects. A Board member also recommended looking into Measure X to support implementation of public health strategies .

One public comment was received from Bike East Bay representative Robert Prinz. Prinz recommended focusing roadway safety improvements on high demand or high collision areas 112
370
Leah Greenblat
December 23, 2024

Page 3 of 5 ends

and incorporating safety improvements into repaving projects. He also noted a potential need for more commuter bus service to support congestion relief in the area.

Richmond City Council Meeting
The project team presented to the Richmond City Council on November 19, 2024. While Councilmembers generally supported the strategies in the Draft Plan, some noted concerns with putting too much implementation responsibility on the City of Richmond given the regional- serving nature of the corridor and existing staff capacity constraints. Councilmembers discussed the desire for County and WCCTC staff to support the City in identifying, pursuing, and managing funding sources for strategy implementation. No public comment was received.

Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee Meeting
The project team presented to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee (TWIC) Meeting on December 9, 2024. The TWIC members consist of Supervisor Diane Burgis of District III and Supervisor Candace Andersen of District II.

The Supervisors supported the strategies recommended in the Plan, but did not provide specific recommendations or changes to the strategies given that the study area falls outside of their districts in District I. They discussed that an important next step would be for WCCTC, City of Richmond, and County staff to identify which strategies to fund and implement first. No public comments was received.

Online Survey
The survey was hosted on SurveyMonkey between November 4th and November 29th, 2024. Users responded to the following four questions:

1. What’s your zip code?

2. The Draft Plan’s strategies respond to your needs and challenges on the corridor. (Multiple choice)
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Somewhat Agree
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Disagree

3. Which of the priority strategies do you want to see advanced first? (Choose up to 3) a. Public Health: Incorporate trees and greening into all infrastructure projects on the corridor
b. Public Health: Update designated truck routes in North Richmond to avoid residential areas to the extent feasible
Appendix A: Community Engagement Summary Notes | 113
371

RICHMOND PARKWAY TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Leah Greenblat
December 23, 2024

Page 4 of 5 ends

c. Public Health: Implement no truck idling or parking zones near sensitive land uses
d. Safety: Install safety treatments at intersections along the corridor e. Safety: Implement measures to reduce speeding and conduct a study to lower the speed limit
f. Walking and Biking: Upgrade bikeways and the Bay Trail and connect sidewalk gaps
g. Walking and Biking: Install on-street signalized Wildcat Creek Trail crossing h. Maintenance: Implement a cross-jurisdictional Roadway Pavement and Maintenance Management Program
i. Driving and Goods Movement: Upgrade and coordinate traffic signals along the Parkway
j. Transit: Improve biking and walking access to the Richmond Parkway Transit Center

4. Is there any other feedback you would like to share about the Draft Plan? (Open ended—optional)
The survey received a total of 24 responses. Over half (63%) of survey responders live in zip codes that overlap the study area.

Responses Breakdown
Participants were asked to provide feedback on the responsiveness of all the strategies to participant needs and which priority strategies they wanted to see advanced first. Based on the responses to Question #2, over 70% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the Draft Plan strategies respond to their needs and challenges on the corridor, as seen in Figure 1.

Based on the responses to Question #3, the top five priority strategies selected were:

1. WB-1: Upgrade bikeways and connect sidewalk gaps (n=18)

2. S-1: Safety improvements at intersections (n=11)

3. PH-2: Trees and green infrastructure (n=8)

4. S-2: Reduce speeding (n=7)

5. M-1: Implement cross-jurisdictional maintenance program (n=7) Figure 2 show the distribution of results for Questions #3. 114
372
Leah Greenblat
December 23, 2024

Page 5 of 5 ends

Figure 1: Survey Response to Q2 The Draft Plan’s strategies respond to your needs and challenges on the corridor.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024
Figure 2: Top 5 Survey Responses to Q3 Which of the priority strategies do you want to see advanced first?

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024
Most open response comments reiterated the need for the strategies recommended in the Plan with major themes related to improving maintenance of the Parkway, supporting bicyclist protection along the corridor, and retiming signals.
29%
42%
21%
4% 4% Strongly Agree
Agree
Somewhat Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
WB-1: Upgrade
bikeways and
conecct sidewalk
gaps
S-1: Safety
improvements at
intersections
PH-2: Trees and
green infrastructure
S-2: Reduce speeding M-1: Implement
cross-jurisdictional
maintenance
program
Appendix A: Community Engagement Summary Notes | 115
373

RICHMOND PARKWAY TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Photo of pop-up event during Phase 1 of engagement in the Coronado neighborhood. 116 374
Appendix B:

Overview of Regional Influence
Appendix B: Overview of Regional Influence | 117
375

RICHMOND PARKWAY TRANSPORTATION PLAN

RICHMOND PARKWAY TRANSPORTATION PLANRICHMOND PARKWAY TRANSPORTATION PLANRICHMOND PARKWAY TRANSPORTATION PLAN Appendix B
Overview of Regional Influence
Richmond Parkway is an important
transportation corridor in the San Francisco
Bay Area with state and national significance
for commerce. The Parkway facilitates access
to the Port of Richmond, railroads, distribution
centers, and a multitude of other regional
utilities, establishing physical connections that
enable services well beyond the local area.

Key Connection Enabling Regional Economic Hubs and Services The Parkway links parts of Richmond to I-580,
I-80, and the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge,
providing crucial access to regional destinations
such as San Francisco, San Rafael, Oakland,
North Richmond, unincorporated Contra Costa
County, and other parts of the East Bay.

Richmond Parkway provides direct access to
the Port of Richmond and regional-serving
warehouse distribution centers, facilitating
regional trade. The Port of Richmond ranks #1
in liquid bulk and automobile tonnage among
the five ports on San Francisco Bay, and in 2019
alone, trade totaled $9.51 billion for the five
city-owned terminals and ten privately-owned
terminals.1 The Port is also served by the two
largest transcontinental railroads, BNSF Railway
and Union Pacific, which hold a duopoly on
freight rail lines in the Western, Midwestern
and West South Central United States.

Other major employment hubs and
industrial sites that draw workers from
throughout the region and are accessed via
Richmond Parkway include the following:
• Richmond Chevron Refinery;
• UPS and Amazon distribution
centers near Point Pinole;
• Landfill and recycling yards,
which serve the region;
• Hazardous waste disposal plants;
• Water reclaim plants;
• West County Wastewater in North Richmond;
• Tow yards and tire recycling centers;
• Iron manufacturers;
• Building materials distribution centers;
• Large-scale construction equipment
rental centers; and
• Future developments, including over

1.2 million square feet of manufacturing
and warehouse space and 537,000
square feet of office space.

As a transportation backbone for these sites
and services, Richmond Parkway supports
significant vehicle and truck traffic that
serves not only the local area but the entire
region, state, and country. The Parkway
carries between 19,000 and 37,000 vehicles
every weekday, with 7% being truck traffic
along the corridor. Truck volumes along the
southern segments of Richmond Parkway
and Castro Street range between 5%-13%
of total daily vehicle volumes while truck
volumes on San Pablo Avenue, a comparable

1. California Association of Port Authorities, 2024, https://californiaports.org/ports/port-of-richmond/. 118 118 118
376

arterial, range between 2%-3% in Contra
Costa County.2 Truck traffic causes significant
wear to the road that requires consistent
proactive maintenance for pavement upkeep.

Despite the corridor’s wide-reaching
importance, maintenance responsibilities fall
solely on the City and County. The constant flow
of heavy trucks accelerates wear and tear on
the roadway, yet current maintenance funding
is insufficient to keep it at an appropriate level
of care. Without additional support, the City
and County face challenges in meeting the
maintenance needs to ensure the Parkway
remains reliable and safe for its users.

Originally intended to be constructed as a
Caltrans facility, the Parkway was developed
by local officials when the state did not
implement it. However, a lack of funds and
the urgency to build the Parkway sooner
rather than later has resulted in a facility
that would require hundreds of millions
of dollars to bring to a condition required
for Caltrans to adopt into its network.

Regional Multimodal Access and Public Health Effects
Walking and Biking
The Bay Trail, a 360 mile-long bicycle and
pedestrian trail that travels along the shoreline
of San Francisco Bay, partially travels along
Richmond Parkway. The corridor connects
to the Richmond-San Rafael (I-580) Bridge
path, the Richmond Greenway, and major
recreational destinations, including Point
Richmond, Point Pinole Regional Shoreline,
and Wildcat Canyon Regional Park. Existing
limited and poor east-west access points
should be enhanced to allow residents in and
around the Parkway better access to the Bay
Trail and regional recreational facilities.

Transit
Richmond Parkway provides a direct
connection to the Richmond Parkway Transit
Center and 11 transit routes stop on the
corridor. This access to public transit enhances
mobility for individuals without cars, as 9%
of households near the study corridor do
not own vehicles. Additionally, express bus
service to job centers along the corridor
significantly improves access to employment
opportunities for low-income residents and
Equity Priority Communities. Furthermore, the
Parkway facilitates access to the Richmond
Ferry and BART , further connecting residents
to vital regional transportation options and
enhancing overall mobility in the area.

Regional Public Health Effects
Given the industrial and goods movement
uses along Richmond Parkway, diesel PM
concentrations near the corridor range from

0.08 to 0.98 tons per year. This is greater than
78% of communities statewide. Exposure
to emissions contributes to public health
issues, including asthma, cardiovascular
disease, cancer, and low birth weight.3
The negative health impacts of these
emissions is exacerbated when trucks
avoid using the Parkway; the lack of timed
signals push trucks to take “cut through”
shortcuts through local neighborhoods for
more efficient routes. Coordinating signals
along the Parkway would dissuade this
behavior as well as reduce unsafe speeding
rooted in driver frustrations with signals,
improving health and safety for the region.

3. California Office of Health Hazard Assessment, 2021.2. Caltrans Traffic Census Program, AADT Truck Volumes, 2022.

Appendix B: Overview of Regional Influence | 119Appendix B: Overview of Regional Influence | 119Appendix B: Overview of Regional Influence | 119 377

RICHMOND PARKWAY TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Photo of pop-up event during Phase 1 of engagement in the Hilltop neighborhood. 120 378
Appendix C:

Plan Strategies Goals Alignment
Appendix C: Plan Strategies Goals Alignment | 121
379

RICHMOND PARKWAY TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Page intentionally left blank.
122
380
Table C-1: Strategies Evaluation Framework
Each strategy was qualitatively assessed against metrics associated with each goal as described in Table C-1. Each strategy was assigned a High, Medium, or Low goal alignment assessment.

1. Goal identified as one that would disproportionately benefit Equity Priority Communities along the corridor. These goals are given greater weight in total goal alignment assessment.

2. Note that the entire corridor is on the CCTA High Injury Network. Typically safety projects located on the HIN may score higher, but in this case, that would be the entire corridor.

Goal Metric Qualitative Evaluation Method (High, Medium, Low) Improve
Safety for All
Users1,2
• Reduce severe
and fatal injury
collisions
H = Includes substantial active transportation improvements (e.g. crossing visibility, sidewalk bulb-outs, protected bikeway, etc.) OR strategy that slows down speeding vehicles
M = All other road safety improvement strategies
L = All other strategies
Increase
Access to Key
Destinations1
• Increase quality
of connections
• Expand
connectivity to
key destinations
H = Close an active transportation gap between existing facilities with Class I or Class IV bikeway OR increase access through transit frequency/reliability M = Improve quality of sidewalks, crossings, bus stops, or Bay Trail OR provide access through/over a barrier
L = All other strategies
Improve
Health1
• Decrease in GHG
emissions and
other pollutants
• Reduce cut-
through traffic
H = Strategies that reduce neighborhood cut-through traffic OR that promote ZE technology or GHG reduction OR support active travel M = Multimodal and transit strategies
L = All other strategies
Advance
Placemaking1
• Maintenance
and street
beautification
• Community
support
H = Strategy with placemaking elements (e.g. public art, beautification, greening, lighting, traffic calming, etc) and maintenance (e.g. removing litter, improving pavement/markings, reducing illegal dumping) OR reduce truck throughput and parking in residential areas
M = Addresses other key concern raised during Phase 1 community engagement process (i.e. safety, biking and walking, and congestion) L = All other strategies
Enhance
Travel Time
Reliability
and
Efficiency
• Reduce vehicle
delay
• Increase vehicle
occupancy
H = HOV/Express lane strategies OR Transit-priority strategies (e.g. bus lane, signal priority)
M = Signal or capacity efficiency improvements OR all other transit service strategies
L = All other strategies
Support
Feasible
Strategies
• Advance feasible
strategies
• Develop cost-
effective
transportation
solutions
H = Strategy can be delivered in the the next 5 years depending on staffing and priority levels (includes first phase of capital projects or quick-build version of strategies where applicable) OR recommended in an adopted plan M = Strategy can be delivered in the next 6-10 years
L = All other strategies
Appendix C: Plan Strategies Goals Alignment | 123
381

RICHMOND PARKWAY TRANSPORTATION PLAN
*Priority Strategies with an implementation plan in Chapter 5.

Table C-2: Strategy Goals Alignment Assessment
ID Topic Subtopic Strategy Name

1. Improve
Safety for All
Users

2. Increase
Access to Key
Destinations

3. Improve
Health

4. Advance
Placemaking

5. Enhance
Travel Time
Reliability
and
Efficiency

6. Support
Feasible
Strategies Goals Alignment
DG-1* Driving and Goods
Movement Signals Upgrade and coordinate traffic signals M L L M M H Meets Many Goals DG-2 Driving and Goods
Movement Congestion Add carpool lane on segments with high congestion L H H M H M Meets Most Goals
DG-3 Driving and Goods
Movement Street Design Redesign Richmond Parkway/Castro Street merge L L L M M H Meets Some Goals
DG-4 Driving and Goods
Movement Signage/Wayfinding Signage for blind turns M L L M L H Meets Some Goals DG-5 Driving and Goods
Movement Signage/Wayfinding Install wayfinding for drivers L L L H L H Meets Some Goals M-1* Maintenance Roadway Implement cross-jurisdictional maintenance program M M H H L H Meets Most Goals
M-2 Maintenance Encampments Keep sidewalks and paths clear near encampments M M H H L H Meets Most Goals
M-3 Maintenance Illegal Dumping Discourage illegal dumping L L L H L H Meets Some Goals PH-1* Public Health Trucks Confirm and enforce truck routes in North Richmond M L H H L H Meets Most Goals
PH-2* Public Health Urban Greening Trees and Green Infrastructure L M H H L H Meets Most Goals PH-3* Public Health Air Quality Minimize vehicle impacts to air quality L L H H L H Meets Many Goals PH-4 Public Health EV/AV adoption Encourage private electric vehicle adoption and usage L L H L L M Meets Some Goals
PH-5 Public Health Noise Improve sound wall L L L L L L Meets Some Goals 124
382

ID Topic Subtopic Strategy Name

1. Improve
Safety for All
Users

2. Increase
Access to Key
Destinations

3. Improve
Health

4. Advance
Placemaking

5. Enhance
Travel Time
Reliability
and
Efficiency

RICHMOND PARKWAY TRANSPORTATION PLAN
*Priority Strategies with an implementation plan in Chapter 5.

Table C-2: Strategy Goals Alignment Assessment (continued) ID Topic Subtopic Strategy Name

1. Improve
Safety for All
Users

2. Increase
Access to Key
Destinations

3. Improve
Health

4. Advance
Placemaking

5. Enhance
Travel Time
Reliability
and
Efficiency

6. Support
Feasible
Strategies Goals Alignment
S-1* Safety Street Design Safety improvements at intersections H M H M L M Meets Most Goals S-2* Safety Speeding Reduce speeding H L L H L M Meets Many Goals S-3 Safety Monitoring Monitor high-risk intersections H L L M L M Meets Some Goals T-1* Transit Richmond Parkway
Transit Center
Improve access to the Richmond Parkway Transit
Center L H H M L M Meets Many Goals
T-2 Transit Bus/Shuttle Improve bus stop comfort L H M H L H Meets Most Goals T-3 Transit Bus/Shuttle New transit service to Marin County L H M M M H Meets Most Goals T-4 Transit Service Increase bus frequency L H M M M H Meets Most Goals T-5 Transit Bus/Shuttle On-demand shuttle service L H M M M H Meets Most Goals T-6 Transit Parking Parking lot for transit to Marin County L H M L M M Meets Many Goals T-7 Transit Accessibility Publicize transit options/information L L M M L H Meets Some Goals WB-1* Walking and Biking Street Design Upgrade bikeways and connect sidewalk gaps H H H M L M Meets Most Goals WB-2* Walking and Biking Wildcat Creek Trail
Crossing On-street Wildcat Creek Trail crossing H M H M L L Meets Many Goals WB-3 Walking and Biking New Technology Test innovative bicycle and pedestrian detection at intersections H L H M L L Meets Many Goals
WB-4 Walking and Biking Shared Mobility Expand electric bike share program L L H L L H Meets Some Goals 126
384

ID Topic Subtopic Strategy Name

1. Improve
Safety for All
Users

2. Increase
Access to Key
Destinations

3. Improve
Health

4. Advance
Placemaking

5. Enhance
Travel Time
Reliability
and
Efficiency

RICHMOND PARKWAY TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Photo of community meeting during Phase 2 of engagement in the Santa Fe neighborhood. 128
386

RICHMOND PARKWAY TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Appendix D:

Separated Bikeway 35% Design
Concept and Cost Estimate* for
Northern Segment of Richmond
Parkway
*Final cost estimate pending.
| 129
Appendix D: Separated Bikeway 35% Design Concept and Cost Estimate for Northern Segment of Richmond Parkway387

RICHMOND PARKWAY TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Photo of Earth Day pop-up event during Phase 2 of engagement in North Richmond. 140 388
Appendix E:

Existing Funding Sources for
Priority Strategies
Appendix E: Existing Funding Sources for Priority Strategies | 141 389

RICHMOND PARKWAY TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Appendix B: Existing Funding Sources 1 of 3
Appendix B: Existing Funding Sources for Priority Strategies ID
Program Funding
Source Acronym WB-1 WB-2 DG-1 S-1 S-2 M-1 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 T-1 Administering
Agency Type Administering Agency
Programming
Authority Eligible Applicants Purpose and Eligibility Website Maximum Amount Available 1 Strengthening Mobility
and Revolutionizing
Transportation Grants
SMART 1 Federal Office of Secretary
USDOT
Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs
Act (IIJA)
State, Cities, Counties, MPO,
public transit agency/authority,
public toll authority
Demonstration Projects Utilizing Innovative Technology to Improve Transportation Efficiency and Safety. In general, a Strengthening Mobility and Revolutionizing Transportation grant may be used to carry out a project that demonstrates at least one of the following: Coordinate Automation Connected Vehicles; Intelligent, sensor-based infrastructure; Systems integration; Commerce delivery and logistics; Leveraging use of innovative aviation technology; Smart grid; Smart technology traffic signals. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2022/05/BUILDI

NG-A-BETTER-AMERICA-
V2.pdf#page=65
https://www.transportation.gov/si
tes/dot.gov/files/2024-
05/SMART%20FY24%20Stage%20
l d dd
Max award for each stage are -
Stage 1: $2M; Stage 2: $15M
2 RAISE Grant RAISE 1 1 1 1 Federal Office of Secretary USDOT
U.S. Department of
Transportation
Cities, Counties, transit
operators, public agency,
special district or public
authority with a transportation
function or multijurisdictional
group of entities that are
separately eligible
Road, rail, transit and port projects that promise to achieve national objectives. Projects should leverage development and help to build and repair critical pieces of our freight and passenger transportation networks. Eligible projects for RAISE grants are:

Relevant capital projects include but are not limited to: highway, bridge, or other road projects; public transportation projects; passenger and freight rail transportation projects; port infrastructure investments; intermodal projects; and any other surface transportation infrastructure project that the Secretary considers to be necessary to advance the goals of the program.

Planning projects which include planning, preparation, or design (for example - environmental analysis, equity analysis, community engagement, feasibility studies, benefit cost analysis (BCA), and other pre-construction activities) of eligible surface transportation capital projects that will not result in construction with RAISE FY 2024 f di
https://www.transportation.gov/R
AISEgrants
https://www.transportation.gov/si
tes/dot.gov/files/2024-
02/FY%202024%20RAISE%20NOF
O%20Amendment%201.pdf
Max award for capital and planning grants:
$25M
3 Active Transportation
Program
ATP 1 1 1 State Caltrans Senate Bill 99,
California Assembly
Bill 101
Local, regional, or state
agencies, Caltrans, Transit
Agencies, Natural Resources or
Public Land Agencies, schools,
tribal governments, nonprofits,
any other entity with oversight
of transportation/recreational
trails
Funds safe routes to to school, pedestrian, bicycle, and trail projects. Disadvantaged communities must receive at least 25 percent of the program's funding. California Transportation Commission oversees guidelines and programming. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local-
assistance/fed-and-state-
programs/active-transportation-
program
Total Funding Available in Cycle 7 = $568M
made up of Federal, State SB1, and State
Highway Account (SHA) funding
No specific maximum amount provided.

Minimum request is $250,000. The Program
anticipates application for Large projects
with total project cost of greater than $10M,
Medium projects between $3.5M to $10M,
etc.
4 Urban Greening Grant 1 State CA Natural Resources
Agency
Cap and Trade City, county, special district,
nonprofit org, or agency/entity
formed pursuant to the Joint
Exercise of Powers Act
The Program supports the development of green infrastructure projects that reduce GHG emissions and provide multiple benefits. Must include at least one of the following:
• Sequester and store carbon by planting trees
• Reduce building energy use by strategically planting trees to shade buildings • Reduce commute vehicle miles traveled by constructing bicycle paths, bicycle lanes or pedestrian facilities that provide safe routes for travel between residences, workplaces, commercial centers, and schools.

Gives priority to, projects that are located within and benefit the State’s disadvantaged communities and those communities facing the most significant threat from extreme heat. https://resources.ca.gov/grants/ur
ban-greening/
No max or min grant amounts. 80% of
awarded funds to disadvantaged and low
income communities (AB 1550)
Approx. $47.5M available in 2021.
5 Clean Transportation
Incentives (various
programs including
Electric Bicycle
Incentives Project)
1 1 1 State CARB California Air
Resources Board
varies by program; but previous
investments suggest largely
state agencies
Annual budget appropriation guided by the priorities in the Cap and Trade Auction Proceeds Investment Plan
• Facilitate greenhouse gas reductions
• Benefit priority populations
• Maximize health, environmental, economic co-benefits
• Continue investments in existing programs
• Provide funding certainty over multiple years when possible • Support job training and apprenticeship opportunities https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-
work/programs/low-carbon-
transportation-investments-and-
air-quality-improvement-
program/low-1
Varies by program
6 Transformative Climate
Communities
TCC 1 1 1 State Strategic Growth Council
and CA Department of
Conservation
Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Fund
(GGRF)
CBOs, local governments,
nonprofit orgs, philanthropic
orgs/foundations, faith-based
orgs, coalitions or associations
of nonprofits, community dev
finance institutions, community
dev corporations, joint powers
authority, CA native american
tribes
The Program funds community-led development and infrastructure projects that achieve major environmental, health, and economic benefits in California’s most disadvantaged communities. (California Climate Investments)
Eligible Types:
• Bicycle and pedestrian facilities
• Bike share programs (However must be part of a larger placebased strategy) http://www.sgc.ca.gov/programs/
tcc/
Based on Round 5 TCC Program included 3
grant types: 1) implementation grants could
be requested for up to $29.5M, 2) project
development grants could be requested up to
$5M, and 3) planning grants could be
requested up to $300,000.
142
390
Appendix B: Existing Funding Sources 1 of 3
Appendix B: Existing Funding Sources for Priority Strategies ID
Program Funding
Source Acronym WB-1 WB-2 DG-1 S-1 S-2 M-1 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 T-1 Administering
Agency Type Administering Agency
Programming
Authority Eligible Applicants Purpose and Eligibility Website Maximum Amount Available 1 Strengthening Mobility
and Revolutionizing
Transportation Grants
SMART 1 Federal Office of Secretary
USDOT
Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs
Act (IIJA)
State, Cities, Counties, MPO,
public transit agency/authority,
public toll authority
Demonstration Projects Utilizing Innovative Technology to Improve Transportation Efficiency and Safety. In general, a Strengthening Mobility and Revolutionizing Transportation grant may be used to carry out a project that demonstrates at least one of the following: Coordinate Automation Connected Vehicles; Intelligent, sensor-based infrastructure; Systems integration; Commerce delivery and logistics; Leveraging use of innovative aviation technology; Smart grid; Smart technology traffic signals. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2022/05/BUILDI

Appendix E: Existing Funding Sources for Priority Strategies | 143 391

RICHMOND PARKWAY TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Appendix B: Existing Funding Sources 2 of 3
ID
Program Funding
Source Acronym WB-1 WB-2 DG-1 S-1 S-2 M-1 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 T-1 Administering
Agency Type Administering Agency
Programming
Authority Eligible Applicants Purpose and Eligibility Website Maximum Amount Available 7 Sustainable
Transportation Equity
Project
STEP 1 1 1 1 State CARB Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Fund
(GGRF)
Lead applicants: CBO, tribal
governments, local
governments, school
Sub applicants: CBOs,
consultants, higher education
institutions, joint powers
authorities, local governments,
non-profits, philanthropic
orgs/foundations, private
companies, schools, small
businesses transit agencies,
tribal govs, utilities and
community choice aggregators,
other public agencies
Planning and capacity building grants. Funding is intended to help low-income and disadvantaged communities identify residents’ transportation needs and prepare to implement clean transportation and land use projects. The Program makes $20 million available for 1-3 implementation block grants to fund clean transportation and land use projects in disadvantaged communities. Funded projects will work together to increase community residents’ access to key destinations so they can get where they need to go without the use of a personal vehicle.

Eligible Types:
• Bike or pedestrian facilities
• Active Transportation Plan
• Safe Routes to School Plan
• Capacity Building (NI Programs– education, engagement, demo projects, campaigns) • Publicly-accessible bike parking, storage, and repair infrastructure (e.g., bike racks, bike lockers, bike repair kiosks)
• New walkways that improve mobility/access/safety of pedestrians (non-motorized users) • Street crossing enhancements, including accessible pedestrian signals https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/lcti-step Max available for each grant type - Planning and Capacity Building grant max:
$750,000
CMIS and STEP grant: $15M
8 Highway Safety
Improvement Program
HSIP 1 1 1 State Caltrans Local Assistance Caltrans local public agency that owns, operates and maintains public
roadways in CA, includes city,
county or tribal government
The Program funds work on any public road or publicly owned bicycle or pedestrian pathway or trail, or on tribal lands for general use of tribal members, that improves the safety for its users. Project maximum funding- $10M. Solicitation varies from annually to semi-annually
Eligible Types:
• Safety projects on Bike facilities
• Safety projects on Ped facilities
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local-
assistance/fed-and-state-
programs/highway-safety-
improvement-program
https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-
media/programs/local-
assistance/documents/lapg/g09.p
Max amount an agency can review varies by
calls-for-projects, but Cycle 12 max is $10M.
9 Low Carbon Transit
Operations Program
(LCTOP) LCTOP
1 State Caltrans Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Fund
(GGRF)
transit operators and
transportation planning
agencies
Operating and capital assistance for transit agencies to reduce GHG emissions and improve mobility with a priority on serving disadvantaged communities; new or expanded intermodal transit facilities; operational expenditures that increase transit mode share. http://www.dot.ca.gov/drmt/splct
op.html
Varies depending on auction proceeds
10 Local Partnership
Program (LPP) Formula
& Competitive
Programs
LPP 1 1 1 1 1 State CTC State Senate Bill 1 CCTA, Cities (Jurisdictions with voter approved taxes, tolls, or
fees, which are dedicated solely
to transportation improvements
or that have imposed fees,
including uniform developer
fees, which are dedicated solely
to transportation
improvements.)
Improvements to state highways, transit facilities and local roads; acquisition, retrofit or rehab of rolling stock, buses or other transit equipment including facilities; improvements to bicycle and pedestrian safety; environmental mitigation projects, soundwalls, road maintenance, and rehabilitation projects.

The primary objective of this program is to provide funding to counties, cities, districts, and regional transportation agencies in which voters have approved fees or taxes dedicated solely to transportation improvements or that have imposed fees, including uniform developer fees, dedicated solely to transportation improvements. Improve aging Infrastructure, Road Conditions, Active Transportation, Transit and rail, Health and Safety Benefits.
https://catc.ca.gov/programs/sb1/
local-partnership-program
Competitive Program funding request has
maximum of $25M per project nomination.

The 2022 Local Partnership Program will
include two years of programming with $400
million in funds ($40 million formulaic
incentive funding set aside; $216 million via
Formulaic; and $144 million via Competitive)
covering Fiscal Years 2023-24 and 2024-25.
11 One Bay Area Grant
Program - Regional and
County
OBAG 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 Regional MTC, CCTA Federal Highway
Administration
cities, counties, transit agencies,
federally-recognized Tribal
governments, and CTAs
Maintain MTC's commitments to regional transportation priorities while also advancing the Bay Area's land-use and housing goals. Contra Costa County is focusing efforts on around encouraging active transportation like bicycling and walking, supporting safe routes to schools, implementing complete streets, and upgrading the countywide traffic signal system to "smarter" signals that can prioritize transit and emergency vehicles and hlep improve safety for people walking/biking at intersections. https://mtc.ca.gov/funding/federa
l-funding/federal-highway-
administration-grants/one-bay-
area-grant-obag-3
https://ccta.net/planning/one-bay-
area-grant-3/
https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/fi
les/documents/2024-05/RES-
4505_approved_0.pdf
Total available for Contra Costa County: $47.3
million between 2023-2026
12 Transportation
Development Act
Article 3
TDA 3 1 1 1 1 Regional MTC, Contra Costa
County
Transportation
Development Act
(TDA)
Cities, counties 2% of County TDA funds are set aside for bicycle and pedestrian projects through Article 3.

MTC oversees program. Funding is allocated by formula according to population in each jurisdiction, and jurisdictions may spend funds or roll them over to a future year. Some counties competitively select projects, while other counties distribute the funds to jurisdictions based on population. Each County determines program of projects through review process. Each local jurisdiction receive funds that can roll over to accomplish local priorities.

Amount varies by jurisdiction based on
formula
13 Regional
Transportation
Improvement Program
RTIP 1 1 1 Regional MTC, CCTA State Transportation
Improvement Program
(STIP)
transit operators, cities,
counties
The STIP is the biennial five-year plan adopted by the Commission for future allocations of certain state transportation funds for state highway improvements, intercity rail, and regional highway and transit improvements. Local agencies should work through their Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA), County Transportation Commission, or Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), as appropriate, to nominate projects for inclusion in the STIP.
https://mtc.ca.gov/tags/rtip Individual project limit not found. 2025 TIP awarded total of $345M for 49 projects in
Contra Costa County. Countywide Smart
Signals is one TIP project with a cost of $30M.
14 Transportation Fund
for Clean Air
TFCA 1 1 1 Regional BAAQMD, CCTA BAAQMD Clean Air
Plan
Public agencies, CCTA
subregions
Funds eligible projects that reduce on-road motor vehicle emissions http://www.baaqmd.gov/funding- and-incentives/public-
agencies/regional-fund
https://www.alamedactc.org/fund
ing/fund-sources/transportation-
fund-for-clean-air/
For the TFCA 40% Fund Policy, WCCTC is
allocated 22.2% of the Program, and CCTA
annually distributes $1.5M in total, giving a
maximum allocation of $333,000 to WCCTC.

For the remaining 60%, each public agency
may be awarded up to total award of
$5,500,000 per agency per fiscal year.
144
392
Appendix B: Existing Funding Sources 2 of 3
ID
Program Funding
Source Acronym WB-1 WB-2 DG-1 S-1 S-2 M-1 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 T-1 Administering
Agency Type Administering Agency
Programming
Authority Eligible Applicants Purpose and Eligibility Website Maximum Amount Available 7 Sustainable
Transportation Equity
Project
STEP 1 1 1 1 State CARB Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Fund
(GGRF)
Lead applicants: CBO, tribal
governments, local
governments, school
Sub applicants: CBOs,
consultants, higher education
institutions, joint powers
authorities, local governments,
non-profits, philanthropic
orgs/foundations, private
companies, schools, small
businesses transit agencies,
tribal govs, utilities and
community choice aggregators,
other public agencies
Planning and capacity building grants. Funding is intended to help low-income and disadvantaged communities identify residents’ transportation needs and prepare to implement clean transportation and land use projects. The Program makes $20 million available for 1-3 implementation block grants to fund clean transportation and land use projects in disadvantaged communities. Funded projects will work together to increase community residents’ access to key destinations so they can get where they need to go without the use of a personal vehicle.

For the remaining 60%, each public agency
may be awarded up to total award of
$5,500,000 per agency per fiscal year.

Appendix E: Existing Funding Sources for Priority Strategies | 145 393

RICHMOND PARKWAY TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Appendix B: Existing Funding Sources 3 of 3
ID
Program Funding
Source Acronym WB-1 WB-2 DG-1 S-1 S-2 M-1 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 T-1 Administering
Agency Type Administering Agency
Programming
Authority Eligible Applicants Purpose and Eligibility Website Maximum Amount Available 15a
Regional Measure 3 -
Safe Routes to Transit
and Bay Trail Program
RM3 -
SR2TBT
1 1 1
Regional MTC, BATA RM3
City, County, transit agencies,
school districts, community
colleges and universities
Improve bicycle and pedestrian access on and near the region’s toll bridges connecting to rail transit stations and ferry terminals. Access improvements include sidewalks, bike paths, traffic signal improvements, clearer signage and secure bicycle parking. The improvements will be funded via an increase in bridge tolls on all Bay Area toll bridges except the Golden Gate Bridge.
https://mtc.ca.gov/funding/reg
ional-funding/regional-
measure-3
https://planbayarea.org/sites/
default/files/meetings/attachm
Per expenditure plan,
$150M available for Bay Trail/Safe Routes to
Transit over 3 cycles.
15b
Regional Measure 3 -
Goods Movement and
Mitigation
RM3
1 1
Regional MTC, ACTC RM3
City, County, countywide
transportation agencies, rail
operators, and the Port of
Oakland
Reduce traffic congestion and improve transportation options throughout the SF Bay Area's state-owned toll bridge corridors. The improvements will be funded via an increase in bridge tolls on all Bay Area toll bridges except the Golden Gate Bridge. Eligible projects include, but are not limited to, improvements in the County of Alameda to enable more goods to be shipped by rail, access improvements on Interstate 580, Interstate 80, and Interstate 880, and improved access to the Port of Oakland. https://mtc.ca.gov/funding/reg
ional-funding/regional-
measure-3
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.g
ov/faces/codes_displaySection
.xhtml?lawCode=SHC&section
Num=30914.7
https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/defaul
t/files/documents/2024-
02/__03_04_2024%20Full%20A
genda%20Packet%20RM3%20I
ndependent%20Oversight%20
Committee_v4.pdf
https://mtcdrive.app.box.com/
s/x35lm2ocq0qw147fo7qpxchb
vfb59l70
Per expenditure plan,
$160M for Goods Movement and Mitigation
15c
Regional Measure 3 -
Corridor-specific
Projects
RM3
1 1 1
Regional MTC MTC BATA, CCTA
Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Access Improvements. Fund eastbound and westbound improvements in the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge corridor, including westbound access and operational improvements in the vicinity of the toll plaza east of the bridge in Contra Costa County, and Richmond Parkway interchange improvements. https://mtc.ca.gov/funding/reg
ional-funding/regional-
measure-3
$75M for projects in Contra Costa County
16 Innovative
Deployments to
Enhance Arterials
through Transit Signal
Priority (IDEA TSP)
1 Regional MTC MTC cities, counties, and transit
agencies; multi-jurisdictional
partnerships will receive priority
This Call for Technical Assistance dedicates $2 million to further the project-readiness of conceptual Transit Priority Projects by developing them into shovel-ready projects that would be more competitive for capital implementation funding. MTC’s has over $20 million reserved for near-term capital Transit Priority projects through its BusAID (Bus Accelerated Infrastructure Delivery) and IDEA programs, and anticipates funding opportunities in the future.
https://abag.ca.gov/technical-
assistance/idea-tsp-transit-signal-
priority#:~:text=The%20Innovativ
e%20Deployments%20to%20Enh
ance,transit%20faster%20and%2
0more%20reliable.

Maximum award of $1M
17 Measure J Programs 1 1 1 1 1 Regional CCTA CCTA Contra Costa County Subregions Richmond Parkway is allocated $16 million as one of the Capital Improvement Projects in Measure J's Expenditure Plan. The objective/reason for this allocation is detailed as follows:

Upgrade the Richmond Parkway to facilitate transfer of ownership to the California Department of Transportation, including potential intersection and interchange upgrades, and/or provide funds to maintain the roadway. The Richmond Parkway is the priority project for this funding; however, funds not expended for this project may be reprogrammed at the City of Richmond’s request for Richmond ferry service. https://ccta.net/about-
us/funding/
https://ccta.net/wp-
content/uploads/2018/10/5297b1
21d5964.pdf
Allocated $16M in total
23 Promoting Resilient
Operations for
Transformative,
Efficient,
and Cost-saving
Transportation
PROTECT 1 Federal FHWA Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs
Act (IIJA)
States, MPOs, local
governments, special districts or
public authorities with a
transportation function, tribal
governments, and federal land
management agencies
Formula funding to states to support planning, resilience improvements, community resilience and evacuation routes, and at-risk coastal
infrastructure. Includes transit, highways, and certain port projects. Additional competitive funding available.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2022/05/BUILDI

NG-A-BETTER-AMERICA-
V2.pdf#page=272
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/biparti
san-infrastructure-
law/fact_sheets.cfm
No max grant amount but expected
distrbution of up to $7.3B total over 2022-
2026.
32 Reconnecting
Communities Grant
Program
RCP 1 1 Federal FHWA Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs
Act (IIJA)
States, units of local
government, Tribal
governments, Metropolitan
Planning Organizations, and
non-profit organizations.

The purpose of the RCP Program is to reconnect communities by removing, retrofitting, or mitigating transportation facilities, like highways or rail lines, that create barriers to community connectivity, including to mobility, access, or economic development. The program funds planning and capital construction to address infrastructure barriers, reconnect communities, and improve peoples’ lives.
https://www.transportation.gov/r
econnecting
$150 million for planning, $457 million for
construction in FY24
33 Advanced
Transportation
Technologies and
Innovative Mobility
Deployment
ATTAIN 1 Federal FHWA Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs
Act (IIJA)
State Governments; Local
Governments; Planning and
Project Organizations; Academic
and Research Institutions; U.S.

Territories
Provides funding to deploy, install, and operate advanced transportation technologies to improve safety, mobility, efficiency, system performance, intermodal connectivity, and infrastructure return on investment.
https://www.transportation.gov/r
ural/grant-toolkit/advanced-
transportation-technologies-and-
innovative-mobility-deployment
$12 million
34 Active Transportation
Infrastructure
Investment Program
ATIIP 1 1 1 1 Federal FHWA Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs
Act (IIJA)
State Governments; Local
Governments; Federally
Recognized Tribes and Affiliated
Groups; Planning and Project
Organizations; U.S. Territories
ATIIP projects will help improve the safety, efficiency, and reliability of active transportation networks and communities; improve connectivity between active transportation modes and public transportation; enhance the resiliency of on- and off-road active transportation infrastructure; help protect the environment; and improve quality of life in disadvantaged communities through the delivery of connected active transportation networks and expanded mobility opportunities.
https://www.transportation.gov/r
ural/grant-toolkit/active-
transportation-infrastructure-
investment-program-atiip
$15 million
146
394
Appendix B: Existing Funding Sources 3 of 3
ID
Program Funding
Source Acronym WB-1 WB-2 DG-1 S-1 S-2 M-1 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 T-1 Administering
Agency Type Administering Agency
Programming
Authority Eligible Applicants Purpose and Eligibility Website Maximum Amount Available 15a
Regional Measure 3 -
Safe Routes to Transit
and Bay Trail Program
RM3 -
SR2TBT
1 1 1
Regional MTC, BATA RM3
City, County, transit agencies,
school districts, community
colleges and universities
Improve bicycle and pedestrian access on and near the region’s toll bridges connecting to rail transit stations and ferry terminals. Access improvements include sidewalks, bike paths, traffic signal improvements, clearer signage and secure bicycle parking. The improvements will be funded via an increase in bridge tolls on all Bay Area toll bridges except the Golden Gate Bridge.
https://mtc.ca.gov/funding/reg
ional-funding/regional-
measure-3
https://planbayarea.org/sites/
default/files/meetings/attachm
Per expenditure plan,
$150M available for Bay Trail/Safe Routes to
Transit over 3 cycles.
15b
Regional Measure 3 -
Goods Movement and
Mitigation
RM3
1 1
Regional MTC, ACTC RM3
City, County, countywide
transportation agencies, rail
operators, and the Port of
Oakland
Reduce traffic congestion and improve transportation options throughout the SF Bay Area's state-owned toll bridge corridors. The improvements will be funded via an increase in bridge tolls on all Bay Area toll bridges except the Golden Gate Bridge. Eligible projects include, but are not limited to, improvements in the County of Alameda to enable more goods to be shipped by rail, access improvements on Interstate 580, Interstate 80, and Interstate 880, and improved access to the Port of Oakland. https://mtc.ca.gov/funding/reg
ional-funding/regional-
measure-3
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.g
ov/faces/codes_displaySection
.xhtml?lawCode=SHC&section
Num=30914.7
https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/defaul
t/files/documents/2024-
02/__03_04_2024%20Full%20A
genda%20Packet%20RM3%20I
ndependent%20Oversight%20
Committee_v4.pdf
https://mtcdrive.app.box.com/
s/x35lm2ocq0qw147fo7qpxchb
vfb59l70
Per expenditure plan,
$160M for Goods Movement and Mitigation
15c
Regional Measure 3 -
Corridor-specific
Projects
RM3
1 1 1
Regional MTC MTC BATA, CCTA
Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Access Improvements. Fund eastbound and westbound improvements in the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge corridor, including westbound access and operational improvements in the vicinity of the toll plaza east of the bridge in Contra Costa County, and Richmond Parkway interchange improvements. https://mtc.ca.gov/funding/reg
ional-funding/regional-
measure-3
$75M for projects in Contra Costa County
16 Innovative
Deployments to
Enhance Arterials
through Transit Signal
Priority (IDEA TSP)
1 Regional MTC MTC cities, counties, and transit
agencies; multi-jurisdictional
partnerships will receive priority
This Call for Technical Assistance dedicates $2 million to further the project-readiness of conceptual Transit Priority Projects by developing them into shovel-ready projects that would be more competitive for capital implementation funding. MTC’s has over $20 million reserved for near-term capital Transit Priority projects through its BusAID (Bus Accelerated Infrastructure Delivery) and IDEA programs, and anticipates funding opportunities in the future.
https://abag.ca.gov/technical-
assistance/idea-tsp-transit-signal-
priority#:~:text=The%20Innovativ
e%20Deployments%20to%20Enh
ance,transit%20faster%20and%2
0more%20reliable.

RICHMOND PARKWAY TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Photo of Earth Day pop-up event during Phase 2 of engagement in North Richmond. 148 396
Appendix F:

Priority Strategy
Cost Estimates
Appendix F: Priority Strategy Cost Estimates | 149
397

RICHMOND PARKWAY TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Page intentionally left blank.
150
398

UNIT UNIT C OS T

QUANTITY
PER 100 L F
C OS T
PER 100 L F
COST

P ER MILE
Clear and Grubbing SF 3$ 1600 4,800$ 253,440$ Irrigation LS 10,000$ 1 10,000$ 528,000$ Shrub Planting - 5 Gal. EA 50$ 28 1,400$ 73,920$ T ree Planting - 15 Gal. EA 250$ 25 6,250$ 330,000$ Mu l c h SF 1$ 1600 1,600$ 84,480$

GRAND TOTAL
1,270,000$
2,900,000$
A ssumptions

DESCRIPTION QUANTITCOST /SF C OS T/ LF C OS T/ MILE

BIORETENTION BASIN
(4') 4 $180 $720 $3,258,514
$3,258,514
7,430,000$
STRATEGY PH-2 - TREE PLANTING AND LANDSCAPING (NON-BIORETENTION) 2024 CONST RUCT ION COST
2 0 3 0 TOTAL C OS T WITH GENERAL C OS T FAC TORS ( 3 )

2. T opsoil not included.

1. L abor is included in the cost of plant materials.

4. A ssume all plants will be hand watered within an establishment period of one year with maintenance and monitoring by others.

3. A ssume approximately 16 ft planting width.

5. A ssume that after a one year establishment period, plants will be drought tolerant native plants with no irrigation requirements.

STRATEGY PH-2 - BIORETENTION WITH LANDSCAPING
2 0 3 0 TOTAL C OS T WITH GENERAL C OS T FAC TORS ( 3 ) 2024 CONST RUCT ION COST
APPENDIX F: Priority Strategy Cost Estimates
Strategy PH-2
Appendix F: Priority Strategy Cost Estimates | 151
399

RICHMOND PARKWAY TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Richmond Parkway Transportation Plan
Engineer's Estimate of Probable Construction Costs
Strategy S-1
L ocation
I80 WB ramp/Blume Dr/Richmond Parkway
I580 WB ramps & Castro Street
I80 HOV off-ramp & Richmond Pkwy
I80 EB ramp & Richmond Pkwy/Fitzgerald Dr
Mills Street & Castro Street
Castro Street & Richmond Lane
Hensley Street & Castro Street
W Ohio Avenue/Garrard Street & Richmond Pa
MacDonald Avenue & Richmond Parkway
W Barrett Avenue & Richmond Parkway
Hensley Street & Richmond Parkway
Gertrude Avenue & Richmond Parkway
Pittsburgh Avenue & Richmond Parkway
Parr Boulevard & Richmond Parkway
Goodrick Ave & Richmond Parkway
Hilltop Drive & Richmond Parkway
Atlas Rd & Richmond Parkway
San Pablo Ave & Richmond Parkway
Lakeside Drive & Richmond Parkway
Bella Vista & Richmond Parkway
Canal Blvd & I580 WB ramps
Canal Blvd & I580 EB ramps
Castro St/Standard Ave & Chevron Wy I580 EB
TOTAL
Proposed High
Vis Crosswalks
(per Crossing)
Proposed
Directional
Ramps (per
Each)
Proposed
PPB (per
Intersection)
Proposed
Reflective
Backplates
(per
Proposed
Bike Video
Detection
(per
Proposed
Ped Scale
Lighting (per
Intersection)
Proposed
Ped
Countdown
Signal (per
Straighten
Crosswalks
(per
Crosswalk)
Tighten
Curb Radii
(per corner)
Raised
Crosswalks
(per Each)
Porkchop
Island with
Raised
Crosswalk
Major Bike
Intersection
Improvements
(per
Minor Bike
Intersection
Improvements
(per
Enforce
Right-
Turn Only
Lane (per
NRTOR
(per
Intersect
ion)
Protected Right-
Turn Phase (per
Intersection)
Median Refuge
Islands (per
Intersection) TOTAL
$47,374 $109,324 $39,858 $0 $113,879 $207,259 $0 $0 $0 $49,218 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $77,438 $84,270 $728,619 $47,374 $127,544 $19,929 $0 $113,879 $207,259 $0 $0 $271,031 $49,218 $91,354 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $84,270 $1,011,858 $0 $0 $0 $14,576 $0 $0 $13,665 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,110 $0 $0 $37,352 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $207,259 $13,665 $0 $0 $49,218 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $77,438 $0 $347,581 $47,374 $145,765 $39,858 $14,576 $113,879 $207,259 $13,665 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $582,376 $47,374 $145,765 $39,858 $14,576 $113,879 $207,259 $13,665 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $582,376 $47,374 $145,765 $39,858 $14,576 $113,879 $207,259 $13,665 $0 $271,031 $0 $182,707 $0 $120,028 $0 $9,110 $0 $84,270 $1,249,523 $23,687 $127,544 $19,929 $14,576 $113,879 $207,259 $13,665 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,110 $77,438 $0 $607,087 $47,374 $145,765 $19,929 $14,576 $113,879 $207,259 $13,665 $0 $135,516 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $77,438 $0 $775,400 $47,374 $145,765 $39,858 $14,576 $113,879 $207,259 $13,665 $0 $0 $0 $182,707 $0 $0 $0 $0 $77,438 $0 $842,520 $47,374 $145,765 $39,858 $14,576 $0 $207,259 $13,665 $0 $542,063 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $77,438 $0 $1,087,997 $47,374 $145,765 $19,929 $14,576 $113,879 $207,259 $0 $0 $0 $0 $365,414 $0 $0 $120,711 $0 $77,438 $84,270 $1,196,615 $47,374 $109,324 $0 $14,576 $113,879 $207,259 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $120,711 $9,110 $0 $84,270 $706,504 $47,374 $127,544 $19,929 $14,576 $113,879 $207,259 $13,665 $0 $0 $0 $365,414 $0 $0 $120,711 $0 $0 $84,270 $1,114,622 $47,374 $145,765 $19,929 $14,576 $0 $207,259 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,751,765 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,186,668 $47,374 $145,765 $19,929 $14,576 $113,879 $207,259 $13,665 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,751,765 $0 $0 $0 $77,438 $0 $3,391,650 $47,374 $145,765 $19,929 $14,576 $0 $207,259 $13,665 $0 $0 $0 $365,414 $0 $0 $0 $0 $77,438 $0 $891,420 $47,374 $182,206 $19,929 $14,576 $113,879 $207,259 $13,665 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,751,765 $0 $0 $0 $77,438 $0 $3,428,091 $35,530 $109,324 $19,929 $14,576 $0 $207,259 $0 $0 $271,031 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $77,438 $84,270 $819,357 $35,530 $109,324 $19,929 $14,576 $0 $207,259 $13,665 $0 $271,031 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $84,270 $755,585 $0 $163,985 $19,929 $0 $113,879 $207,259 $6,833 $0 $271,031 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $782,916 $0 $163,985 $0 $14,576 $113,879 $207,259 $13,665 $0 $271,031 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $784,397 $11,843 $36,441 $19,929 $0 $113,879 $207,259 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $389,351 $25,299,864

SUBTOTALS
APPENDIX F: Priority Strategy Cost Estimates

QUANTITY UNIT C OS T TOTAL C OS T
Speed Feedback Signs 4 $5,000 $20,000
Speed Limit Signs 6 $700 $4,200

GRAND TOTAL
24,200$
55,117$
A ssumptions

2. See G eneral Cost F actors below.

General Cost Factors
M obilization, Demobilization, Environmental Protection, T raffic Control 1.20 Engineering, Design, and Construction M anagement1.20
Inflation 1.22
Contingency 1.30
TOTAL - Combined Cost Factor2.28
2024 CONST RUCT ION COST
2 0 3 0 TOTAL C OS T WITH GENERAL C OS T FAC TORS ( 3 ) STRATEGY S-2 - SPEED FEEDBACK AND LIMIT SIGNS

1. Speed Feedback Signs will be spaced about 5 miles apart and speed limit signs will be spaced about 3 miles apart.

APPENDIX F: Priority Strategy Cost Estimates

QUANTITY UNIT C OS T TOTAL C OS T
Speed Feedback Signs 4 $5,000 $20,000
Speed Limit Signs 6 $700 $4,200

GRAND TOTAL
24,200$
55,117$
A ssumptions

2. See G eneral Cost F actors below.

1. Speed Feedback Signs will be spaced about 5 miles apart and speed limit signs will be spaced about 3 miles apart.

APPENDIX F: Priority Strategy Cost Estimates
Strategy S-1
Strategy S-2
152
400
Richmond Parkway Transportation Plan
Engineer's Estimate of Probable Construction Costs
Strategy S-1
L ocation
I80 WB ramp/Blume Dr/Richmond Parkway
I580 WB ramps & Castro Street
I80 HOV off-ramp & Richmond Pkwy
I80 EB ramp & Richmond Pkwy/Fitzgerald Dr
Mills Street & Castro Street
Castro Street & Richmond Lane
Hensley Street & Castro Street
W Ohio Avenue/Garrard Street & Richmond Pa
MacDonald Avenue & Richmond Parkway
W Barrett Avenue & Richmond Parkway
Hensley Street & Richmond Parkway
Gertrude Avenue & Richmond Parkway
Pittsburgh Avenue & Richmond Parkway
Parr Boulevard & Richmond Parkway
Goodrick Ave & Richmond Parkway
Hilltop Drive & Richmond Parkway
Atlas Rd & Richmond Parkway
San Pablo Ave & Richmond Parkway
Lakeside Drive & Richmond Parkway
Bella Vista & Richmond Parkway
Canal Blvd & I580 WB ramps
Canal Blvd & I580 EB ramps
Castro St/Standard Ave & Chevron Wy I580 EB
TOTAL
Proposed High
Vis Crosswalks
(per Crossing)
Proposed
Directional
Ramps (per
Each)
Proposed
PPB (per
Intersection)
Proposed
Reflective
Backplates
(per
Proposed
Bike Video
Detection
(per
Proposed
Ped Scale
Lighting (per
Intersection)
Proposed
Ped
Countdown
Signal (per
Straighten
Crosswalks
(per
Crosswalk)
Tighten
Curb Radii
(per corner)
Raised
Crosswalks
(per Each)
Porkchop
Island with
Raised
Crosswalk
Major Bike
Intersection
Improvements
(per
Minor Bike
Intersection
Improvements
(per
Enforce
Right-
Turn Only
Lane (per
NRTOR
(per
Intersect
ion)
Protected Right-
Turn Phase (per
Intersection)
Median Refuge
Islands (per
Intersection) TOTAL
$47,374 $109,324 $39,858 $0 $113,879 $207,259 $0 $0 $0 $49,218 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $77,438 $84,270 $728,619 $47,374 $127,544 $19,929 $0 $113,879 $207,259 $0 $0 $271,031 $49,218 $91,354 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $84,270 $1,011,858 $0 $0 $0 $14,576 $0 $0 $13,665 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,110 $0 $0 $37,352 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $207,259 $13,665 $0 $0 $49,218 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $77,438 $0 $347,581 $47,374 $145,765 $39,858 $14,576 $113,879 $207,259 $13,665 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $582,376 $47,374 $145,765 $39,858 $14,576 $113,879 $207,259 $13,665 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $582,376 $47,374 $145,765 $39,858 $14,576 $113,879 $207,259 $13,665 $0 $271,031 $0 $182,707 $0 $120,028 $0 $9,110 $0 $84,270 $1,249,523 $23,687 $127,544 $19,929 $14,576 $113,879 $207,259 $13,665 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,110 $77,438 $0 $607,087 $47,374 $145,765 $19,929 $14,576 $113,879 $207,259 $13,665 $0 $135,516 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $77,438 $0 $775,400 $47,374 $145,765 $39,858 $14,576 $113,879 $207,259 $13,665 $0 $0 $0 $182,707 $0 $0 $0 $0 $77,438 $0 $842,520 $47,374 $145,765 $39,858 $14,576 $0 $207,259 $13,665 $0 $542,063 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $77,438 $0 $1,087,997 $47,374 $145,765 $19,929 $14,576 $113,879 $207,259 $0 $0 $0 $0 $365,414 $0 $0 $120,711 $0 $77,438 $84,270 $1,196,615 $47,374 $109,324 $0 $14,576 $113,879 $207,259 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $120,711 $9,110 $0 $84,270 $706,504 $47,374 $127,544 $19,929 $14,576 $113,879 $207,259 $13,665 $0 $0 $0 $365,414 $0 $0 $120,711 $0 $0 $84,270 $1,114,622 $47,374 $145,765 $19,929 $14,576 $0 $207,259 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,751,765 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,186,668 $47,374 $145,765 $19,929 $14,576 $113,879 $207,259 $13,665 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,751,765 $0 $0 $0 $77,438 $0 $3,391,650 $47,374 $145,765 $19,929 $14,576 $0 $207,259 $13,665 $0 $0 $0 $365,414 $0 $0 $0 $0 $77,438 $0 $891,420 $47,374 $182,206 $19,929 $14,576 $113,879 $207,259 $13,665 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,751,765 $0 $0 $0 $77,438 $0 $3,428,091 $35,530 $109,324 $19,929 $14,576 $0 $207,259 $0 $0 $271,031 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $77,438 $84,270 $819,357 $35,530 $109,324 $19,929 $14,576 $0 $207,259 $13,665 $0 $271,031 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $84,270 $755,585 $0 $163,985 $19,929 $0 $113,879 $207,259 $6,833 $0 $271,031 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $782,916 $0 $163,985 $0 $14,576 $113,879 $207,259 $13,665 $0 $271,031 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $784,397 $11,843 $36,441 $19,929 $0 $113,879 $207,259 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $389,351 $25,299,864

SUBTOTALS
APPENDIX F: Priority Strategy Cost Estimates
Appendix F: Priority Strategy Cost Estimates | 153
401

RICHMOND PARKWAY TRANSPORTATION PLAN

DESCRIPTION QUANTITYAC AB C OS T/ LF C OS T/ MILE
RO ADWAY ( 8 " AC / 2 3 " AB) 48 2.64 7.084 $1,157 $6,110,016 BIKEWAY ( 3 " AC / 1 2 " AB) 12 0.2475 0.924 $134 $710,028 $170 $100

DESCRIPTION QUANTITYCOST /SF C OS T/ LF C OS T/ MILE
S IDEWALK ( LF ) 12 $30 $360 $1,900,800
BIORETENTION BASIN (4') 4 $180 $720 $3,258,514
P LANTER S TRIP ( 4 ' ) 4 $25 $100 $603,429
CENTER PLANTER/ MEDIAN 14 $25 $350 $1,848,000

DESCRIPTION QUANTITY C OS T/ LF C OS T/ MILE
RUMBLE STRIPS 4 $2 P ER LF $8 $42,240
LANE STRIPING 6 $1 P ER LF $6 $31,680
S D INLET RELOC ATIONS 1 $10,000 PER EACH $15 $80,000
SD CX N TO EX ISTING (15" RCP) 6 $530 P ER LF $5 $25,440 HARDS C AP E BUFFER ( 2 ' , AT EXIS TING
BRIDGE) 2 $100 P ER LF $200 $1,056,000
$366 $1,932,480
$834 $4,401,367
$988 $4,751,331
$2,251 $10,821,509
$1,253 $6,381,073
$2,853 $14,533,368
$206 $1,087,680
$469 $2,477,272
$2,856 $14,610,147
$6,504 $33,275,694
STRATEGY WB-1- ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION COSTS
TOTAL, WITH GENERAL C OS T FAC TORS * , 2 0 3 0
TOTAL, 2 0 2 4 C ONS TRUC TION C OS T

C AS ES

TONS / LF

NEW SIDEWALKS

SECTION COMPONENTS
TOTAL, 2 0 2 4 C ONS TRUC TION C OS T
TOTAL, WITH GENERAL C OS T FAC TORS * , 2 0 3 0

NEW BIKEWAYS WITH P LANTERS
ONE SIDE FULL SECTION: TWO NEW LANES, BIKE LANE

WITH P LANTER, AND S IDEWALK
C OS T ( $ / TON)
COST

P AVEMENT

CONCRETE WITH GREEN ELEMENTS

OTHER ASSUMED COSTS
TOTAL, WITH GENERAL C OS T FAC TORS * , 2 0 3 0
TOTAL, 2 0 2 4 C ONS TRUC TION C OS T
TOTAL, WITH GENERAL C OS T FAC TORS * , 2 0 3 0
TOTAL, 2 0 2 4 C ONS TRUC TION C OS TFULL SECTION - ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION INCLUDING MEDIAN
SPECIAL CASE: EXISTING BRIDGE. HARDSCAPE SHARED

USE PATH BUFFER AND RESTRIPE
TOTAL, 2 0 2 4 C ONS TRUC TION C OS T
TOTAL, WITH GENERAL C OS T FAC TORS * , 2 0 3 0
TOTAL, WITH GENERAL COST FACTORS*, 2030 RANGE: $3M - $33M PER MILE (Median of $18M) APPENDIX F: Priority Strategy Cost Estimates

1.20 M obilization, Demobilization, Environmental Protection, T raffic Control

1.20 Engineering, Design, and Construction M anagement

1.22 Inflation

1.30 Contingency

2.28 TOTAL - Combined Cost Factor
C3 Estimates per mile
75 LF
396000 SF
15840 SF
4526 LF
6034 LF
A ssumptions
Does not take into account ROW acquisitions or agency coordination.

Existing mulitiuse paths will remain and not be replaced.

L F of 4' nominal width of bioretention planter (3.5')
Remaining planter, non bioretention basin
T otal Impervious of Cross Section
T otal Impervious A rea
4% = R equired A rea of T reatment
*General Cost Factors
APPENDIX F: Priority Strategy Cost Estimates
Strategy WB-1
154
402

UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL COST
DIRECTIONAL CURB RAMPS EA 2 8,000$ 16,000$ SIDEWALK SF 200 30$ 6,000$
HIGH VIS CROSSWALK LF 100 40$ 4,000$ BOLLARDS EA 2 2,000$ 4,000$
TRAFFIC SIGNAL RELOCATION EA 1 50,000$ 50,000$ TRAFFIC SIGNAL PED UPGRADES LS 1 27,000$ 27,000$ UTILITY COORDINATION LS 1 50,000$ 50,000$
ASPHALT FOR TRAIL TONS 690 170$ 117,300$ AGGREGATE BASE FOR TRAIL TONS 2590 100$ 259,000$ PLANTER/FLOW THROUGH SF 15400 25$ 385,000$ BIOSWALE SF 1400 100$ 140,000$
WAYFINDING SIGNS EA 10 1,000$ 10,000$
PATH LIGHTING LF 2800 125$ 350,000$
DIRECTIONAL CURB RAMPS EA 2 8,000$ 16,000$ MEDIAN REFUGE ISLAND EA 1 15,000$ 15,000$
SIDEWALK SF 200 30$ 6,000$
HIGH VIS CROSSWALK LF 100 40$ 4,000$ BOLLARDS EA 2 2,000$ 4,000$
TRAFFIC SIGNAL PED UPGRADES LS 1 27,000$ 27,000$ 1,490,300$
3,394,269$
Assumptions

UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL COST
ASPHALT FOR TRAIL TONS 1210 170$ 205,700$ AGGREGATE BASE FOR TRAIL TONS 4530 100$ 453,000$ PLANTER SF 29400 25$ 735,000$
PATH LIGHTING LF 4900 125$ 612,500$
2,006,200$
4,569,269$
7,963,538$ TOTAL FOR REALIGNMENT AND WIDENING

BAY TRAIL REALIGNMENT (GERTRUDE TO HENSLEY)

1. Pavement section is 3" hot mix asphalt over 12" aggregate base.

2. Trail is 12' wide and planter is 6' wide and does not require new curb.

4. Trail length is approximately 2,800 feet.

HENSLEY ST INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
TRAIL
TOTAL, 2024 CONSTRUCTION COST

GERTRUDE AVE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
WIDEN PATH TO 12' (PARR TO GERTRUDE)
TOTAL, 2024 CONSTRUCTION COST
TOTAL, WITH GENERAL COST FACTORS*, 2030
TOTAL, WITH GENERAL COST FACTORS*, 2030

3. No right of way acquisition.

4. Utility coordination is with West County Waste Water (facility on SW corner of Gertrude/Richmond

5. Path lighting does not necessarily illuminate the roadway.

BAY TRAIL REALIGNMENT (GERTRUDE TO HENSLEY)

1. Pavement section is 3" hot mix asphalt over 12" aggregate base.

2. Trail is 12' wide and planter is 6' wide and does not require new curb.

4. Trail length is approximately 2,800 feet.

HENSLEY ST INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
TRAIL
TOTAL, 2024 CONSTRUCTION COST

GERTRUDE AVE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
WIDEN PATH TO 12' (PARR TO GERTRUDE)
TOTAL, 2024 CONSTRUCTION COST
TOTAL, WITH GENERAL COST FACTORS*, 2030
TOTAL, WITH GENERAL COST FACTORS*, 2030

3. No right of way acquisition.

4. Utility coordination is with West County Waste Water (facility on SW corner of Gertrude/Richmond

5. Path lighting does not necessarily illuminate the roadway.

Assumptions
Does not take into account ROW acquisitions or agency coordination.

No work will be performed on bridges.

Existing mulitiuse paths will remain and not be replaced.

C.3 requirements not applicable (<1 contiguous acre).
*General Cost Factors
Mobilization, Demobilization, Environmental Protection, Traffic Control 1.20 Engineering, Design, and Construction Management 1.20
Inflation 1.22
Contingency 1.30
TOTAL - Combined Cost Factor 2.28
Assumptions

1. Pavement section is 3"
hot mix asphalt over 12"
aggregate base.

2. Trail is 12' wide and
planter is 6' wide and does
not require new curb.

3. Trail length is
approximately 2,800 feet.

4. No right of way
acquisition.

5. Utility coordination is
with West County Waste
Water (facility on SW corner
of Gertrude/Richmond
Pkwy) and others.

6. Path lighting does not
necessarily illuminate the
roadway.

Assumptions

1. Does not take into
account ROW acquisitions
or agency coordination.

2. No work will be
performed on bridges.

3. Existing mulitiuse paths
will remain and not be
replaced.

4. C.3 requirements not
applicable (<1 contiguous
acre).

Strategy WB-1 (cont.)
Appendix F: Priority Strategy Cost Estimates | 155
403

RICHMOND PARKWAY TRANSPORTATION PLAN

UNIT Q UANTITYUNIT C O S TTOTAL C OS T
MILLING (3" DEPTH) SY 510 10$ 5,100$ HO T MIX AS P HALT TO N 130 170$ 22,100$ AGGREGATE BAS E TO N 80 100$ 8,000$
GRADING CY 320 80$ 25,600$
HO T MIX AS P HALT TO N 60 170$ 10,200$ AGGREGATE BAS E TO N 230 100$ 23,000$

CONCRETE (SIDEWALKS, CURB & GUTTER, CURB RAMPS,
M EDIA NS/PED ISL A NDS, M EDIA N NOSES) SF 1700 30$ 51,000$ CURB RAMPS (EACH, EXTRA COSTS, FORMWORK, DWS) EA 5 5,000$ 25,000$ NEW SIGNAL (INCL. TRAFFIC SIGNALS, PED LIGHTED CROSS/STOP SIGNAGE, VIDEO DETECTION, EMS OVERRIDE, ETC.) LUMP SUM 1 800,000$ 800,000$ HIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALK LF 100 100$ 10,000$ P AVEMENT MARKINGS LUMP SUM 1 10,000$ 10,000$ FENCES LF 30 100$ 3,000$
GATES EA 2 3,000$ 6,000$
REMO VABLE BO LLARDS EA 4 2,000$ 8,000$
ENVIRO NMENTAL P RO TEC TIO N ( ~ 2 % C O NS TRUC TIO N C O S TS )LUMP SUM 1 21,000$ 21,000$ COORDINATION WITH EBRPD LUMP SUM 1 100,000$ 100,000$ 1,122,900$
2,557,488$
A ssumptions

2. T rail section is 3" asphalt ov er 12" aggregate base.

3. See G eneral Cost F actors below.

1. Road section is 4,600 sf of 3" mill and overlay, plus 500 sf of new roadway section, which is 8" asphalt over 23" aggregate base.

GRAND TOTAL
STRATEGY WB-2 - WILDCAT CREEK TRAIL CROSSING
2024 CONST RUCT ION COST
2 0 3 0 TOTAL C OS T WITH GENERAL C OS T FAC TORS ( 3 ) NEW P AVEMENT - ROAD ( 1 )
NEW PAVEMENT - TRAIL CONNECTIONS (2)

CONCRET E

ELECTRIC

STRIPING AND SIGNAGE

HARDS C AP E
OTHER
APPENDIX F: Priority Strategy Cost Estimates
Strategy WB-2
156
404
Signal Strategy Component Cost per Intersection Total Cost Signal coordination $ 4,400 $ 101,200 Connected battery backup system $ 13,750 $ 123,750 Central signal management system $ 141,900 $ 1,844,700 Signal hardware and software update $ 30,000 $ 690,000 Emergecy vehicle preemption/transit signal priority $ 200,000 Adaptive traffic signal system $ 45,000 $ 855,000 Connected Vehicle Roadside Unit $ 5,000 $ 115,000 Subtotal - hardware and software $ 3,929,650 Design (15%) $ 589,448
Construction Management (10%) $ 392,965 Contingency (15%) $ 589,448
Grand Total (2024 Estimate) $ 5,501,510
STRATEGY DG - 1 -- SIGNALS COSTS
Strategy DG-1
Appendix F: Priority Strategy Cost Estimates | 157
405

RICHMOND PARKWAY TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Strategy M-1 - Pavement
Maintenance Cost Notes:
1) The cost table attached shows the maintenance treatment and costs both in 2024 and 2030 (2030 based on when this project may actually be constructed) and assumes a 4% inflation rate. 2) The treatments shown are based on the projected 2030 pavement condition index (PCI) with an assumed deterioration of 3 PCI points per year.

Richmond Parkway Transportation Plan
Maintenance Cost Strategy M-1 - Pavement
Year StreetID Street Name SectionID From To Area (SY) Current PCI 2030 PCI Treatment PCI After Treatment
2024
Unit Cost
($/SY)
2024 Cost
2030
Unit Cost
($/SY)
2030 Cost
2030 RPKYEB RICHMOND PKWY EB 010 N/O CASTRO N/O REDWOOD 2,951 85 67 THIN OVERLAY W/DIGOUTS 100 $ 55.00 $ 162,000 $ 70.00 $ 207,000 2030 RPKYEB RICHMOND PKWY EB 020 N/O REDWOOD N/O MILLS 6,490 55 37 THICK MILL AND OVERLAY W/DIGOUTS 100 $ 91.50 $ 594,000 $ 116.00 $ 753,000 2030 RPKYEB RICHMOND PKWY EB 030 N/O MILLS N/O GENERAL CHEMICAL ENTR 12,280 42 24 RECONSTRUCT SURFACE (AC) 100 $ 148.00 $ 1,817,000 $ 187.00 $ 2,296,000 2030 RPKYEB RICHMOND PKWY EB 040 N/O GENERAL CHEMICAL ENTR N/O HENSLEY 7,957 56 38 THICK MILL AND OVERLAY W/DIGOUTS 100 $ 91.50 $ 728,000 $ 116.00 $ 923,000 2030 RPKYEB RICHMOND PKWY EB 050 N/O HENSLEY 2,277' @ CASTRO MERGE 8,594 55 37 THICK MILL AND OVERLAY W/DIGOUTS 100 $ 91.50 $ 786,000 $ 116.00 $ 997,000 2030 RPKYEB RICHMOND PKWY EB 060 2,277' @ CASTRO MERGE N/O GERTRUDE 6,773 37 19 RECONSTRUCT SURFACE (AC) 100 $ 148.00 $ 1,002,000 $ 187.00 $ 1,267,000 2030 RPKYEB RICHMOND PKWY EB 080 CITY LIMIT @ 1400' W/O GOODRICK AVE W/O GOODRICK AVE 5,444 47 29 THICK MILL AND OVERLAY W/DIGOUTS 100 $ 91.50 $ 498,000 $ 116.00 $ 632,000 2030 RPKYEB RICHMOND PKWY EB 090 W/O GOODRICK W/O PKWY BRIDGE 8,089 60 42 THICK MILL AND OVERLAY W/DIGOUTS 100 $ 91.50 $ 740,000 $ 116.00 $ 938,000 2030 RPKYEB RICHMOND PKWY EB 100 W/O PKWY BRIDGE E/O PKWY BRIDGE 9,396 90 72 Do Nonthing - PCC $ - $ - $ - 2030 RPKYEB RICHMOND PKWY EB 110 E/O PKWY BRIDGE S/O HILLTOP 28,722 59 41 THICK MILL AND OVERLAY W/DIGOUTS 100 $ 91.50 $ 2,628,000 $ 116.00 $ 3,332,000 2030 RPKYEB RICHMOND PKWY EB 120 S/O HILLTOP S/O ATLAS 9,778 49 31 THICK MILL AND OVERLAY W/DIGOUTS 100 $ 91.50 $ 895,000 $ 116.00 $ 1,134,000 2030 RPKYEB RICHMOND PKWY EB 130 S/O ATLAS W/O SAN PABLO 7,233 41 23 RECONSTRUCT SURFACE (AC) 100 $ 148.00 $ 1,070,000 $ 187.00 $ 1,353,000 2030 RPKYEB RICHMOND PKWY EB 140 W/O SAN PABLO WIDTH CHANGE (630' E/O SAN PABLO) 2,660 91 73 SLURRY SEAL 79 $ 3.50 $ 9,000 $ 4.50 $ 12,000 2030 RPKYEB RICHMOND PKWY EB 150 WIDTH CHANGE (630' E/O SAN PABLO) E/O LAKESIDE 2,418 91 73 SLURRY SEAL 79 $ 3.50 $ 8,000 $ 4.50 $ 11,000 2030 RPKYEB RICHMOND PKWY EB 160C E/O LAKESIDE W/O BLUME 17,991 69 51 THIN OVERLAY W/DIGOUTS 100 $ 55.00 $ 990,000 $ 70.00 $ 1,259,000 2030 RPKYWB RICHMOND PKWY WB 020C E/O SIERRA RIDGE E/O LAKSIDE DRIVE 10,550 69 51 THIN OVERLAY W/DIGOUTS 100 $ 55.00 $ 580,000 $ 70.00 $ 739,000 2030 RPKYWB RICHMOND PKWY WB 040 E/O LAKESIDE DRIVE WIDTH CHANGE (630' E/O SAN PABLO) 2,342 46 28 THICK MILL AND OVERLAY W/DIGOUTS 100 $ 91.50 $ 214,000 $ 116.00 $ 272,000 2030 RPKYWB RICHMOND PKWY WB 050 WIDTH CHANGE (630' E/O SAN PABLO) W/O SAN PABLO 4,340 57 39 THICK MILL AND OVERLAY W/DIGOUTS 100 $ 91.50 $ 397,000 $ 116.00 $ 503,000 2030 RPKYWB RICHMOND PKWY WB 060 W/O SAN PABLO S/O ATLAS 7,233 50 32 THICK MILL AND OVERLAY W/DIGOUTS 100 $ 91.50 $ 662,000 $ 116.00 $ 839,000 2030 RPKYWB RICHMOND PKWY WB 070 S/O ATLAS S/O HILLTOP 8,800 47 29 THICK MILL AND OVERLAY W/DIGOUTS 100 $ 91.50 $ 805,000 $ 116.00 $ 1,021,000 2030 RPKYWB RICHMOND PKWY WB 080 S/O HILLTOP E/O PKWY BRIDGE 24,288 62 44 THICK MILL AND OVERLAY W/DIGOUTS 100 $ 91.50 $ 2,222,000 $ 116.00 $ 2,817,000 2030 RPKYWB RICHMOND PKWY WB 090 E/O PKWY BRIDGE W/O PKWY BRIDGE 9,396 90 72 Do Nonthing - PCC $ - $ - $ - 2030 RPKYWB RICHMOND PKWY WB 100 W/O PKWY BRIDGE W/O GOODRICK 8,089 44 26 THICK MILL AND OVERLAY W/DIGOUTS 100 $ 91.50 $ 740,000 $ 116.00 $ 938,000 2030 RPKYWB RICHMOND PKWY WB 110 W/O GOODRICK AVE CITY LIMIT @ 1500' W/O GOODRICK AVE 5,833 36 18 RECONSTRUCT SURFACE (AC) 100 $ 148.00 $ 863,000 $ 187.00 $ 1,091,000 2030 RPKYWB RICHMOND PKWY WB 140 N/O GERTRUDE 1,350' @ ROAD SPLIT 6,300 89 71 SLURRY SEAL 77 $ 3.50 $ 22,000 $ 4.50 $ 28,000 2030 RPKYWB RICHMOND PKWY WB 145 1,350' @ ROAD SPLIT N/O HENSLEY 8,178 50 32 THICK MILL AND OVERLAY W/DIGOUTS 100 $ 91.50 $ 748,000 $ 116.00 $ 949,000 2030 RPKYWB RICHMOND PKWY WB 150 N/O HENSLEY END PCC 3,025 82 64 THIN OVERLAY W/DIGOUTS 100 $ 55.00 $ 166,000 $ 70.00 $ 212,000 2030 RPKYWB RICHMOND PKWY WB 155 END PCC PENNSYLVANIA 2,383 92 74 SLURRY SEAL 80 $ 3.50 $ 8,000 $ 4.50 $ 11,000 2030 RPKYWB RICHMOND PKWY WB 160 N/O GENERAL CHEMICAL ENTR N/O MILLS 11,169 20 2 RECONSTRUCT SURFACE (AC) 100 $ 148.00 $ 1,653,000 $ 187.00 $ 2,089,000 2030 RPKYWB RICHMOND PKWY WB 170 N/O MILLS 400 N/O REDWOOD 5,067 27 9 RECONSTRUCT SURFACE (AC) 100 $ 148.00 $ 750,000 $ 187.00 $ 948,000 2030 RPKYWB RICHMOND PKWY WB 180 400 N/O REDWOOD N/O REDWOOD 3,300 42 24 RECONSTRUCT SURFACE (AC) 100 $ 148.00 $ 488,000 $ 187.00 $ 617,000 2030 RPKYWB RICHMOND PKWY WB 190 N/O REDWOOD N/O CASTRO 3,504 3 0 RECONSTRUCT SURFACE (AC) 100 $ 148.00 $ 519,000 $ 187.00 $ 655,000 2030 GARRNB RICHMOND PKWY EB 010 W OHIO MACDONALD 8,462 86 68 THIN OVERLAY W/DIGOUTS 100 $ 55.00 $ 465,000 $ 70.00 $ 592,000 2030 GARRNB RICHMOND PKWY EB 020 MACDONALD BARRETT 3,911 70 52 THIN OVERLAY W/DIGOUTS 100 $ 55.00 $ 215,000 $ 70.00 $ 274,000 2030 GARRNB RICHMOND PKWY EB 040 S/O BARRETT N/O PENNSYLVANIA / COP 7,076 61 43 THICK MILL AND OVERLAY W/DIGOUTS 100 $ 91.50 $ 647,000 $ 116.00 $ 821,000 2030 GARRSB RICHMOND PKWY WB 010 N/O PENNSYLVANIA S/O BARRETT 7,076 64 46 THICK MILL AND OVERLAY W/DIGOUTS 100 $ 91.50 $ 647,000 $ 116.00 $ 821,000 2030 GARRSB RICHMOND PKWY WB 020 BARRETT N/O MACDONALD 3,911 61 43 THICK MILL AND OVERLAY W/DIGOUTS 100 $ 91.50 $ 358,000 $ 116.00 $ 454,000 2030 GARRSB RICHMOND PKWY WB 040 MACDONALD W OHIO 8,462 52 34 THICK MILL AND OVERLAY W/DIGOUTS 100 $ 91.50 $ 774,000 $ 116.00 $ 982,000 2024 Total 25,870,000$ 2030 Total 32,787,000$
NCE 1/1 8/8/2024
Maintenance Cost Notes:
1) The cost table attached shows the maintenance treatment and costs both in 2024 and 2030 (2030 based on when this project may actually be constructed) and assumes a 4% inflation rate. 2) The treatments shown are based on the projected 2030 pavement condition index (PCI) with an assumed deterioration of 3 PCI points per year. 3) Total costs include the section of Castro Street which was the former Richmond Parkway and is labeled as part of the Richmond Parkway in the City’s StreetSaver database. The sections of Castro are at the end of the spreadsheet and are separated by a darker line. If you wanted to take out these sections from the 2030 costs would be about $4 million less.

APPENDIX F: Priority Strategy Cost Estimates
158
406
Richmond Parkway Transportation Plan
Maintenance Cost Strategy M-1 - Pavement
Year StreetID Street Name SectionID From To Area (SY) Current PCI 2030 PCI Treatment PCI After Treatment
2024
Unit Cost
($/SY)
2024 Cost
2030
Unit Cost
($/SY)
2030 Cost
2030 RPKYEB RICHMOND PKWY EB 010 N/O CASTRO N/O REDWOOD 2,951 85 67 THIN OVERLAY W/DIGOUTS 100 $ 55.00 $ 162,000 $ 70.00 $ 207,000 2030 RPKYEB RICHMOND PKWY EB 020 N/O REDWOOD N/O MILLS 6,490 55 37 THICK MILL AND OVERLAY W/DIGOUTS 100 $ 91.50 $ 594,000 $ 116.00 $ 753,000 2030 RPKYEB RICHMOND PKWY EB 030 N/O MILLS N/O GENERAL CHEMICAL ENTR 12,280 42 24 RECONSTRUCT SURFACE (AC) 100 $ 148.00 $ 1,817,000 $ 187.00 $ 2,296,000 2030 RPKYEB RICHMOND PKWY EB 040 N/O GENERAL CHEMICAL ENTR N/O HENSLEY 7,957 56 38 THICK MILL AND OVERLAY W/DIGOUTS 100 $ 91.50 $ 728,000 $ 116.00 $ 923,000 2030 RPKYEB RICHMOND PKWY EB 050 N/O HENSLEY 2,277' @ CASTRO MERGE 8,594 55 37 THICK MILL AND OVERLAY W/DIGOUTS 100 $ 91.50 $ 786,000 $ 116.00 $ 997,000 2030 RPKYEB RICHMOND PKWY EB 060 2,277' @ CASTRO MERGE N/O GERTRUDE 6,773 37 19 RECONSTRUCT SURFACE (AC) 100 $ 148.00 $ 1,002,000 $ 187.00 $ 1,267,000 2030 RPKYEB RICHMOND PKWY EB 080 CITY LIMIT @ 1400' W/O GOODRICK AVE W/O GOODRICK AVE 5,444 47 29 THICK MILL AND OVERLAY W/DIGOUTS 100 $ 91.50 $ 498,000 $ 116.00 $ 632,000 2030 RPKYEB RICHMOND PKWY EB 090 W/O GOODRICK W/O PKWY BRIDGE 8,089 60 42 THICK MILL AND OVERLAY W/DIGOUTS 100 $ 91.50 $ 740,000 $ 116.00 $ 938,000 2030 RPKYEB RICHMOND PKWY EB 100 W/O PKWY BRIDGE E/O PKWY BRIDGE 9,396 90 72 Do Nonthing - PCC $ - $ - $ - 2030 RPKYEB RICHMOND PKWY EB 110 E/O PKWY BRIDGE S/O HILLTOP 28,722 59 41 THICK MILL AND OVERLAY W/DIGOUTS 100 $ 91.50 $ 2,628,000 $ 116.00 $ 3,332,000 2030 RPKYEB RICHMOND PKWY EB 120 S/O HILLTOP S/O ATLAS 9,778 49 31 THICK MILL AND OVERLAY W/DIGOUTS 100 $ 91.50 $ 895,000 $ 116.00 $ 1,134,000 2030 RPKYEB RICHMOND PKWY EB 130 S/O ATLAS W/O SAN PABLO 7,233 41 23 RECONSTRUCT SURFACE (AC) 100 $ 148.00 $ 1,070,000 $ 187.00 $ 1,353,000 2030 RPKYEB RICHMOND PKWY EB 140 W/O SAN PABLO WIDTH CHANGE (630' E/O SAN PABLO) 2,660 91 73 SLURRY SEAL 79 $ 3.50 $ 9,000 $ 4.50 $ 12,000 2030 RPKYEB RICHMOND PKWY EB 150 WIDTH CHANGE (630' E/O SAN PABLO) E/O LAKESIDE 2,418 91 73 SLURRY SEAL 79 $ 3.50 $ 8,000 $ 4.50 $ 11,000 2030 RPKYEB RICHMOND PKWY EB 160C E/O LAKESIDE W/O BLUME 17,991 69 51 THIN OVERLAY W/DIGOUTS 100 $ 55.00 $ 990,000 $ 70.00 $ 1,259,000 2030 RPKYWB RICHMOND PKWY WB 020C E/O SIERRA RIDGE E/O LAKSIDE DRIVE 10,550 69 51 THIN OVERLAY W/DIGOUTS 100 $ 55.00 $ 580,000 $ 70.00 $ 739,000 2030 RPKYWB RICHMOND PKWY WB 040 E/O LAKESIDE DRIVE WIDTH CHANGE (630' E/O SAN PABLO) 2,342 46 28 THICK MILL AND OVERLAY W/DIGOUTS 100 $ 91.50 $ 214,000 $ 116.00 $ 272,000 2030 RPKYWB RICHMOND PKWY WB 050 WIDTH CHANGE (630' E/O SAN PABLO) W/O SAN PABLO 4,340 57 39 THICK MILL AND OVERLAY W/DIGOUTS 100 $ 91.50 $ 397,000 $ 116.00 $ 503,000 2030 RPKYWB RICHMOND PKWY WB 060 W/O SAN PABLO S/O ATLAS 7,233 50 32 THICK MILL AND OVERLAY W/DIGOUTS 100 $ 91.50 $ 662,000 $ 116.00 $ 839,000 2030 RPKYWB RICHMOND PKWY WB 070 S/O ATLAS S/O HILLTOP 8,800 47 29 THICK MILL AND OVERLAY W/DIGOUTS 100 $ 91.50 $ 805,000 $ 116.00 $ 1,021,000 2030 RPKYWB RICHMOND PKWY WB 080 S/O HILLTOP E/O PKWY BRIDGE 24,288 62 44 THICK MILL AND OVERLAY W/DIGOUTS 100 $ 91.50 $ 2,222,000 $ 116.00 $ 2,817,000 2030 RPKYWB RICHMOND PKWY WB 090 E/O PKWY BRIDGE W/O PKWY BRIDGE 9,396 90 72 Do Nonthing - PCC $ - $ - $ - 2030 RPKYWB RICHMOND PKWY WB 100 W/O PKWY BRIDGE W/O GOODRICK 8,089 44 26 THICK MILL AND OVERLAY W/DIGOUTS 100 $ 91.50 $ 740,000 $ 116.00 $ 938,000 2030 RPKYWB RICHMOND PKWY WB 110 W/O GOODRICK AVE CITY LIMIT @ 1500' W/O GOODRICK AVE 5,833 36 18 RECONSTRUCT SURFACE (AC) 100 $ 148.00 $ 863,000 $ 187.00 $ 1,091,000 2030 RPKYWB RICHMOND PKWY WB 140 N/O GERTRUDE 1,350' @ ROAD SPLIT 6,300 89 71 SLURRY SEAL 77 $ 3.50 $ 22,000 $ 4.50 $ 28,000 2030 RPKYWB RICHMOND PKWY WB 145 1,350' @ ROAD SPLIT N/O HENSLEY 8,178 50 32 THICK MILL AND OVERLAY W/DIGOUTS 100 $ 91.50 $ 748,000 $ 116.00 $ 949,000 2030 RPKYWB RICHMOND PKWY WB 150 N/O HENSLEY END PCC 3,025 82 64 THIN OVERLAY W/DIGOUTS 100 $ 55.00 $ 166,000 $ 70.00 $ 212,000 2030 RPKYWB RICHMOND PKWY WB 155 END PCC PENNSYLVANIA 2,383 92 74 SLURRY SEAL 80 $ 3.50 $ 8,000 $ 4.50 $ 11,000 2030 RPKYWB RICHMOND PKWY WB 160 N/O GENERAL CHEMICAL ENTR N/O MILLS 11,169 20 2 RECONSTRUCT SURFACE (AC) 100 $ 148.00 $ 1,653,000 $ 187.00 $ 2,089,000 2030 RPKYWB RICHMOND PKWY WB 170 N/O MILLS 400 N/O REDWOOD 5,067 27 9 RECONSTRUCT SURFACE (AC) 100 $ 148.00 $ 750,000 $ 187.00 $ 948,000 2030 RPKYWB RICHMOND PKWY WB 180 400 N/O REDWOOD N/O REDWOOD 3,300 42 24 RECONSTRUCT SURFACE (AC) 100 $ 148.00 $ 488,000 $ 187.00 $ 617,000 2030 RPKYWB RICHMOND PKWY WB 190 N/O REDWOOD N/O CASTRO 3,504 3 0 RECONSTRUCT SURFACE (AC) 100 $ 148.00 $ 519,000 $ 187.00 $ 655,000 2030 GARRNB RICHMOND PKWY EB 010 W OHIO MACDONALD 8,462 86 68 THIN OVERLAY W/DIGOUTS 100 $ 55.00 $ 465,000 $ 70.00 $ 592,000 2030 GARRNB RICHMOND PKWY EB 020 MACDONALD BARRETT 3,911 70 52 THIN OVERLAY W/DIGOUTS 100 $ 55.00 $ 215,000 $ 70.00 $ 274,000 2030 GARRNB RICHMOND PKWY EB 040 S/O BARRETT N/O PENNSYLVANIA / COP 7,076 61 43 THICK MILL AND OVERLAY W/DIGOUTS 100 $ 91.50 $ 647,000 $ 116.00 $ 821,000 2030 GARRSB RICHMOND PKWY WB 010 N/O PENNSYLVANIA S/O BARRETT 7,076 64 46 THICK MILL AND OVERLAY W/DIGOUTS 100 $ 91.50 $ 647,000 $ 116.00 $ 821,000 2030 GARRSB RICHMOND PKWY WB 020 BARRETT N/O MACDONALD 3,911 61 43 THICK MILL AND OVERLAY W/DIGOUTS 100 $ 91.50 $ 358,000 $ 116.00 $ 454,000 2030 GARRSB RICHMOND PKWY WB 040 MACDONALD W OHIO 8,462 52 34 THICK MILL AND OVERLAY W/DIGOUTS 100 $ 91.50 $ 774,000 $ 116.00 $ 982,000 2024 Total 25,870,000$ 2030 Total 32,787,000$
NCE 1/1 8/8/2024
Maintenance Cost Notes:
1) The cost table attached shows the maintenance treatment and costs both in 2024 and 2030 (2030 based on when this project may actually be constructed) and assumes a 4% inflation rate. 2) The treatments shown are based on the projected 2030 pavement condition index (PCI) with an assumed deterioration of 3 PCI points per year. 3) Total costs include the section of Castro Street which was the former Richmond Parkway and is labeled as part of the Richmond Parkway in the City’s StreetSaver database. The sections of Castro are at the end of the spreadsheet and are separated by a darker line. If you wanted to take out these sections from the 2030 costs would be about $4 million less.

APPENDIX F: Priority Strategy Cost Estimates
3) Total costs include the section of Castro Street which was the former Richmond Parkway and is labeled as part of the Richmond Parkway in the City’s StreetSaver database. The sections of Castro are at the end of the spreadsheet and are separated by a darker line. If you wanted to take out these sections from the 2030 costs would be about $4 million less. Appendix F: Priority Strategy Cost Estimates | 159 407

RICHMOND PARKWAY TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Public Works Division Annual Cost
Street sweeping Streets Maintenance Division $160,431.84 Weed abatement, removal of illegal dumping, graffiti abatement, encampments (West Ohio to Giant Road) Abatement Division, Parkway $102,831.00 Weed abatement, removal of illegal dumping, encampments (Castro – Hensley to Pt. Richmond, Parkway – Giant Road to HWY I-80, Parkway – West Ohio to Pt. Richmond). Abatement Division, Parkway $219,792.40 GRAND TOTAL (2024 Estimate) $483,055.24
STRATEGY M-1 -- MAINTENANCE (GENERAL)
Strategy M-1 - General
160
408

UNIT Q UANTITYUNIT C O S T TOTAL C OS T
RETAINING WALLS LF 250 600$ 150,000$
GRADING CY 370 80$ 29,600$
HO T MIX AS P HALT TO N 40 170$ 6,800$ AGGREGATE BAS E TO N 150 100$ 15,000$

CONCRETE (SIDEWALKS, CURB & GUTTER, CURB RAMPS,
M EDIA NS/PED ISLA NDS, M EDIA N NOSES) SF 2800 40$ 112,000$ CONCRETE BUS PAD SF 1500 60$ 90,000$
CURB RAMPS (EACH, EXTRA COSTS, FORMWORK, DWS) EA 2 5,000$ 10,000$ PAVEMENT MARK INGS AND SIGNAGE LUMP SUM 1 40,000$ 40,000$ DEMOLITION (GENERAL) SF 6600 10$ 66,000$
BUS SHELTERS, BENCHES, ETC. LUMP SUM 1 50,000$ 50,000$ 569,400$
1,296,851$
A ssumptions

1. See General Cost Factors below.

3. T rail section is 3" asphalt over 12" aggregate base.

4. Demolition (General) includes work to clear the site and remove roadway material and ex isting concrete improv ements.

BIKE LOCKER PRODUCTS & SERVICES UNIT Q UANTITYUNIT C O S T TOTAL C OS T EQUIPMENT 4 9,880$ 39,520$
ACCESS HUB EQUIPMENT AND SERVICE 2 1,995$ 3,990$ DELIVERY 1 1,000$ 1,000$
INS TALLATIO N L OCK ER SPA CE 7 375$ 2,625$ ANNUAL S ERVIC E AND O P ERATIO NS AGREEMENT YE AR 5 840$ 4,200$ 51,335$
4,117$
55,452$
1,352,303$
G eneral Cost F actors
M obilization, Demobilization, Environmental Protection, T raffic Control 1.20 Engineering, Design, and Construction M anagement 1.20
Inflation 1.22
TOTAL COST FOR STRATEGY T-1 - TRANSIT STRATEGY
STRATEGY T-1 - TRANSIT STRATEGY (Bike lockers)
STRATEGY T-1 - TRANSIT STRATEGY (Bus/Walking Improvements) 2024 CONST RUCT ION COST
2 0 3 0 TOTAL C OS T WITH GENERAL C OS T FAC TORS ( 3 )

NEW PAVEMENT - SHARED USE PATH

CONCRET E

STRIPING AND SIGNAGE
OTHER

S TRUC TURAL - RETAINING S TRUC TURES

S UBTO TAL
2024 BIKE LOCKER INSTALLATION COST
TAX

2. A ssume the retaining structures will be less than 4' tall.

GRAND TOTAL

1.30Contingency
TO TAL - Combined Cost Factor 2.28
APPENDIX F: Priority Strategy Cost Estimates

UNIT Q UANTITYUNIT C O S T TOTAL C OS T
RETAINING WALLS LF 250 600$ 150,000$
GRADING CY 370 80$ 29,600$
HO T MIX AS P HALT TO N 40 170$ 6,800$ AGGREGATE BAS E TO N 150 100$ 15,000$

1. See General Cost Factors below.

3. T rail section is 3" asphalt over 12" aggregate base.

4. Demolition (General) includes work to clear the site and remove roadway material and ex isting concrete improv ements.

NEW PAVEMENT - SHARED USE PATH

CONCRET E

STRIPING AND SIGNAGE
OTHER

S TRUC TURAL - RETAINING S TRUC TURES

S UBTO TAL
2024 BIKE LOCKER INSTALLATION COST
TAX

2. A ssume the retaining structures will be less than 4' tall.

GRAND TOTAL

1.30Contingency
TO TAL - Combined Cost Factor 2.28
APPENDIX F: Priority Strategy Cost Estimates

UNIT Q UANTITYUNIT C O S T TOTAL C OS T
RETAINING WALLS LF 250 600$ 150,000$
GRADING CY 370 80$ 29,600$
HO T MIX AS P HALT TO N 40 170$ 6,800$ AGGREGATE BAS E TO N 150 100$ 15,000$

1. See General Cost Factors below.

3. T rail section is 3" asphalt over 12" aggregate base.

4. Demolition (General) includes work to clear the site and remove roadway material and ex isting concrete improv ements.

NEW PAVEMENT - SHARED USE PATH

CONCRET E

STRIPING AND SIGNAGE
OTHER

S TRUC TURAL - RETAINING S TRUC TURES

S UBTO TAL
2024 BIKE LOCKER INSTALLATION COST
TAX

2. A ssume the retaining structures will be less than 4' tall.

GRAND TOTAL

1.30Contingency
TO TAL - Combined Cost Factor 2.28
APPENDIX F: Priority Strategy Cost Estimates

UNIT Q UANTITYUNIT C O S T TOTAL C OS T
RETAINING WALLS LF 250 600$ 150,000$
GRADING CY 370 80$ 29,600$
HO T MIX AS P HALT TO N 40 170$ 6,800$ AGGREGATE BAS E TO N 150 100$ 15,000$

1. See General Cost Factors below.

3. T rail section is 3" asphalt over 12" aggregate base.

4. Demolition (General) includes work to clear the site and remove roadway material and ex isting concrete improv ements.

NEW PAVEMENT - SHARED USE PATH

CONCRET E

STRIPING AND SIGNAGE
OTHER

S TRUC TURAL - RETAINING S TRUC TURES

S UBTO TAL
2024 BIKE LOCKER INSTALLATION COST
TAX

2. A ssume the retaining structures will be less than 4' tall.

GRAND TOTAL

1.30Contingency
TO TAL - Combined Cost Factor 2.28
APPENDIX F: Priority Strategy Cost Estimates

UNIT Q UANTITYUNIT C O S T TOTAL C OS T
RETAINING WALLS LF 250 600$ 150,000$
GRADING CY 370 80$ 29,600$
HO T MIX AS P HALT TO N 40 170$ 6,800$ AGGREGATE BAS E TO N 150 100$ 15,000$

1. See General Cost Factors below.

3. T rail section is 3" asphalt over 12" aggregate base.

4. Demolition (General) includes work to clear the site and remove roadway material and ex isting concrete improv ements.

NEW PAVEMENT - SHARED USE PATH

CONCRET E

STRIPING AND SIGNAGE
OTHER

S TRUC TURAL - RETAINING S TRUC TURES

S UBTO TAL
2024 BIKE LOCKER INSTALLATION COST
TAX

2. A ssume the retaining structures will be less than 4' tall.

GRAND TOTAL

1.30Contingency
TO TAL - Combined Cost Factor 2.28
APPENDIX F: Priority Strategy Cost Estimates
Strategy T-1
Appendix F: Priority Strategy Cost Estimates | 161
409

Page 1 of 3 ends

April 22, 2025

DocID #39393v1

Public Works

DATE: April 22, 2025
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM: Daniel Chavarria, PE, Director of Public Works
Robert Armijo, PE, Deputy Director of Public Works /City Engineer
Darcie DeLashmutt, Capital Project Manager
Subject:

Construction Agreement with Calico California
Constructores, Inc. for the Soccer Fields-Restrooms-
Parks Project
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Funding for this project are available from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) grant fund for construction in
the amount of $2,517,466 (Account String: 13636031-
400708-23046).

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

June 4, 2024
July 11, 2023
October 2023 – March 2024
April 16, 2024

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

The City staff requests City Council adopt a resolution to approve a Construction Agreement with Calico California Constructores, Inc. to improve soccer fields and park
amenities, including preparation for installation of artificial turf at Sheilds Reid Park.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: ADOPT a resolution to approve a construction agreement with Calico California Constructores, Inc. for the Soccer Fields-Restrooms-Parks Project at Shields-Reid Park in
an contract amount not to exceed $2,288,605 and
AUTHORIZE the Director of Public Works to approve
change orders, if necessary, for a contingency amount of up to $228,861 which is 10 percent of the bid amount, for a potential total construction phase cost of $2,517,466 – Public Works Department (Daniel Chavarria 620-
AGENDA
REPORT
410

Page 2 of 3 ends

April 22, 2025

DocID #39393v1
5478/Robert Armijo 620-5477/Darcie DeLashmutt 672-
3944).

DISCUSSION:

At the April 16, 2024, City Council meeting, City staff presented a plan to use the initial $4.2 million in American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds and an additional ~$3.5 million in ARPA funds for a total of approximately $7.7 million for park improvements.

The ARPA funding will be applied to improvements at Martin Luther King, Jr. Park, Shields-Reid Park, and Wendell Park. The proposed construction contract is for Shields-Reid Park, which is located at 1410 Kelsey Street (Attachment 1). The scope of work includes demolition and preparation for an artificial turf youth size soccer field (turf and installation by others), preparation for lighting installation, chain-link fencing and gates, Ballstopper system, sports furnishings, and additional improvements per the plans and specifications (Attachment 2). Improvements are adjacent to Shields-Reid Park Revitalization project, which is currently under construction.

The City publicly solicited bids for the project via BidsOnline on November 22, 2024.

The award for the project is evaluated on the lowest Base Bid. Bids were opened on January 28, 2025, with a total of ten (10) submissions in the amounts below.

Lowest
Bidder
Contractor Base Bid ($)
1 Calico California Constructores, Inc. $ 2,020,675.96 2 Bauman Landscape & Construction, Inc. $ 2,025,000.00 3 Frontline General Engineering Construction,
Inc.
$ 2,049,846.34
4 S&H Construction, Inc. $ 2,168,600.00
5 Buildcorp Inc. $ 2,175,000.00
6 Bay Construction Co $ 2,305,000.00
7 Azul Works Inc $ 2,434,000.00
8 O.C. Jones & Sons, Inc. $ 2,862,000.00
9 W.R Forde Associates, Inc. $ 3,405,152.45
10 Kerex Engineering, Inc. $ 3,495,000.00

Following a comprehensive review and analysis of the submissions, it was determined that Calico California Constructores, Inc. is the lowest responsible and responsive bidder with a base bid amount of $2,020,675.96. Calico California Constructores, Inc. bid fulfills ARPA contractual terms and conditions. Calico California Constructores, Inc. is registered through the State of California’s Department of Industrial Relations (License #1001004534) and Contractors State License Board (License #1100205).

411

Page 3 of 3 ends

April 22, 2025

DocID #39393v1
The bid documents also included the following Additive Alternates:

 Additive Alternative 1 - Black Vinyl Fencing for $162,841.80  Additive Alternative 2 - Black Vinyl Ballstopper Fencing for $105,087.40  Additive Alternative 3 - Concrete pathway in lieu of existing asphalt for $387,515.50 Staff recommends including Alternates 1 and 2 for a total contract amount of $2,288,605. Construction is anticipated to be complete by late 2025 or early 2026.

In conclusion, City staff requests that the City Council adopt the Resolution to approve a construction agreement for $2,288,605 with Calico California Constructores, Inc. for the 23046 Soccer Fields-Restrooms-Parks Project and authorize the Director of Public Works to approve change orders, if necessary, for a 10 percent contingency amount of up to $228,861 for a potential total construction phase cost of $2,517,466 (Attachment 3).

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Project Location
Attachment 2 – Construction Agreement
Attachment 3 – Resolution

412

VICINITY MAP

DESCRIPTION

INDEX OF DRAWINGS

SHEET DRAWING
NO.

DATE
DATE

LOCATION

PROJECT

USACALL

TWO WORKING DAYS

TOLL FREE

BEFORE YOU DIG
800-642-2444
OR DIAL 811
TS1.0 TITLE SHEET

LOCATION MAP
L0.0LEGEND AND NOTES
L1.0 DEMOLITION PLAN
L2.0CONSTRUCTION PLAN
L3.0CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
L3.1CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
NOTES:

1. PATH OF TRAVEL (P.O.T.) AS INDICATED IS A BARRIER FREE

ACCESS ROUTE WITHOUT ANY ABRUPT VERTICAL CHANGES
EXCEEDING 12" BEVELED AT 1:2 MAX. SLOPE EXCEPT THAT
LEVEL CHANGES DO NOT EXCEED 14" VERTICAL AND IS AT
LEAST 48" WIDE. SURFACE IS SLIP RESISTANT, STABLE, FIRM AND SMOOTH. CROSS SLOPE DOES NOT EXCEED 2%, AND
SLOPE IN THE DIRECTION OF TRAVEL DOES NOT EXCEED 5%.

P.O.T. SHALL BE MAINTAINED FREE OF OVERHANGING
OBSTRUCTIONS TO 80" MINIMUM AND PROTRUDING OBJECTS
GREATER THAN 4" PROJECTION FROM WALL AND ABOVE 27"
AND LESS THAN 80". CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY THAT
BARRIERS IN THE PATH OF TRAVEL HAVE BEEN REMOVED.

ENCLOSURE TO MEET ACCESSIBILITY STANDARD PER
CBC 11B-206.2.2 AND 11B-206.2.8 AND CBC 11B-404.2.3-2.10 LEGEND - PATH OF TRAVEL:

FIELD

ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL

PATH OF TRAVEL

NOT TO SCALE
TS1.0

AS NOTED

TITLE SHEET
L3.2CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
L3.3CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
L3.4CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
L4.0IRRIGATION PLAN
L4.1IRRIGATION DETAILS
L2.1 LAYOUT PLAN

SHIELDS - REID PARK
11/18/2024 PERMIT SET
P:\Shared\Projects\2023\2300051 Richmond Parks Assessment\Shields Reid Park\DWG\Sheets\TS-Shields Reid Park.dwg 11/19/2024 - 07:20 PM Brian G 1:3.56 Sheet
Plan File:

Project Number: 2300051
Scale:

Date: NOVEMBER 18,2024
Rev Date Description Designed Drawn Checked
121 Park Place
Richmond, CA 94801
tel: 510-367-6166
Engineering
Planning
Landscape Architecture
Land Surveying
Mapping
1410 KELSEY STREET
Stamp FIELD RENOVATION
Sheet Title

PROJECT
11/18/2024 BID SET

MV BG MV

MV BG MV
RICHMOND, CA 94805
Marcia D. Vallier -No. 3293
STATE
O
FCA
L

IFORNI A
Signature
Renewal Date
Date

L I C ENSED LANDSCAPE

ARCHITECT
11/18/2024
03/31/2025

NOT TO SCALENOT TO SCALE

LOCATION

PROJECT

CHESLEY AVENUE

KELSEY STREET

CHERRY STREET

ALAMO AVENUE
C1.0 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN
C2.0 LIGHTING PLAN
C3.0 STORMWATER CONTROL PLAN
C3.1
C4.0
C0.1 CIVIL ABBREVIATIONS, LEGEND, & GENERAL NOTES

ACCEPTED BY THE CITY OF RICHMOND
MARCIA D. VALLIER, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, CA#3294
CSWST2
ROBERT ARMIJO, P.E.

DEPUTY PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR / CITY ENGINEER
C5.0 EROSION CONTROL PLAN

CONSTRUCTION DETAILS

STORMWATER CONTROL DETAILS
C2.1 LIGHTING DETAILS

GENERAL NOTES

NOT ALL EXISTING UTILITIES AREA SHOWN ON THE PLANS

AND THOSE IDENTIFIED ARE SHOWN IN THEIR APPROXIMATE
LOCATIONS. EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS ARE AVAILABLE

FOR REVIEW ON AS-BUILT TO BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY
OF RICHMOND. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY LOCATIONS.

1. IT SHALL BE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO FIELD
VERIFY LOCATIONS, ELEVATIONS, ETC. OF EXISTING

FACILITIES AND TO IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE ENGINEER IN
WRITING OF ANY FIELD CONFLICTS OR OMISSIONS.

2. ALL CONSTRUCTION MUST BE TO THE CITY OF RICHMOND

STANDARDS AND ACCEPTED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS
INSPECTOR. STANDARD PLANS ARE AVAILABLE AT THE
OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR.

3. CONTRACTOR SHALL MEET WITH CITY OF RICHMOND FOR A
PRE-CONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE AT LEAST 1 WEEK PRIOR
TO START OF CONSTRUCTION.
24 HOURS NOTICE REQUIRED ON ALL INSPECTIONS.

4. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO MAKE ALL

ARRANGEMENTS FOR SITE INSPECTIONS AND INSURE THAT

ALL CURRENT STANDARDS FOR THE CITY OF RICHMOND

ARE FOLLOWED PRIOR TO BEGINNING ANY PHASE OF
CONSTRUCTION WORK.

5. CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE LIMITED TO BETWEEN THE
HOURS OF 8:00 A.M. AND 5:00 P.M., MONDAY THRU FRIDAY

AND INSPECTION REQUESTS SHALL BE LIMITED TO NORMAL
CITY BUSINESS HOURS: 8:00 A.M. TO 5:00 P.M., MONDAY
THRU FRIDAY. ARRANGEMENTS FOR ANY OVERTIME

INSPECTION SERVICES AND PAYMENTS OF FEES FOR SAME
SHOULD BE MADE 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE AND ARE SUBJECT

TO INSPECTION AVAILABILITY AND APPROVAL BY THE
OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE.

6. DUST CONTROL DURING ALL PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION IS
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR. IT IS ALSO THE

CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO MAINTAIN GOOD

HOUSEKEEPING OF THE EXISTING IMPROVED STREETS IN
THE CONSTRUCTION AREA.

7. WATER FOR DUST CONTROL MAY BE PURCHASED FROM

THE APPROPRIATE AGENCY PRIOR TO START OF ANY WORK,

AND IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR FOR
ANY FEES OR DEPOSITS.

8. PRIOR TO THE PRE-CONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE, THE

CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL THE PROPOSED
ROUTE(S) FOR ALL CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC ON PROJECT.

UPON APPROVAL, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL STRICTLY

ADHERE TO THAT ROUTE(S) ONLY, UNLESS WRITTEN

PERMISSION IS OBTAINED TO CHANGE THE ROUTE(S)

9. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN ACCESS TO RESIDENCES

AND BUSINESSES AT STAGING AREA, ON PUBLIC STREETS AND

SIDEWALKS THE GREENWAY TRAIL THROUGHOUT THE LIFE OF
THE CONTRACT AS SPECIFIED IN THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS.

10. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY UNDERGROUND SERVICES ALERT (U.S.A.) 800-227-2600 (OR DIAL 811), TWO (2) WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO START OF ANY EXCAVATION OR DEMOLITION OF IMPROVEMENTS.

11. EXISTING FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED

TO TREES, LANDSCAPING, IRRIGATION, FENCES, WALLS, SIDEWALK AND

OTHER PAVEMENT SURFACES SHALL BE REPAIRED AT CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTORE ANY AND ALL PAVEMENT AND

OTHER FACILITIES OUTSIDE LIMITS OF WORK AFFECTED BY THE CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS AT NO ADDITIONAL COST. IT IS THE

CONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITY TO VIDEOTAPE OR DOCUMENT

EXISTING CONDITIONS PRIOR TO START OF WORK TO SUBSTANTIATE ANY PREVIOUS DAMAGES, ETC.

12. TRAFFIC CONTROL DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE THE

CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY AND IN ACCORDANCE
WITH AN APPROVED TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN. SUBMIT PLAN
TO THE CITY FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. THE

CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ALL LIGHTS, SIGNS,

BARRICADES, FLAGMEN AND OTHER DEVICES TO PROVIDE

FOR SAFE PASSAGE OF PUBLIC VEHICULAR AND
PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC.

THE CONTRACTOR SHALL EXERCISE CARE TO PROTECT THE EXISTING OVERHEAD AND UNDERGROUND UTILITIES DURING CONSTRUCTION.

THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IDENTIFY THESE UTILITIES PRIOR TO START OF WORK AND PROTECT THEM DURING CONSTRUCTION. METHOD OF PROTECTION SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. THE COST OF

REPAIR WORK DUE TO FAILURE OF THE CONTRACTOR TO EXERCISE CARE WILL BE INCURRED BY THE CONTRACTOR. ANY DAMAGES TO THE

CITY OF RICHMOND SHIELDS - REID PARK
FIELD RENOVATION PROJECT 1410 KELSEY STREET

RICHMOND, CA
L5.0PLANTING PLAN AND DETAIL ST-1
ST-2 SYNTHETIC TURF DETAILS

SYNTHETIC TURF GRADING & DRAINAGE
1STADIUM LIGHT INFORMATION
2STADIUM LIGHT INFORMATION
3STADIUM LIGHT INFORMATION
4STADIUM LIGHT INFORMATION
NOVEMBER 18, 2024
Docusign Envelope ID: 2D665953-586A-4827-B9EB-854C0E45878A 11/20/2024
413

1 CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT

This Construction Agreement (“ Agreement”) is made and entered into this 22 day of April 2025, by and between the City of Richmond, a municipal corporation and charter city (“City”) and Calico California Constructores, Inc. (“Contractor”), with reference to the following facts. The parties may be referred to in this Agreement individually as “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.”

RECITALS

A. On November 22, 2024, the City circulated an Invitation for Bids seeking contractors willing to undertake the construction of 23046 Soccer Fields-Restrooms-Parks Project, located at 1410 Kelsey Street, Richmond, CA (the “Project”).

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

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

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

ARTICLE I

CONSTRUCTION OF PROJECT

Section 1.1 Contract Documents.

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

Section 1.2 Construction.

Contractor shall furnish all labor, materials, methods, processes, implements, tools and machinery, within the time frames set, and do all the things necessary for the proper completion of the work shown and described in Contract Documents.
414
2 Section 1.3 Payments.

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

Section 1.4 Discovery of Hazardous Waste or Unusual Conditions.

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

415
3 Section 1.5 Laws and Regulations.

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

(b) Contractor shall cause all work performed in connection with construction of the Project to be performed in compliance with (i) all applicable laws, ordinances, rules and regulations now in force or that may be enacted hereafter; (ii) all conditions of Project approval and mitigation measures included in any adopted or certified environmental document prepared for the Project; and (iii) all directions, rules and regulations of any fire marshal, health officer, building inspector, or other officer of every governmental agency now having or hereafter acquiring jurisdiction, provided that such direction given during construction does not conflict with conditions of Project approval or mitigation measures.

(c) Contractor shall and shall cause its subcontractors to pay prevailing wages in the construction of the Project as those wages are determined pursuant to Labor Code Sections 1720 et seq., and implementing regulations of the Department of Industrial Relations, and to comply with all other applicable federal, State and local laws, regulations and ordinances pertaining to labor standards insofar as those laws, regulations and ordinances apply to the performance of this Agreement, including any applicable City of Richmond employment requirements, including but not limited to the City's Living Wage Ordinance (Richmond Municipal Code Chapter 2.60), the City's Business Opportunity Ordinance (Richmond Municipal Code Chapter 2.50), and the City's Local Employment Program Ordinance (Richmond Municipal Code Chapter 2.56). During the construction of the Project, Contractor shall post at the construction site the applicable prevailing rates of per diem wages. Contractor shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend, (with counsel reasonably acceptable to the City) the City against any claims for damages, compensation, fines, penalties or other amounts arising out of failure or alleged failure of any person or entity (including Contractor and its subcontractors) to pay prevailing wages in connection with construction of the Project. This Section 1.5(c) shall survive the termination of this Agreement.

(d) Contractor and all subcontractors shall maintain accurate payroll records showing the name, address, social security number, work classification, straight time and overtime hours worked each day and week, and the actual per diem wages paid to each journeyman, apprentice, worker and others employed on the Project. Each payroll record shall contain or be verified by a written declaration made under penalty of perjury, stating both of the following: (1) the information contained in the payroll record is true and correct, and (2) the employer has complied with the requirements of Labor Code Section 1771 (prevailing wage provisions), Section 1811 (eight-hour day, forty-hour week provisions), and Section 1815 (overtime compensation) for any work performed by his or her employees on the Project. The Contractor shall provide certified payroll records to the City each week, no later than ten (10) days after the end of a weekly pay period. Pay records shall be maintained and made available in accordance with Labor Code Section 1776. In addition, Contractor shall and shall cause its subcontractors 416
4 promptly to deliver to the City, upon request, documents verifying compliance with the Living Wage Ordinance, which include documents which evidence that each affected employee has been notified regarding the wages required to be paid pursuant to the Living Wage Ordinance.

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

Section 1.6 Inspections.

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

Section 1.7 Equal Opportunity.

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

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

Section 1.8 Working Hours.

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

Section 1.9 Insurance and Bond Requirements.

(a) In accordance with California Labor Code Section 3700, Contractor must secure Workers’ Compensation coverage for its employees. Prior to performing any work, Contractor must execute a certification in the form set out at California Labor Code Section 1861. (b) Contractor shall submit to the City evidence of the insurance and payment and 417
5 performance bond coverage meeting the requirements set forth in the Project Specifications. Proof of insurance and bonding related to the construction of the Project shall be provided to the City not more than (10) days after award of the contract. The City shall review and approve or disapprove of the evidence of insurance within twenty (20) days after submittal of complete information in the form required by the City. If the City disapproves the evidence of insurance, it shall specify in writing the reasons for such disapproval. Contractor shall resubmit the information required within ten (10) days. The review and submittal periods for resubmittals shall be reduced to a ten (10) day review period for the City and a five (5) day period for resubmittal by Contractor and shall continue to apply until the City approves the evidence of insurance coverage, but in no event shall the submittal and review period continue for more than forty-five (45) days. If, after forty-five (45) days the Contractor has not provided evidence of insurance and bond coverage meeting the requirements of the City, the City shall terminate the contract and may either award the work to the next lowest responsive responsible bidder or issue a new request for bids. (If the City issues a new request for bids, the Contractor shall be disqualified from re-bidding the work because of the failure to provide timely proof of insurance and/or bond coverage.) No work shall be initiated on the Project prior to Contractor's receipt of the City's approval of evidence of insurance coverage related to the construction of the Project.
(c) Contractor shall have furnished the City with evidence of the insurance coverage meeting the insurance requirements set forth in Project Specifications for each subcontractor prior to initiating any work on the Project, including Builder's Risk insurance with appropriate coverage for the cost of construction. The periods for submittal, review and approval shall apply as stated in subparagraph (b) above.
(d) The Parties agree that notwithstanding the time requirements set forth in this subsection for submittal and resubmittal to the City by the Contractor of the evidence of insurance and review and approval of the evidence of insurance by the City, Contractor is responsible for ensuring that the evidence of insurance in approvable form is submitted to the City in a timely manner.

Section 1.10 Security In Lieu of Re tention.

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

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

2. Alternatively, the Contractor may request and the City shall make payment of retentions earned directly to the escrow agent at the expense of the Contractor. At the expense of the Contractor, the Contractor may direct the investment of the 418
6 payments into securities and the Contractor shall receive the interest earned on the investments upon the same terms provided for in Public Contract Code 22300 for securities deposited by the Contractor. Upon satisfactory completion of this Agreement, the Contractor shall receive from the escrow agent all securities, interest, and payments received by the escrow agent from the owner, pursuant to the terms of this section.
(b) If the Contractor chooses to place securities in escrow, the escrow agreement to be used shall be substantially similar to the following form:

ESCROW AGREEMENT FOR SECURITY DEPOSITS IN LIEU OF RETENTION

This Escrow Agreement is made and entered into by and between _________________________________________________ whose address is ________________________________ hereinafter called "Owner," ___________ whose address is ________________________________ hereinafter called "Contractor" and ___________ whose address is ________________________________ hereinafter called "Escrow Agent."
For the consideration hereinafter set forth, the Owner, Contractor, and Escrow Agent agree as follows:
(1) Pursuant to Section 22300 of the Public Contract Code of the State of California, Contractor has the option to deposit securities with Escrow Agent as a substitute for retention earnings required to be withheld by Owner pursuant to the Construction Contract entered into between the Owner and Contractor for ____ in the amount of ____ dated ____ (hereinafter referred to as the "Contract"). Alternatively, on written request of the Contractor, the Owner shall make payments of the retention earnings directly to the Escrow Agent. When the Contractor deposits the securities as a substitute for Contract earnings, the Escrow Agent shall notify the Owner within 10 days of the deposit. The market value of the securities at the time of the substitution shall be at least equal to the cash amount then required to be withheld as retention under the terms of the Contract between the Owner and Contractor. Securities shall be held in the name of ____, and shall designate the Contractor as the beneficial owner. (2) The Owner shall make progress payments to the Contractor for those funds which otherwise would be withheld from progress payments pursuant to the Contract provisions, provided that the Escrow Agent holds securities in the form and amount specified above. (3) When the Owner makes payment of retentions earned directly to the Escrow Agent, the Escrow Agent shall hold them for the benefit of the Contractor until the time that the escrow created under this contract is terminated. The Contractor may direct the investment of the payments into securities. All terms and conditions of this agreement and the rights and responsibilities of the parties shall be equally applicable and binding when the Owner pays the Escrow Agent directly.
(4) Contractor shall be responsible for paying all fees for the expenses incurred by Escrow Agent in administering the Escrow Account and all expenses of the Owner. These expenses and payment terms shall be determined by the Owner, Contractor, and Escrow Agent. 419
7 (5) The interest earned on the securities or the money market accounts held in escrow and all interest earned on that interest shall be for the sole account of Contractor and shall be subject to withdrawal by Contractor at any time and from time to time without notice to the Owner. (6) Contractor shall have the right to withdraw all or any part of the principal in the Escrow Account only by written notice to Escrow Agent accompanied by written authorization from the Owner to the Escrow Agent that Owner consents to the withdrawal of the amount sought to be withdrawn by Contractor.
(7) The Owner shall have a right to draw upon the securities in the event of default by the Contractor. Upon seven days' written notice to the Escrow Agent from the Owner of the default, the Escrow Agent shall immediately convert the securities to cash and shall distribute the cash as instructed by the Owner.
(8) Upon receipt of written notification from the Owner certifying that the Contract is final and complete, and that the Contractor has complied with all requirements and procedures applicable to the Contract, Escrow Agent shall release to Contractor all securities and interest on deposit less escrow fees and charges of the Escrow Account. The escrow shall be closed immediately upon disbursement of all moneys and securities on deposit and payments of fees and charges. (9) Escrow Agent shall rely on the written notifications from the Owner and the Contractor pursuant to Sections (5) to (8), inclusive, of this Agreement and the Owner and Contractor shall hold Escrow Agent harmless from Escrow Agent's release and disbursement of the securities and interest as set forth above.
(10) The names of the persons who are authorized to give written notice or to receive written notice on behalf of the Owner and on behalf of Contractor in connection with the foregoing, and exemplars of their respective signatures are as follows:

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

420
8 At the time the Escrow Account is opened, the Owner and Contractor shall deliver to the Escrow Agent a fully executed counterpart of this Agreement.

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

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

ARTICLE II

DEFAULT AND REMEDIES

2.1 Events of Default.

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

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

(c) Insolvency. A court having jurisdiction shall have made or entered any decree or order (i) adjudging Contractor to be bankrupt or insolvent, (ii) approving as properly filed a petition seeking reorganization of Contractor or seeking any arrangement for Contractor under the bankruptcy law or any other applicable debtor's relief law or statute of the United States or any state or other jurisdiction, (iii) appointing a receiver, trustee, liquidator, or assignee of Contractor in bankruptcy or insolvency or for any of their properties, (iv) directing the winding 421
9 up or liquidation of Contractor if any such decree or order described in clauses (i) to (iv), inclusive, shall have continued unstayed or undischarged for a period of ninety (90) days; or (v) Contractor shall have admitted in writing its inability to pay its debts as they fall due or shall have voluntarily submitted to or filed a petition seeking any decree or order of the nature described in clauses (i) to (iv), inclusive.

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

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

2.2 Remedies.

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

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

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

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

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

422
10 2.3 Waiver of Damages.

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

ARTICLE III

GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 3.1 Relationship of Parties.

Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be interpreted or understood by any of the Parties, or by any third persons, as creating the relationship of employer and employee, principal and agent, limited or general partnership, or joint venture between the City and Contractor or its agents, employees or subcontractors, and Contractor shall at all times be deemed an independent contractor and shall be wholly responsible for the manner in which it or its agents, or both, perform the services required of it by the terms of this Agreement. Contractor has and retains the right to exercise full control of employment, direction, compensation, and discharge of all persons assisting in the performance of services under the Agreement. In regards to the construction of the Project, Contractor shall be solely responsible for all matters relating to payment of its employees, including compliance with Social Security, withholding, and all other laws and regulations governing such matters, and shall include requirements in each contract that subcontractors shall be solely responsible for similar matters relating to their employees.

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

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

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

2. The amount of the adjustment to the Payment Limit, if any, and the basis for compensation for the work ordered; which adjustment may be a negotiated lump sum amount, agreed unit price, or paid under Section 9-1.04 “Force Account” of the 2010 State of California Department of Transportation Standard Specifications; and

3. The amount of time to be adjusted in the schedule for performance, if any. (b) A Change Order will become effective when signed by the Department Head , or his or her representative, notwithstanding that Contractor has not signed it. A Change Order will become effective without Contractor’s signature, provided the Department Head or his or her representative so indicates by noting thereon “unilateral change order.” 423
11 (c) All changes in any plans and specification approved by any authority with jurisdiction over the Project may also require addenda or change orders approved by that authority.
(d) Where the City requests, a performance bond rider covering the changed work must be executed and delivered to the City before proceeding with the changed work, or shortly in time thereafter.
(e) The Department Head or his or her representative has the authority to approve Change Orders with a cumulative dollar value of up to ten percent (10%) of the contract price.

Section 3.3 Claims By Contractor.
(a) No Third-Party Claims. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall create or justify any claim against the City by any person that Contractor may have employed or with whom Contractor may have contracted relative to the purchase of materials, supplies or equipment, or the furnishing or the performance of any work or services with respect to the construction of the Project, and Contractor shall include similar requirements in any contracts entered into for the construction of the Project.
(b) Obligation to File Claims for Disputed Work. Should it appear to the Contractor that the work to be performed or any of the matters relative to the Contract Documents are not satisfactorily detailed or explained therein, or should any questions arise as to the meaning or intent of the Contract Documents, or should any dispute arise regarding the true value of any work performed, work omitted, extra work that the Contractor may be required to perform, time extensions, payment to the Contractor during performance of the work, construction of the Project, and/or compliance with procedures or standards set forth in the Contract Documents, or should Contractor otherwise seek extra time or compensation FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER, then Contractor shall first follow the procedures set forth in this Agreement, including but not limited to Section 3.2, “Change Orders.” If a dispute remains, then Contractor shall give written notice to the City that expressly invokes this Section 3.3 and requests a determination of the issue. City shall decide the issue in writing within 15 days; City’s decision shall be final and the limitations period for the filing of a claim shall commence upon the City’s issuance of its decision. If Contractor disagrees with City’s decision, or if Contractor contends that City failed to provide a timely decision, then Contractor’s SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY is to file a written claim setting forth Contractor’s position as required herein.
(c) Form and Contents of Claim. The Claim shall be submitted to the City within thirty (30) days of receiving the City’s written decision regarding the dispute, or the date the Contractor contends such decision was due, and in no event later than the date of final payment.

Contractor’s written claim must identify itself as a “Claim” under this Section 3.3 and must include the following: (1) a narrative of pertinent events; (2) citation to contract provisions; (3) theory of entitlement; (4) complete pricing of all cost impacts; (5) a time impact analysis of all time delays that shows actual time impact on the critical path; (6) documentation supporting 424
12 items 1 – 5; and (7) verification under penalty of perjury of the claim’s accuracy. The Claim shall be priced like a Change Order, and must be updated every thirty (30) days as to cost and entitlement if it remains a continuing Claim. Routine contract materials, for example, correspondence, RFI, Change Order requests, or payment requests shall not constitute a Claim.

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

1. City may render a final decision based solely on the materials submitted in support of the Claim or may in its sole discretion conduct an administrative hearing on the Claim, in which case Contractor shall appear, participate, answer inquiries, and present any further evidence or analysis requested by City. Should City take no action on the Claim within forty-five (45) days (if the Claim is for less than $50,000) or within sixty (60) days (if the Claim is for $50,000 or more) of submittal, it shall be deemed denied.

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

3. After their submittal, claims less than $375,000 shall also be subject to Section 20104 of the Local Agency Public Construction Act.
(e) Compliance

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

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

3. City shall not be deemed to waive any provision under this Section 3.3 if, at City’s sole discretion, a Claim is administered in a manner not in accord with this Section 3.3. Waivers or modifications of this Section 3.3 may only be made by signed Change Order approved as to form by legal counsel for both City and Contractor. Oral or implied modifications shall be of no force or effect. 425
13 Section 3.4 Indemnification.
(a) To the fullest extent permissible by law, Contractor shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless, and require its subcontractors to defend, indemnify and hold harmless, the City, its elected and appointed officials, and all of its employees, volunteers and agents (the "Indemnified Parties"), from all liability, penalties, costs, losses, damages, expenses, causes of action, claims or judgments, including attorney's fees and other defense costs (collectively, "Claims"), resulting from injury to or death sustained by any person (including Contractor’s or any subcontractors' employees), or damage to property of any kind, or any other injury or damage whatsoever, which Claims arise out of or are in any way connected with the construction of the Project, regardless of Contractor's fault or negligence; provided, however, that Contractor's, and Contractor's subcontractors' indemnity obligations hereunder shall not apply to the extent any Claims are caused by the active negligence or willful act or omission of an Indemnified Party. The indemnification obligations of Contractor and its subcontractors shall extend to Claims asserted after termination of this Agreement for whatever reason. (b) In Claims against any person or entity indemnified under Section 3.4(a) above by an employee of Contractor or its subcontractors, anyone directly or indirectly employed by any one of them or anyone for whose acts one of them may be liable, the indemnification obligation under Section 3.4(a) above shall not be limited by a limitation on amount or type of damages, compensation of benefits payable under workers' compensation acts, disability benefit acts or other employee benefit acts.

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

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

Section 3.6 No Third Party Beneficiaries.

There shall be no third party beneficiaries to this Agreement.

Section 3.7 Conflict of Interest.

(a) Except for approved eligible administrative or personnel costs, no person described in Section 3.7(b) below who exercises or has exercised any functions or responsibilities with respect to the activities funded pursuant to this Agreement or who is in a position to participate in a decision-making process or gain inside information with regard to such activities, may obtain a personal or financial interest or benefit from the activity, or have an interest in any contract, subcontract or agreement with respect thereto, or the proceeds thereunder, either for themselves or those with whom they have family or business ties, during, or at any time after, such person's tenure. Contractor shall exercise due diligence to ensure that the prohibition in this Section 3.7(a) is followed.
426
14 (b) The conflict of interest provisions of Section 3.7(a) above apply to any person who is an employee, agent, consultant, officer, or elected or appointed official of the City of Richmond, and any immediate family member or dependent of such person.

Section 3.8 Notices, Demands and Communications.

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

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

City of Richmond
450 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, California 94804
Attention: Darcie DeLashmutt

With copy to:

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

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

Calico California Constructores, Inc.
1220 Marin Ave,
San Pablo CA 94806
Attn: Carla Del Carpio

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

427
15 Section 3.9 Applicable Law.

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

Section 3.10 Parties Bound.

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

Section 3.11 Severability.

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

Section 3.12 Force Majeure.

Performance by either Party shall not be deemed to be in default when delays in performance are due to war, insurrection, strikes, lock-outs, riots, floods, earthquakes, fires, quarantine restrictions, freight embargoes, or court order, or any other similar causes (other than lack of funds of Contractor) beyond the control or without the fault of the Party claiming an extension of time to perform (“Force-Majeure Delays”). In no event shall any extension of any period of time be deemed to have occurred unless the Party claiming the Force-Majeure Delay gives written notice to the other Party within ten (10) days following the commencement of any such delay, setting forth the facts giving rise to the Force-Majeure Delay request, the expected duration of the delay, and the steps the Party intends to take to minimize the Delay. During the Force-Majeure Delay, the Party whose performance is delayed shall keep the other Party reasonably informed of the situation and the steps taken by such Party to continue performance and minimize delay. After the Force-Majeure Delay is over, the Parties shall in good faith jointly prepare an accurate written record of the circumstances giving rise to delay, specifying the commencement date and duration of the Force-Majeure Delay and the cause thereof, which record shall be signed by each Party to confirm agreement with respect to its content. In no event shall the City be required to agree to cumulative Force-Majeure Delays in excess of sixty (60) days unless the City is the cause of such delay. In the event that the parties cannot agree upon a record of the circumstances giving rise to the Force-Majeure Delay, the procedures set forth in Section 3.3 of this Agreement shall apply.
428
16 Section 3.13 Waivers.

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

Section 3.14 Title of Parts and Sections.

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

Section 3.15 Entire Understanding of the Parties.

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

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

Section 3.16 Multiple Originals; Counterpart.

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

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

429
17 Reviewed By:

_______________________
City Attorney

ATTEST:

_______________________________
City Clerk

CITY:

CITY OF RICHMOND, a municipal corporation and
charter city

By: _________________________________

Name: _________________________________

Its: __________________________________

CONTRACTOR:

Calico California Constructores, Inc.

By: _________________________________

Name: _________________________________

Its: _________________________________
430
18 Exhibit A
Proposal
431
19 432
20 433
21 434
22 435
23 436
24 437
25 438
26 439
27 440
28 441
29 442
30 443
31 444
32 445
33 446
34 447
35 448
36 449
37 450
38 Calico California Constructores, Inc.

April 22 25
1410 Kelsey Street
23046 Soccer Fields-Restrooms-Parks Project

451
39 452
40 453
41 Calico California Constructores, Inc.

454
42 455
43 456
44 457
45 458

Reso. No. xx-25

Page 1 of 2 ends

DocID #39395v1

RESOLUTION NO. xx-25

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

CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT WITH CALICO CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTORES, INC. FOR THE 23046 SOCCER FIELDS-

RESTROOMS-PARKS PROJECT

WHEREAS, the 23046 Soccer Fields-Restrooms-Parks Project Shields-Reid Improvements is located at 1410 Kelsey Street, Richmond, CA; and,

WHEREAS, this project includes preparation for artificial turf and lighting, fencing, gates, Ballstopper system, and related furnishings; and

WHEREAS, the project is funded by the state through the American Rescue Plan Act grant program; and

WHEREAS, an invitation for bids was duly advertised on November 22, 2024, which were opened on January 28, 2025; and

WHEREAS, there was a total of ten (10) bid submissions in the amounts below; and

Lowest
Bidder
Contractor Bid ($)
1 Calico California Constructores, Inc. $ 2,020,675.96 2 Bauman Landscape & Construction, Inc. $ 2,025,000.00 3 Frontline General Engineering Construction, Inc. $ 2,049,846.34 4 S&H Construction, Inc. $ 2,168,600.00
5 Buildcorp Inc. $ 2,175,000.00
6 Bay Construction Co $ 2,305,000.00
7 Azul Works Inc $ 2,434,000.00
8 O.C. Jones & Sons, Inc. $ 2,862,000.00
9 W.R Forde Associates, Inc. $ 3,405,152.45
10 Kerex Engineering, Inc. $ 3,495,000.00

WHEREAS, staff evaluation determined that Calico California Constructores, Inc. is the lowest responsible and responsive bidder.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richmond, as follows:

Section 1: The foregoing recitals are true and correct, and this City Council hereby so finds and determines.

Section 2: The City Council hereby authorizes staff to enter into a construction agreement contract with Calico California Constructores, Inc. for the 23046 Soccer Fields- Restrooms-Parks Project in the amount not to exceed $2,288,605.00.

Section 3: The Public Works Director is authorized to approve change orders, if necessary, for a contingency amount of up to $228,861.00 which is 10% of the bid amount, for a potential total construction phase cost of $2,517,466.00.

Section 4: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage.

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

459

Reso. No. xx-25

Page 2 of 2 ends

DocID #39395v1
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution of the City Council of the City of Richmond was duly passed and adopted at a meeting thereof held April 22, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:

CLERK OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
(SEAL)
Approved:

Mayor

Approved as to form:

City Attorney
460

Page 1 of 3 ends

April 22, 2025

Public Works

DATE: April 22, 2025
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM: Daniel Chavarria, PE, Director of Public Works
Robert Armijo, PE, Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Josef Munoz, Assistant Deputy Director of Public Works
Beatriz Guerrero Acuna, TCC Project Coordinator

Subject:

BNSF Railway Company Preliminary Engineering Services
Agreement for the Transformative Climate Communities
(TCC) Richmond Wellness Trail Phase 2 Project
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The City was awarded a Transformative Climate Communities (TCC) Round 4 Implementation Grant by the
California Strategic Growth Council’s. The TCC-funded
Richmond Wellness Trail Phase 2 Project budget includes $60,000 for the BNSF Railway Preliminary Engineering
Agreement. (Account String: 13761019-400201-16G12)

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

June 21, 2022
December 20, 2022

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

City staff are requesting adoption of a resolution
authorizing staff to execute a BNSF Railway Company
Preliminary Engineering Services Agreement for a portion of the Richmond Wellness Trail Phase 2 Project, which will affect railroad's track and BNSF right-of-way. BNSF
requires all work conducted by the City of Richmond
within the BNSF right-of-way to be subject to a
Preliminary Engineering Services Agreement for BNSF to
collaborate with City of Richmond on the conceptualization and development of the project.

AGENDA
REPORT
461

Page 2 of 3 ends

April 22, 2025

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

ADOPT a resolution authorizing the Public Works Director and the City Engineer to execute a BNSF Railway Company Preliminary Engineering Services Agreement for the
Transformative Climate Communities Richmond Wellness
Trail Phase 2 Project – Public Works Department (Robert Armijo 510-620-5477/Josef Munoz 510-620-6671).

DISCUSSION:

On October 27, 2022, the City of Richmond and its partners, Groundwork Richmond, GRID Alternatives, Rich City Rides, Trust for Public Land (TPL), and Urban Tilth were awarded a $35 million Transformative Climate Communities (TCC) Round 4 Implementation Grant by the California Strategic Growth Council (Attachment 1). The TCC Round 4 Implementation Grant will fund outreach, planning, design and construction phases for projects that can advance the Strategic Growth Council’s sustainable communities’ objectives, such as improving air quality, improving water quality, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving transportation and strengthening community resiliency to the impacts of climate change focused on three of Richmond’s most environmentally burdened neighborhoods – Coronado, Iron Triangle and Santa Fe, as identified by CalEnviroScreen.

One of the projects funded by the TCC Round 4 Implementation Grant is the Richmond Wellness Trail Phase 2 Project (Project). The City has contracted with Trust for Public Land to lead implementation of the Project. The Project is located on Marina Way South between Cutting Boulevard and the Richmond Ferry terminal and includes the development of protected cycle tracks and shaded pedestrian routes to provide a continuous route from the Richmond BART/Amtrak Intermodal Station to the Richmond Ferry terminal.

Key improvements under this Phase 1 include the construction of 1,400 feet of two-way Class IV cycle track and 3,500 feet of one-way cycle track, replacing traffic signals at Cutting Boulevard/Marina Way South and Wright Avenue/Marina Way South, installing pedestrian and bicycle scale lighting along the Marina Way segment, and enhancing BNSF crossing at Marina Way South - including new signs, striping, paving, and detectable warning devices.

The proposed improvements at the BNSF crossing will require encroaching on the BNSF Railway Company right-of-way. As such, BNSF is requiring the City to enter into a Preliminary Engineering Services Agreement (Agreement) to allow BNSF to review and provide services related to the City’s proposed plans, specifications, and construction of improvements at the Marina Way South crossing (Attachment 2).

City staff are recommending that the City Council authorize the Public Works Director and the City Engineer to execute the Agreement with BNSF Railway Company for the TCC Richmond Wellness Trail Phase 2 Project, for an amount not to exceed $60,000 as 462

Page 3 of 3 ends

April 22, 2025
set forth in the proposed Resolution (Attachment 3). The costs related to the Agreement are fully funded by the TCC Implementation Grant. The design phase of the Project commenced in June 2024, with completion expected by August 2026. Construction is anticipated to begin in November 2026 and conclude by Summer 2027.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – TCC Implementation Grant Award Letter
Attachment 2 – BNSF Railway Preliminary Engineering Services Agreement Attachment 3 – Resolution
Attachment 4 – Map

463
1400 Tenth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 ● www.sgc.ca.gov ● (916) 324-9775 October 31, 2022
Via Email
Mayor Tom Butt
City of Richmond
Attn: Lina Velasco
Director of Community Development
450 Civic Center Plaza, 2nd Floor
Richmond, CA 94804
[email protected]
RE: Awar d Notification – Transformative Climate Communities (TCC) Program, Round 4, Implementation Grant Award, City of Richmond, “Richmond Rising: Healthy, Connected, and Climate Strong” Dear Mayor Butt,
The California Strategic Growth Council (SGC) is pleased to inform you that the Council approved a Transformative Climate Communities Implementation award of $35 million dollars to the City of Richmond for “Richmond Rising:

Healthy, Connected, and Climate Strong” at its October 27, 2022, meeting. Previously funded by California’s Cap- and-Trade Program, Round 4 of TCC was funded by a FY 2021-2022 budget appropriation from the General Fund.

This program funding empowers the communities most impacted by pollution to choose their own goals, strategies, and projects to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and local air pollution. The TCC Program reflects the SGC’s commitment to support community-led transformation and achieve equitable, resilient communities and landscapes for all Californians. Congratulations on your successful application.

This letter provides a conditional commitment of grant funds. TCC staff will initiate the Post-Award Consultation (PAC) process soon by scheduling a meeting with the Awardee and sending a review package including review checklists for all projects and transformative plans. This process will involve addressing any outstanding issues identified by TCC staff, reviewers, and the interagency panel, as well as finalizing the grant agreement. Grantees and Partners will need to work closely and collaboratively with TCC Staff to address all issues prior to grant execution. All requested documentation and changes should be finalized within six (6) months after the Council makes awards. New to Round 4, we will provide a mini grant to support administrative, staff, and materials costs for Grantees and Partners as they complete the PAC process. Our partnering agency, the Department of Conservation, will lead the PAC process.

Following execution of the grant agreement, grant funds will be disbursed on a bi-monthly basis for eligible direct, indirect, and indicator tracking costs. All reimbursed costs must meet the requirements for reimbursable tasks outlined in the grant agreement. TCC has also been authorized for an Advance Pay Pilot program (AB 156) and will follow up on the terms for accessing advance pay once approved by Council. Please note that no funds will be reimbursed for costs and expenses incurred prior to grant agreement execution, with the exception of limited PAC costs for staff and materials in accordance with forthcoming guidance.

We look forward to our partnership in the coming years. If you have any questions, please contact Sophie Young, TCC Program Manager, at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Ly
nn von Koch-Liebert
Executive Director
California Strategic Growth Council
464
Contract Number: BF-20535490

1 of 5

PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT
Project Review and Diagnostic Evaluation

BNSF File No.: BF-20535490
Mile Post 1191.380
Line Segment 7678
U.S. DOT Number 15657X, 751656U
Richmond Inner Harbor Subdivision

This Agreement (“Agreement”) is executed to be effective as of ___________________ (“Effective Date”) , by and between BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, a Delaware corporation (“BNSF”) and the City of Richmond , a political subdivision of the State of California (“Agency”).

RECITALS

WHEREAS, BNSF owns and operates a line of railroad in and through the City of Richmond, State of California;

WHEREAS, Agency has stated its intention to proceed initially with a project to modify the Marina Way South at -grade crossings (DOT# 015657X & DOT# 751656U ) (the “Project”);

WHEREAS, Agency has requested that BNSF perform certain preliminary engineering review services and other Work (defined below) with respect to its railroad facilities located at or near the Project site to facilitate Agency’s evaluation of the feasibility of proceeding with the Project; and

WHEREAS, BNSF is agreeable to performing the Work, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement;

AGREEMENT

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements of the parties contained herein, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
465
Contract Number: BF-20535490

2 of 5

1) Scope of Work

As used herein, the term “Work” includes all work performed by BNSF, its employees, contractors, consultants, or other agents (collectively, the “BNSF Parties” ) pursuant to this Agreement, including, but not limited to: (a) conducting on- site visits including diagnostic evaluations; (b) performing preliminary engineering services; (c) developing cost estimates for construction of the Project; (d) preparing draft agreements including legal review; and (e) reviewing and/or providing comments on preliminary layouts or other designs, plans, and/or documents in connection with the Project.

2) Payment and Deposit for Work

Agency authorizes BNSF to proceed with the Work relating to the Project. Agency shall pay and reimburse BNSF for all actual costs and expenses that BNSF incurs in performing the Work, including without limitation: (a) labor, supplies, and material; (b) direct and indirect labor and contractor charges including additives; (c) delivery charges; (d) BNSF’s additives and overhead, as such are in effect on the date BNSF prepares its final billing; and (e) all applicable taxes due, paid, or payable by BNSF on such products and services, including sales and use taxes, business and occupation taxes, and similar taxes (collectively, “Actual Costs”) . BNSF’s estimated cost for Work on this Project is $60,000 (“Estimated Cost”). Any estimate provided by BNSF for the Work shall not be a limitation on the Work to be performed or the costs and expenses incurred, which Agency shall reimburse to BNSF in full.

During its performance of the Work pursuant to this Agreement, BNSF will send Agency progressive invoices detailing the costs of the Work performed to date.

Agency must reimburse BNSF for completed Work within thirty (30) days of the date of the invoice for such Work. Upon final completion of the Work, BNSF will send Agency a detailed invoice of final costs. Agency must pay the final invoice within ninety (90) days of the date of the final invoice. BNSF will assess a finance charge of .033% per day (12% per annum) on any unpaid sums or other charges due under this Agreement which are past such thirty (30) or ninety (90) day terms, as applicable. The finance charge continues to accrue daily until the date payment is received by BNSF, not the date payment i s made or the date postmarked on the payment. Finance charges will be assessed on delinquent sums and other charges as of the end of the month and will be reduced by amounts in dispute and any unposted payments received by the month’s end. Finance charges will be noted on invoices sent to Agency under this section.

466
Contract Number: BF-20535490

3 of 5

3) Scope and Limitations of Agreement
The parties acknowledge that entering into this Agreement does not of itself obligate either BNSF or Agency to participate in the construction of the Project. If Agency elects to proceed with the Project after the Work is performed, then BNSF and Agency agree to enter into negotiations for appropriate agreements regarding the construction of the Project and other related activities. Nothing in this Agreement — including BNSF’s performance of the Work — shall obligate BNSF to enter into any subsequent agreement or otherwise permit the Project except and subject to any terms and conditions that BNSF may subsequently approve in its sole discretion.

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, BNSF’s review, approval, and/or other participation in the Project or any element thereof, including the Work performed by the BNSF Parties hereunder, are expressly limited to — and are intended and understood by the parties to be in furtherance of — BNSF’s railroad purposes, and are not in furtherance of Agency’s purposes in undertaking the Project. All Work performed hereunder is intended for use in evaluating the impact of the Project on BNSF’s railroad and the costs to Agency associated therewith. BNSF is providing the Work in consideration of BNSF’s subjective standards for its railroad purposes only.

Consequently, the Work shall in no way be construed or deemed to be BNSF’s recommendation, condition, or direction to Agency, nor shall the Work be construed or deemed to be BNSF’s opinion or approval that the plans and specifications or any work intended or completed on the Project (a) is appropriate for any other purpose including highway purposes; (b) is structurally sound; or (c) meets applicable standards, regulations, laws, statutes, local ordinances, and/or building codes. No benefits to Agency or any third party are provided, intended, or implied herein. Agency shall at all times be sol ely responsible for the adequacy and compliance of all design elements of the Project for highway and other public purposes. AGENCY SHALL WAIVE ANY CLAIMS AGAINST BNSF FOR — AND SHALL RELEASE BNSF FROM — ANY AND

ALL CLAIMS WHICH MAY OR COULD RESULT FROM T HE WORK PERFORMED

HEREUNDER, AND IF APPLICABLE TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY

LAW, AGENCY SHALL INDEMNIFY BNSF FOR AND HOLD IT HARMLESS FROM AND AGAINST ANY SUCH CLAIMS.
4) No Right of Entry
Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as providing Agency or its contractors, consultants, or other agents any right of entry upon property owned or occupied by BNSF.

Any preliminary engineering or other work required by Agency in connection with t he Project necessitating entry upon BNSF’s railroad right-of-way shall only be conducted as 467
Contract Number: BF-20535490

4 of 5

authorized by a separate written permit obtained by Agency from BNSF for such entry (“Entry Permit”).

The Entry Permit will provide that any on- site visits, including diagnostic evaluations, by Agency and its parties required for the Project shall be conducted only from adjoining properties, and Agency shall ensure that no attendees enter or remain on BNSF ’s right- of-way, except when using an authorized highway -rail crossing designated for such purpose.

Agency or its agents must contact BNSF’s Manager of Public Projects, or BNSF’s permitting agent Jones Lang LaSalle Brokerage, Inc. (“ JLL”) at http://bnsf.railpermitting.com/
to obtain the required Entry Permit prior to any entry. 5) Disclaimer

BNSF GIVES NO WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE ACCURACY,

QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR

ANY OTHER MATTER, OF OR FOR THE WORK PERFORMED PURSUANT TO THIS

AGREEMENT OR ANY REPORT OR OTHER DELIVERABLE WHICH BNSF MAY FURNISH TO AGENCY PURSUANT TO THIS AGREEMENT. BNSF SHALL IN NO WAY BE RESPONSIBLE FOR AGENCY’S PROPER RELIANCE UPON,
INTERPRETATION OF, OR OTHER USE OF THE WORK. BNSF IS NOT A

CONTRACTOR, AGENT, PARTNER, OR JOINT VENTURER OF AGENCY BECAUSE OF THIS AGREEMENT OR BECAUSE OF BNSF’S PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK.

LIKEWISE, THE BNSF PARTIES WHO MAY ASSIST BNSF IN PERFORMING THE WORK ARE DOING SO FOR BNSF’S BENEFIT ONLY, AND ARE NOT — AND SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO BE — CONTRACTORS, SUBCONTRACTORS, OR AGENTS OF AGENCY.

468
Contract Number: BF-20535490

5 of 5

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the day and year first written above.

City of Richmond BNSF Railway Company

By: ____________________________ By: _____________________________

Name: __________________________ Name: __________________________

Title:____________________________ Title:____________________________

Accepted and effective this _____________________________.

469
Reso. No. xx-25

Page 1 of 2 ends

RESOLUTION NO. _____

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

CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR AND THE CITY

ENGINEER TO EXECUTE A PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING SERVICES

AGREEMENT WITH BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY (BNSF)
FOR THE TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE COMMUNITIES – RICHMOND
WELLNESS TRAIL PHASE 2 PROJECT

WHEREAS, on October 27, 2022, the City of Richmond (City) and its partners, Groundwork Richmond, GRID Alternatives, Rich City Rides, Trust for Public Land (TPL), and Urban Tilth were awarded a $35 million Transformative Climate Communities (TCC) Round 4 Implementation Grant by the California Strategic Growth Council; and

WHEREAS, the Richmond Wellness Trail Phase 2 Project is funded by the TCC Round 4 Implementation Grant. The Project is located on Marina Way South, between Cutting Boulevard and the Richmond Ferry terminal, and includes the development of Class IV cycle tracks and shaded pedestrian routes to provide a continuous route from the Richmond BART/Amtrak Intermodal Station to the Richmond Ferry Terminal; and

WHEREAS, improvements include enhancements at the BNSF crossing at Marina Way South, and will require encroaching on BNSF right-of-way. As such, BNSF is requiring the City to enter into a Preliminary Engineering Services Agreement (Agreement) to allow BNSF to review and provide services related to the City’s proposed plans, specifications, and construction of improvements at the Marina Way South crossing; and

WHEREAS, City staff recommends the City Council authorize the Public Works Director and the City Engineer to execute the Agreement and any amendments thereto in an amount not exceed $60,000. The Agreement is fully funded by the TCC Round 4 Implementation Grant; and

WHEREAS, by the agenda report (“Agenda Report”), dated April 22, 2025, accompanying this resolution, the City Council has been provided with additional information upon which the findings and actions set forth in this Resolution are based.

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 Public Works Director and the City Engineer are authorized to execute the Agreement and any amendments thereto for the Transformative Climate Communities – Richmond Wellness Trail Phase 2 Project in an amount not to exceed $60,000.

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

I certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting thereof held April 22, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:
470
Reso. No. xx-25

Page 2 of 2 ends

ABSENT:

Approved:

Mayor

Approved as to form:

City Attorney

CLERK OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
(SEAL)
471
472

Page 1 of 2 ends

April 22, 2025

Public Works

DATE: April 22, 2025
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Daniel Chavarria, Director of Public Works
Tawfic Halaby, Deputy Director of Public Works
Operations & Maintenance
Jason Lacy, Parks and Landscape Superintendent
Keith Rush, Equipment Parts Specialist
Gabino Arredondo, Project Manager

Subject:

Contract with RDO Equipment Co. for Tree Chipper
Repair
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The estimated $15,000 expenditure will be made from the Fiscal Year (FY) 2024-25 Parks and Landscaping
General Fund Budget (01233631-400501).

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None.

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

Public Works is seeking approval of a contract to pay
outstanding invoices for the repair of a tree chipper.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: APPROVE a contract with RDO Equipment Co. for $15,000 to pay for outstanding invoices related to the
repair of a tree chipper with a contract term of August 2, 2024, and ending June 30, 2025 – Public Works (Tawfic
Halaby 510-620-5482/Jason Lacey 510-620-6920/Keith
Rush 510-231-3071).

AGENDA
REPORT
473

Page 2 of 2 ends

April 22, 2025
DISCUSSION:

The Public Works Department Fleet Division sent a Parks and Landscaping Division tree chipper for repair and maintenance with RDO Equipment Co. The cost of the repair exceeded $10,000 and requires City Council approval. Due to staffing changes this item did not have the appropriate oversight and the equipment was sent for repair before the appropriate contract approval process. The repair and maintenance work has been completed by the vendor, which has generated outstanding invoices, and the vendor requires payment for services prior to releasing the equipment.

The Parks and Landscaping Division is still in need of the repaired tree chipper. Therefore, Public Works has generated a new contract to f ollow the appropriate after -the-fact contracting process to pay the outstanding invoices. A tree chipper is an essential piece of equipment for the Parks and Landscaping Division tree crew to respond to routine and emergency work orders.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 - Resolution
Attachment 2 - Contract

474

Reso. No. ____

Page 1 of 2 ends

RESOLUTION NO. ____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT WITH RDO EQUIPMENT CO. FOR $14,935 TO PAY FOR OUTSTANDING INVOICES RELATED TO THE REPAIR OF A TREE CHIPPER WITH A CONTRACT TERM BEGINNING AUGUST 2, 2024 AND ENDING JUNE 30, 2025

WHEREAS, the Public Works Department Fleet Division sent a Parks and Landscaping Division tree chipper for repair and maintenance with RDO Equipment Co; and

WHEREAS, the cost of repairs surpassed the $10,000 City Council approval threshold; and

WHEREAS, due to staffing changes and lack of oversight the appropriate contract approval process was not followed in a timely manner; and

WHEREAS, the repair and maintenance work has been completed by the vendor, which has generated outstanding invoices, and the vendor will not release the equipment until they are paid; and

WHEREAS, the Parks and Landscaping Division is still in need of the repaired tree chipper; and

WHEREAS, a tree chipper is an essential piece of equipment for the Parks and Landscaping Division tree crew to respond to routine and emergency work orders.

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 a contract with RDO Equipment Co. for $14,935 to pay for outstanding invoices related to the repair of a tree chipper with a contract term beginning August 2, 2024, and ending June 30, 2025.

*****************
I certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting thereof held May ____, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:

PAMELA CHRISTIAN

CLERK OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
(SEAL)
Approved:

EDUARDO MARTINEZ

Approved as to form:

DAVE ALSHIRE
475

Reso. No. ____

Page 2 of 2 ends

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. _____ finally passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting held on May___, 2025.

_________________________________________
Pamela Christian, Clerk of the City of Richmond
476

CITY OF RICHMOND

STANDARD CONTRACT
Department: City Project Manager:

City Project Manager E-mail: City Project Manager Phone No:

Vendor No: Contract No:

Description of Services:

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

1. Parties. The parties to this Contract are the City of Richmond, a municipal corporation (“the City”), and the following named Contractor:

Contractor Name:

Street Address:

City, State, Zip Code:

Contact Person:

Telephone: Email:

Business License No:
☐ A California corporation, ☐ limited liability corporation ☐ general partnership, ☐ limited partnership, ☐ individual, ☐ non-profit corporation, ☐ individual dba as [specify:] ____________________ ☐ other [specify:] _______________________________

2. Term. The effective date of this Contract is _______________________ and terminates _________________ unless terminated earlier as set forth herein.

3. Payment Limit. City’s total payments to Contractor under this Contract shall not exceed $______________ (“Contract Payment Limit”) unless a Contract Amendment has been approved by the City Council or City Manager. If this amount includes a contingency, Contractor acknowledges that any use of such contingency shall be for work beyond the original scope of services and requires prior written authorization by the City. If noted below, Compensation for work done under this Contract, shall not exceed as follows:

FY _________ total compensation shall not exceed $_________________ FY _________ total compensation shall not exceed $_________________ FY _________ total compensation shall not exceed $_________________

4. Contractor’s Obligations. Contractor agrees to perform all work at its own cost and expense, to furnish all labor, tools, equipment, materials, except as otherwise specified, in accordance with the Service Plan set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein.

5. City Obligations. City shall make payments to the Contractor in accordance with the Payment Provisions set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein.

Public Works
Keith Rush
[email protected]
(510) 620-6606
974
Repair non-functioning wood chipper.

RDO Equipment Co.
24353 Clawiter Road
Hayward, CA 94545
Jim Johnson
(701) 526-9690
[email protected], [email protected]
40067720
August 2, 2024
June 30, 2025
15,000.00
24/25
15,000.00
477

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

7. General Conditions. This Contract is subject to the General Conditions (Exhibit D), which are attached hereto and incorporated herein.

8. Special Conditions. This Contract is subject to the Special Conditions (Exhibit E) (if any), which are attached hereto and incorporated herein.

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

10. Sanctuary City Compliance Statement. This Contract is subject to the Sanctuary City Compliance Statement (Exhibit G), which is attached hereto and incorporated herein.

11. Signatures. These signatures attest the parties' agreement hereto:

CITY OF RICHMOND,
a municipal corporation [BUSINESS NAME]
(* The Corporation Chairperson of the Board, President, or Vice President should sign below)

By: _________________________ By: ___________________________ Title: ________________________ Title: __________________________ Date Signed: _________________ Date Signed: ___________________

I hereby certify that this Contract (* The Corporation Chief Financial Officer or Assistant has been approved by City Council Treasurer, or Secretary or Assistant Secretary should or the City Manager. sign below)

By: _________________________ By: ___________________________ City Clerk Title: __________________________
Date Signed: ____________________
Approved as to form:
(NOTE: Pursuant to California Corporations Code Section By: _________________________ 313, if Contractor is a corporation or nonprofit organization, City Attorney this Contract (1) must be signed by (a) the Chairperson of the Board, President, or Vice-President and (b) the
Chief Financial Officer or Assistant Treasurer, or
Secretary or Assistant Secretary)

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:

Service Plan Exhibit A
Payment Provisions Exhibit B
Authorized Representatives and Notices Exhibit C
General Conditions Exhibit D
Special Conditions Exhibit E
Insurance Provisions Exhibit F
Sanctuary City Compliance Statement Exhibit G

RDO Equipment Co.
478
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________

EXHIBIT A

SERVICE PLAN

Contractor shall, to the satisfaction of the Project Manager ( set forth in Exhibit B) , perform the following services and be compensated as outlined below [or attach service plan if necessary]:

RDO Equipment Co.

Repair non-functioning wood chipper. See attached service invoices. 479
N/A HAYWARD, CA *REPRINT*08/02/24 21:15:17 (B) 013036017 5106206740 W2760174CITY OF RICHMOND MIPPO BOX 4046RICHMOND CA 94804-0046ACV / RVJ STK#/FLEET# HRS PIN/EIN WARRANTY DATE HRSX908295 BC1500 DOM. WINCH 809 1VR2181V1L1009822 11/05/20 1000 BWG92025 BC1500 E 22379356** Buy parts online and view your invoices at RDOequipment.com/account.SEGMENT# 1 C COD01 0000V 07/03/24 07/03/24 07/18/24DiagnosticCONDITION:__________Customer states non organic material fed through machineCORRECTION:___________Drum:- Removed debris from the infeed. Spread the feed rollers.- One of the knives broke off at the hardware. This damagedthe drum and mounting surface. Drum replacement required.- The knife turned projectile made contact with the shearbar and belly pan. A hole was punctured through the bellypan. Belly pan replacement required.General:- LH side door latch is missing.- Engine oil is due for replacement.- Engine air filters are due for replacement.- Hydraulic filter is unmarked.- Fuel filters are unmarked.- Drive belt is OK.- Accessory drive belt is OK.ADDITIONAL DESCRIPTION:_______________________Dee 510-231-3035 [email protected] 325.6010401099 SEGMENT TOTAL==> 325.60________________________________________________________________________________________________SEGMENT# 2 C COD01 3166V 07/11/24 07/11/24 07/18/24Belly Band Pan R&R CMPCONTINUED ON PAGE 02 480
N/A HAYWARD, CA08/02/24 21:15:17 (B) 023036017 5106206740 W2760174CITY OF RICHMOND MIPPO BOX 4046RICHMOND CA 94804-0046ACV / RVJ STK#/FLEET# HRS PIN/EIN WARRANTY DATE HRSX908295 BC1500 DOM. WINCH 809 1VR2181V1L1009822 11/05/20 1000 BWG92025 BC1500 E 22379356CONDITION:__________- Drum is scored up. Mating surface for knife is damaged.Replacement required.- Belly pan has a puncture hole in it. Replacementrequired.- Knives have been destroyed.CAUSE:______- Foreign object entered the infeed. Broke a knife off ofthe drum and the knife caused major damage to the bellypan, drum, and other knife.CORRECTION:___________- Remove shields.- Remove drive belt and tensioner.- Measure sheave alignment and remove sheave.- Remove harnesses.- Remove hydraulic lines and the tank.- Remove the chute and discharge neck.- Remove the drum bearings and hoist the drum out from thecutter housing.- Inspect the cutter housing for burrs and other damages.Mark areas for repair.- Mark belly pan alignment.- Mask/Protect sensitive components from torch and cuttingwheel.- Cut out the belly pan from the cutter housing.- Clean up the surfaces and prep housing for mockup of thenew pan.- Align the new pan and tack weld it into place.- Test fit the replacement drum to ensure the belly pan isfitted correctly.CONTINUED ON PAGE 03 481
N/A HAYWARD, CA08/02/24 21:15:17 (B) 033036017 5106206740 W2760174CITY OF RICHMOND MIPPO BOX 4046RICHMOND CA 94804-0046ACV / RVJ STK#/FLEET# HRS PIN/EIN WARRANTY DATE HRSX908295 BC1500 DOM. WINCH 809 1VR2181V1L1009822 11/05/20 1000 BWG92025 BC1500 E 22379356- Fully weld the belly pan into place.- Prep, prime, and paint the metal.- Reverse disassembly.- Functions test and grease machine.ADDITIONAL DESCRIPTION:_______________________- Required.FRT SHIP/HANDLING 2 20.00 40.00153202001 WASHER - D 1 7.23 7.23163624003 BEARING - 2 293.63 587.26163627631 CUTTER DRUM ASY 1 6576.12 6576.12163627646P BAND - BELLY 1 257.80 257.80507085016 NUT-HEXFLN 14 2.61 36.54507614045 SCREW-HFS; 6 O 5.41 32.46508478060 SCREW-HCS; 8 3.74 29.92508486016 WASHER-FLAT M16 8 .92 7.36508491030 SCREW-SBHC 1 1.79 1.79PARTS 7576.48LABOR 3520.0010401099 SEGMENT TOTAL==> 11096.48________________________________________________________________________________________________SEGMENT# 3 C COD01 M001V 07/11/24 07/11/24 07/18/24Engine Oil and Filter R&RCONDITION:__________- Engine oil is due for replacement.CAUSE:______- Wear and tear.CORRECTION:___________- Removed side shield- Drained engine oil and fill.- Replaced filter, marked and date hours.CONTINUED ON PAGE 04 482
N/A HAYWARD, CA08/02/24 21:15:17 (B) 043036017 5106206740 W2760174CITY OF RICHMOND MIPPO BOX 4046RICHMOND CA 94804-0046ACV / RVJ STK#/FLEET# HRS PIN/EIN WARRANTY DATE HRSX908295 BC1500 DOM. WINCH 809 1VR2181V1L1009822 11/05/20 1000 BWG92025 BC1500 E 22379356ADDITIONAL DESCRIPTION:_______________________- RecommendedFRO645 15W40 OIL 2.5G 2 59.99 119.98180026871 FILTER,ENGINE,O 1 31.26 31.26PARTS 151.24LABOR 220.0010401099 SEGMENT TOTAL==> 371.24________________________________________________________________________________________________SEGMENT# 4 C COD01 M002V 07/11/24 07/11/24 07/18/24Fuel Filters (all) R&RCONDITION:__________- Fuel filters are unmarked and of unknown age.CAUSE:______- Wear and tear.CORRECTION:___________- Removed side panel.- Drained and removed filters. Replaced, marked date andhours.ADDITIONAL DESCRIPTION:_______________________- Recommended180026873 FILTER FUEL SEP 1 128.35 128.35180027289 FILTER,FUEL 1 60.03 60.03PARTS 188.38LABOR 110.0010401099 SEGMENT TOTAL==> 298.38________________________________________________________________________________________________SEGMENT# 5 C COD01 M003V 07/11/24 07/11/24 07/18/24Engine Air Filters (all) R&RCONDITION:__________- Air cleaner elements are dirty.CONTINUED ON PAGE 05 483
N/A HAYWARD, CA08/02/24 21:15:17 (B) 053036017 5106206740 W2760174CITY OF RICHMOND MIPPO BOX 4046RICHMOND CA 94804-0046ACV / RVJ STK#/FLEET# HRS PIN/EIN WARRANTY DATE HRSX908295 BC1500 DOM. WINCH 809 1VR2181V1L1009822 11/05/20 1000 BWG92025 BC1500 E 22379356CAUSE:______- Wear and tear.CORRECTION:___________- Removed air box lid.- Removed and replaced filters. Marked date and hours.- Cleaned out air box and installed lid.ADDITIONAL DESCRIPTION:_______________________- Recommended180021162 ELEMENT, PRIMAR 1 144.68 144.68180027287 CLEANER, SECOND 1 89.59 89.59PARTS 234.27LABOR 55.0010401099 SEGMENT TOTAL==> 289.27________________________________________________________________________________________________SEGMENT# 6 C COD01 M021V 07/11/24 07/11/24 07/18/24Hydraulic System Service CMPCONDITION:__________- Hydraulic filter is of unknown age.- Hydraulic oil change was due at 500 hours. No indicationit was completed.CAUSE:______- Wear and tear.CORRECTION:___________- Removed and replaced filter. Marked date and hours.- Cleaned hydraulic tank. Removed the lid and removed theoil.Installed the lid with a fresh gasket. Filled tank.- Functions tested machine and checked for leaks.ADDITIONAL DESCRIPTION:_______________________- Recommended CONTINUED ON PAGE 06 484
N/A HAYWARD, CA08/02/24 21:15:17 (B) 063036017 5106206740 W2760174CITY OF RICHMOND MIPPO BOX 4046RICHMOND CA 94804-0046ACV / RVJ STK#/FLEET# HRS PIN/EIN WARRANTY DATE HRSX908295 BC1500 DOM. WINCH 809 1VR2181V1L1009822 11/05/20 1000 BWG92025 BC1500 E 22379356163627097 GASKET-HYD RESE 1 30.93 30.93180005675 HYD FILTER 1 34.90 34.9099662003 VMF HYD FL 2 112.78 225.56PARTS 291.39LABOR 330.0010401099 SEGMENT TOTAL==> 621.39________________________________________________________________________________________________SEGMENT# 7 C COD01 3720V 07/11/24 07/11/24 07/18/24Latch (each) R&R CMPCONDITION:__________- Engine compartment door is missing a latch.CAUSE:______- Install new latch assembly.CORRECTION:___________- Removed broken latch.- Installed replacement latch.ADDITIONAL DESCRIPTION:_______________________- Recommended163642892 CAM-LATCH LOCKA 1 31.59 31.59163642893 CAM - 4 MM GRIP 1 2.51 2.51PARTS 34.10LABOR 165.0010401099 SEGMENT TOTAL==> 199.10________________________________________________________________________________________________SEGMENT# 8 C COD01 6060V 07/11/24 07/11/24 07/18/24Shear Bar R&R CMPCONDITION:__________- Shear bar is damaged.CAUSE:______- The lost cutter knife made contact with the shear bar andCONTINUED ON PAGE 07 485
N/A HAYWARD, CA08/02/24 21:15:17 (B) 073036017 5106206740 W2760174CITY OF RICHMOND MIPPO BOX 4046RICHMOND CA 94804-0046ACV / RVJ STK#/FLEET# HRS PIN/EIN WARRANTY DATE HRSX908295 BC1500 DOM. WINCH 809 1VR2181V1L1009822 11/05/20 1000 BWG92025 BC1500 E 22379356chewed it up.CORRECTION:___________- Removed shear bar.- Cleaned mounting surface.- Installed and adjusted new shear bar. Torqued to spec.ADDITIONAL DESCRIPTION:_______________________- Required.163627662 SHEAR BAR 1 154.30 154.30507614040 SCREW-HFS,M16-2 4 4.38 17.52PARTS 171.82LABOR 385.0010401099 SEGMENT TOTAL==> 556.82________________________________________________________________________________________________ ****** WORK ORDER TOTALS ******PARTS 8647.68LABOR 5110.60HAZARDOUS MTL 80.00SRV ACCESSORIES 150.00SUB TOTAL==> 13988.28ALAMEDA County 22.00ALAMEDA CO LOCAL TAX SL Special 87.97ALAMEDA COUNTY DISTRICT TAX SP Special 263.93CA STATE TAX 527.86HAYWARD City 43.99TOTAL DUE RDO 14934.03+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+| Payments are due on your RDO account 30 days from the invoice date |CONTINUED ON PAGE 08 486
N/A HAYWARD, CA08/02/24 21:15:17 (B) 083036017 5106206740 W2760174CITY OF RICHMOND MIPPO BOX 4046RICHMOND CA 94804-0046ACV / RVJ STK#/FLEET# HRS PIN/EIN WARRANTY DATE HRSX908295 BC1500 DOM. WINCH 809 1VR2181V1L1009822 11/05/20 1000 BWG92025 BC1500 E 22379356+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+***************************************************************************PLEASE REMIT TO: RDO EQUIPMENT CO.10108 RIVERFORD ROADLAKESIDE, CA 92040*************************************************************************** 487
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________

EXHIBIT B

PAYMENT PROVISIONS

1. COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR:

a. Provided Contractor is not in default under this Contract, Contractor shall be compensated in the manner set forth herein.

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

c. All City vendors receiving new contracts shall sign up to receive electronic payments through the City’s Automated Clearinghouse (ACH) payments service/provider.

2. SUBMISSION OF INVOICES:

Contractor shall submit timely invoices by email to
[email protected] and/or to the following address:

Attention: City of Richmond Finance/Account Payable
Project Manager: _______________________
P.O. Box 4046
Richmond, CA 94804

3. All invoices that are submitted by Contractor shall be subject to the approval of the City Project Manager, _______________________, before payments shall be authorized.

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

b. All appropriate permits, certificates, and licenses, including a City business license shall be obtained and maintained for the duration of this Contract before any payment is authorized.

4. All insurance coverage required by this Contract shall be provided by the Contractor before this Contract is executed by the City. The insurance coverage required by this Contract shall be maintained by Contractor for the duration of this Contract and must be in place before any payment is authorized.

Keith Rush
Keith Rush
RDO Equipment Co.
488
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________

EXHIBIT C

AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES AND NOTICES

1. All required written notices shall be delivered: (i) by hand; or (ii) sent by registered, express, or certified mail, with return receipt requested or with delivery confirmation requested from the U.S. postal service; or (iii) sent by overnight or same day courier service at the party’s respective address listed in this Section.

2. Each notice shall be deemed to have been received on the earlier to occur of:
actual delivery or the date on which delivery is refused; or three (3) days after notice is deposited in the U.S. mail or with a courier service in the manner described above (Sundays and City holidays excepted).

3. Either party may, at any time, change its notice address (other than to a post office box address) by giving the other party three (3) days prior written notice of the new address.

4. All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from Contractor to the City shall be addressed to the City at:

City of Richmond
450 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
Email: ________________________________________________

5. All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from the City to Contractor shall be addressed to Contractor at:

Attn:

Email: ________________________________________________ Keith Rush
[email protected]
RDO Equipment Co.

RDO Equipment Co.
24353 Clawiter Road
Hayward, CA 94545
[email protected], [email protected]
489
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________

EXHIBIT D

GENERAL CONDITIONS

1. INDEPENDENT PARTIES:

Contractor hereby declares that Contractor is engaged as an independent business and Contractor agrees to perform the services as an independent contractor.

The manner and means of conducting the services and tasks are under the control of Contractor except to the extent they are limited by statute, rule or regulation and the express terms of this Contract. No civil service status or other right of employment will be acquired by virtue of Contractor’s services. None of the benefits provided by the City to its employees, including but not limited to unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation plans, vacation and sick leave, are available from the City to Contractor, its employees or agents. Deductions shall not be made for any state or federal taxes, FICA payments, PERS payments, or other purposes normally associated with an employer-employee relationship from any compensation due to Contractor. Payments of the above items, if required, are the responsibility of Contractor.

2. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE:

Contractor and the City agree that time is of the essence regarding the performance of this Contract.

3. STANDARD OF CARE:

Contractor agrees to perform all services hereunder in a manner commensurate with the prevailing standards of like professionals or service Contractors, as applicable, in the San Francisco Bay Area and agrees that all services shall be performed by qualified and experienced personnel who are not employed by the City.

4. IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL ACT (IRCA):

Contractor assumes all responsibility for verifying the identity and employment authorization of all of its employees performing work hereunder, pursuant to all applicable IRCA or other federal, or state rules and regulations. Contractor shall indemnify, defend, and hold the City harmless from and against any loss, damage, liability, costs or expenses arising from any noncompliance of this provision by Contractor.

5. NON-DISCRIMINATION:

Consistent with the City’s policy and state and federal law that harassment and discrimination are unacceptable conduct, Contractor and its employees, contractors, and agents shall not harass or discriminate against any job applicant, City employee, or any other person on the basis of any kind of any statutorily (federal, state or local) protected class, including but not limited to: race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, RDO Equipment Co.
490
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
disability (both mental and physical) including HIV and AIDS, medical condition (e.g. cancer), genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, pregnancy, political affiliation, military and veteran status or legitimate union activities. Contractor agrees that any violation of this provision shall constitute a material breach of this Contract.

6. CITY PROPERTY:
a. Each and every report, draft, work product, map, record, applicable plans, drawings, calculation, data, specification, video, graphic, or any other material or document produced, prepared or caused to be prepared by Contractor pursuant to or in connection with this Contract shall be the exclusive property of the City.

b. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Contractor shall not be obligated to provide to City proprietary software or data which Contractor has developed or had developed for Contractor's own use; provided, however, that Contractor shall, pursuant to Section 11 below, indemnify, defend and hold the City harmless from and against any discovery or Public Records Act request seeking the disclosure of such proprietary software or data.

c. No report, information or other data given to or prepared or assembled by Contractor pursuant to this Contract shall be made available to any individual or organization by Contractor without prior approval of the City Manager or their designee.

d. Contractor shall, at such time and in such form as City Manager or their designee may require, furnish reports concerning the status of services and tasks required under this Contract.

7. RECORDS:

a. Contractor shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to the services, tasks, work, documents and data in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of Contractor’s performance under the Contract, as well as maintain books and records related to sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by the City that relate to the performance of the services and tasks under this Contract (collectively the “Records”).

b. All Records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Contractor shall provide free access to the Records to the representatives of the City or its designees during regular business hours upon reasonable prior notice. The City has the right to examine and audit the Records, and to make copies or transcripts therefrom as necessary, and to allow inspection of all proceedings and activities related to this Contract. Such Records, together with supporting documents, shall be kept separate from other documents and records and shall be maintained by Contractor for a period of five (5) years after receipt of final payment.

RDO Equipment Co.
491
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
c. If supplemental examination or audit of the Records is necessary due to concerns raised by the City’s preliminary examination or audit of records, and the City’s supplemental examination or audit of the records discloses a failure to adhere to appropriate internal financial controls, or other breach of this Contract or failure to act in good faith, then Contractor shall reimburse the City for all reasonable costs and expenses associated with the supplemental examination or audit.

8. PERMITS AND LICENSES:

Contractor, at its sole expense, shall obtain and maintain during the term of this Contract, all appropriate permits, certificates and licenses, including a City business license, required in connection with the performance of the services and tasks hereunder.

The failure to obtain such permits and licenses shall be a material breach of this Contract and grounds for immediate termination by City; provided, however, that City may waive the business license requirement in writing under unusual or extraordinary circumstances without necessitating any modification of this Contract to reflect such waiver.

9. TERMINATION:

a. Termination Without Default. Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, the City may, in its sole and absolute discretion and without cause, terminate this Contract at any time prior to completion by Contractor of the project or services hereunder immediately upon transmission of written notice to Contractor as provided in Exhibit C “Authorized Representatives and Notices”.

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

10. CONFLICT OF INTEREST:

Contractor acknowledges, represents and warrants that Contractor shall avoid all conflicts of interest (as defined under any federal, state or local statute, rule or regulation, or at common law) with respect to this Contract. Contractor further acknowledges, represents and warrants that no City official or employee has any economic interest, as defined in Title 2, California Code of Regulations §§ 18703.1 through 18703.5, with Contractor that would invalidate this Contract. Contractor acknowledges that in the event that Contractor shall be found by any judicial or administrative body to have any conflict of interest (as defined above) with respect to this Contract, all consideration received under RDO Equipment Co.
492
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
this Contract shall be forfeited and returned to City forthwith. This provision shall survive the termination of this Contract for one (1) year.

11. HOLD HARMLESS:

a. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Contractor shall indemnify, defend (with counsel acceptable to the City) and hold harmless the City, its City Council, boards, commissions, officials, employees, agents and volunteers (“Indemnitees”) from and against any and all loss, damages, liability, obligations, claims, suits, judgments, costs and expenses whatsoever, including attorney’s fees and costs of litigation (“Claims”), arising from or in any manner connected to Contractor’s performance of its obligations under this Contract or failure to comply with any of its obligations under this Contract or out of the operations conducted by Contractor even if the City is found to have been negligent. If the Claims filed against Indemnitees allege negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct on the part of Contractor, Contractor shall have no right of reimbursement against Indemnitees for the costs of defense even if negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct is not found on the part of Contractor. Contractor shall not have any obligations to indemnify Indemnitees if the loss or damage is found to have resulted solely from the negligence or the willful misconduct of the City. The defense and indemnification obligations of this Contract are undertaken in addition to, and shall not in any way be limited by, the insurance obligations contained in this Contract.

b. This indemnification obligation shall survive this Contract and shall not be limited by any term of any insurance policy required under this Contract; provided however, that if this Contract is for design professional services, this indemnity provision is limited to claims that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the design professional (as defined in California Civil Code section 2782.8).

12. LIMITATIONS UPON SUBCONTRACTING AND ASSIGNMENT:

a. This Contract binds the heirs, successors, assigns and representatives of Contractor. The Contractor shall not enter into subcontracts for any work contemplated under this Contract and shall not assign this Contract, nor any portion hereof or monies due or to become due, without the prior written consent of the City Council or its designee.

b. Contractor shall not assign, sublease, hypothecate, or transfer this Contract, or any interest therein, directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise, without prior written consent of the City Manager. Contractor shall submit a written request for consent to transfer to the City Manager at least thirty (30) days in advance of the desired transfer.

The City Manager or their designee may consent or reject such request in their sole and absolute discretion. Any attempt to do so without said consent shall be null and void, and any assignee, sublessee, hypothecate or transferee shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer. However, claims for RDO Equipment Co.
493
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
money against the City under this Contract may be assigned by Contractor to a bank, trust company or other financial institution without prior written consent.

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

d. Only those persons and/or businesses whose names and resumés are attached to this Contract shall be used in the performance of this Contract. However, if after the start of this Contract, Contractor wishes to use sub-contractors, at no additional costs to the City, then Contractor shall submit a written request for consent to add sub- contractors including the names of the sub-contractors and the reasons for the request to the City Manager at least five (5) days in advance. The City Manager may consent or reject such requests in their sole and absolute discretion.

e. Each sub-contractor shall be required to furnish proof of workers’ compensation insurance and shall also be required to carry general, automobile and professional liability insurance (as applicable) in reasonable conformity to the insurance carried by Contractor.

f. In addition, any tasks or services performed by sub-contractors shall be subject to each provision of this Contract. Contractor shall include the following language in their Contract with any sub-contractor: “Sub-Contractors hired by Contractor agree to be bound to Contractor and the City in the same manner and to the same extent as Contractor is bound to the City.”

g. The requirements in this Section 12 shall not apply to persons who are merely providing materials, supplies, data or information that Contractor then analyzes and incorporates into its work product.

13. SAFETY:

a. Contractor acknowledges that the City is committed to the highest standards of workplace safety. Contractor will be solely and completely responsible for conditions of all vehicles owned or operated by Contractor, including the safety of all persons and property during performance of the services and tasks under this Contract.

Contractor shall assume sole and complete responsibility for the safety of Contractor's employees and any of subcontractor's employees This requirement will apply continuously and not be limited to normal working hours. In addition, Contractor will comply with all safety provisions in conformance with U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Act, any equivalent state law, and all other applicable RDO Equipment Co.
494
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
federal, state, county and local laws, ordinances, codes, and any regulations that may be detailed in other parts of the Contract. Where any of these are in conflict, the more stringent requirements will be followed. Contractor’s failure to thoroughly familiarize itself with the aforementioned safety provisions will not relieve it from compliance with the obligations and penalties set forth herein.

b. Contractor will immediately notify the City (in no event less than 24 hours) of any incident of death, serious personal injury or substantial property damage that occurs in connection with the performance of this Contract. Contractor will promptly submit to the City a written report of all incidents that occur in connection with this Contract. This report must include the following information: (i) name and address of injured or deceased person(s); (ii) name and address of Contractor’s employee(s) involved in the incident; (iii) name and address of Contractor’s liability insurance carrier; (iv) a detailed description of the incident; and (v) a police report.

c. Contractor acknowledges that the City shall have the right to impose, at the City’s sole discretion, requirements that it deems are necessary to protect the health and safety of the City employees, residents, and visitors. Contractor agrees to comply with all such requirements, including, but not limited to, mandatory vaccinations, the use of personal protective equipment (e.g. masks), physical distancing, and health screenings.

Contractor also agrees to make available to the City, at the City’s request, records to demonstrate Contractor’s compliance with this Section.

14. INSURANCE:

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

15. COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE LAWS:

a. During the term of this Contract, Contractor shall keep fully informed of all existing and future state and federal laws and all municipal ordinances and regulations of the City of Richmond which affect the manner in which the services or tasks are to be performed by Contractor, as well as all such orders and decrees of bodies or tribunals having any jurisdiction or authority over the same. Contractor shall comply with all applicable laws, state and federal and all ordinances, rules and regulations enacted or issued by the City. Compliance under this provision includes compliance with all provisions of the Richmond Municipal Code ("Municipal Code"), including Chapters 2.50,

2.52, 2.56, and 2.60, if applicable.

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

RDO Equipment Co.
495
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________

c. Contractor shall comply with § 2.28.030 of the Municipal Code, obligating every Contractor or sub-Contractor under an agreement or sub-agreement with the City for public works, goods or services to refrain from discriminatory employment or practices on the basis of race, color, sex, sexual orientation, religious creed, national origin or ancestry of any employee, any applicant for employment or any potential sub-contractor.

d. Contractor acknowledges that the City’s Drug Free Workplace Policy, Violence in the Workplace Policy and the Policy Against Workplace Harassment, are available on the City’s website at http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/workplacepolicies.

Contractor agrees to abide by the terms and conditions of said policies.

16. INTEGRATED CONTRACT:

The Recitals and exhibits are a material part of this Contract and are expressly incorporated herein. This Contract represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or nature whatsoever between the parties hereto, and all preliminary negotiations and agreements of whatsoever kind or nature are merged herein. No verbal agreement or implied covenant shall be held to vary the provisions hereof. Any modification of this Contract will be effective only by written execution signed by both the City and Contractor.

17. CONFLICTING PROVISIONS:

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

18. FORCE MAJEURE:

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

19. CONFLICT OF LAW:

This Contract shall be interpreted under, and enforced by the laws of the State of RDO Equipment Co.
496
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
California without regard to any choice of law rules which may direct the application of laws of another jurisdiction. The Contract and obligations of the parties are subject to all valid laws, orders, rules, and regulations of the authorities having jurisdiction over this Contract (or the successors of those authorities). Any suits brought pursuant to this Contract shall be filed with the courts of the County of Contra Costa, State of California.

20. CLAIMS:

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

21. INTERPRETATION:

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

22. WARRANTY:

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

23. SEVERABILITY:

In the event that any of the provisions or portions or applications thereof of this Contract are held to be unenforceable or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, City and Contractor shall negotiate an equitable adjustment in the provisions of the Contract with a view toward effecting the purpose of this Contract, and the validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions or portions or applications thereof, shall not be affected thereby.

24. AUTHORITY:

City warrants and represents that the signatory hereto (the Mayor of the City of Richmond or the City Manager) is duly authorized to enter into and execute this Contract on behalf of City. The party signing on behalf of Contractor warrants and represents that they are duly authorized to enter into and execute this Contract on behalf of Contractor, RDO Equipment Co.
497
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
and shall be personally liable to City if they are not duly authorized to enter into and execute this Contract on behalf of Contractor.

25. WAIVER:

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

26. COUNTERPARTS:

This Contract may be executed in any number of counterparts (including by fax, PDF, DocuSign, or other electronic means), each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument.

27. SANCTUARY CITY CONTRACTING ORDINANCE (SCCO):

The Richmond Sanctuary City Contracting Ordinance No. 12-18 prohibits the City from granting and or retaining contracts with any person or entity that provides Data Broker or Extreme Vetting services to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the United States Department of Homeland Security (“ICE”). Contractor must submit the Sanctuary City Compliance Statement, attached hereto as Exhibit G.

RDO Equipment Co.
498
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________

EXHIBIT E

SPECIAL CONDITIONS

The General Conditions are hereby amended to include the following modifications and/or provisions (if applicable, otherwise please state “NONE”):

RDO Equipment Co.

None
499
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________

EXHIBIT F

INSURANCE PROVISIONS
☐ CHECK HERE IF RISK MANAGEMENT HAS APPROVED WAIVING INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS CONTRACT.

1. CERTIFICATES: Before the commencement of the terms of this Contract, and during the entire term of this Contract and any extension or modification thereof, Contractor shall furnish the City’s Risk Manager with certificates showing the type, amount, class of operations covered, effective dates and dates of expiration of insurance coverage in compliance with coverage requirements set forth by the City and incorporated herein.

Such certificates, which do not limit Contractor’s indemnification, shall also contain substantially the following statement:
“Should any of the above insurance covered by this certificate be canceled or coverage reduced before the expiration date thereof, the insurer affording coverage shall provide thirty (30) days’ advance written notice to the City of Richmond.

Attention: Risk Manager.”
Contractor shall maintain in force at all times during the performance of this Contract all appropriate coverage of insurance required by this Contract with an insurance company licensed to offer insurance business in the State of California with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII or Standard & Poor’s Rating (if rated) of at least BBB unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Contractor shall deliver updated insurance certificates to the City at the address set forth in Exhibit C prior to the expiration of the existing insurance certificate for the duration of the term of Contract.

Endorsements naming the City, its City Council, boards, commissions, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers as additional insured shall be submitted with the insurance certificates.

2. COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS: The City’s insurance requirements depend upon the type of service being provided and/or the provider. The City’s insurance requirements will fall into one of the following categories (unless otherwise provided by the City):

Consultants and Contractors – Type 1
Professional Services – Type 2
Environmental Risk/Hazardous Waste Material – Type 3
Lease of City Property – Type 4
Vendors, Suppliers, Small Grant Recipients & Nonprofit Organizations – Type 5 Transportation Providers – Type 6
Professional Services Pyrotechnics – Type 7
Cyber and I.T. Risks – Type 8
RDO Equipment Co.
500
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
The insurance requirements classification applicable to this Contract shall be attached to this Exhibit F and made a part hereof.

3. FAILURE TO SECURE: If Contractor at any time during the term hereof should fail to secure or maintain the foregoing insurance, the City shall be permitted to obtain such insurance in Contractor’s name or as an agent of Contractor and shall be compensated by Contractor for the costs of the insurance premiums at the maximum rate permitted by law and computed from the date written notice is received that the premiums have not been paid.

4. SUFFICIENCY OF INSURANCE: The insurance limits required by the City are not represented as being sufficient to protect Contractor. Contractor is advised to consult Contractor’s insurance broker to determine adequate coverage for Contractor. The coverage and limits shall be (1) the minimum coverage and limits specified in this Contract; or (2) the broader coverage and maximum limits of the coverage carried by or available to Contractor; whichever is greater.

INSERT INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CLASSIFICATION APPLICABLE TO THIS CONTRACT: (IF NECESSARY, CONFIRM WITH RISK MANAGER)
RDO Equipment Co.
501
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________

EXHIBIT G

SANCTUARY CITY COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

The undersigned, (hereafter "Contractor"), has had an opportunity to review the requirements of City of Richmond Ordinance 12-18 (hereafter "Sanctuary City Contracting Ordinance" or “SCCO”).

Contractor understands and agrees that the City may choose with whom it will maintain business relations and may refrain from contracting with any person or entity that provides Data Broker or Extreme Vetting services to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the United States Department of Homeland Security (“ICE”). Contractor understands the meaning of the following terms used in the SCCO:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Printed Name: Title:

Signed: Date:

Business Entity:

RDO Equipment Co.
502

Page 1 of 12 ends

Richmond City CouncilApril 22, 2025

Richmond City Council
April 22, 2025