The sites at Burlingame & Monterey St., S 51st St. & Bayview Ave., and 700 W Cutting Blvd. will each have a large trash capture device installed to remove trash and sediment before conveying the stormwater back into the storm drain system which flows to the San Francisco Bay. The 7th St. GSRD is an existing trash capture device that will be repaired and secured so that it remains operational. The specific attributes for each location are summarized below in Table 1.
Table 1. City of Richmond Project Location Information
Device Device Type1 City Jurisdiction
Drainage Area
(Acres)
Caltrans
STGA
(Acres)
Total Device
Drainage
Area (Acres)
Burlingame & Monterey St. TBD 66.7 14.1 80.8
S 51st St. & Bayview Ave. TBD 30.8 13.4 62.6
700 W Cutting Blvd. TBD 154.7 23.0 195.6
7th St. GSRD GSRD 159.3 TBD2 159.3
Total 411.5 50.5 498.3
1 Devices may be Continuous Deflective System (CDS), Debris Separating Baffle Box (DSBB), or Hydrodynamic Separator (HDS) 2 The amount of compliance credited will be determined based on discussions with the San Francisco Bay RWQCB (see the discussion under “Alternative Compliance Project”)
The project generally involves initial engineering and geotechnical assessments, detailed design, environmental compliance, permitting, excavation to install the trash capture device into the existing storm drain system, and reconstruction of disturbed portions of the site.
The City will ensure and lead the long-term operation and maintenance of the constructed trash capture devices.
Alternative Compliance Credit
Under CDO provision 5.c.i, Caltrans may claim alternative compliance credits through demonstration of infeasibility:
If the Department and Regional Water Board agree that it is infeasible to implement trash controls sufficient to reach full trash capture equivalency within significant trash generating portions of ROW or in areas managed by municipalities or local agencies to which trash from Department ROW is discharged, or other trash control projects within watersheds that reduce trash discharges from Department ROW, the Department may seek alternative compliance credits. Two acres of local ROW or watershed area treated will yield one acre of alternative compliance credit based on similar trash generation rating, i.e., the non-Department ROW treated area must be of equivalent trash generation to the ROW determined to be infeasible to treat.
The 7th St. GSRD is an existing trash capture device installed and maintained by the City.
However, the device has suffered from vandalism multiple times and is currently non- operational and will remain so until the device can be repaired and protected by a fence.
Although the 7th St. GSRD does not directly treat runoff from Caltrans ROW, the San Francisco Bay RWQCB has agreed to grant Caltrans 100 acres of alternative compliance credit, creating a compliance generating nexus to the use of public funds to repair the device.
739
Caltrans Cooperative Implementation Agreement – City of Richmond
Preliminary Cost Estimate
The following planning-level cost estimate has been prepared for the multi-site Project (Table 2). This estimate includes the costs associated with design, permits, an environmental assessment, construction, construction administration and inspections, contingency, bonding, and mobilization. The cost estimate will be subject to adjustment as more information becomes available during the development of the detailed designs. The total cost for the multi-site project is estimated to be $10.25M (see table 2).
Table 2. City of Richmond Multi-Site Project Preliminary Planning-Level Cost Estimate Device Status Estimated
Preliminary
Engineering
Costs
Estimated
Construction
Costs
Estimated
Construction
Engineering
Costs
Total
Burlingame &
Monterey St.
Proposed $150,000 $2,100,000 $250,000 $2,500,000
S 51st St. &
Bayview Ave.
Proposed $200,000 $2,050,000 $250,000 $2,500,000
700 W Cutting
Blvd.
Proposed $200,000 $2,950,000 $350,000 $3,500,000
7th St. GSRD Existing – To
Be Repaired
$150,000 $1,425,000 $175,000 $1,750,000
Total $700,000 $8,525,000 $1,025,000 $10,250,000
Preliminary Project Schedule
The preliminary schedule is as follows, subject to refinement as the project is developed:
Task Schedule
Finalize Funding 10/2025
Execute Design Contract 12/2025
Approval of 20% Design (including necessary precuring of permits) 04/2026 Approval of Development Agreement 05/2026
Complete Additional Site Investigation 07/2026
Construction Drawings – 60% Milestone 10/2026
Construction Drawings – 90% Milestone 02/2027
Construction Drawings – 100% Milestone 05/2027
Advertise for Bids 06/2027
Award Construction Contract 09/2027
Commence Construction (1 month) 10/2027
*Invoicing Deadline for FY 2026-2027 Funding Allocation May 2029 *City may request adjustments to the schedule line items except for the deadlines to extend Caltrans funding allocations.
740
Caltrans Cooperative Implementation Agreement – City of Richmond
Encumbrance Schedule
The encumbrance schedule and final invoice dates are shown below.
Fiscal Year Encumbrance Final Invoice Date
FY 2025-2026 $2,000,000 May 1, 2028
FY 2026-2027 $3,000,000 May 1, 2029
FY 2027-2028 $2,000,000 May 1, 2030
FY 2028-2029 $3,250,000 May 1, 2031
741
Caltrans Cooperative Implementation Agreement – City of Richmond Attachment II-A
Attachment II-A
Maps of Proposed Trash Capture Locations and Drainage Area Treated
742
Caltrans Cooperative Implementation Agreement – City of Richmond Attachment II-A
Figure II-A-1. Overview of Proposed Large Device Locations (4 Devices) 743
Caltrans Cooperative Implementation Agreement – City of Richmond Attachment II-A
Figure II-A-2. Burlingame & Monterey St. Device
744
Caltrans Cooperative Implementation Agreement – City of Richmond Attachment II-A
Figure II-A-3. S 51st St. & Bayview Ave. Device
745
Caltrans Cooperative Implementation Agreement – City of Richmond Attachment II-A
Figure II-A-4. 700 W Cutting Blvd. Device
746
Caltrans Cooperative Implementation Agreement – City of Richmond Attachment II-A
Figure II-A-5. 7th St. Device
747
1 Sent via email: no hard copy to follow
August 21, 2025
California Department of Transportation
Attn. Hardeep Takhar, Chief Environmental Engineer
1120 N Street
P.O. Box 942873, MS-27
Sacramento, CA 95814
[email protected]
Subject: Conceptual Approval of Multi-benefit Cooperative Agreement with City of Richmond; Trash Discharge Cease & Desist Order and Statewide Municipal Stormwater Permit, California Department of Transportation Dear Mr. Takhar:
Consistent with the requirements of the Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans’ or Department’s) Statewide NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit (Order No. 2022-0033- DWQ) (Permit) and the Statewide Trash Amendments to the Water Quality Control Plans for Ocean Waters and for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries, Caltrans must control discharges of trash from significant trash generating areas (STGAs) of its right- of-way (ROW) by no later than 2030. The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) also regulates Caltrans trash discharge through Cease and Desist Order (CDO) (Order No. R2-2019-0007
, as amended by R2-2021-0030).
CDO provision 1 allows Caltrans to coordinate trash device installation with municipalities as follows:
The Regional Water Board commits to working with the Department to identify opportunities for cooperative projects with local municipalities to implement trash controls. To the extent possible, the Department will prioritize cooperative projects with disadvantaged communities.
CDO provision 5.c.i allows Caltrans to claim alternative compliance credits through demonstration of infeasibility:
If the Department and Regional Water Board agree that it is infeasible to implement trash controls sufficient to reach full trash capture equivalency within significant trash generating portions of ROW or in areas managed by municipalities or local agencies to which trash from Department ROW is discharged, or other trash control projects within watersheds that reduce trash discharges from Department ROW, the Department may seek alternative 748
2 compliance credits. Two acres of local ROW or watershed area treated will yield one acre of alternative compliance credit based on similar trash generation rating, i.e., the non-Department ROW treated area must be of equivalent trash generation to the ROW determined to be infeasible to treat.
On July 22, 2025, Caltrans submitted a request for final approval of the multi-pollutant removal full trash capture device installations, which have been implemented by the cooperative agreement partnership between Caltrans and the City of Richmond (City). Caltrans will generate trash control compliance credit from the installation of four certified full trash capture devices, as described in Table 1, below. Caltrans is also requesting conceptual approval for alternative compliance credits to be granted toward CDO benchmark acreages in areas where Caltrans demonstrates infeasibility of implementing trash controls.
Table 1 – Trash Control Compliance Summaries
No. Project Location
Total Area
Treated
(Acres)
Caltrans Area
Treated
(Acres)
Device
Type
1 Burlingame & Montgomery St.[a] 81 16 TBD
2 S 51st St & Bayview Ave.[a] 63 28 TBD
3 700 W Cutting Blvd.[a] 196 23 TBD
4 7th St.[b] 159 0 GSRD1
5 Alternative Compliance Credit2 - 100 -
[a] 10 acres of duplicative Caltrans operational structural control treatment has been identified through the screening process.
[b] The 7th St. GSRD is an existing device that has already been installed in the City. Due to frequent vandalism, the device is currently non-operational. The goal of including this site is to work with Caltrans to redesign and repair the GSRD, including additional fencing and/or other measures to prevent future vandalism. 1 Debris-separating baffle box (DSBB) or gross solids removal device (GSRD) Alternative Compliance Credit
Alternative compliance credit will only be granted toward CDO benchmark acreages in areas where Caltrans demonstrates infeasibility of both structural and non-structural trash controls within its ROW due to safety, maintenance, accessibility, or other justifiable reasons. Prior to alternative compliance credit being granted, the Department must exhaust all treatment opportunities within its ROW through structural controls or enhanced maintenance, or off its ROW through cooperative implementation projects that treat discharges from its ROW. Ultimately, Caltrans cannot offset the discharge of trash from STGAs by controlling trash from non-Caltrans ROW or non-STGAs unless trash opportunities within Caltrans ROW are fully evaluated, identified, documented, and deemed infeasible.
The Water Board is giving our conceptual approval of the four projects shown in
1 Gross Solids Removal Device (GSRD)
2 Demonstration of infeasibility to be provided in the FY 2025 CDO Annual Report. 749
3 Table 1, conditioned on submittal of the following information by the City and/or Caltrans once project planning and design are finalized, and prior to construction:
• Map(s) delineating the area draining to the trash capture devices. Maps should identify the areas and trash generation rating of Caltrans and municipal ROW to be controlled for trash by the device.
• Documentation (maps showing both ABAG land use layers and the treated drainage area) confirming that the treated area is old industrial land use. • Final design plans and calculations including a breakdown of Caltrans and City ROW acres controlled by the devices and the trash generation rating of those areas.
• Confirmation that the device meets the requirements of MRP Provision C.10 and is on the State Board list of approved trash capture devices. • Final project agreements between Caltrans and the County. These should include identification of the party responsible for ongoing operation and maintenance of the device once installed. If operation/maintenance responsibilities are not described in the final agreements, provide this information in a separate document.
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) and Mercury Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Credit
Caltrans will generate waste load reduction compliance credit from the installation of the four certified full trash capture devices, as described in Table 2, associated with the Water Board’s San Francisco Bay PCBs and mercury TMDLs. The Caltrans NPDES Permit allows an acreage credit of three times the credit recognized for Caltrans-funded regional partnership projects that reduce PCB and mercury loading in old urban and industrial areas.
Table 2 – Mercury & PCB Compliance Summaries
No. Project Location
Caltrans
Area
Treated
(Acres)
Removal
Efficiency
3X Credit for
Old Urban &
Industrial
Land Use
Mercury &
PCB Credit
(Acres)
1 Burlingame &
Montgomery St. 16 20% X3 9.6
2 S 51st St &
Bayview Ave. 28 20% X3 16.8
3 700 W Cutting
Blvd. 23 20% X3 13.8
4 7th St. 0 - - 0
5 Additional - - - Up to 50
We will work with Caltrans to determine appropriate PCBs and mercury TMDL reduction crediting toward their respective stormwater NPDES permit requirements based on the land uses within the treatment catchment, supporting information documenting PCBs concentrations/loads in the contributing catchment, and removal efficiencies of the installed devices. Specifically, the following information should be provided when project 750
4 construction is completed:
1. Design plans showing these large facilities are appropriately sized to the 1-year and 1-hour storm standard, and there is no considerable bypass during high flow events.
2. Documentation demonstrating PCBs concentrations/loads in the contributing catchment and verifying PCBs removal efficiency as at least 20 percent for all trash control measures; this can be addressed by stormwater sampling of PCB concentrations in the influent and outflow of runoff treated by the trash capture devices.
We appreciate Caltrans’ significant engagement with Bay Area municipalities to develop multi-benefit trash control solutions that also provide PCBs and mercury load reduction benefits. However, Caltrans should continue to maximize on-system and/or offsite implementation of green stormwater infrastructure in old industrial areas as the primary compliance strategy for PCBs and mercury TMDL compliance. We will meet with Caltrans separately to discuss Caltrans compliance strategies for meeting PCBs and mercury load reduction requirements.
Based on the information provided, San Francisco Bay Water Board staff believes these projects will contribute toward Caltrans demonstration of compliance with the trash discharge CDO and PCB and mercury pollutant control requirements. The San Francisco Bay Water Board will work separately with Caltrans to determine the appropriate application of alternative compliance credits based on the corridor-based trash control feasibility assessments that are currently in progress.
If you have any questions regarding this approval, please contact Qi Yan at (510) 622-2329 or via email to [email protected].
Sincerely,
Keith H. Lichten, P.E.
Division Chief
cc (via email):
Caltrans
Ken Johansson, Statewide Stormwater Program Manager
[email protected]
Jagjiwan Grewal, Supervising Transportation Engineer
[email protected]
Bhaskar Joshi, Supervising Transportation Engineer
[email protected]
Brian Rowley, District 4 Office Chief [email protected] State Water Board
Jarma Bennett, Supervisor, Surface Water Permitting,
[email protected]
Digitally signed by Keith H.
Lichten, Division Manager
Date: 2025.08.21 15:43:33
-07'00'
751
5 Mary Boyd, Senior WRCE, [email protected]
Nicholas Wong, WRCE, [email protected]
Shane Marshall, WRCE, [email protected] Leila Mosadegh, WRCE, [email protected] 752
753
City of Richmond
CIA No. D43CIARI0003
COOPERATIVE IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, ENTERED INTO EFFECTIVE ON ______________, (the EFFECTIVE DATE) is between the State of California acting by and through its Department of Transportation, referred to herein as CALTRANS and the City of Richmond, a body politic and a municipal corporation (chartered City) of the State of California, referred to herein as AGENCY.
CALTRANS and AGENCY are together referred to as PARTIES.
RECITALS
1. CALTRANS and AGENCY, pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code (SHC) Sections 114 and 130, are authorized to enter into a Cooperative Agreement for improvements to the State Highway System (SHS) as a watershed stakeholder within AGENCY’s jurisdiction.
2. As per Attachment D of the Caltrans National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Permit Order 2022-0033-DWQ (NPDES Permit), Section 5.1 and/or Attachment E, Section 3 of the NPDES Permit, CALTRANS and AGENCY may collaboratively implement the NPDES Permit requirements as they have been identified as stakeholders in the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) or contain Significant Trash Generating Areas (STGA) for a four- location regional partnership project (hereinafter referred to as “PROJECT”). CALTRANS has agreed to contribute an amount not to exceed ten million and two-hundred and fifty thousand Dollars ($10,250,000) to AGENCY for AGENCY to construct the PROJECT, within the regional area under the jurisdiction of AGENCY to comply with the TMDL or to treat STGAs. The NPDES Permit (including Attachments D and E) is located at:
www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/caltrans.html
3. AGENCY has agreed to implement the PROJECT subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement including all documents attached hereto that are incorporated herein and hereby made a part of this Agreement (collectively referred to as the AGREEMENT).
4. AGENCY will be responsible for all management, maintenance and operations, including costs of the constructed PROJECT.
5. For NPDES Permit compliance, CALTRANS will claim 51 acres of PROJECT trash control and pollutant waste load reductions granted by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board for the PROJECT equal to the percentage of total PROJECT cost contributed by CALTRANS or the waste load allocation assigned to CALTRANS for the PROJECT watershed, whichever is less. CALTRANS intends to use the PROJECT investment to generate alternative compliance credits through a demonstration of equivalent State Highway System implementation infeasibility, to generate 100 acres of trash control and load reductions required to meet its trash discharge Cease and Desist Order (R2-2019- 0007) requirements and Polychlorinated Biphenyl and Mercury TMDL waste load allocations.
6. Cooperative implementation has the following advantages: cooperative implementation (i) allows for water quality improvement projects off the ROW, at locations that may otherwise have space, access, or safety limitations within the ROW; (ii) provides for the involvement of local watershed partners who have an interest and expertise in the best way 754
City of Richmond
CIA No. D43CIARI0003
to protect, manage, and enhance water quality in the watershed; (iii) allows for implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other creative solutions not typically available to CALTRANS; (iv) allows for larger watershed-scale projects; and (v) leverages resources from other entities.
7. All services performed by AGENCY pursuant to this AGREEMENT are intended to be performed in accordance with all applicable Federal, State and AGENCY laws, ordinances, and regulations, and with CALTRANS published manuals, policies, and procedures. In case of a conflict between Federal, State and AGENCY laws, ordinances, or regulations, the order of precedence applicability of these laws shall be Federal, State and then AGENCY laws and regulations, respectively.
8. CALTRANS share of PROJECT funding is as follows:
FUND TITLE FUND SOURCE DOLLAR AMOUNT
SHA State of California $10,250,000
755
City of Richmond
CIA No. D43CIARI0003
SECTION I
All sections of this AGREEMENT including the recitals are enforceable.
1. AGENCY has agreed to implement the PROJECT in accordance with Attachment II- SCOPE SUMMARY. The SCOPE SUMMARY that is attached to and made a part of this AGREEMENT defines in detail the PROJECT’s scope of work, description, schedule, location and budget.
2. AGENCY will be responsible for all management, maintenance and operations, including costs of the constructed PROJECT.
3. AGENCY will develop and construct the PROJECT in accordance with the applicable laws, policies, practices, procedures and standards. This applies to all procurements, including land acquisitions, licenses and permits.
4. AGENCY shall prepare initial engineering and geotechnical assessments, and detailed design as well as acquire environmental reviews and right of way (ROW) needed for the PROJECT.
This work is equivalent to CALTRANS process of Project Initiation Document (PID), Project Approval & Environmental Document (PA&ED) and Plans, Specification and Estimate (PS&E). AGENCY will pay for, coordinate, prepare, obtain, implement, renew, and amend all permits needed to complete the PROJECT. AGENCY will prepare CEQA environmental documentation to meet California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements.
5. AGENCY will advertise, open bids, award, and approve the construction contract in accordance with the California Public Contract Code and the California Labor Code and will be responsible for the administration, acceptance, and final documentation of the construction contract.
6. CALTRANS shall reimburse AGENCY for actual costs of the PROJECT not exceeding the amount set forth in Section 8 below.
7. CALTRANS shall have the right to inspect the PROJECT work to be performed hereunder at any time during its progress and to make final inspection upon completion thereof. Failure of CALTRANS to object within 30 days after final inspection shall indicate satisfactory performance of this AGREEMENT by AGENCY.
8. The total amount CALTRANS will reimburse to AGENCY pursuant to this AGREEMENT shall not exceed $10,250,000 (“Contract Sum”). Costs incurred by AGENCY for PROJECT work under this AGREEMENT in excess of the Contract Sum will be borne by AGENCY. It is understood and agreed that this AGREEMENT fund limit is an estimate, and that CALTRANS will only reimburse the cost of services actually rendered as authorized by the CALTRANS Contract Manager or designee at or below the fund limitation amount set forth in this AGREEMENT and in accordance with the Budget included in Attachment II.
9. All administrative draft and administrative final reports, studies, materials, and documentation relied upon, produced, created or utilized for the PROJECT will be held in confidence to the extent permitted by law, and where applicable, the provisions of California Government Code section 7921.505 shall govern the disclosure of such documents in the event said documents are shared between the PARTIES. Parties will not distribute, release, or share said documents with anyone without prior written consent of the 756
City of Richmond
CIA No. D43CIARI0003
party authorized to release said documents except: (i) to employees, agents, and consultants who require access to complete the work described within this AGREEMENT; or (ii) where release is required or authorized by law.
10. HM-1 is defined as hazardous material (including but not limited to hazardous waste) that requires removal and disposal pursuant to Federal or State law, whether it is disturbed by the PROJECT or not. HM-2 is defined as hazardous material (including but not limited to hazardous waste) that may require removal and disposal pursuant to Federal or State law, only if disturbed by the PROJECT.
11. CALTRANS, independent of the PROJECT costs, is responsible for any HM-1 found within existing CALTRANS ROW. CALTRANS will undertake HM-1 management activities with minimum impact to the PROJECT schedule and will pay all costs associated with HM-1 management activities.
12. CALTRANS has no responsibility for management activities or costs associated with HM- 1 found outside the CALTRANS existing ROW. AGENCY, independent of PROJECT costs, is responsible for any HM-1 found within PROJECT limits outside existing CALTRANS ROW, and will pay, or cause to be paid, all costs associated with HM-1 management activities. AGENCY will undertake, or cause to be undertaken, HM-1 management activities with minimum impact to the PROJECT schedule.
13. If HM-2 is found within the limits of the PROJECT, the AGENCY responsible for advertisement, award, and administration (AAA) of the PROJECT construction contract will be responsible for HM-2 management activities. Any management activity cost associated with HM-2 is a PROJECT construction cost.
14. This AGREEMENT may only be amended or modified by mutual written agreement of the PARTIES.
757
City of Richmond
CIA No. D43CIARI0003
SECTION II- GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. TERMINATION
A. This AGREEMENT may be terminated by the PARTIES upon mutual written agreement.
In the event of a termination CALTRANS will reimburse AGENCY all allowable, authorized, and non-cancelable obligations and costs incurred by AGENCY prior to the termination.
B. CALTRANS reserves the right to terminate this AGREEMENT before the AGENCY awards the PROJECT construction contract or begins to do project work. CALTRANS will reimburse AGENCY reasonable, allowable, authorized and non-cancelled costs up to the date of termination that are attributable to the PROJECT.
C. This AGREEMENT will terminate upon completion of PROJECT when all PARTIES have met all scope, cost, and schedule commitments included in this AGREEMENT and have signed a closure statement, which is a document signed by the PARTIES that verifies the completion of PROJECT, except that all indemnification, document retention, audit, claims, environmental commitment, pending legal challenge, hazardous material, operation, maintenance and ownership provisions of this AGREEMENT will remain in effect until terminated or modified by mutual written agreement.
D. AGENCY has sixty (60) days after the date this AGREEMENT is terminated or expires, or such other time agreed upon in writing by the PARTIES, to submit invoices to CALTRANS to make final allowable payments for PROJECT costs in accordance with the terms of this AGREEMENT. Failure to submit invoices within this period may result in a waiver by AGENCY of its right to reimbursement of expended costs.
2. BUDGET CONTINGENCY CLAUSE
All obligations of CALTRANS under the terms of this AGREEMENT are subject to the appropriation of resources by the Legislature, and the State Budget Act authority. It is mutually agreed that if the State Legislature does not appropriate sufficient funds for the program, this AGREEMENT shall be amended if possible, to reflect any reduction in funds, but nothing herein obligates the PARTIES to provide additional funding or proceed if sufficient funding is unavailable.
3. ALLOWABLE COST, PAYMENTS AND INVOICING
A. The method of payment for this AGREEMENT will be based on actual allowable costs.
CALTRANS will reimburse AGENCY for expended actual allowable direct costs and indirect costs, including, but not limited to labor costs, employee benefits, travel (overhead is reimbursable only if the AGENCY has an approved indirect costs allocation plan) and contracted consultant services costs incurred by AGENCY in performance of the PROJECT work, not to exceed the Contract Sum of the PROJECT.
B. Reimbursement of AGENCY expenditures will be authorized only for those allowable costs actually incurred by AGENCY in the performance of the PROJECT work. AGENCY must not only have incurred the expenditures on or after the EFFECTIVE DATE of this 758
City of Richmond
CIA No. D43CIARI0003
AGREEMENT and before the date it is terminated or expires but must have also paid for those costs to claim any reimbursement.
C. PARTIES will agree upon CALTRANS’ annual reimbursement of the PROJECT costs, throughout its duration. Total reimbursement will not exceed the Contract Sum (as defined in Section I above). The encumbered funds are to be expended and invoiced to CALTRANS by AGENCY by May 1 of the third fiscal year from the fiscal year CALTRANS encumbered them. Any funds encumbered, but not expended by the end of the third fiscal year, will not be reimbursed to AGENCY by CALTRANS.
D. Travel, per diem, and third-party contract reimbursements are PROJECT costs only after those hired by AGENCY to participate in the PROJECT incur and pay those costs.
Payments for travel and per diem will not exceed the rates paid rank and file state employees under current California Department of Human Resources rules current at the EFFECTIVE DATE of this AGREEMENT.
E. CALTRANS will reimburse AGENCY for all allowable PROJECT costs no more frequently and no later than monthly in arrears and as promptly as CALTRANS fiscal procedures permit upon receipt of itemized signed invoices. Invoices shall reference this AGREEMENT Number and shall be signed and submitted electronically to the Contract Manager at the following address:
[[email protected]] cc: [email protected]
If electronic submittal is not possible, mail invoice to:
California Department of Transportation
Division of Environmental Analysis – Fiscal Analysis Unit, MS 27 1120 N Street, Sacramento, CA 95814-5680
F. Invoices shall include the following information:
1) Invoice Cover Sheet The invoice cover sheet summarizes the previous, current and total amounts billed for the AGREEMENT. Details included on the cover sheet are:
a. “INVOICE” near top of page
b. Invoice Date
c. Contract Number (D43CIARI0003)
d. Invoice Number [minimum format: City Initials-3-digit Invoice Number (XXX- 001)]
e. Billing period (performance period), specified with beginning and ending dates (towards top of page). All work performed must be during the billing period.
Invoice billing periods must not overlap.
f. Brief description of the work performed
g. Summary of total dollar amount billed to date
i. Previous month invoice balance
ii. Amount billed this month
iii. Total amount billed including current invoice amount h. Total amount due
i. Summary of charges
759
City of Richmond
CIA No. D43CIARI0003
i. AGENCY (municipality) labor costs
ii. Sub-Vendor labor costs (consultant)
iii. Sub-vendor direct costs (materials, equipment, miscellaneous itemized costs)
iv. Other direct costs
j. Discounts (if applicable)
k. Remittance information including name and address [MUST match Payee Data Record Declaration of Business Location (Form FA-204) submitted at contract execution or on file]
l. AGENCY Contract Manager’s name, address and phone number m. AGENCY Contract Manager’s signature and signature block n. CALTRANS Contract Manager’s name and address
o. CALTRANS Contract Manager’s signature block.
2) Invoice and Supports
All invoice charges must match the rates on the contract cost proposal and personnel request. (Changes in billing rates must be approved before billing.) The CALTRANS’ Contract Manager must be provided invoices or other documentation with sufficient detail to verify the charges are allowable under this AGREEMENT with sufficient support to allow them to verify charges. Supporting documentation, such as receipts, is required for all costs included on the invoice that are not for hourly or sub-contract labor.
AGENCY labor charges need to show person’s name, hours worked, billing rate and brief description of work performed. Supporting documents (timesheet or payroll report) need to be provided. These documents need to include:
a. Name (first and last)
b. Hours charged
c. Brief description -- identify the work is for the project funded by the Cooperative Implementation Agreement
d. Month, day and year of the charges (must be within the billing period) e. Worker and supervisor’s signatures (Exceptions can be made for electronic timesheets.) All overtime must be approved in advance by the CALTRANS Contract Manager.
Direct costs (such as material costs, vehicle rental) are reimbursable. These costs need to be verified, therefore, a copy of the receipt, paid purchase order or other documentation that shows the items and cost needs to be attached to the invoice.
AGENCY personnel travel costs may be reimbursed according to the Consultant and Contractor travel guidelines located on the CALTRANS’ website at:
www.dot.ca.gov/hq/asc/travel/ch12/1consultant.htm. The Travel Expense Claim (TEC) form is available at: www.dot.ca.gov/hq/asc/travel/ch5/1tec.htm.
Subcontractor costs are reimbursed after providing a copy of the paid invoice. This invoice needs to show that the AGENCY contract manager reviewed and approved the 760
City of Richmond
CIA No. D43CIARI0003
payment. CALTRANS requires its vendors to submit proof of costs incurred, such as timesheet or payroll records, travel reimbursement form (that includes the reason and dates for travel) with receipts, receipts for materials, lab services or other items) and CALTRANS assumes the AGENCY has similar requirements that are documented. 3) Progress Reports
Each invoice needs to be accompanied by a progress report for the billing period. This report includes:
a. Work performed during the billing period (can be in a bullet format) b. Contract progress estimate -- percentage of work completed (not dollar based) c. Work anticipated during the next billing cycle (can be in a bullet format) d. Total amount spent during the billing period (AGENCY personnel, AGENCY direct costs, subcontractor costs and total)
e. Total amount spent to date (AGENCY, subcontractor, total) f. CIA not to exceed amount
g. Percentage of Cooperative Implementation Agreement (CIA) funds used to date. [Total (AGENCY and subcontractor)/CIA not to exceed amount)]
4. COST PRINCIPLES
A. If PARTIES fund any part of PROJECT with state or federal funds, each PARTY will comply, and will ensure that any sub-recipient, contractor or subcontract hired to participate in PROJECT will comply with the federal cost principles and administrative requirements of 2 CFR, Part 200. These principles and requirements apply to all funding types included in this AGREEMENT.
B. Any PROJECT costs for which AGENCY has received payment or credit that are determined by subsequent audit to be unallowable under 2 CFR, Part 200, and/or Title 48, Chapter 1, Part 31, are subject to repayment by AGENCY to CALTRANS. Should AGENCY fail to reimburse moneys due CALTRANS within thirty (30) days of discovery or demand, or within such other period as may be agreed in writing between the PARTIES hereto, CALTRANS is authorized to intercept and withhold future payments due AGENCY from CALTRANS.
C. The PARTIES will maintain and make available to each other all PROJECT related documents, including financial data, during the term of this AGREEMENT. PARTIES will retain all PROJECT-related records for three (3) years after the final payment voucher.
5. INDEMNIFICATION
Neither CALTRANS nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury, damage, or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by AGENCY, its contractors, sub-contractors, and/or its agents under or in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction conferred upon AGENCY under this AGREEMENT. It is understood and agreed that AGENCY, to the extent permitted by law, will defend, indemnify, and save harmless CALTRANS and all of its officers and employees from all claims, suits, or actions of every name, kind, and description brought forth under, but not limited to, tortious, contractual, 761
City of Richmond
CIA No. D43CIARI0003
inverse condemnation, or other theories and assertions of liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by AGENCY, its contractors, sub-contractors, and/or its agents under this AGREEMENT.
6. RETENTION OF RECORDS/AUDITS
A. AGENCY, its contractors, subcontractors and sub-recipients shall establish and maintain an accounting system and records that properly accumulate and segregate incurred PROJECT costs. The accounting system of AGENCY, its contractors, all subcontractors, and sub- recipients shall conform to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), shall enable the determination of incurred costs at interim points of completion, and shall provide support for reimbursement payment vouchers or invoices. All books, documents, papers, accounting records and other supporting papers and evidence of performance under this AGREEMENT of AGENCY, its contractors, subcontractors and sub-recipients connected with PROJECT performance under this AGREEMENT shall be maintained for a minimum of three (3) years from the date of final payment to AGENCY and shall be held open to inspection, copying, and audit by representatives of CALTRANS, the California State Auditor, and auditors representing the federal government during business hours with appropriate notice. Copies thereof will be furnished by AGENCY, its contractors, its subcontractors and sub-recipients upon receipt of any request made by CALTRANS or its agents. In conducting an audit of the costs under this AGREEMENT, CALTRANS will rely to the maximum extent possible on any prior audit of AGENCY pursuant to the provisions of State and AGENCY law. In the absence of such an audit, any acceptable audit work performed by AGENCY’s external and internal auditors may be relied upon and used by CALTRANS when planning and conducting additional audits.
B. AGENCY, its sub-recipients, contractors, and subcontractors will permit access to all records of employment, employment advertisements, employment application forms, and other pertinent data and records by the State Fair Employment Practices and Housing Commission, or any other AGENCY of the State of California designated by CALTRANS, for the purpose of any investigation to ascertain compliance with this AGREEMENT.
C. This AGREEMENT shall be subject to a pre-award audit prior to execution of the AGREEMENT to ensure AGENCY has an adequate financial management system in place to accumulate and segregate reasonable, allowable and allocable costs.
D. CALTRANS, the state auditor, and the Federal Government, (if the PROJECT utilizes federal funds), will have access to all PROJECT-related records held by AGENCY or by any party hired by AGENCY to participate in PROJECT.
E. The examination of any records will take place in the offices and locations where said records are generated and/or stored and will be accomplished during reasonable hours of operation.
F. Upon completion of the final audit, AGENCY has thirty (30) calendar days to refund or invoice as necessary in order to satisfy the obligation of the audit. 762
City of Richmond
CIA No. D43CIARI0003
7. DISPUTES
A. PARTIES will first attempt to resolve AGREEMENT disputes at the PROJECT team level.
If they cannot resolve the dispute themselves, the CALTRANS Chief Environmental Engineer and the executive officer of AGENCY will attempt to negotiate a resolution.
B. If PARTIES do not reach a resolution, AGENCY’s legal counsel will initiate mediation.
PARTIES agree to participate in mediation in good faith and will share equally in its costs.
C. Neither the dispute nor the mediation process relieves PARTIES from full and timely performance of the PROJECT in accordance with the terms of this AGREEMENT.
However, if either PARTY stops fulfilling PROJECT obligations, the other PARTY may seek equitable relief to ensure that the PROJECT continues.
D. Except for equitable relief, no PARTY may file a civil complaint until after mediation, or 45 calendar days after filing the written mediation request, whichever occurs first.
E. PARTIES will file any civil complaints in the Superior Court of the county in which the CALTRANS district office signatory to this AGREEMENT resides or in the Superior Court of the county in which the PROJECT is physically located. The prevailing PARTY will be entitled to an award of all costs, fees, and expenses, including reasonable attorney fees as a result of litigating a dispute under this AGREEMENT or to enforce the provisions of this article including equitable relief.
F. Additional Dispute Remedies. PARTIES maintain the ability to unanimously pursue alternative or additional dispute remedies if a previously selected remedy does not achieve resolution.
8. RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES
It is expressly understood that this AGREEMENT is an agreement executed by and between two independent governmental entities and is not intended to, and shall not be construed to, create the relationship of agent, servant, employee, partnership, joint venture or association, or any other relationship whatsoever other than that of an independent party.
9. NOTIFICATION OF PARTIES
A. AGENCY: Hillal Hamdan, Senior Civil Engineer, [email protected] , 510-631-1398.
B. CALTRANS: Ken Johansson, Statewide Stormwater Program Manager, [email protected], 916-956-8170.
C. All notices herein provided to be given, or which may be given, by either party to the other, shall be deemed to have been fully given when made in writing and received by the PARTIES at their respective addresses:
City of Richmond
Public Works Department
Attention: Hillal Hamdan
450 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond CA 94804
763
City of Richmond
CIA No. D43CIARI0003
California Department of Transportation
Division of Environmental Analysis - MS 27
Attention: Ken Johansson
1120 N Street, Sacramento, CA 95814-5680
764
City of Richmond
CIA No. D43CIARI0003
SECTION III ATTACHMENTS
The following attachments are incorporated into and are made a part of this AGREEMENT by this reference and attachment.
I. AGENCY Resolution, Certification of Approval, order, motion, ordinance or other similar document from the local governing body authorizing execution of the AGREEMENT.
II. Scope of Work, Description, Schedule, Location and Budget.
SECTION IV- SIGNATURES
Signatories may execute this AGREEMENT through individual signature pages provided that each signature is an original. This AGREEMENT is not fully executed until all original signatures are attached. PARTIES are empowered by California Streets and Highways Code (SHC) sections 114 and 130 to enter into this AGREEMENT and have delegated to the undersigned the authority to execute this AGREEMENT on behalf of the respective agencies and covenant to have followed all the necessary legal requirements to validly execute this AGREEMENT.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA CITY OF RICHMOND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Signature: Signature:
Print Name: KEN JOHANSSON Print Name: SHASA CURL
Title: Stormwater Coordinator Title: City Manager
Date: Date:
Signature: Signature:
Print Name: HARDEEP TAKHAR Print Name:
Title: Assistant Chief, Division of
Environmental Analysis
Title:
Date: Date:
Signature: :
Print Name: JEREMY KETCHUM
Title: Chief, Division of
Environmental Analysis
Date:
765
Reso. No. XX-21
DocID #55171v1
RESOLUTION NO. XX-25
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND,
CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A
COOPERATIVE IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT WITH THE CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS) AND TO ACCEPT AND
APPROPRIATE FUNDS FOR MULTI-SITE TRASH CAPTURE PROJECTS
WHEREAS, the City of Richmond is subject to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP), which requires the City to reduce trash discharges from its stormwater conveyance system to the Bay; and.
WHEREAS Provision C.10 of the MRP establishes trash load reduction benchmarks and compliance deadlines, and the City is currently out of compliance with its C.10 trash reduction requirements; and
WHEREAS additional trash capture capacity is necessary to meet permit obligations and avoid potential enforcement actions and penalties, and.
WHEREAS, Caltrans has agreed to partner with the City to design and construct four stormwater trash capture projects within City rights-of-way that also treat Caltrans highway runoff, thereby contributing to compliance with both agencies’ permit obligations; and
WHEREAS, Caltrans will fully fund the design and construction of the projects under a Cooperative Implementation Agreement (CIA), and the City will assume long-term operation and maintenance responsibilities; and
WHEREAS, entering into this CIA and implementing these projects will provide significant progress toward meeting the City’s C.10 trash load reduction requirements and demonstrate proactive compliance to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richmond as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporates them herein by reference.
SECTION 2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute a Cooperative Implementation Agreement with Caltrans for the design and construction of four multi-site trash capture projects, and to accept and appropriate Caltrans funds in the amount of $10,250,000 into the Public Works Department’s Stormwater Program budget.
SECTION 3. The City of Richmond commits to the long-term operation and maintenance of the installed trash capture projects as required under the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit and the CIA.
SECTION 4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage.
*********************
I certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting thereof held October 21, 2025, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
766
Reso. No. XX-21
DocID #55171v1
ABSENT:
PAMELA CHRISTIAN
CLERK OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
(SEAL)
Approved:
Mayor
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
767
City Council
DATE: October 21, 2025
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM: Vice Mayor Cesar Zepeda
Subject:
Presentation from the Contra Costa County Building
Trades Council to expand opportunities in Richmond
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact on receiving this item.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
None.
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
The construction industry provides a path to middle-class careers for individuals without advanced degrees or
facing barriers to quality employment. It is a crucial
component towards building economic opportunities for
local residents, local high school graduates, veterans, and re-entry populations. Hiring and training local
residents helps to uplift community members and
provides support to surrounding economic development.
The Contra Costa Building and Construction Trades aims
to work in close collaboration with the City of Richmond so that Richmond residents are trained and hired to build construction taking place on City-owned land.
Establishing a Public Lands Policy, an agreement
between the City of Richmond and the Contra Costa
County Building Trades Council, would provide additional workforce/hiring standards for construction on City-
owned land and opportunities to increase local hiring,
AGENDA
REPORT
768
provide family-sustaining wages, and State-approved
apprenticeships.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
RECEIVE a presentation from the Contra Costa County
Building Trades Council to expand opportunities in
Richmond by way of a Public Lands Policy; and DIRECT
staff to establish a Public Lands Policy to close
loopholes, raise job standards, ensure enforceability, and provide more opportunities for career pathways - Vice
Mayor Cesar Zepeda (510-620-6593). This item was
continued from the September 23, 2025, meeting.
DISCUSSION:
The construction industry provides a path to middle-class careers for individuals without advanced degrees or facing barriers to quality employment. It is a crucial component towards building economic opportunities for local residents, local high school graduates, veterans and re-entry populations. Hiring and training local residents helps to uplift community members and provides support to surrounding economic development.
The Contra Costa Building and Construction Trades aims to work in close collaboration with the City of Richmond so that Richmond residents are trained and hired to build any construction on City-owned land. Establishing a Public Lands Policy, an agreement between the City of Richmond and the Contra Costa County Building Trades Council would provide additional workforce/hiring standards for construction on City-owned land and opportunities to increase local hiring, provide family-sustaining wages, and State- approved apprenticeships.
The Contra Costa County Building Trades Council wishes to provide this presentation to the City Council regarding a potential Public Lands Policy that seeks to expand construction job opportunities in the City of Richmond.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – Presentation from the Contra Costa County Building Trades Council to expand opportunities in Richmond
Attachment 2 – Letter of support from WCCUSD
769
PARTNERSHIP:
CITY OF
RICHMOND AND
CONTRA COSTA
COUNTY BUILDING
TRADES COUNCIL
770
AGENDA
• Introduction
• Current Picture
• Expanding Opportunities for Richmond
• Public Lands Policy
• Further Benefits
771
Intro
• 20 Affiliate Unions within the construction industry
• In Contra Costa County:
• Approximately 35,000 members
• 1,611 apprentices
• 70% minority, 5% women
772
Current Picture
Since 2023:
• 241 new apprentices via MC3 programs
• 94% minority, 13% women
• MC3 programs: RichmondBUILD, Future Build,
Cypress Mandela, Rising Sun
• Kennedy High School program
• Multiple Public Works construction projects covered under a Project Stabilization Agreement, successful
• Private development success where Labor standards exist • Housing
• Distribution Centers
• Future work with Labor Standards
• Richmond Campus Bay
• El Cerrito BART station
773
EXPANDING OPPORTUNITIES
• Public Lands Policy
• An agreement between the City of Richmond
and the Contra Costa County Building
Trades Council
• Workforce/Hiring Standards for City-
owned land
• Local Hire
• Family-sustaining wages
• State-approved apprenticeships
774
PUBLIC LANDS POLICY
• Places workforce and hiring standards on construction projects when publicly owned land is leased/sold for the purposes of development
• Applies/Enforces Richmond’s already-set policies regardless of developers funding sources
• Richmond Business Opportunity Ordinance
• Procurement Ordinance
• Enforcement provisions
• Enhanced project oversight for projects not directly
contracted with the City.
• Current policies don’t require family-sustaining wages or state- approved training for workers on these projects.
775
FURTHER BENEFITS
• Richmond’s “Ban the Box” helps with barriers to
employment, the Public Lands Policy ensures
actual pipeline entry into construction careers.
• Requires developers to partner with programs
like RichmondBUILD to ensure local residents
are prioritized
• Current workforce/jobsite standards
enforcement relies solely on Staff; this policy
would include the Building Trades Council for
assistance
• In short: Richmond has strong equity-
focused ordinances. But this type of
agreement closes loopholes, raises job
standards, ensures enforceability, and
guarantees more career pathways.
776
THANK YOU
Tim Sbranti
Contra Costa County Building Trades
[email protected]
EJ Cire
Sheet Metal Workers’ Local 104
[email protected]
777
778
October 21,2025
City Council
DATE: October 21, 2025
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:
Councilmember Soheila Bana
Subject: Support of Federal Recognition for the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no direct fiscal impact on receiving this item.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
None.
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
Adopting a resolution that urges the federal government to officially recognize the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe as a
federally recognized tribe. This recognition is crucial for rectifying historical injustice and for supporting the Tribe’s cultural, social, and political rights.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
ADOPT a resolution urging the United States Congress,
the Department of the Interior, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs to officially recognize the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe as a federally recognized tribe; DIRECT the City
Manager to draft a letter transmitting this resolution to Bay Area congressional delegation, the Secretary of the Department of the Interior, with instructions that all
actions be taken to support and ensure the immediate
recognition of Muwekma Ohlone Tribe’s federal status,
and include them with the federal registry of recognized tribes under the Bureau of Indian Affairs -
Councilmember Soheila Bana (510-672-3490).
AGENDA
REPORT
779
October 21,2025
DISCUSSION:
The Muwekma Ohlone have a presence in the San Francisco Bay Area since time immemorial and the direct ancestors of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe were missionized into the three Bay Area Missions: Santa Clara, San Jose, and San Francisco during the expansion of the Spanish Empire into Alta California from 1769 to secularization in 1836.
The United States Government maintained a “trust” relationship with the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe, historically identified by agents and superintendents from the Bureau of Indian Affairs as the Verona Band, from 1906-1927.
The Muwekma Ohlone Tribe have never been legally or illegally terminated by an act of Congress. The Tribe were effectively removed from the list of landless tribes and bands identified and eligible for land/homesites purchase via the Congressional Appropriation Acts of 1906, 1908, and without any due process in 1927, despite its “trust’ relationship and its previous status as a federally recognized tribe.
The Muwekma Ohlone Tribe enrolled with and was approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Secretary of Interior, and Federal Courts under the 1928 California Jurisdictional Act and later Acts. The Tribe have consistently organized themselves under the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act and also attended Indian Boarding Schools in the 1930s and 40s and still must obtain reaffirmation by the Secretary of the Interior or U. S. Congress. There are over 614 BIA documented enrolled members of the Verona Band/Muwekma Ohlone Tribe in the San Francisco Bay Area.
The Muwekma men and women have served overseas with honor in all branches of the United States Armed Forces in all major campaigns (e.g., WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Iraq) and are still serving today. Justice and equal treatment under the law demands that the Department of the Interior and the federal government officially recognize the historical, social, military and political history of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe through its efforts to regain federal recognition.
The Muwekma Ohlone Tribe has provided compelling evidence of its historical, cultural, and social continuity, as well as its ongoing political structure and sovereignty. The Tribe’s legal case, as affirmed by the U.S. District Court in Muwekma Ohlone Tribe v.
Kempthorne (2006), confirmed that federal recognition was never formally withdrawn and the Tribe's continued sovereignty should be upheld.
Additionally, legal experts and experts from the field of Native American studies have confirmed that the Tribe’s claim to federal recognition is grounded in federal law, judicial precedents, and the United States’ trust responsibility to Indigenous peoples.
The Muwekma Ohlone people, is the only BIA documented and historic Ohlone Tribe from the San Francisco Bay Area, who have maintained their distinct culture, social and political identity for the past 230 years despite genocide and political erasure. 780
October 21,2025
The Muwekma Ohlone Tribe's recognition would not only correct an historical injustice but also fulfill the federal government’s trust obligations and provide the Tribe with access to federal resources and benefits that have been unjustly denied.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – Resolution on Federal Recognition for the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe Attachment 2 – Briefing Document Reaffirming the Federal Status of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe
781
Reso. No. _____
DocID #55470v1
RESOLUTION NO. ______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
TO THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS, THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND
THE BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE MUWEKMA OHLONE TRIBE OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA’S FEDERAL RECOGNITION
WHEREAS, the Muwekma Ohlone people, is the only Bureau of Indian Affairs’ (BIA) documented and historic Ohlone Tribe from the San Francisco Bay Area, who have maintained their distinct culture, social and political identity for the past 230 years despite genocide and political erasure; and
WHEREAS, the Muwekma Ohlone have a presence in the San Francisco Bay Area since time immemorial; and
WHEREAS, the direct ancestors of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe were missionized into the three Bay Area Missions: Santa Clara, San Jose, and San Francisco during the expansion of the Spanish Empire into Alta California from 1769 to secularization in1836; and
WHEREAS, the United States Government maintained a “trust” relationship with the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe, historically identified by agents and superintendents from the Bureau of Indian Affairs as the Verona Band, from 1906-1927; and
WHEREAS, the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe has never been legally or illegally terminated by an act of Congress, but were bureaucratically politically removed from the list of landless tribes and bands identified and eligible for land/homesites purchase via the Congressional Appropriation Acts of 1906, 1908, and later years, without any due process in 1927 despite its “trust’ relationship and its previous status as a federally recognized tribe; and
WHEREAS, the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe enrolled (1928-32, 1948-57, and 1968-71) with and was approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Secretary of Interior, and Federal Courts under the 1928 California Jurisdictional Act and later Acts, and have consistently organized themselves under the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act, and also attended Indian Boarding Schools in the 1930s and 40s, still must obtain reaffirmation by the Secretary of the Interior or U. S. Congress; and
WHEREAS, there are over 614 BIA documented enrolled members of the Vero na Band/Muwekma Ohlone Tribe in the San Francisco Bay Area; and
WHEREAS, the Muwekma men and women have served overseas with honor in all branches of the United States Armed Forces in all major campaigns in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Iraq, and are still serving today; and
WHEREAS, justice and equal treatment under the law demands that the Department of the Interior and the federal government officially recognize the historical, social, military and political history of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe through its efforts to regain federal recognition.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, The City of Richmond that:
1. The United States Congress and the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Indian Affairs acknowledge the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area as a federally recognized, sovereign tribe as defined un 25 C.F.R. 1.2 (the Secretary retains the power to waive or make exceptions to his regulations as found in chapter I of title 25 CFR in all cases where perm itted by law and the Secretary finds that such waiver or exception is in the best interest of the Indians).
2. The City Council direct the City Manager to draft and execute a letter transmitting this resolution to Bay Area congressional delegation, the S ecretary of the Department of the Interior, with instructions that all actions be taken to support and ensure the immediate recognition of Muwekma Ohlone Tribe’s federal status, and include them with the federal registry of recognized tribes under the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
******************
782
Reso. No. _____
DocID #55470v1
***THE CLERK’S OFFICE WILL COMPLETE THE INFORMATION BELOW****
I certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting thereof held on Mmmm dd, yyyy, by the following vote:
AYES: AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
CLERK OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
(SEAL)
Approved:
Mayor
Approved as to form:
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 City Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting held on Mmmm dd, yyyy.
_______________________________________
Pamela Christian, Clerk of the City of Richmond
783
Briefing Document Reaffirming the Federal Status of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe Executive Summary The Muwekma Ohlone Tribe, indigenous to the San Francisco Bay Area, has been unjustly denied federal recognition despite a well-documented history of continuous existence and prior federal acknowledgment. Identified by the Bureau of Indian Affairs as the Verona Band of Alameda County in 1905, the Tribe was federally recognized in congressional acts in 1914, 1923, and 1927. It’s ancestral homeland spans San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, and parts of Napa, Santa Cruz, Solano, and San Joaquin counties. Despite enduring Spanish missionization, forced labor, and American-era dispossession, the tribe maintained its cultural identity and community cohesion. In 1927, the Superintendent of the BIA’s Sacramento Agency, Lafayette Dorrington, unilaterally began to administratively discard the Tribe without Congressional approval, an action that lacked legal authority and violated the tribe’s trust relationship with the United States. The Muwekma Ohlone have never been legally terminated by an Act of Congress, a fact affirmed by the U.S. District Court in Muwekma Ohlone Tribe v. Kempthorne (2006), which stated that “neither the United States Congress nor any executive agency ever formally withdrew federal recognition of the Verona Band.” Evidence of Continuous Existence The Muwekma Ohlone Tribe meets all criteria for federal recognition under the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) regulations (25 CFR Part 83). Key evidence includes: 1. Historical Recognition: On May 24,1996, the federal government’s Office of Federal Acknowledgement (OFA), concluded that the federal government had previously unambiguously recognized the Muwekmas’ ancestors as the Verona Band and that present day Muwekma membership at the time of the determination was comprised of living members and direct descendants of the Verona Band. It is a basic principle of federal Indian law that tribal governing authority arises from a sovereignty that predates the establishment of the United States, and that once recognized as a political body by the United States, a tribe retains its sovereignty until Congress affirmatively acts to divest that sovereignty. 2. Continuous Community: The BIA’s 2002 Final Determination acknowledged that 100% of current Muwekma members descend directly from the historically recognized Verona Band, confirming genealogical continuity. An anthropological report by Dr. Christine Grabowski titled The Origins and Continuity of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe published in 2020 details the Tribe’s social and political continuity from precontact to present day. 3. Continuous Federal Jurisdiction: It is important to note that notwithstanding Dorrington’s unilateral actions removing the tribe from the list of tribes to receive land under the Congressional 1927 appropriations act, the Tribe continued to be under jurisdiction of the Sacramento Indian Agency after 1927, most notably evidenced by the tribe’s members attending Indian boarding schools up until 1947 and the tribe’s members enrolling and being accepted under jurisdiction by the department of Interior under the California Claims Act, between 1929 and 1932, 1948 and 1955 and 1968 and 1972 4. Scientific Evidence: A 2022 DNA analysis conducted by Stanford University and University of Illinois researchers was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences conclusively confirmed genetic links between 2,000-year-old burial remains in the Bay Area and every member of the Tribe’s Tribal Council. The Advisory Council on California Indian Policy (ACCIP) was established by the U.S. Congress in 1992 to study the unique challenges faced by California Indian tribes, particularly regarding federal acknowledgment and socio-economic conditions. It was tasked with developing recommendations for policy changes to address these issues. The Council was composed of representatives from federally recognized, terminated, and unacknowledged tribes. In 2000, the ACCIP recommended reaffirming the Muwekma Ohlone’s status, a recommendation echoed by state and local leaders. In 2023, the Chancellor of the University of California at Berkeley called on the Senate Indian Affairs Committee to affirm the Tribe’s federal status so that the institution could comply with the Native American Graves Protection Act and repatriate its over 12,000 ancestral remains that are culturally affiliated to the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe. 784
Legal Arguments The Muwekma Ohlone Tribe has a compelling legal basis for reaffirmation of its federal recognition. This document outlines the legal arguments supporting reaffirmation through either administrative corrective action by the Department of the Interior or congressional affirmation, grounded in federal law, judicial precedent, and the United States’ trust responsibility. 1. Historical Federal Recognition and Unlawful Termination The federal government established a trust relationship with the Tribe when it was previously unambiguously recognized by the BIA as the Verona Band of Alameda County in 1905, and affirmed by Congress in 1914, 1923, and 1927. The BIA erred in omitting the Tribe from the official list of federally recognized tribes when it was first drafted in 1978 when the regulations governing the Part 83 Federal Acknowledgement process were first promulgated. The Secretary of the Interior and Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs have the power to correct this mistake and add the Tribe to the list. • Judicial Affirmation of Sovereign Immunity: In Weiss v. Perez (2022), a federal district court judge in the Northern District of California affirmed that the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe has retained its sovereign immunity despite not being on the BIA’s official list. • Judicial Determination: In Muwekma Ohlone Tribe v. Kempthorne (2006), the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that “neither the United States Congress nor any executive agency ever formally withdrew federal recognition of the Verona Band.” This confirms the 1927 action was legally invalid, as only Congress has the authority to terminate tribal recognition under the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause (Art. I, § 8, cl. 3). • Trust Responsibility: The federal government’s trust responsibility to Indians obligates the United States to protect tribal sovereignty and rights. The Muwekma Ohlone, as a previously recognized tribe, was never lawfully severed from this trust relationship with the United States. • Administrative Corrective Action: The Department of the Interior has the authority to correct administrative errors under its general powers (43 U.S.C. § 1457). Reaffirming the tribe’s status would rectify the BIA’s wrongful omission of the Tribe from its list of recognized tribe when it was first drafted in 1978, consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. § 706), which allows agencies to correct actions found to be “arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” • Congressional Affirmation: Congress has plenary power over Indian affairs and can reaffirm the tribe’s status through legislation, which it has done 26 times since the Part 83 federal acknowledgement process was first promulgated in 1978. The last Tribe to be recognized by Congress was the Little Shell Band of Chippewa Indians in 2019. The Little Shell recognition bill was attached as a policy rider to the National Defense Reauthorization Act. Like the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe, Little Shell was also denied recognition through the Part 83 process on the same criteria of continuity. 2. Precedent for Administrative Reaffirmation The Department of the Interior has restored federal recognition for tribes with prior acknowledgment without requiring the full BIA acknowledgment process (25 CFR Part 83), providing a clear precedent for administrative corrective action. Authority for Reaffirmation of documented historic tribes has been upheld under 25 CFR § 1.2 § 1.2 Applicability of regulations and reserved authority of the Secretary of the Interior. The regulations in chapter I of title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations are of general application. Notwithstanding any limitations contained in the regulations of this chapter, the Secretary retains the power to waive or make exceptions to the regulations as found in Chapter I of title 25 CFR in all cases where permitted by law and the Secretary finds that such waiver or exception is in the best interest of the Indians. • Case Examples: The Lower Lake Koi Tribe, the Ione Band of Miwok, and the Tejon Tribe were reaffirmed through administrative action by the Department of the Interior after evidence confirmed their prior recognition and wrongful exclusion from the Federal Register. The Muwekma Ohlone’s case is analogous, with documented recognition as the Verona Band and continuous existence. • BIA Regulations: While 25 CFR Part 83 governs new recognition, tribes with prior federal acknowledgment, like the Muwekma Ohlone, are eligible for reaffirmation outside this process. The 785
BIA’s 2002 denial of recognition, which cited insufficient evidence of continuity post-1927, was flawed, as it ignored genealogical records linking 99% of current members to the Verona Band and evidence of community cohesion. The BIA’s refusal to consider evidence of the Tribe’s existence prior to 1927 or after 1985 fundamentally undermined the Tribe’s petition to demonstrate social and political continuity. • Judicial Support: The Kempthorne ruling criticized the BIA’s inconsistent application of criteria, noting that the agency applied stricter standards to the Muwekma Ohlone than to other tribes. This supports administrative correction to align with equitable treatment under the law. 3. Congressional Authority to Reaffirm Congress has the constitutional authority to reaffirm the Muwekma Ohlone’s status, bypassing the BIA process, to correct a historical injustice and fulfill federal obligations. • Plenary Power: The Indian Commerce Clause grants Congress broad authority to regulate tribal affairs, including recognizing or reaffirming tribes (United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193, 2004). Congressional reaffirmation would be a direct exercise of this power. • Legislative Precedents: Congress has repeatedly restored tribes through legislation, such as the Menominee Indian Tribe Restoration Act (25 U.S.C. § 903) and the Coquille Restoration Act (25 U.S.C. § 715), along with 26 others since 1978. These acts reaffirmed tribes without requiring the BIA process, recognizing historical recognition and ongoing tribal identity. 4. Violations of Due Process and Equal Protection The BIA’s 2002 denial of recognition violated the Muwekma Ohlone’s due process and equal protection rights, justifying immediate reaffirmation to remedy procedural unfairness. • Due Process: The Fifth Amendment guarantees due process in federal actions. The BIA’s 2002 decision was tainted by bias, as staff involved in opposing the tribe’s Kempthorne lawsuit influenced the outcome, failing to thoroughly review evidence of continuity. This procedural flaw warrants administrative correction under 5 U.S.C. § 706. • Equal Protection: The BIA applied inconsistent standards, demanding more rigorous evidence from the Muwekma Ohlone than from other tribes, such as the Jena Band of Choctaw, recognized with less documentation. This disparate treatment violates equal protection principles under the Fifth Amendment’s implied equal protection clause (Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 1954). • Remedy: Reaffirmation, either administratively or congressionally, would correct these violations, ensuring the tribe’s rights to fair treatment and recognition of their documented history. • Changes of Law: The Department now acknowledges that tribal members attendance at BIA schools were part of the “federal Indian policy aimed at breaking up tribal communities across the country” and “provides probative evidence of federal jurisdiction over the Tribe and its members.” This new standard affirms the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe’s federal recognition to 1947. 5. Fulfilling the Federal Trust Obligation to Indians Reaffirming the Muwekma Ohlone’s status is a legal and moral imperative to fulfill the federal government’s trust responsibilities and address historical wrongs. The federal trust responsibility, articulated in cases like Seminole Nation v. United States (316 U.S. 286, 1942), obligates the government to protect tribal rights and resources. The Muwekma Ohlone’s wrongful exclusion from the official list of recognized tribes in 1978 deprived it of access to federal benefits, including healthcare, education, and other rights, in violation of this obligation. Administrative corrective action by the Department of the Interior or congressional affirmation offers clear legal pathways. The BIA’s flawed 2002 denial violated due process and equal protection, further justifying immediate action. Reaffirming the tribe’s status will restore its sovereignty, rectify historical injustices, and fulfill the United States’ legal and moral commitments. 786