Richmond City Council
January 20, 2026

(January 20, 2026)
Error! Unknown document property name.

Fire Department

DATE: January 20, 2026
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Aaron Osorio, Fire Chief
Rico Rincon, Deputy Fire Chief
Anthony Woodards, Battalion Chief
SUBJECT:

Contract with On Duty Health, PC to Perform Annual
Physicals and Wellness Exams
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The proposed total three-year-not-to-exceed cost of $270,000 is included within the approved Fiscal Year
2025-2026 Fire Department budget and will be budgeted
accordingly for the subsequent fiscal years (Account
String: 01204022-400201).

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None.

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

Richmond Fire Department members who are certified as
hazardous materials specialists or technicians, along with other department personnel, are required to undergo
annual physical examinations and medical screenings.

The department issued a Request for Proposals to
qualified vendors to perform these examinations and has determined that On Duty Health, PC will be one of the
vendors who will support the department’s physical and
wellness program.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: APPROVE the contract with On Duty Health, PC to perform annual physical examinations and medical
screenings in an amount not to exceed $270,000, for a
three-year contract term effective January 21, 2026,
through January 21, 2029, with two one-year extension
options not to exceed an additional $100,000 per year for the extend term – Fire Department (Chief Aaron Osorio
510-307-8021/Deputy Fire Chief Rico Rincon 510-307-
8041/Battalion Chief Anthony Woodards 510-620-6989).

AGENDA
REPORT
248

(January 20, 2026)
Error! Unknown document property name.

DISCUSSION:

On September 2, 2025, the Richmond Fire Department (“Department”) conducted a Request for Proposals (RFP) to select a provider to perform physical examinations, tests, and immunizations for Department members who are certified as hazardous materials specialists/technicians, as well as other department personnel and firefighter trainee candidates. The RFP closed on September 22, 2025, and four (4) firms submitted proposals (Attachment 1).

Proposals were evaluated based on methodology and approach to the work, past performance, proposer qualifications, and cost. Following a thorough evaluation of the submissions, the Department selected On Duty Health, PC, among other highly qualified proposers (Attachment 2). On Duty Health, PC (“Vendor”) demonstrated a thorough understanding of firefighter physical examinations in accordance with national standards as well as key wellness components such as cancer, cardiac, and behavioral health screenings, along with other services outlined in the RFP.

On Duty Health, PC (Vendor)

On Duty Health, PC is a California based provider specializing in first responder occupational health. The vendor will provide comprehensive annual physicals, wellness assessments, and tests to fire department personnel, including hazardous materials specialists/technicians and new hires. In addition, the vendor offers mobile services that allow all examinations to be conducted on department premises. This capability allows the department to schedule up to three (3) fire companies from the same shift, minimizing out-of-service time, compared to the current process of sending personnel to a facility, where scheduling heavily depends on physician availability and daily patient capacity.

Beyond the vendor’s approach and capability to deliver services, the vendor has also demonstrated consistent performance in providing comprehensive firefighter medical evaluations with strong patient satisfaction. Similarly, the pricing structure offers strong value for the depth and scope of services provided and is financially prudent given the quality and breadth of services delivered.

RECOMMENDATION

City staff recommend that the City Council approve the contract with On Duty Health, PC, in an amount not to exceed $270,000, for a three-year term, with two one-year extension options not to exceed an additional $100,000 per year for the extended term (Attachment 3).

Approval of this contract is essential to ensure timely and comprehensive medical evaluations that support both operational readiness and personnel well-being. These services enable firefighters and new hires to meet the physical fitness standards necessary for safe and effective emergency response.
249

(January 20, 2026)
Error! Unknown document property name.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Bid Summary Report
Attachment 2 – Rating Matrix
Attachment 3 – Standard Contract

250
City of Richmond
Richmond Fire Department Annual Physicals and Wellness Exams, bidding on 09/22/2025 2:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 12/05/2025
PlanetBids
251
City of Richmond
Richmond Fire Department Annual Physicals and Wellness Exams, bidding on 09/22/2025 2:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 12/05/2025
PlanetBids
252
City of Richmond
Richmond Fire Department Annual Physicals and Wellness Exams, bidding on 09/22/2025 2:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 12/05/2025
PlanetBids
253
City of Richmond
Richmond Fire Department Annual Physicals and Wellness Exams, bidding on 09/22/2025 2:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 12/05/2025
PlanetBids
254
City of Richmond
Richmond Fire Department Annual Physicals and Wellness Exams, bidding on 09/22/2025 2:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 12/05/2025
PlanetBids
255
City of Richmond
Richmond Fire Department Annual Physicals and Wellness Exams, bidding on 09/22/2025 2:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 12/05/2025
PlanetBids
256
City of Richmond
Richmond Fire Department Annual Physicals and Wellness Exams, bidding on 09/22/2025 2:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 12/05/2025
PlanetBids
257
City of Richmond
Richmond Fire Department Annual Physicals and Wellness Exams, bidding on 09/22/2025 2:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 12/05/2025
PlanetBids
258
City of Richmond
Richmond Fire Department Annual Physicals and Wellness Exams, bidding on 09/22/2025 2:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 12/05/2025
PlanetBids
259
City of Richmond
Richmond Fire Department Annual Physicals and Wellness Exams, bidding on 09/22/2025 2:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 12/05/2025
PlanetBids
260
City of Richmond
Richmond Fire Department Annual Physicals and Wellness Exams, bidding on 09/22/2025 2:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 12/05/2025
PlanetBids
261
City of Richmond
Richmond Fire Department Annual Physicals and Wellness Exams, bidding on 09/22/2025 2:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 12/05/2025
PlanetBids
262
City of Richmond
Richmond Fire Department Annual Physicals and Wellness Exams, bidding on 09/22/2025 2:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 12/05/2025
PlanetBids
263
City of Richmond
Richmond Fire Department Annual Physicals and Wellness Exams, bidding on 09/22/2025 2:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 12/05/2025
PlanetBids
264
City of Richmond
Richmond Fire Department Annual Physicals and Wellness Exams, bidding on 09/22/2025 2:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 12/05/2025
PlanetBids
265
City of Richmond
Richmond Fire Department Annual Physicals and Wellness Exams, bidding on 09/22/2025 2:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 12/05/2025
PlanetBids
266
City of Richmond
Richmond Fire Department Annual Physicals and Wellness Exams, bidding on 09/22/2025 2:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 12/05/2025
PlanetBids
267
City of Richmond
Richmond Fire Department Annual Physicals and Wellness Exams, bidding on 09/22/2025 2:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 12/05/2025
PlanetBids
268
City of Richmond
Richmond Fire Department Annual Physicals and Wellness Exams, bidding on 09/22/2025 2:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 12/05/2025
PlanetBids
269
City of Richmond
Richmond Fire Department Annual Physicals and Wellness Exams, bidding on 09/22/2025 2:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 12/05/2025
PlanetBids
270
City of Richmond
Richmond Fire Department Annual Physicals and Wellness Exams, bidding on 09/22/2025 2:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 12/05/2025
PlanetBids
271
City of Richmond
Richmond Fire Department Annual Physicals and Wellness Exams, bidding on 09/22/2025 2:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 12/05/2025
PlanetBids
272
City of Richmond
Richmond Fire Department Annual Physicals and Wellness Exams, bidding on 09/22/2025 2:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 12/05/2025
PlanetBids
273
City of Richmond
Richmond Fire Department Annual Physicals and Wellness Exams, bidding on 09/22/2025 2:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 12/05/2025
PlanetBids
274
City of Richmond
Richmond Fire Department Annual Physicals and Wellness Exams, bidding on 09/22/2025 2:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 12/05/2025
PlanetBids
275
City of Richmond
Richmond Fire Department Annual Physicals and Wellness Exams, bidding on 09/22/2025 2:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 12/05/2025
PlanetBids
276
City of Richmond
Richmond Fire Department Annual Physicals and Wellness Exams, bidding on 09/22/2025 2:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 12/05/2025
PlanetBids
277
City of Richmond
Richmond Fire Department Annual Physicals and Wellness Exams, bidding on 09/22/2025 2:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 12/05/2025
PlanetBids
278
City of Richmond
Richmond Fire Department Annual Physicals and Wellness Exams, bidding on 09/22/2025 2:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 12/05/2025
PlanetBids
279
City of Richmond
Richmond Fire Department Annual Physicals and Wellness Exams, bidding on 09/22/2025 2:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 12/05/2025
PlanetBids
280
City of Richmond
Richmond Fire Department Annual Physicals and Wellness Exams, bidding on 09/22/2025 2:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 12/05/2025
PlanetBids
281
City of Richmond
Richmond Fire Department Annual Physicals and Wellness Exams, bidding on 09/22/2025 2:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 12/05/2025
PlanetBids
282
City of Richmond
Richmond Fire Department Annual Physicals and Wellness Exams, bidding on 09/22/2025 2:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 12/05/2025
PlanetBids
283
City of Richmond
Richmond Fire Department Annual Physicals and Wellness Exams, bidding on 09/22/2025 2:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 12/05/2025
PlanetBids
284
City of Richmond
Richmond Fire Department Annual Physicals and Wellness Exams, bidding on 09/22/2025 2:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 12/05/2025
PlanetBids
285
City of Richmond
Richmond Fire Department Annual Physicals and Wellness Exams, bidding on 09/22/2025 2:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 12/05/2025
PlanetBids
286
City of Richmond
Richmond Fire Department Annual Physicals and Wellness Exams, bidding on 09/22/2025 2:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 12/05/2025
PlanetBids
287
City of Richmond
Richmond Fire Department Annual Physicals and Wellness Exams, bidding on 09/22/2025 2:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 12/05/2025
PlanetBids
288
City of Richmond
Richmond Fire Department Annual Physicals and Wellness Exams, bidding on 09/22/2025 2:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 12/05/2025
PlanetBids
289
City of Richmond
Richmond Fire Department Annual Physicals and Wellness Exams, bidding on 09/22/2025 2:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 12/05/2025
PlanetBids
290
City of Richmond
Richmond Fire Department Annual Physicals and Wellness Exams, bidding on 09/22/2025 2:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 12/05/2025
PlanetBids
291
City of Richmond
Richmond Fire Department Annual Physicals and Wellness Exams, bidding on 09/22/2025 2:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 12/05/2025
PlanetBids
292
City of Richmond
Richmond Fire Department Annual Physicals and Wellness Exams, bidding on 09/22/2025 2:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 12/05/2025
PlanetBids
293
City of Richmond
Richmond Fire Department Annual Physicals and Wellness Exams, bidding on 09/22/2025 2:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 12/05/2025
PlanetBids
294
Vendor Name Reviewer 1Reviewer 2Reviewer 3 Total Rank
Kaiser Permanente 5.2 4.3 6.1 15.6 4
On Duty Health, PC 9.4 8 9.6 27 1
Pinnacle Systems 8.5 7 9 24.5 2
Professional Health Services, Inc. 8 6.7 8.6 23.3 3
Richmond Fire Department Annaul Physicals and Wellness Exams Request For Proposal (RFP)
295

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.

FIRE
Anthony Woodards
[email protected]
(510) 620-6989
Perform physical and wellness exams to fire department personnel.

On Duty Health, PC
1752 E Lugonia Ave, STE 117-4949
Redlands, CA 92373
Greg Batla
(512) 655-3578
[email protected]
January 21, 2026
January 21, 2029
270,000.00
25-26
90,000.00
26-27
90,000.00
27-28
90,000.00
296

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

On Duty Health, PC
297
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]:

On Duty Health, PC
On Duty Health, PC will perform physical and wellness exams to fire department personnel pursuant to the specifications and instructions of the Project Manager. See Exhibit A-1 for estimate, scheduling, and cancellation policy.

Contract is for a three-year term with two one-year extension options not to exceed an additional $100,000 per year for the extended term.
298

ESTIMATE
On Duty Health, PLLC
1752 E. Lugonia Ave STE 117-4949
Redlands, CA 92374
[email protected]
+1 (512) 655-3578
www.onduty.health
Bill to
Battalion Chief Anthony Woodards
Richmond, CA Fire Department
440 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804 USA
Ship to
Battalion Chief Anthony Woodards
Richmond, CA Fire Department
440 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804 USA
Estimate details
Estimate no.: 1321
Estimate date: 10/29/2025
# Date Product or service Description Qty Rate Amount

1. "Silver Package" Health & Fitness
Assessment
Labs & Urinalysis:

Urinalysis, Complete Blood Count,
Complete Metabolic Panel , Lipid Panel
with LDL/HDL Ratio, A1C, Thyroid
Stimulating Hormone , Prostate Specific
Antigen (male patients 40 and over), FIT
Fecal Occult Screening Kit (patients 40
and over)
Full Physical:

Comprehensive Physical with Health
History & Vitals, Titmus V2 Advanced
Vision Testing , Audiometry Testing ,
Skin Cancer Assessment , Behavioral
Health Assessment , Review of Results
w/ Personalized Health Plan
Cardiopulmonary Screening & Fitness
Assessment
Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing
(CPET, consisting of 12-lead EKG
treadmill/stepmill stress test run to
maximal volition utilizing WFI protocol,
Blood Pressure readings, and TRUE
VO2 Max Testing), Pulmonary Function
Testing (Spirometry), Metabolic
Analysis w/ Body Composition ,
Muscular Endurance, Strength and
Flexibility Evaluation, Cardiology
followup interpretation for irregular
results, if indicated
100 $869.00 $86,900.00
Exhibit A-1
299
Ultrasound Cancer Screening:

Ultrasound imaging of the carotid
arteries, thyroid, liver, pancreas, gall
bladder, spleen, kidneys, bladder,
pelvic (women), testicular and prostate
(men) , Radiology followup
interpretation for irregular results, if
indicated

2. OFF-SITE Blood Draws Blood draws performed o ff-site at LabCorp or Quest at no additional
charge.
100 $0.00 $0.00
Total $86,900.00
Accepted date Accepted by
t o k e n = c 6 b 8 b 8 b f a 1 2 4 4 c d 3 8 c 5 c 0 a f 5 d b 4 f 1 5 8 1 c b a 7 e f a 0 1 6 b 6 4 6 a 7 a f 5 1 f 7 1 8 3 9 4 2 3 f 6 e d 9 3 4 0 7 2 5 c e f 7 4 e 0 e 9 6 8 9 9 5 8 e a 4 4 4 c 1 2 f Exhibit A-1
300
www.onduty.health
On Duty Health – Scheduling & Cancellation Policy
(Exhibit A to Services Agreement)
Employee List & Schedule
• The Customer shall provide On Duty Health with a complete Employee Roster at least six (6) weeks before the scheduled Services (using the Roster Template provided).
• The Customer shall provide a finalized Schedule of Appointments at least two (2) weeks before the scheduled Services (using the Schedule Template provided).

Modification & Cancellation of Services
•More than six (6) weeks before the Assessment Start Date:
– The Customer may cancel or modify the expected number of participants without penalty.
• Within six (6) weeks of the Assessment Start Date:
– The number of participants cannot be decreased. Additional participants may be added as needed.
– The Customer shall remain responsible for all fees based on the number of participants listed in the six-week Employee Roster.
•Day-of Absences:
– If an employee cannot attend due to illness, injury, or other absence, they may reschedule a makeup appointment.
– The makeup appointment must occur within two hundred (200) days of the originally scheduled date.
– Makeup appointments will be held at another On Duty Health location where the onsite team has availability.

On Duty Health 2028 E Ben White Blvd #240-4949 512.655.3578 Occupational Health Specialists Austin, TX 78741 [email protected] Exhibit A-1
301
www.onduty.health

Acknowledgment and Signatures
For Customer / Fire Department
Department Name: _________________________________
Name: ___________________________________________
Title: ____________________________________________
Signature: ________________________________________
Date: ___________________________

For On Duty Health
Name: ___________________________________________
Title: ____________________________________________
Signature: ________________________________________
Date: ___________________________
On Duty Health 2028 E Ben White Blvd #240-4949 512.655.3578 Occupational Health Specialists Austin, TX 78741 [email protected] 302
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.

Anthony Woodards
Anthony Woodards
On Duty Health, PC
303
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: ________________________________________________ Anthony Woodards
[email protected]
On Duty Health, PC
On Duty Health, PC
1752 E Lugonia Ave, STE 117-4949
Redlands, CA 92373
[email protected]
304
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, On Duty Health, PC
305
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.

On Duty Health, PC
306
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 On Duty Health, PC
307
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 On Duty Health, PC
308
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 On Duty Health, PC
309
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.

On Duty Health, PC
310
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 On Duty Health, PC
311
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, On Duty Health, PC
312
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.

On Duty Health, PC
313
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”):

On Duty Health, PC
314
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
On Duty Health, PC
315
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)
On Duty Health, PC
316
___ Exhibit F
___ Section 8
City of Richmond - Insurance Requirements - Type 2:

Professional Services

Type 2 – Page 1 of 3

Revised: September 2011
In all instances where CONTRACTOR or its representatives will provide professional services (architects, engineers, construction management, counselors, medical professionals, hospitals, clinics, attorneys, consultants, accountants, etc.) to the City of Richmond (City), the City requires the following MINIMUM insurance requirements and limits.

CONTRACTOR shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract, agreement, or other order for work, services or supplies, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder and the results of that work by the CONTRACTOR, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. Maintenance of proper insurance coverage is a material element of the contract. Failure to maintain or renew coverage or to provide evidence of renewal may be treated by the City as a material breach of contract.

CONTRACTOR agrees that in the event of loss due to any of the perils for which it has agreed to provide Commercial General Liability insurance, CONTRACTOR shall look solely to its insurance for recovery.

CONTRACTOR hereby grants to CITY, on behalf of any insurer providing Commercial General Liability insurance to either CONTRACTOR or CITY with respect to the services of CONSULTANT herein, a waiver of any right to subrogation which any such insurer of said CONTRACTOR may acquire against the CITY by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance.

Original, signed certificates and original, separate policy endorsements, naming the City as an additional insured for general liability coverage, as well as a waiver of subrogation for Workers’ Compensation insurance, shall be received and approved by the City before any work may begin. However, failure to do so shall not operate as a waiver of these insurance requirements.

City reserves the right to modify or require additional coverages for specific risk exposures depending on scope of CONTRACTORS work.

Minimum coverage is detailed below. The policy limits of coverage shall be made available to the full limits of the policy. The minimum limits stated herein shall not serve to reduce the policy limits of coverage of CONTRACTOR.

Minimum Scope of Insurance – the following forms shall be provided and coverage shall be at least as broad as the following:

1. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (ISO Occurrence Form CG 0001), and including coverage for bodily and personal injury, property damage, and products and completed operations (if applicable).

2. Insurance Services Office Automobile Liability coverage (ISO Form CA 0001, Code 1, Any Auto).

3. Original and Separate Additional Insured Endorsement for General Liability (ISO Form CG 20 10 11/85 or its equivalent) with primary and non-contributory language.

4. Workers’ Compensation Insurance as required by the State of California including Employer’s Liability coverage.

5. Original and Separate Waiver of Subrogation for Workers’ Compensation insurance.

6. Professional Liability or Errors & Omissions Liability Insurance appropriate to the CONTRACTOR’s profession (if required.)

Required Coverage Minimum Limits
Workers’ Compensation and
Employers’ Liability
Statutory limits as required by the State of California including $1 million Employers’ Liability per accident, per employee for bodily injury or disease.

If CONTRACTOR is self-insured, provide a certificate of Permission to Self- Insure, signed by the California Department of Industrial Relations and Self- Insurance. If contractor is a sole proprietor (has no employees) than contractor must sign “Contractor Release of Liability” found at:
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/index.aspx?nid=61.

General Liability
(primary and excess limits
combined)
$2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If the policy includes a general aggregate, either the general aggregate shall apply separately to this project, service or location or the minimum required aggregate limit shall be twice the per occurrence limit ($4 million aggregate limit).

Policy shall be endorsed to name the City of Richmond as an additional insured per the conditions detailed below.
317
___ Exhibit F
___ Section 8
City of Richmond - Insurance Requirements - Type 2:

Professional Services

Type 2 – Page 2 of 3

Revised: September 2011
Automobile Liability $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage.

PROJECT COST R EQUIRED LIMIT
$0 - $1 million $1 million p/o
$1 million - $5 million $2 million p/o
Over $5 million $5 million p/o

Professional Liability or Errors &
Omissions Liability –
Required for all professionals
including architects, engineers,
consultants, construction
management, counselors, medical
professionals, hospitals, clinics,
attorneys and accountants, & other
consultants as may be required by
the City.

Required Policy Conditions
Additional Insured Endorsement

Applicable to General Liability coverage.

The City of Richmond, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be named as additional insureds for all liability arising out of the operations by or on behalf of the named insured including bodily injury, deaths and property damage or destruction arising in any respect directly or indirectly in the performance of this contract.

ISO form CG 20 10 (11/85) or its equivalent is required. If the Contractor is supplying their product or providing a service then the endorsement must not
exclude products and completed operations
coverage. If it does, then CG 20 37 (10/01) is also required.

SAMPLE Endorsements can be found at
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/index.aspx?nid=61
.

Primary and Noncontributory The contractor’s insurance coverage must be primary coverage as it pertains to the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. Any insurance or self insurance maintained by the City is wholly separate from the insurance of the contractor and in no way relieves the contractor from its responsibility to provide insurance.

Waiver of Subrogation
Endorsement Form
Contractor’s insurer will provide a Waiver of Subrogation in favor of the City for Workers’ Compensation Insurance during the life of this contract.

SAMPLE Endorsements can be found at
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/index.aspx?nid=61.

Deductibles and Self-Insured
Retentions
Any deductible or self-insured retention must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retention as respects the City or the CONTRACTOR shall procure a financial guarantee in an amount equal to the deductible or self-insured retention guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claims administration and defense expenses.

Contractor is responsible for satisfaction of the deductible and/or self-insured retention for each loss.

A. M. Best Rating A:VII or Better. If the A.M. Best Rating falls below the required rating, CONTRACTOR must replace coverage immediately and provide notice to City.

Umbrella/Excess Liability Policies
If an Umbrella or Excess Liability Policy is used to meet the liability limits, coverage shall be as broad as specified for underlying coverage’s and cover those insured in the underlying policies.

318
___ Exhibit F
___ Section 8
City of Richmond - Insurance Requirements - Type 2:

Professional Services

Type 2 – Page 3 of 3

Revised: September 2011
Claims-Made Policies
If any insurance policy is written on a claims-made form: 1) the retroactive date must be shown, and must be before the date of the contract or the beginning of contract work. 2) Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five (5) years after completion of the contract of work. 3) If coverage is canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a retroactive date prior to the contract effective date, the Contractor must purchase an extended period coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of contract work.

Subcontractors

CONTRACTOR
shall include all subcontractors as insured under its policies or shall furnish to the City for review and approval, separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverage for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the requirements stated herein.

CONTRACTOR agrees to defend and indemnify the City of Richmond for any damage resulting to it from failure of either CONTRACTOR or any subcontractor to take out or maintain the required insurance policies.

The fact that
insurance is obtained by CONTRACTOR, and/or CONTRACTOR’s subcontractors, will not be deemed to release or diminish the liability of CONTRACTOR, including, without limitation, liability under the indemnity provisions of this contract. Damages recoverable by CITY from CONTRACTOR or any third party will not be limited by the amount of the required insurance coverage.

Verification of Coverage
All original certificates and endorsements shall be received and approved by the City before work may begin .

The City of Richmond reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies including endorsements affecting the coverage at any time.

Original insurance certificates and required policy endorsements shall be mailed or delivered to the Designated Project Manager for the City of Richmond.

Insurance certificates and endorsements may be faxed to the Designated Project Manger. However, CONTRACTOR must mail the original certificates and endorsements to Designated Project Manager once faxed.

Continuous Coverage
CONTRACTOR shall maintain the required insurance for the life of the contract. Should the CONTRACTOR cease to have insurance as required during this time, all work by the CONTRACTOR pursuant to this agreement shall cease until insurance acceptable to the City is provided. In the event that CONTRACTOR fails to comply with the City’s insurance requirements, the City may take such action as it deems necessary to protect the City’s interests. Such action may include but is not limited to termination of the contract, withholding of payments, or other actions as the City deems appropriate.

If services or the scope of work extend beyond the expiration dates of the required insurance policies initially approved by the City, CONTRACTOR must provide updated certificates and endorsements indicating that the required coverage, terms and conditions are still in place. Renewal certificates and updated endorsements shall be mailed to the Designated Project Manager.

Cancellation
CONTRACTOR shall ensure that coverage shall not be cancelled, reduced or otherwise materially changed except after thirty (30) days’ prior written notice has been given to the City.

Reporting Requirements

Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers.

Consistent with Public Policy
The insuring provisions, insofar as they may be judged to be against public policy shall be void and unenforceable only to the minimum extent necessary so that the remaining terms and provisions herein may be consistent with public policy and thus enforceable.

319
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:

On Duty Health, PC
320

January 20, 2026

Mayor's Office

DATE: January 20, 2026
TO: Members of the City Council
FROM:

Mayor Martinez and Councilmember Robinson
Subject:

Proclamation recognizing Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact on receiving this item.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

January 16, 2024

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day is a federal holiday and acknowledges Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s essential
contributions to the civil rights movement. His efforts along with other civil right activists and protestors led to many Americans having rights that they have today.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

PROCLAMATION recognizing Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Day, and his contributions to the civil rights movement – Mayor Eduardo Martinez (510-620-6503) Councilmember
Doria Robinson (510-620-6568).

DISCUSSION:

Martin Luther King, Jr. Day is a federal holiday honoring the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., a civil rights leader who dedicated his ministry and public life to the fight for racial equality and justice. First observed in 1986, the holiday was not recognized by AGENDA
REPORT
321

January 20, 2026
all 50 states until 2000, reflecting the resistance to change that Dr. King spent his life challenging.

Dr. King emerged as one of the most influential leaders of the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s. Through nonviolence and civil disobedience, he confronted Jim Crow laws, segregation, voter suppression, and economic injustice. He led campaigns for voting rights, desegregation, and labor rights, including the 1955 Montgomery Bus Boycott, and later served as the first president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.

His advocacy came at great personal cost. Dr. King was surveilled by the FBI, labeled a radical, arrested multiple times, and faced constant threats to his life and family. Despite this, his commitment to justice through nonviolence never wavered. In 1964, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his leadership in combating racial inequality. He was later posthumously honored with the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal.

In 1968, while organizing the Poor People’s Campaign to confront poverty and economic inequality on a national scale, Dr. King was assassinated in Memphis, Tennessee.

For the City of Richmond, California, Dr. King’s legacy is not abstract or historical. It is local and ongoing. Richmond’s diverse communities have long been shaped by struggles for civil rights, labor protections, environmental justice, and fair access to opportunity. Honoring Dr. King means continuing that work today by advancing equity, confronting discrimination, and ensuring that all Richmond residents, regardless of race, gender, or religion, are treated with dignity and fairness.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

ATTACHMENT 1 – Martin Luther King, Jr. Day Proclamation 322

Mayor Eduardo Martinez
City of Richmond
January 20, 2026

Doria Robinson
District 3 Councilmember
City of Richmond

Proclamation by City of Richmond
Recognizing Martin Luther King Jr. Day

Whereas, Martin Luther King Jr. was one of the most prominent leaders in the civil rights movements in the 1950s and 1960s, King advanced civil rights for people of color in the United States through nonviolence and civil disobedience; and

Whereas, Martin Luther King Jr. lead nonviolent resistance against Jim Crow laws and other forms of discrimination in the United States; and

Whereas, King led marches for the right to vote, desegregation, and labor rights, King oversaw the 1955 Montgomery bus boycott and became the first president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC); and

Whereas, King was labeled a radical by the FBI, and his fight for not only equality but also equity amongst Americans led to his life being threatened, his house being burned, being arrested several times along with other civil right protestors and ultimately, his assassination; and

Whereas, On October 14, 1964, King won the Nobel Peace Prize for combatting racial inequality through nonviolence, King was posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1977, and the Congressional Gold Medal in 2003; and

Whereas, Martin Luther King Jr. Day (MLK day) is a federal holiday, and acknowledges the birthday of Martin Luther King Jr, MLK day was first observed on January 20, 1986; and

Whereas, in 1968, King was planning a national occupation of Washington, D.C., to be called the Poor People’s Campaign, when he was assassinated on April 4th, in Memphis, Tennessee.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, I, Mayor Eduardo Martinez, and the Richmond City Council hereby declares January 19, 2026, as Martin Luther King Jr. Day, and honors his legacy and acknowledges his fight for equity in America, the civil rights movement has given so many Americans freedoms that they wouldn’t have had if it weren’t for Martin Luther King, and the many other civil rights activists during this time. The City of Richmond is committed to being a equitable city for all of it’s residents regardless of their race, gender, or religion.
323

January 20,2026

Mayor's Office

DATE: January 20, 2026
TO: Members of the City Council
FROM:

Mayor Eduardo Martinez

Subject:

Modification of City Council Liaison Appointment Cycle for Boards and Commissions
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact for this item.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

May 19, 2015

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

City Council liaison assignments to boards and
commissions are currently made on an annual basis as a
matter of practice. While Resolution No. 46-15 grants the mayor discretion to appoint and remove Council liaisons, it does not establish a required appointment frequency.

The annual reassignment process limits continuity for
boards, commissions, and Council liaisons—particularly
when assignments frequently remain unchanged year
over year.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

DIRECT City Clerk to work with the Mayor’s Office to
implement a two-year council liaison appointment cycle
for boards and commissions, aligned with the council
election cycle, while maintaining the Mayor’s authority to appoint or remove liaisons at their discretion, and
DIRECT that current liaisons remain in effect through
December 31, 2026, with new appointments to be made
in the first quarter of 2027 following installation of new City Council – Mayor’s Office (Mayor Eduardo Martinez
510-620-6503).

AGENDA
REPORT
324

January 20,2026
DISCUSSION:

Resolution No. 46-15 defines the role of City Council liaisons and affirms that City Councilmembers may be appointed or removed by the Mayor at the Mayor’s discretion.

The resolution does not, however, specify the length or frequency of liaison appointments

City Council elections occur every two years, with new terms beginning in January following the election. Aligning liaison appointments with this cycle provides greater continuity for boards and commissions and allows Council liaisons sufficient time to develop subject-matter familiarity and working relationships.

In practice, many City Councilmembers retain the same liaison assignments across multiple years. Formalizing a two-year appointment cycle reflects this reality while reducing unnecessary annual administrative processes. Importantly, this change does not limit the Mayor’s authority to make adjustments when needed; it simply establishes a default appointment cadence that improves efficiency and stability.

Maintaining current liaison assignments through calendar year 2026 ensures continuity during the remainder of the current Council term and allows the next Mayor and City Council, seated in January 2027, to make new appointments early in their term.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Resolution 46-15

325
Reso. 46-15

RESOLUTION NO. 46-15

A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND

DEFINING THE ROLE OF CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS APPOINTED TO SERVE AS

LIAISONS FOR CITY BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES
WHEREAS, members of the City Council may be appointed or removed by the Mayor at the Mayor’s discretion to serve as liaisons to specific City of Richmond boards, commissions or committees (bodies), which have been recognized by the City Council and formed by resolution, ordinance and/or by charter; and
WHEREAS, the role of the liaisons has not been formally established by any resolution or ordinance of the City of Richmond; and
WHEREAS, City Council liaisons to City of Richmond boards, commissions and committees help facilitate open and efficient communication with the City Council, and the public regarding discussions and issues being addressed by the body.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor and the City Council of the City of Richmond herby define the role of City Council liaisons for City of Richmond boards, commissions, and committees as follows:
• The liaison is to facilitate communication between the body and the City Council. The liaison may, for example, deliver policy recommendations from the body to the City Council, introduce legislation recommended by the body to the City Council or report other matters of interest to the City Council.
• The liaison may also report to the body items of interest relating to City Council actions or discussions.
• The liaison is not a member of the body to which they are appointed, and is neither expected nor required to attend all meetings of the body but may do so at their discretion. • The liaison has no extraordinary authority to participate in meetings or be involved in deliberations on items under consideration of the body.

---------------------
326
Reso. 46-15

I CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on May 19, 2015 by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Bates, Beckles, Martinez, McLaughlin, Pimplé, Vice Mayor Myrick, and Mayor Butt.

NOES: None.

ABSTENTIONS: None.

ABSENT: None.

PAMELA CHRISTIAN

CLERK OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
(SEAL)
Approved:

TOM BUTT
Mayor

Approved as to form:

BRUCE GOODMILLER
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. 46- 15, finally passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting held on May 19, 2015.

327

January 20, 2026

Mayor's Office

DATE: January 20, 2026
TO: Members of the City Council
FROM:

Mayor Eduardo Martinez
Subject:

Appointment of Ana Tellez Witrago to the Community
Police Review Commission
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact for receiving this item.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None.

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

Ana Tellez Witrago is applying to serve on the
Community Police Review Commission
RECOMMENDED ACTION: APPOINT Ana Tellez Witrago to the Community Police Review Commission to fill the seat currently held by
Commissioner Carol Hegstrom, whose term has expired,
with a new term ending November 1, 2028 – Mayor’s
Office (Mayor Eduardo Martinez 510-620-6503).

DISCUSSION:

Ana Tellez-Witrago is a long-time Richmond resident. She has a strong belief in the mission of the Community Police Review Commission and emphasizes the importance of listening to community members who feel they have been unfairly or unjustly treated by law enforcement. She highlights the Commission’s role in holding the police department accountable and fostering trust between residents and public safety institutions. Ms. Tellez-Witrago’s long-standing connection to Richmond, combined with her commitment to accountability and community trust, would bring valuable perspective to the Community Police Review Commission.

AGENDA
REPORT
328

January 20, 2026
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Ana Tellez Witrago’s redacted application. 329
330

January 20, 2026

Mayor's Office

DATE: January 20, 2026
TO: Members of the City Council
FROM:

Mayor Eduardo Martinez
SUBJECT:

Appointment of Charlene Engle to the Community Police
Review Commission
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact on receiving this item.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None.

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

Charlene Engle is applying to serve on the Community
Police Review Commission.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: APPOINT Charlene Engle to the Community Police Review Commission to fill the seat currently held by
Commissioner Oscar Garcia, whose term has expired,
with a new term ending November 1, 2028 – Mayor’s
Office (Mayor Eduardo Martinez 510-620-6503).

DISCUSSION:

Charlene Engle is a Richmond resident of two years and currently works as a teacher.

She expresses a strong interest in learning more about how police and community members interact, particularly during difficult situations, and how trust and engagement can be strengthened between all parties. Drawing on her background as an educator and her experience engaging with the criminal justice system through her work, she emphasizes the importance of transparency, accountability, and mutual understanding.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Charlene Engle redacted application.

AGENDA
REPORT
331
332

January 20, 2026

Mayor's Office

DATE: January 20, 2026
TO: Members of the City Council
FROM:

Mayor Eduardo Martinez
Subject:

Reappointment of Ellen Seskin to the Human Rights and
Human Relations Commission
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact on receiving this item.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None.

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

Ellen Seskin is reapplying for a seat on the Human
Rights and Human Relations Commission
RECOMMENDED ACTION: APPOINT Ellen Seskin to the Human Rights and Human Relations Commission with a term that expires on March
30, 2028 – Mayor’s Office (Mayor Eduardo Martinez 510-
620-6503).

DISCUSSION:

Ellen Seskin seeks to be reappointed to the Human Rights and Human Relations commission to continue her work in strengthening the commission.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Ellen Seskin’s redacted application.

AGENDA
REPORT
333
334
335

January 20, 2025

Mayor's Office

DATE: January 20, 2026
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Mayor Eduardo Martinez

Subject:

Appointment of Alexander Rony to the Recreations and
Parks Commission
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact on receiving this item.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None.

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

Alexander Rony is applying for the Richmond Recreation
and Parks Commission. Alexander will be filling a term
that was formerly vacated, thus he would be filling an
unexpired term.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

APPOINT Alexander Rony to fill a vacant seat on the
Richmond Recreation and Parks Commission, with the
term ending on October 26, 2028 - Mayor’s Office (Mayor Eduardo Martinez 510-620-6503).

DISCUSSION:

Alexander Rony is being moved forward for appointment to the Recreation and Parks Commission to help restore the commission’s roster and ensure the Commission can resume its work after an extended period of inactivity. His background, including AGENDA
REPORT
336

January 20, 2025
experience with civic organizations and a clear interest in parks, wildfire risk abatement, and environmental equity, aligns with the Commission’s core responsibilities. Advancing this appointment supports continuity, functionality, and timely progress on parks and recreation priorities for the City.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Redacted application for Alexander Rony
337
338

January 20, 2026

Public Works

DATE: January 20, 2026
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
Tawfic Halaby, PE, Deputy Director of Public Works for
Operations & Maintenance
Hillal Hamdan, PE, Senior Civil Engineer
Subject:

Agreement with Contra Costa County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District for the Wildcat Creek Fish
Passage Project
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The proposed funding of $780,000 is included in the approved Fiscal Year 2025-2026 budget in the General
Capital Fund/Via Verdi Mitigation Project (Account String:
20136031-400642-23049).

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

February 28, 2017

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

An agreement with the Contra Costa County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District is required to
fund the Wildcat Creek Fish Passage Project and comply
with mandatory fish passage mitigation conditions
imposed by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Via Verdi project.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

ADOPT a resolution to APPROVE an agreement with the
Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District to remit $780,000 to satisfy the
City’s permit obligations associated with the Via Verdi Project and AUTHORIZE the City Manager or their
designee to execute necessary documents - Public
Works Department (Hillal Hamdan 510-621-1612/Tawfic
Halaby 510-620-5478/Robert Armijo 510-620-5477).

AGENDA
REPORT
339

January 20, 2026
DISCUSSION:

Background
In February 2017, Via Verdi roadway, the sole ingress/egress to the Sobrante Glen residential neighborhood of approximately 85 single family homes and about 100 apartment and condominium units, was damaged due to a landslide (Attachment 1). At its February 28, 2017, meeting, the Richmond City Council adopted Resolution 13-17, proclaiming the existence of a local emergency due to landslide damage on Via Verdi.

In response to the Via Verdi landslide, the City constructed an Emergency Access Road and worked with utility companies to relocate their facilities into the Emergency Access Road to provide uninterrupted vehicular access and utility services to the Sobrante Glen neighborhood. Starting in 2017, the City’s consultant conducted geotechnical investigations and then performed an alternatives analysis for possible solutions to address the landslide. The preferred alternative was the introduction of a culvert into San Pablo Creek to eliminate the threat of the landslide and was the lowest cost alternative. This alternative also minimized long-term operational and safety risks associated with continued slope instability. The design of the preferred alternative was initiated and the City engaged with federal, state, and local regulatory agencies including the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board), to secure the following regulatory permits for work in San Pablo Creek, adjacent to Via Verdi roadway:

 California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW)
Streambed Alteration Agreement 1600-2019-0169-R3 dated June 3, 2021;  San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WDID # 2 CS 430699) dated June 4, 2021; and
 United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Individual Permit SPN-2010-00171 dated June 15, 2021.

Permit Requirements
The City is required to implement both riparian vegetation and fish passage mitigation measures, as outlined in the following excerpts from the CDFW and Water Board permits (Attachment 2 and 3). These requirements were conditions of project approval and are not discretionary. However, this item addresses only the fish passage mitigation measures. Riparian vegetation requirements will be brought forward under a separate item

California Department of Fish & Wildlife Streambed Alteration Agreement # 1600- 2019-0169-R3
Section 3.13 Offsite Mitigation Funding and Planning. Permittee shall submit no later than July 30, 2021, a funding plan for the fish passage and riparian vegetation mitigation requirements of this Agreement. The funding plan shall 340

January 20, 2026
identify a means to provide proof of sufficient financial assurances to ensure: (1) dedication of funds adequate to fully support construction of the selected fish passage mitigation option (e.g., Wildcat Creek Fish Ladder Retrofit Project), and (2) the construction, success, and long-term management and preservation of the selected riparian vegetation mitigation option (e.g., Rheem Creek enhancement and replacement). The funding plan shall include a detailed budget covering the expected project costs at each option, and a plan for holding and distributing the funds based upon the offsite projects’ timing. The funding plan shall describe details of the efforts performed by Permittee to secure funding in the necessary amounts in preparation for posting a bond, letter of credit, or other nonrevocable means of financial security to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. Multiple funding pathways shall be explored in parallel to ensure availability of funding. Monthly status reports on acquisition of funding shall be submitted to CDFW (see Contact Information) until funds have been secured and set aside via an acceptable security mechanism.

An acceptable financial security shall be established by Permittee for both the fish passage and riparian vegetation mitigation requirements of this Agreement no later than December 31, 2021, unless an alternative timeframe has been approved by CDFW in coordination with other permitting agencies based on adequate demonstration of progress towards securing funds. Documentation that a security has been established and accepted by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board shall be submitted to CDFW within 20 days of the transaction’s completion.

Water Board 401 Water Quality Certification (WDID # 2 CS 430699) Condition 28. Offsite Mitigation Funding and Planning. The Permittee shall submit, no later than July 30, 2021, acceptable to the Executive Officer, a plan for funding the Rheem Creek and Wildcat Creek offsite mitigation work. The funding plan shall identify a means to provide proof of financial assurances adequate to ensure (1) dedication of funds adequate to support construction of the above-described Wildcat Creek fish ladder retrofit based on communication with the Contra Costa County Flood Control District and other entities, and an estimated schedule for the retrofit project’s completion in a timely manner, and (2) the construction, success, and long-term management and preservation of the Rheem Creek work. The plan shall include a detailed budget covering the expected project costs at each site and a plan for holding and distributing the funds, which may depend upon the offsite project’s timing. The funding plan shall describe details of the Permittee’s efforts to secure funding in the necessary amounts in preparation for posting bonds, letters of credit, or other irrevocable means of financial security. Multiple funding pathways shall be explored in parallel to ensure availability of funding. Monthly status reports on acquisition of funding shall be submitted, acceptable to the Executive Officer, until funds have been secured and set aside via an acceptable security mechanism for each offsite project.

341

January 20, 2026
An acceptable financial security shall be established by the Permittee for both the Wildcat and Rheem creeks projects no later than December 31, 2021, unless an alternative timeframe has been approved by the Executive Officer based on adequate demonstration of progress towards securing funds. Documentation that a security has been created in a manner that will be usable for the intended purpose, to include communications with the landowners and/or parties responsible for implementation, shall be submitted to the Water Board within 20 days of completion of the transaction.

Agreement with Contra Costa County Flood Control And Water Conservation District
The Contra Costa County Flood Control And Water Conservation District’s (District) proposed Wildcat Creek Fish Passage Implementation Project (Project) includes retrofitting an existing fish ladder, widening a sedimentation basin, and modifying a flood control structure, and meets the City of Richmond’s Via Verdi mitigation requirements (Attachments 3 and 4).

There were no proposed fish passage projects in Richmond, and as documented in the CDFW and Water Board permits, in order to meet the Via Verdi project regulatory permit fish passage mitigation requirements, the City of Richmond agreed to provide mitigation funds to the District for their proposed Project. In 2021, the fish passage portion of the Project was estimated to cost $780,000 ($650,000 Engineer’s Estimate plus a 20% construction contingency). These funds are only for use on the fish passage portion of the project; the City is under no obligation to fund the non-fish passage portions of the Project.

In 2025, the District notified the City of Richmond of their intent to advertise the Project for construction, and requested the City enter into an agreement to remit the construction funds to the District (Attachment 5). Execution of this agreement represents the mechanism by which the City fulfills its long-standing permit obligations.

Staff Recommendation

City staff recommend the City Council adopt the resolution that authorizes the City Manager to enter into an Agreement with the District for the remittance of $780,000 to the District for the fish passage portion of the Project (Attachments 6). Approval of the resolution will bring the City into compliance with its Via Verdi CDFW and Water Board permit requirements and avoid potential regulatory enforcement actions or delays associated with noncompliance.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Location Map
Attachment 2 – Amendment of Streambed Alteration, Notification No. 1600-2019-0169- R3, Via Verdi Slope Stabilization Project
Attachment 3 – Contra Costa County Flood Control District Project Plans Attachment 4 – Wildcat Creek Fish Passage Implementation Project Site Map 342

January 20, 2026

Attachment 5 – Agreement with the Contra Costa County Flood Control And Water Conservation District
Attachment 6 – Resolution

343
ATTACHMENT 4: LOCATION MAP
344
Prepared 8/18/2022
0 100 20050
Feet
Document Path: \\PW-DATA\grpdata\fldctl\Watershed Planning - Engineering\Zone 7 - Wildcat Creek\Fish_Ladder_Retrofit\GIS\WC_Fish_Passage_USRP.mxd 255 Glacier Drive
Martinez, CA 94553
(925) 313-2000
Contra Costa County
Flood Control

WILDCAT CREEK FISH PASSAGE
IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT µ
and Water Conservation District
Legend
Flood Control and Fish Ladder Structure
Sediment Basin
Control Structure
Flood Control District ROW/Easement
Wildcat Creek
Railroads
W i l d c a t C r e e k
FIGURE 1
345
State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Bay Delta Region
2825 Cordelia Road, Suite 100
Fairfield, CA 94534
(707) 428-2002
www.wildlife.ca.gov
Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870

June 1, 2023

Daniel Chavarria
City of Richmond
450 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
[email protected]

Dear Mr. Chavarria:

Amendment of Streambed Alteration, Notification No. 1600-2019-0169-R3, Via Verdi Slope Stabilization Project

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has received your request to amend Streambed Alteration Agreement 1600-2019-0169-R3 (Agreement) and the required fee in the amount of $1752.50 for a major amendment. Your request to amend the Agreement includes:

• Modifications to complete the installation of containerized site revegetation efforts by no later than August 31, 2023.
• The inclusion of the synthetic geotextile fabrics used at the project site and the rock lined channel located above the culvert.
• Modifications to Measure 3.1.2 to submit a Standard Agreement for the Rheem Creek mitigation project from the original date of August 1, 2021, to the new date of June 15, 2023.
• Modifications to Measure 3.1.3 to ensure that a deposit of $780,000.00 will be made by the City of Richmond into an escrow account for Contra Costa County Flood Control District for the Wildcat Creek Fish Ladder Retrofit Project, contingent upon receiving full funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

CDFW hereby agrees to amend the agreement with addition of the following conditions (additions in bold italics and deletions in strikethrough):

1. Per the original Agreement Measure 2.55: CDFW hereby authorizes the use of geo- textile fabrics according to the project design (e.g., in the rock lined drainage above the culvert). Geo-textile fabrics shall not be used as part of project activities in any other fashion. If there is an unforeseen need for the use of geo-textile fabrics, Permittee shall explore biodegradable options first, and present a basis of design report to CDFW if not selected.

2. Per the original Agreement Measure 3.1.2 : For the Project related impacts to the riparian vegetation of San Pablo Creek caused by 1.62 acres of permanent impacts, in addition to 3.4 acres of temporary impacts, Permittee shall either: (1) replace and enhance 1,850 linear feet accompanying 2.27 acres of riparian vegetation along Rheem Creek adjacent to Contra Costa College; or (2) if the enhancement of Rheem Creek is deemed infeasible for reasons beyond financial support, Permittee may propose an DocuSign Envelope ID: D855AA0C-D643-40D0-B41F-15A1A9EFDE75 346

Daniel Chavarria
June 1, 2023

alternative compensatory riparian vegetation mitigation project and plan to CDFW for approval in coordination with other permitting agencies.

The success of the compensatory riparian vegetation mitigation shall be held solely to the responsibility of Permittee. Permittee shall submit an application for a Standard Agreement (found at: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Environmental- Review/LSA/Agreement-Types#55230748-standard-agreement) for the Rheem Creek project to CDFW no later than June 15, 2023. compensatory riparian vegetation mitigation and monitoring plan (Plan) to CDFW for review and approval no later than August 1st, 2021, by email (see Contact Information section). The Plan shall include a proposed time schedule for implementation, with start of work preferably occurring during January 2022 (e.g. invasive tree removal in Rheem Creek), and no later than January 2023. All regulatory permit applications for the Plan shall be submitted as soon as possible, yet shall not hinder the submittal of the Standard Agreement no later than October 1st, 2021.The Plan shall include, at the minimum, the following criteria:
• A description and amounts of plant species, planting ratios and spacing, name(s) of supplying nurseries, description of baseline conditions, map with indicated vantage points for future photo tracking, and photos depicting baseline conditions. Nursery stock plants shall be native species adapted to the lighting, soil, and hydrological conditions of the restoration site. Hydroseed mixes shall be comprised only of native seed. Trees and shrubs shall be identifiable through unique numbering on the map. • A monitoring and maintenance plan that outlines adaptive management strategies to achieve the following success criteria goals:
o All plantings and trees shall have a minimum of 80-percent survival at the end of 10 years.
o Vegetation cover shall consist of no new invasive plant species rated as “moderate” or “high” by the Cal-IPC at the end of 10 years. o Vegetation cover of extant invasive plant species shall not exceed 20-percent at the end of 10 years.
o If the survival and/or cover requirements are not meeting the success criteria goals provided in the Plan, Permittee is responsible for replacement planting, additional watering, weeding, invasive species eradication, or any other practice necessary to achieve these requirements over subsequent years until the success criteria is met. Replacement plants shall be subject to the same monitoring, survival, and growth requirements as the initial plantings. o Monitoring shall be conducted for a period of 10 years following the criteria found in Measure 4.7 of this Agreement to determine whether the success criteria provided in the Plan have been met. If the survival and/or cover requirements are not projected to meet these goals based on annual monitoring, Permittee is responsible for taking corrective actions as previously mentioned, in conjunction with performing additional years of monitoring to ensure the success criteria of the compensatory offsite mitigation is achieved.
o An implementation schedule that outlines timing of plantings, monitoring schedules, and estimated success criteria benchmarks.

3. Per the original Agreement Measure 3.2 Remediation and Erosion Control.: Areas that have become either barren of vegetation, slated for erosion control, or where ground disturbance has occurred, shall be revegetated with local native plant species consistent DocuSign Envelope ID: D855AA0C-D643-40D0-B41F-15A1A9EFDE75 347

Daniel Chavarria
June 1, 2023

with the vegetative composition immediately up and downstream of the project site as described in the Project Description. If project areas are slated for seeding or hydroseeding (e.g., topsoil capped RSP, etc.), a native seed mix of a CDFW-approved native plant species list shall be applied. The native seed mix shall reflect local species and include an equal parts mixture of at least: one perennial grass, one annual grass, one annual forb, and one perennial forb. Revegetation efforts including hydroseeding and container planting shall occur prior to the onset of winter rains within the year initial impacts take place no later than August 31, 2023. To ensure revegetation efforts succeed, onsite plantings and seeded areas shall meet the following success criteria:
• Baseline conditions, including absolute percentages of ground cover and shrub cover, shall be quantified by the Qualified Biologist prior to project activities. The baseline narrative and representative photographs shall be submitted with the biological surveys for each project site (see Measure 4.3, below). • Vegetation cover shall consist of no new invasive plant species rated as “high” by the Cal-IPC at the end of 10 years. Reinvasion of extant invasive species found onsite during baseline condition surveys shall not exceed 20-percent of the total revegetated area at the end of 10 years.
• If nursery stock purchased for revegetation was grown within a county that is quarantining or regulating nursery stock for interstate sales due to the presence of Phytophthora ramorum, the source nursery shall be in compliance with annual inspections under 7 CFR 301.92 et seq. Permittee shall view the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) website to view the most recent list of approved nurseries from quarantined and regulated counties, found at https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/plant/pe/InteriorExclusion/SuddenOakDeath/. Permittee shall view, and if possible obtain, a copy of the annual inspection certificate under 7 CFR 301.92-f et seq. regarding P. ramorum
(http://www.suddenoakdeath.org/diagnosis-and-management/hosts-and- symptoms/). If a selected nursery cannot provide this annual certificate of inspection, the nursery shall not be used as a source for plant material, soils or other materials that could transmit the disease organism.

Permittee and all contractors shall follow sanitation protocol specified in the Sanitation Guidelines for Professional Crews issued by the California Oak Mortality Task Force (https://www.suddenoakdeath.org/diagnosis-and- management/sanitation-reducing-spread/) prior to entering, during construction, and prior to leaving the site. If the project site is within five miles of a confirmed sudden oak death infestation (refer to http://www.oakmapper.org/) or contact the appropriate County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office. A discussion of sudden oak death shall be included in the pre-construction training.

CDFW has partially declined your request to modify the original Agreement Measure 3.1.2.

CDFW expects the application for a Standard Agreement be submitted for the Rheem Creek project to be submitted without respect to other agencies input on the project.

CDFW has partially declined your request to modify the original Agreement Measure 3.2.

Deeming revegetation efforts as “complete” shall be assessed and associated by CDFW at the end of the annual reporting periods of the Agreement.

DocuSign Envelope ID: D855AA0C-D643-40D0-B41F-15A1A9EFDE75 348

Daniel Chavarria
June 1, 2023

CDFW has declined your request to modify the original Agreement Measure 3.1.3. Permittee shall provide funding for the Wildcat Creek Fish Ladder Retrofit Project without a contingency reliant on funding from any other source for any part or total amount of the previously agreed-to sum of $780,000.00. Please refer to the Notice of Non-Compliance of the Agreement dated April 20, 2022.

All other conditions in the Agreement remain in effect unless otherwise stated herein.

Please sign and return one copy of this letter to acknowledge the amendment. Copies of the Agreement and this amendment must be readily available at project worksites and must be presented when requested by a CDFW representative or agency with inspection authority.

If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact CDFW Environmental Scientist at (707) 266-2878 or by email at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Melissa Farinha
Environmental Program Manager

ec: California Department of Fish and Wildlife

Clint Garrett, Captain
CDFW Law Enforcement Division
[email protected]

Ryan McCoy, Lieutenant (Supervisory)
CDFW Law Enforcement Division
[email protected]

Jacob Gonsalves, Warden
CDFW Law Enforcement Division
[email protected]

Michelle Battaglia, Senior Environmental Scientist (Supervisory) Bay Delta Region
[email protected]

Andrew Chambers, Environmental Scientist
Bay Delta Region
[email protected]

Katie Hart
San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board
[email protected]
DocuSign Envelope ID: D855AA0C-D643-40D0-B41F-15A1A9EFDE75 349

Daniel Chavarria
June 1, 2023

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I hereby agree to the above-referenced amendment.

Print Name: _______________________________ Date: ____________________

Signature: ________________________________
DocuSign Envelope ID: D855AA0C-D643-40D0-B41F-15A1A9EFDE75 Daniel Chavarria 6/1/2023
350
WILDCAT FISH PASSAGEIMPLEMENTATION PROJECT100% DESIGNNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPO BOX 29392OAKLAND, CA 94604510.842.0538PREPARED FOR:CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOODCONTROL & WATERCONSERVATION DISTRICT

AJPFRANK
THE VERTICAL DATUM FOR ALL THE ELEVATIONS IS NAVD88, BASED ON NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY BENCHMARK DE8480, ELEVATION 52.5 FEET. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE INFEET, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.NTS

PROJECTLOCATION

PARR BLVD
CONTRACTOR SHALL CALL 811 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERTTWO (2) WORKING DAYS BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION. THE USAAUTHORIZATION NUMBER MUST BE KEPT AT THE JOB SITE.THE HORIZONTAL PROJECTION IS CALIFORNIA STATE PLANE, ZONE III, FEET, 2011 EPOCH DATE.

NORTHRICHMONDSANPABLO
NTS

ABAGGREGATE BASEACIAMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTEAPNASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERASTMAMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND MATERIALSBKFBACKFILLB/TBETWEENBOTBOTTOMCBCCALIFORNIA BUILDING CODECCCCONTRA COSTA COUNTYC/LCENTERLINECLCLASSCLRCLEARCONCCONCRETECTRLCONTROLDBHDIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHTDETDETAILDIADIAMETER(E)EXISTINGEGEXISTING GROUNDELEVELEVATIONESAENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAESMENGINEERED STREAMBED MATERIALEXCEXCAVATIONEXPEXPANSIONFCDFLOOD CONTROL DISTRICTFLFLOWLINEFTFEETHHORIZONTALHDPEHIGH-DENSITY POLYETHYLENEIBCINTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODEICCINTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL

IDINNER DIAMETERININCHJTJOINTKSIKILOPOUNDS PER SQUARE INCHLBPOUNDLFLINEAR FEETMAXMAXIMUMMHMAINTENANCE HOLEMINMINIMUMMZMONITORING ZONEMTLMATERIALNONUMBERNTSNOT TO SCALEODOUTER DIAMETEROHWORDINARY HIGH WATERPSIPOUNDS PER SQUARE INCHREINFREINFORCEMENTREZRIPARIAN EXCLUSION ZONEROWRIGHT OF WAYRQMTSREQUIREMENTSRSPROCK SLOPE PROTECTIONSHTSHEETSTASTATIONSTDSTANDARDSTLSTEELTYPTYPICALUONUNLESS OTHERWISE NOTEDUPRRUNION PACIFIC RAILROADVVERTICALVARVARIES PROJECT ENGINEERC.E.SENIOR PROJECT ENGINEERC.E.SUPERVISING PROJECT ENGINEERC.E.DEPUTY PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTORAPPROVEDBY:
20202020G1TITLE SHEETG2GENERAL NOTESG3ACCESS & STAGING PLANG4UTILITIESC1OVERALL SITE PLANC2CONCEPTUAL DIVERSION PLANC3CONCEPTUAL DIVERSION PLANC4DEMOLITION PLAN - SEDIMENT BASINC5DEMOLITION PLAN - FISH PASSAGE STRUCTUREC6DEMOLITION PLAN - CHANNEL MODIFICATIONC7GRADING PLAN - SEDIMENT BASINC8GRADING P&P - FISH PASSAGE STRUCTUREC9GRADING PLAN - CHANNEL MODIFICATIONC10CROSS SECTIONS - DOWNSTREAM TRAINING BERM/ACCESS PLATFORMC11CROSS SECTIONS - UPSTREAM TRAINING BERMC12CROSS SECTIONS - ACCESS PLATFORMSS0STRUCTURAL GENERAL NOTESS1STEP POOL SECTIONS AND DETAILSS2STEP POOL SECTIONS AND DETAILSS3BOULDER SECTIONS AND DETAILSS4DEFLECTION BOLLARD SECTIONS AND DETAILSL1PLANTING PLAN EXISTING GROUND CONTOURSFINISHED GRADE CONTOURSPARCEL LINEDETAIL IDENTIFICATIONSHEET FROM WHICH DETAIL IS TAKENSHEET ON WHICH DETAIL IS SHOWN

RICHMOND PKWY
SAN
RUMRILL BLVD23RD ST

GIANT HWY

BROOKSIDE DR

FRED JACKSON WAYDA VILLA

RUMRILL BLVDMARKET AVESANFRANCISCOBAYPABLOAVE

SAN PABLO AVE

NORTHRICHMONDSANPABLO

RICHMOND PKWYWILDCAT CREEK

SAN PABLO CREEKGRANT HWY
GIARAMITA ST25242425
351
WILDCAT FISH PASSAGEIMPLEMENTATION PROJECT100% DESIGNNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPO BOX 29392OAKLAND, CA 94604510.842.0538PREPARED FOR:CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOODCONTROL & WATERCONSERVATION DISTRICT “”

DEFINITIONSGENERAL NOTES
352
LEGEND
WILDCAT FISH PASSAGEIMPLEMENTATION PROJECT100% DESIGNNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPO BOX 29392OAKLAND, CA 94604510.842.0538PREPARED FOR:CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOODCONTROL & WATERCONSERVATION DISTRICT NOTES:1.ACCESS VIA PICK-N-PULL IS RESTRICTED AND MAYBE LIMITED TO BETWEEN 07:00 AND 13:30.CONTRACTOR MUST PROVIDE ADVANCED NOTICE TOPICK-N-PULL REPRESENTATIVE KEN CAGLE BYCALLING 510-410-0304.2.CONTRACTOR MUST CONTACT PG&E TO OBTAINAUTHORIZATION TO ENTER VIA RUMRILL BLVD.

EL PASEOHOUSINGINVESTORS

U-PULL-IT INC
7TH & MARKETLLC

CCC FLOOD CONTROL &WATER CONSERVATIONDISTRICTWEST CONTRA COSTAUNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

R&K INDUSTRIALPRODUCTS INC

DA VILLA LLCCCC FLOOD CONTROL &WATER CONSERVATIONDISTRICT 353
2520
202020202530
30 2525
252020
24 LEGENDEXISTING FUEL LINEEXISTING SANITARY SEWER LINEEXISTING GAS LINEEXISTING ELECTRIC LINEEXISTING STORM DRAINEXISTING FIBER OPTIC LINEEXISTING PROPERTY LINELEGENDHIGH RISK GAS LINE BUFFER WILDCAT FISH PASSAGEIMPLEMENTATION PROJECT100% DESIGNNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPO BOX 29392OAKLAND, CA 94604510.842.0538PREPARED FOR:CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOODCONTROL & WATERCONSERVATION DISTRICT 354

LEGENDEXISTING MAJOR CONTOUREXISTING MINOR CONTOURPROPOSED MAJOR CONTOURPROPOSED MINOR CONTOURESA EXCLUSION ZONEESA EXCLUSION ZONE BOUNDARYESA MONITORING ZONEEXISTING THALWEG WILDCAT FISH PASSAGEIMPLEMENTATION PROJECT100% DESIGNNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPO BOX 29392OAKLAND, CA 94604510.842.0538PREPARED FOR:CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOODCONTROL & WATERCONSERVATION DISTRICT 355
2520
202020202530
30 2525
28262423222119191919212122232426272829313232312928272626272829 252027262423222119201716
24232221
1819171618 2827
24 191817161514131211
11121314151617181920212223
10 3130272829262524
10 27
24 WILDCAT FISH PASSAGEIMPLEMENTATION PROJECT100% DESIGNNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPO BOX 29392OAKLAND, CA 94604510.842.0538PREPARED FOR:CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOODCONTROL & WATERCONSERVATION DISTRICT NOTE:STREAM DIVERSION PLAN SHOWN IS CONCEPT LEVEL. CONTRACTOR SHALLPREPARE AND SUBMIT A STREAM DIVERSION PLAN TO THE COUNTY FORAPPROVAL PRIOR TO INITIATING INSTALLATION OF A DIVERSION METHOD.USE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CDFW PERMIT. 356
WILDCAT FISH PASSAGEIMPLEMENTATION PROJECT100% DESIGNNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPO BOX 29392OAKLAND, CA 94604510.842.0538PREPARED FOR:CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOODCONTROL & WATERCONSERVATION DISTRICT NOTE:STREAM DIVERSION PLAN SHOWN IS CONCEPT LEVEL. CONTRACTOR SHALLPREPARE AND SUBMIT A STREAM DIVERSION PLAN TO THE COUNTY FORAPPROVAL PRIOR TO INITIATING INSTALLATION OF A DIVERSION METHOD.USE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CDFW PERMIT. 357

LEGENDTREE, TO BE REMOVEDTREE, PROTECT IN PLACEDEMOLITIONESA BOUNDARYSILT FENCE(E) THALWEGESA MONITORING ZONE WILDCAT FISH PASSAGEIMPLEMENTATION PROJECT100% DESIGNNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPO BOX 29392OAKLAND, CA 94604510.842.0538PREPARED FOR:CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOODCONTROL & WATERCONSERVATION DISTRICT 358

LEGENDTREE, TO BE REMOVEDTREE, PROTECT IN PLACEDEMOLITIONESA BOUNDARYSILT FENCE(E) THALWEGESA MONITORING ZONE WILDCAT FISH PASSAGEIMPLEMENTATION PROJECT100% DESIGNNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPO BOX 29392OAKLAND, CA 94604510.842.0538PREPARED FOR:CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOODCONTROL & WATERCONSERVATION DISTRICT 359
102030
102030
15+5016+0016+5017+00
WILDCAT FISH PASSAGEIMPLEMENTATION PROJECT100% DESIGNNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPO BOX 29392OAKLAND, CA 94604510.842.0538PREPARED FOR:CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOODCONTROL & WATERCONSERVATION DISTRICT 360
2520
202020202530
30 2525
28262423222119191919212122232426272829313232312928272626272829 252027262423222119201716
24232221
1819171618 2827
24 191817161514131211
11121314151617181920212223
10 3130272829262524
10 27
24 LEGENDEXISTING MAJOR CONTOURENGINEERED STREAMBED MATERIALROCK SLOPE PROTECTION, 6"EXISTING MINOR CONTOURPROPOSED MAJOR CONTOURPROPOSED MINOR CONTOURROCK SLOPE PROTECTION, 9"25242524ESA MONITORING ZONEESA EXCLUSION ZONE WILDCAT FISH PASSAGEIMPLEMENTATION PROJECT100% DESIGNNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPO BOX 29392OAKLAND, CA 94604510.842.0538PREPARED FOR:CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOODCONTROL & WATERCONSERVATION DISTRICT E
A
I
K
J
D
C
F
G
H
L
M
N
B
361
0102030
0102030
8+008+509+009+5010+0010+5011+0011+5012+0012+20
WILDCAT FISH PASSAGEIMPLEMENTATION PROJECT100% DESIGNNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPO BOX 29392OAKLAND, CA 94604510.842.0538PREPARED FOR:CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOODCONTROL & WATERCONSERVATION DISTRICT

17.918.417.6217.417.916.917.416.416.915.916.415.415.914.915.414.414.913.914.413.413.912.913.412.412.911.912.410.410.9(E) GROUND(E) SIDE CHANNEL INVERT(E) LOW-FLOWCHANNEL INVERT BOULDER WEIR ELEVATIONSSTATIONTOP ELEVATION FTNAVD88BOTTOM ELEVATION FTNAVD8811+72.720.4319.4311+27.720.0219.0210+82.719.6118.6110+37.719.2018.209+92.718.7917.79STEP POOL WEIR ELEVATIONSSTATION 362
102030
102030
15+5016+0016+5017+00
WILDCAT FISH PASSAGEIMPLEMENTATION PROJECT100% DESIGNNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPO BOX 29392OAKLAND, CA 94604510.842.0538PREPARED FOR:CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOODCONTROL & WATERCONSERVATION DISTRICT 363
0102030
0102030
0+501+001+502+002+25
0102030
0102030
010200-10-20-30-40-50-60
0102030
0102030
0102030400-10-20-30-40
0102030
0102030
01020300-10-20-30
0102030
0102030
0102030400-10-20-30-40 0102030
0102030
0102030400-10-20-30-40
WILDCAT FISH PASSAGEIMPLEMENTATION PROJECT100% DESIGNNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPO BOX 29392OAKLAND, CA 94604510.842.0538PREPARED FOR:CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOODCONTROL & WATERCONSERVATION DISTRICT 364
0102030
0102030
0+501+001+502+00
01020
01020
01020300-10-20-30 01020
01020
01020300-10-20-30 01020
01020
01020300-10-20-30
WILDCAT FISH PASSAGEIMPLEMENTATION PROJECT100% DESIGNNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPO BOX 29392OAKLAND, CA 94604510.842.0538PREPARED FOR:CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOODCONTROL & WATERCONSERVATION DISTRICT 365
5102030
5102030
0+501+001+502+002+503+00
0102030
0102030
0+501+001+502+002+10.95
0102030
0102030
010203040500-10-20-30 0102030
0102030
010203040500-10-20-30-40
0102030
0102030
010203040500-10-20-30 0102030
0102030
010203040500-10-20-30-40-50
0102030
0102030
010203040500-10-20-30-40
0102030
0102030
01020304050600-10-20-30-40-50
WILDCAT FISH PASSAGEIMPLEMENTATION PROJECT100% DESIGNNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPO BOX 29392OAKLAND, CA 94604510.842.0538PREPARED FOR:CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOODCONTROL & WATERCONSERVATION DISTRICT 366

DESIGN CRITERIA

INTENT OF DRAWINGS

GENERAL

ANCHORAGE TO EXISTING CONCRETEREINFORCING STEELCONCRETE 90° HOOK135° HOOK180° HOOK

DEVELOPMENT AND LAP SPLICE NOTES

TYPICAL REINFORCING BAR BENDS ANDHOOKS SCHEDULETYPICAL STIRRUP TIE, HOOP OR CROSS-TIE WILDCAT FISH PASSAGEIMPLEMENTATION PROJECT100% DESIGNNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION785 YGNACIO VALLEY RDWALNUT CREEK, CA 94596925.935.9771PREPARED FOR:CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOODCONTROL & WATERCONSERVATION DISTRICT DRAFT
367
A
A
B
1 C
D
B
2 WILDCAT FISH PASSAGEIMPLEMENTATION PROJECT100% DESIGNNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION785 YGNACIO VALLEY RDWALNUT CREEK, CA 94596925.935.9771PREPARED FOR:CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOODCONTROL & WATERCONSERVATION DISTRICT DRAFT
368
C
D
WILDCAT FISH PASSAGEIMPLEMENTATION PROJECT100% DESIGNNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION785 YGNACIO VALLEY RDWALNUT CREEK, CA 94596925.935.9771PREPARED FOR:CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOODCONTROL & WATERCONSERVATION DISTRICT DRAFT
369
1 D
A
B
C
D
2 A
B
C
3 WILDCAT FISH PASSAGEIMPLEMENTATION PROJECT100% DESIGNNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION785 YGNACIO VALLEY RDWALNUT CREEK, CA 94596925.935.9771PREPARED FOR:CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOODCONTROL & WATERCONSERVATION DISTRICT DRAFT
370
A
A
B
C
1 B
C4
2 3
WILDCAT FISH PASSAGEIMPLEMENTATION PROJECT100% DESIGNNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION785 YGNACIO VALLEY RDWALNUT CREEK, CA 94596925.935.9771PREPARED FOR:CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOODCONTROL & WATERCONSERVATION DISTRICT DRAFT
371
NOTES:1.HARVEST AND PLANT STAKES DURING THE DORMANT SEASON.2.USE HEALTHY, STRAIGHT, AND LIVE WOOD AT LEAST ONE YEAR OLD, AND MIN 5' LONG.3.MAKE CLEAN CUTS, AND DO NOT DAMAGE STAKES DURING INSTALLATION.4.USE A PILOT BAR IN FIRM SOILS.5.PLANT 4' MIN OF STAKE LENGTH IN THE GROUND.6.LEAVE 3 TO 5 BUDS SCARS ABOVE THE GROUND.

PREPARE SUBGRADE PER SPECS
1/4 MIN TO 1/3 MAX LENGTH OF LIVE STAKE ABOVE RSP/TOPSOIL4' MINLIVE WILLOW STAKE6" DIA DEGRADABLE PLANTING TUBE.EXTENDED SLIGHTLY ABOVE RSP AT TOP.EXTENDED INTO PREPARED SUBGRADEBELOW GRAVEL FILTER AT BOTTOM GRAVEL FILTERSEE SPECSRSPSEE GRADING PLAN FOR LOCATIONAND SIZING1.25'1.0'DEGRADABLE TUBE TO BEBACKFILLED WITH TOPSOILDURING PLANTING LEGENDLIVE WILLOW STAKERSP, 6"GRASS SEEDINGRIPARIAN EXCLUSIONZONERSP, 9"EXISTING TREE WILDCAT FISH PASSAGEIMPLEMENTATION PROJECT100% DESIGNNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPO BOX 29392OAKLAND, CA 94604510.842.0538PREPARED FOR:CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOODCONTROL & WATERCONSERVATION DISTRICT SEDIMENT BASIN GRASS SEED MIXSCIENTIFIC NAMECOMMON NAMEPLS(LB/ACRE)LIFE FORMEYMUS TRITICOIDESCREEPING WILDRYE18PERENNIAL GRASSHORDEUM BRACHYANTHERUMMADOW BARLEY8PERENNIAL GRASSGRINDELLA CAMPORUMGUMPLANT3PERENNIAL FORB SCALE: NTSLIVE WILLOW STAKING DETAILTYP
NOTE:GRASS SEED TO BE OF KNOWN GENETIC ORIGIN AND PRODUCED IN CALIFORNIA ONLY. 372
Prepared 8/18/2022
0 100 20050
Feet
Document Path: \\PW-DATA\grpdata\fldctl\Watershed Planning - Engineering\Zone 7 - Wildcat Creek\Fish_Ladder_Retrofit\GIS\WC_Fish_Passage_USRP.mxd 255 Glacier Drive
Martinez, CA 94553
(925) 313-2000
Contra Costa County
Flood Control

WILDCAT CREEK FISH PASSAGE
IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT µ
and Water Conservation District
Legend
Flood Control and Fish Ladder Structure
Sediment Basin
Control Structure
Flood Control District ROW/Easement
Wildcat Creek
Railroads
W i l d c a t C r e e k
FIGURE 1
373
1 FUNDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION

DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF RICHMOND FOR CONTRIBUTION TO THE

WILDCAT CREEK FISH PASSAGE IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT

This Funding Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into as of ________________, 2025, (“Effective Date”) by and between Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, a flood control district organized under the laws of the State of California ("District"), and the City of Richmond, a municipal corporation ("City"). The District and the City are sometimes referred to herein together as the “Parties,” and each as a “Party.”

RECITALS
A. The Wildcat Creek Fish Passage Implementation Project ("Project") is a District- sponsored project that consists of improving fish passage in Wildcat Creek by retrofitting an existing fish ladder, widening a sedimentation basin, and modifying a flood control structure, as shown in Figure 1 attached hereto. The Project is located in the North Richmond area.

B. The District was the lead agency for Project environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). A CEQA mitigated negative declaration was approved for the Project, and, on September 13, 2024, the District filed a CEQA notice of determination with the State Clearinghouse.

C. The City and the District have discussed Project improvements. The City has determined that the Project provides a benefit the City, and the City desires to contribute to the Project costs under the terms of this Agreement.

AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt a n d a d e q u a c y o f w h i c h a r e hereby acknowledged, the City and the District agree as follows:

1. TERM; EXPIRATION AND TERMINATION. The term of this Agreement commences on the Effective Date, and it expires following the District’s acceptance of the Project as complete under Section 4.1. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the District may terminate this Agreement upon 90 calendar day written notice to the City that the 374
2 District has determined, in its sole discretion, that it will not proceed with the Project.

In addition, a brief rationale will be provided to justify the determination.

2. CONTRIBUTION OF FUNDS

2.1. The City agrees to contribute Seven Hundred Eighty Thousand Dollars ($780,000) ("City Contribution") to the District, which the District shall use to pay Project costs described in Section 3.1, below.

2.2. The City shall pay the entire amount of the City Contribution to the District within 90 days after the Effective Date of this Agreement.

3. USE OF CITY FUNDS

3.1. The District shall use the City Contribution solely for Project construction costs, including costs of the fish ladder improvements.

3.2. Any amount of the City Contribution remaining unspent after completion of the Project shall be returned to the City within 90 days after the District accepts the Project as complete, unless otherwise agreed in writing by both Parties.

3.3. Upon request by the City, the District will provide the City a summary accounting of how the City Contribution was used to pay Project costs.

3.4. If the District, in its sole discretion, decides to not pursue the Project, the District will refund any remaining amount of the City Contribution to the City within 60 days after giving the City a notice of termination of this Agreement under Section

1. 4. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

4.1. The District shall be responsible for the planning, design, permitting, construction, operation, and maintenance of the Project. City shall be invited to participate in pre-construction, weekly construction, and project closeout meetings.

4.2. The District will pay all costs for Project construction, design, engineering, contract administration, maintenance, long-term monitoring, and all other Project-related costs that are in excess of the amount of the City Contribution.

5. PROJECT MAINTENANCE

5.1. Within 30 working days after the District notifies the City that Project construction is complete, District and City representatives will conduct a joint final inspection of the Project prior to District accepting the Project as complete.

5.2. Following the District’s acceptance of the Project as complete, the District will operate and maintain the Project, and it will assume total responsibility for the Project.

5.3. The requirements Section 4.2 shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement.
375
3 6. INDEMNIFICATION

6.1. The District shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, damages, liabilities, and expenses (collectively, “Liabilities”) arising from the District's implementation of the Project, except to the extent any Liabilities are caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of the City.

6.2. The City shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the District, its officers, employees, and agents from and against any Liabilities that arise from the City's actions or omissions related to this Agreement, except to the extent that any Liabilities are caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of the District.

6.3. This requirements of this Section 6 shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement.

7. GENERAL PROVISIONS

7.1. Governing Law: This Agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with California law. The venue of any litigation arising out of this Agreement will be Contra Costa County.

7.2. Amendments: This Agreement may be modified or amended only in writing following the approval of the governing bodies of both Parties.

7.3. Severability: In the event that any one or more of the phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections contained in this Agreement shall be declared invalid or unenforceable by valid judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect any of the remaining phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections of this Agreement, which shall be interpreted to carry out the intent of the Parties hereunder.

7.4. Entire Agreement: This Agreement contains the entire understanding of the Parties relating to the subject matter of this Agreement. No promise, representation, warranty, or covenant not included in this Agreement has been or is relied upon by any Party.

7.5. No Third-Party Beneficiaries: There are no third-party beneficiaries to this Agreement.

7.6. Waiver: No delay or omission in the exercise of any right or remedy of a non- defaulting Party on any default shall impair such right or remedy or be construed as a waiver. No consent or approval of either Party shall be deemed to waive or render unnecessary such Party’s consent to or approval of any subsequent act of the other Party. Any waiver by either Party of any default must be in writing and shall not be a waiver of any other default concerning the same or any other provision of this Agreement.
376
4 7.7. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, which, taken together, shall constitute one and the same instrument.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date first written above.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION

DISTRICT
Warren Lai, Chief Engineer

Signature: ___________________________

CITY OF RICHMOND
City Manager
Signature: ___________________________

Name: _________________________Title: __________________________ 377

Reso. No. xx-25

DocID #61563v1xx
RESOLUTION NO. xx-25

ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER

INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOOD

CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT (DISTRICT) TO
REMIT $780,000 TO THE DISTRICT FOR THE CITY TO MEETS ITS PERMIT

OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE VIA VERDI PROJECT

WHEREAS, in February 2017, Via Verdi roadway, the sole ingress/egress to the Sobrante Glen residential neighborhood of 85 single family homes and about 100 apartment and condominium units, was damaged due to a landslide; and

WHEREAS, in response to the Via Verdi landslide, the City constructed an Emergency Access Road and worked with utility companies to relocate their facilities into the Emergency Access; and

WHEREAS, the City proposed to construc t a culvert in San Pablo Creek to eliminate the threat of future landslides and the City engaged with federal, state, and local regulatory agencies including the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board), to secure the appropriate regulatory permits for work in San Pablo Creek, adjacent to Via Verdi roadway; and

WHEREAS, the regulatory agencies required the City to implement bo th riparian vegetation and fish passage mitigation measures; and

WHEREAS, to meet the Via Verdi project regulatory permit fish passage mitigation requirements, the City of Richmond agreed to provide mitigation funds to the Contra Costa Flood Control District (District) for their proposed Wildcat Creek Fish Passage Implementation Project (Project); and

WHEREAS, in 2021, the fish passage portion of the Project was estimated to cost $780,000 ($650,000 Engineer’s Estimate plus a 20% construction contingency); and

WHEREAS, the prop osed mitigation will ensure that the proposed project will not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self -sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal; and

WHEREAS, the Project consists of improving fish passage in Wildcat Creek by retrofitting an existing fish ladder, widening a sedimentatio n basin, and modifying a flood control structure, as shown in Attachment 3, and is located in the North Richmond Area; and

WHEREAS, the remittance of these funds requires City Council approval of a funding agreement with the District to sponsor the Project and authorization for the City Manager or their designee to sign the funding agreement.

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 fo r the findings and actions set forth in this Resolution.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby authorizes the funding agreement in the amount of $780,000 to the District for the Project.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council designates the City Clerk as th e custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the decision herein is based. These documents may be found at the office of the City Clerk at the Richmond City Hall, 450 Civic Center Plaza, Richmond, California 94804.

*************************
378

Reso. No. xx-25

DocID #61563v1xx

I certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting thereof held January 20, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:

CLERK OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
(SEAL)
Approved:

Mayor

Approved as to form:

City Attorney
379

January 20, 2026

Public Works

DATE: January 20, 2026
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
Bradley Harms, Environmental Manager
Subject:

Contract Amendment for the Fiscal Year 2024–25 Grade
5 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The proposed $4,030,385 expenditure for the amendment is included within the approved fiscal year
2025-2026 budget in the Wastewater Enterprise Capital
Improvement Fund (Account String: 40322931-400708-
22230).

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

July 2, 2024

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

City staff is recommending City Council adopt a
resolution authorizing an amendment to the subcontract
issued by Veolia to APB General Engineering for
additional sanitary sewer line replacement and
rehabilitation work necessary to meet the City’s annual compliance obligations under the Baykeeper Settlement
Agreement.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

ADOPT a resolution and APPROVE the issuance of Task
Authorizations to Veolia Water, on behalf of the City, to manage subcontracts with APB General Engineering,
VW Housen, and Questa Engineers for additional
sanitary sewer line replacement and rehabilitation work, with a contract amendment amount of $4,030,385,
thereby increasing the total payment limit to $6,554,348, including applicable markups – Public Works Department
(Bradley Harms 307-8094/Robert Armijo 620-5477).

AGENDA
REPORT
380

January 20, 2026
DISCUSSION:

The Baykeeper Settlement Agreement (Section 31.c, 2018) requires the City of Richmond to annually replace or rehabilitate at least two (2) miles of Grade 5 gravity sewer, measured on a five-year rolling average (Attachment 1). To comply with this requirement, the City must allocate adequate annual capital funding for these mandated improvements. Failure to meet this requirement exposes the City to potential enforcement actions and penalties.

On July 2, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution 84-14 which authorized Veolia to manage a subcontract with APB General Engineering in the amount of $2,523,963 to implement a portion of the City’s annual Grade 5 sewer rehabilitation obligation (Attachment 2). The project was required to be substantially completed by June 30, 2025, to count toward the applicable fiscal year’s two-mile compliance requirement.

During construction, unforeseen field conditions—including abandoned lines, access limitations, and easement conflicts—reduced the number of sewer segments that could be constructed within the originally authorized scope. As a result, the originally approved subcontract amount was insufficient to achieve the two-mile annual rehabilitation threshold required under the Baykeeper Settlement Agreement.

To address this shortfall and maintain compliance, staff identified and authorized additional Grade 5 sewer segments for evaluation and construction under the same competitively bid unit pricing.

Delays in material procurement further impacted the project schedule. However, APB’s proposed costs remained reasonable and aligned with the original competitively bid pricing. No changes were made to the contractor’s unit prices, and the additional work was executed consistent with the original procurement framework.

Given the fixed June 30 compliance deadline and the regulatory consequences of falling short of the mandated mileage, staff determined that increasing the subcontract authority was necessary to complete sufficient sewer segments within the required timeframe.

Construction subsequently progressed, allowing the City to meet the Baykeeper- mandated two-mile requirement for FY 2024–25. This action ensured continued compliance with the Settlement Agreement and avoided potential enforcement exposure.

The total cost of authorized Task Authorizations is $6,554,348. This includes mark-up from Veolia ranging from 9 percent to 16.5 percent. These mark-ups are consistent with the City’s existing operations and maintenance contract with Veolia. The previously approved amount by City Council is $2,523,963. Thus, staff is requesting additional funding to be approved in the amount of $4,030,385. This will be funded from the 381

January 20, 2026
Wastewater Enterprise Capital Improvement Fund and is included in the 2025-26 Fiscal Year budget.

A summary of the Change Orders is listed in the table below (Attachments 3-9):

Item Project Proposal Veolia
Markup Subtotal Contingency
Base Project 24 Lines $ 1,755,800 $ 289,707 $ 2,045,507 $ 478,456 Change Order No 1
XP Lines
(collapsed) $ 225,308 $ 37,176 $ 262,484 $ - Change Order No 2
XP Lines
(collapsed) $ 206,296 $ 34,039 $ 240,335 $ - Change Order No 3
Remove
abandoned lines
Added 13 lines
additional lines. $ 1,645,356 $ 269,550 $ 1,914,906 $ - Change Order No 4
Pipe conflict
Issues $ 673,858 $ 60,647 $ 734,505 $ - Change Order No 5
Addition of 9
lines $ 865,974 $ 142,886 $ 1,008,860 $ - Change Order No 6
Removal and
replace
Manhole.

Add three (3)
line segments $ 298,499 $ 49,252 $ 347,751 $ - Total Task
Authorizations
Issued $ 5,671,091 $ 883,257 $ 6,554,348 Total Amount Adopted $ 2,523,963
Amount of Amended Contract Requested $ 4,030,385

City staff requests that City Council adopt a resolution approving an increase to the subcontracts issued to APB General Engineering, managed by Veolia, in the amount of $4,030,385 for the FY 2024–25 Grade 5 Sanitary Sewer Line Replacement Project. This action is necessary to meet the City’s compliance obligations under the 2018 Baykeeper Settlement Agreement.

The total cost of the project will not exceed $6,554,348 without prior City Council approval.

SYNERGISTIC POLICIES:

Strategic Goal 3.2 – Create new infrastructure
This project will repair/replace sanitary sewer infrastructure.

382

January 20, 2026
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Baykeeper Settlement Agreement
Attachment 2 – Resolution 84-24
Attachment 3 – Task Authorization – Original Project Scope Attachment 4 – Task Authorization – Change Order No. 1
Attachment 5 – Task Authorization – Change Order No. 2
Attachment 6 – Task Authorization – Change Order No. 3
Attachment 7 – Task Authorization – Change Order No. 4
Attachment 8 – Task Authorization – Change Order No. 5
Attachment 9 – Task Authorization – Change Oder No. 6
Attachment 10 – Resolution

383

Stipulated Request for Entry of Settlement 1 Case No. 3:05-cv-03829-MMC 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

Daniel Cooper (Bar No. 153576)
LAWYERS FOR CLEAN WATER, INC.
1004 O’Reilly Avenue
San Francisco, California 94129
Telephone: (415) 440-6520
Facsimile: (415) 440-4155
Email: [email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER and

WEST COUNTY TOXICS COALITION

Erica A. Maharg (Bar No. 279396)
Nicole C. Sasaki (Bar No. 298736)

SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER
1736 Franklin Street, Suite 800
Oakland, California 94612
Telephone: (510) 735-9700
Facsimile: (510) 735-9160
Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiff

SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER, a non-profit
corporation, and WEST COUNTY TOXICS
COALITION, a non-profit organization,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF RICHMOND, a municipal corporation,

Defendant.

Civil Case No.: 3:05-cv-03829-MMC

PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANT CITY
OF RICHMOND’S STIPULATED
REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF 2018

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT,
TERMINATION OF 2006

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, AND
TO VACATE HEARING; [PROPOSED]
ORDER

The Honorable Maxine M. Chesney

Order
;
Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 1 of 126 384

Stipulated Request for Entry of Settlement 2 Case No. 3:05-cv-03829-MMC 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

WHEREAS, on October 19, 2006, Plaintiffs San Francisco Baykeeper (“Baykeeper”) and West County Toxics Coalition (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and Defendant City of Richmond (“Richmond”) (collectively, “Parties”) settled Plaintiffs’ 2005 Clean Water Act citizen suit via settlement agreement (Docket Nos. 29; 32-1 (the “2006 Settlement Agreement”)), and the Court retained jurisdiction over specified claims for the sole purpose of resolving any dispute between the Parties in relation to the enforcement of the terms of the 2006 Settlement Agreement. (Docket Nos. 32; 43.); WHEREAS, on October 16, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for an Order Finding Richmond in Civil Contempt of Court (“Motion”) alleging violation of the terms of the 2006 Settlement Agreement. (Docket No. 38.). On October 27, 2017, upon request of the Parties, this Court continued the briefing and hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion to allow the Parties to hold a settlement conference. (Docket No. 43.); WHEREAS, the Parties previously stipulated, and this Court previously ordered, that the original Termination Date of the 2006 Settlement Agreement should be extended as to Richmond, and the current expiration date of the Parties’ 2006 Settlement Agreement is June 9, 2018. (Docket Nos. 34, 35, 40, 43.);
WHEREAS, Paragraph 10 of the 2006 Settlement Agreement specifies that the agreement shall terminate within the applicable time period “so long as all payments, fees, and costs due under or pursuant to th[e] [2006] Settlement Agreement, including, but not limited to, provisions governing Supplemental Environmental Projects, Attorney’s Fees and Costs, and Dispute Resolution, have been paid in full.” (Docket No. 32-1 at ¶10.);
WHEREAS, based upon stipulation of the Parties as a result of settlement discussions, (Docket No. 50), on March 13, 2018, this Court ordered that a Notice of Settlement be filed no later than March 30, 2018, that the briefing schedule and hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion be held off-calendar while the Parties finalize settlement documents, and that on or before May 29, 2018, after the close of the 45-day settlement review period set forth in 40 C.F.R. §135.5 with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) without objection, the Parties shall file their settlement-related documents, or alternatively, provide this Court with a status update with respect to this Court’s October 27, 2017 Order to set a hearing and briefing schedule (Docket No. 43) on Plaintiffs’ Motion. (Docket No. 52.);
;
Order
Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 2 of 126 385

Stipulated Request for Entry of Settlement 3 Case No. 3:05-cv-03829-MMC 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

WHEREAS, on March 30, 2018, the Parties filed a Notice of Settlement, notifying the Court that the Parties had reached a full settlement to resolve all outstanding issues in this action (“2018 Settlement Agreement” attached as Exhibit A to the [Proposed] Order filed concurrently herewith), and Plaintiffs served copies of the 2018 Settlement Agreement via U.S. Mail to DOJ and EPA for a mandatory 45-day review period under 33 U.S.C. § 1365(c)(3) and 40 C.F.R. § 135.5. (Docket No. 53.); WHEREAS, on May 21, 2018, DOJ notified the Court and the Parties that it does not object to the entry of the 2018 Settlement Agreement. (Docket. No. 54.); WHEREAS, the Parties now agree: (1) to terminate the 2006 Settlement Agreement (Docket Nos. 29; 32-1) concurrently with this Court’s approval and entry of the Order retaining jurisdiction to enforce compliance by the Parties with the terms of the 2018 Settlement Agreement, as that may occur before the 2006 Settlement Agreement’s current expiration date of June 9, 2018 (Docket Nos. 34, 35, 40, 43); and (2) that all terms and conditions for termination of the 2006 Settlement Agreement, including those conditions specified in Paragraph 10 of the 2006 Settlement Agreement, have been paid and satisfied in full;
WHEREFORE, the Parties also hereby provide this Court with their settlement-related documents (the 2018 Settlement Agreement, as noted above) as required by this Court’s March 13, 2018 Order (Docket No. 52);
WHEREFORE, the Parties hereby stipulate and request that the Court: (1) approve and enter the [Proposed] Order of the Court retaining jurisdiction over the Parties for the sole purpose of enforcing compliance by the Parties with the terms of the 2018 Settlement Agreement until the 2018 Settlement Agreement terminates; (2) terminate the 2006 Settlement Agreement (Docket Nos. 29 and 32-1) in its entirety upon this Court’s approval and entry of the [Proposed] Order; and (3) dismiss Plaintiffs’ Motion with prejudice and vacate the associated hearing and briefing schedule (Docket Nos. 38 and 43); and WHEREFORE, the Parties hereby stipulate and request the Court to approve and enter the [Proposed] Order attached hereto.
///
///
///
;
Order
Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 3 of 126 386

Stipulated Request for Entry of Settlement 4 Case No. 3:05-cv-03829-MMC 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

Respectfully Submitted,
Dated: May 24, 2018

By: /s/ Nicole C. Sasaki
Nicole C. Sasaki
Attorney for Plaintiff

SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER

Dated: May 24, 2018

By: /s/ Daniel Cooper
Daniel Cooper
Attorney for Plaintiffs
SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER and

WEST COUNTY TOXICS COALITION

Dated: May 24, 2018

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

By: / s/ Nicole E. Granquist (auth. to e-sign 05/24/18) Nicole Granquist
Attorney for Defendant

CITY OF RICHMOND

Order
;
Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 4 of 126 387

Stipulated Request for Entry of Settlement 5 Case No. 3:05-cv-03829-MMC 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

[PROPOSED] ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction over the Parties for the sole purpose of enforcing compliance by the Plaintiffs and Defendant with the terms of the 2018 Settlement Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit A, until the 2018 Settlement Agreement terminates.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Parties’ 2006 Settlement Agreement (Docket Nos. 29 and 32-1) is terminated.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Order Finding Richmond in Civil Contempt of Court (“Motion”) (Docket No. 38) is dismissed with prejudice, and the associated hearing and briefing schedule on Plaintiffs’ Motion is vacated (Docket No. 43).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _________________, 2018
The Honorable Maxine M. Chesney
United States Senior District Court Judge
June 4
Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th e Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no rable Maxi ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne M.

Ches ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy Un it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it ed ed ed ed ed ed ed ed ed ed ed ed ed ed ed ed ed ed ed ed ed ed ed ed ed ed ed ed ed ed ed ed ed ed ed ed ed ed ed ed ed ed ed ed ed ed ed ed ed ed ed ed ed ed ed States Senior
District Court J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J ud ud ud ud ud ud ud ud ud ud ud ud ud ud ud ud ud ud ud ud ud ud ud ud ud ud ud ud ud ud ud ud ud ud ud ud ud ud ud ud ud ud ud ud ud ud ud ud ud ud ud ud ud ud ud ud ud ud ud ud ud ud ud ud ud ;
Order
Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 5 of 126 388

Exhibit A
Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 6 of 126 389
Settlement Agreement 1 Case No. 3:05-cv-03829 MMC
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

Daniel Cooper (Bar No. 153576)
LAWYERS FOR CLEAN WATER, INC.
1004 O’Reilly Avenue
San Francisco, California 94129
Telephone: (415) 440-6520
Facsimile: (415) 440-4155
Email: [email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER and

WEST COUNTY TOXICS COALITION
Erica A. Maharg (Bar No. 279396)
Nicole C. Sasaki (Bar No. 298736)

SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER
1736 Franklin Street, Suite 800
Oakland, California 94612
Telephone: (510) 735-9700
Facsimile: (510) 735-9160
Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiff

SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER
Additional Counsel on Following Page

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER, a non-profit
corporation, and WEST COUNTY TOXICS
COALITION, a non-profit organization,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF RICHMOND, a municipal corporation,

Defendant.

Civil Case No. 3:05-cv-03829 MMC

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 7 of 126 390
Settlement Agreement 2 Case No. 3:05-cv-03829 MMC
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

DOWNEY BRAND LLP
NICOLE E. GRANQUIST (Bar No. 199017)
PATRICK F. VEASY (Bar No. 301456)
621 Capitol Mall, 18th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814-4731
Telephone: 916.444.1000
Facsimile: 916.444.2100
[email protected]
[email protected]
Attorneys for Defendant

CITY OF RICHMOND

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 8 of 126 391
Settlement Agreement 3 Case No. 3:05-cv-03829 MMC
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

2018 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
This Settlement Agreement (hereinafter, “2018 Settlement Agreement”) entered into by Plaintiffs San Francisco Baykeeper and West County Toxics Coalition (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendant City of Richmond (“Richmond”) (collectively, the “Parties”), supersedes and replaces all prior settlement agreements or amendments to settlement agreements in this action. The 2018 Settlement Agreement is entered into by the Parties with respect to the following facts, objectives, and commitments:

WHEREAS , Plaintiffs are non-profit corporations dedicated to, among other things, the protection and enhancement of the water quality of the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary and to protect the communities of West Contra Costa County against toxic threats in the area; WHEREAS , Richmond owns a publicly-owned treatment works, which includes a treatment works and sanitary sewer collection system that collects, treats, and discharges wastewater generated by residential, commercial, and industrial sources, pursuant to California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, (“Regional Board”) Order No. R2-2013-0016, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) Permit No. CA0038539 (the “2013 Joint Permit”).

WHEREAS , on October 17, 2006, the Parties entered into a settlement agreement to informally resolve specified claims in Baykeeper and West County Toxics Coalition v. City of Richmond, West County Wastewater District, Veolia North America Operating Services, and West County Agency , United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Civil Case No. 05- 03829 MMC (hereinafter, the “2006 Settlement Agreement”); WHEREAS , on October 16, 2017, Plaintiffs filed with the Court a Motion for an Order Finding Richmond in Civil Contempt of Court (“Motion”), alleging violations of the 2006 Settlement Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE , in, consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged by the Parties, Plaintiffs and Richmond hereby agree as follows:

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 9 of 126 392
Settlement Agreement 4 Case No. 3:05-cv-03829 MMC
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

I. GENERAL OBJECTIVES

1. ! The objectives of this 2018 Settlement Agreement are:
a. ! To ensure that Richmond continues to improve efforts to comply with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1251, et seq . (“Clean Water Act” or “CWA”); b. ! To ensure that Richmond continues to use, implement, and improve ways, means, and methods to prevent or reduce sanitary sewer overflows (“SSOs”); and c. ! To further the goals and objectives of the CWA.

II. ! DEFINITIONS

2. ! Unless otherwise expressly defined herein, terms used in this 2018 Settlement Agreement, which are defined in the CWA or in regulations or rules promulgated under the CWA, have the meaning assigned to them in the applicable statutes, regulations, or rules. Whenever terms listed below are used in this 2018 Settlement Agreement, the following definitions apply:
a. ! “FOG” means fats, oil, and grease.
b. ! “2018 Settlement Agreement” means this Settlement Agreement and any attachments or documents incorporated by reference into this 2018 Settlement Agreement. c. ! “Collection System” means the sewer pipes and lines, manholes or maintenance holes, pump stations, and all appurtenances thereto under ownership of Richmond Municipal Sewer District No. 1 that are used to convey wastewater generated by residential, commercial, and industrial sources to the Richmond Wastewater Treatment Plant. Richmond’s Collection System is currently operated and maintained under contract by Veolia Water West Operating Services (“Veolia”). d. ! “Sewer line segment” means any section of publicly owned sewer line or pipe located between: (1) two manholes/maintenance holes; (2) a pump station and a manhole/maintenance hole; (3) a pump station or a manhole/maintenance hole and a headworks structure; or (4) a sewer line or pipe otherwise identifiable as a discrete section.
e. ! “Day” means a calendar day. In computing any period of time under this 2018 Settlement Agreement, where the last day of such period is a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal or State Holiday, the period runs until the close of business on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal or State Holiday.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 10 of 126 393
Settlement Agreement 5 Case No. 3:05-cv-03829 MMC
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

f. ! “Design Storm” means the 10-year, 24-hour storm event occurring across the entire area served by Richmond’s collection system with wet antecedent soil conditions. g. ! “Sanitary Sewer Overflows,” “overflow,” or “SSO” has the same meaning as that term is defined in Section A.1. of the Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems, State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003 (hereinafter the “SSO General WDR”), or any amendment thereto, and which currently means: “any overflow, spill, release, discharge or diversion of untreated or partially treated wastewater from a sanitary sewer system. SSOs include (i) overflows or releases of untreated or partially treated wastewater that reach waters of the United States; (ii) overflows or releases of untreated or partially treated wastewater that do not reach waters of the United States; and (iii) wastewater backups into buildings and on private property that are caused by blockages or flow conditions within the publicly owned portion of a sanitary sewer system.” For purposes of this definition, the term “waters of the United States” has the meaning as set forth in 40 C.F.R. section 122.2.
h. ! “2013 Joint Permit” means NPDES Permit No. CA0038539, Order No. R2-2013-0016, as presently constituted and/or as subsequently revised or renewed. i. ! “Inflow” means wastewater or water that may enter a collection system through unpermitted connections, drains, or manholes.
j. ! “Infiltration” means groundwater, rainwater, or other surface water that may enter a collection system through its pipes, joints, or cracks. k. ! “System Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Plan” or “SECAP” means one or more documents or databases containing the information required by Section VIII of this 2018 Settlement Agreement.

III. ! JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. ! This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claims asserted by Plaintiffs pursuant to CWA section 505(a), 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a), and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1355, and 1367. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to CWA sections 309(b), 505(c), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1319(b), 1365(c), and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c). The Parties waive all objections that they may have to the Court’s jurisdiction to enter and enforce this 2018 Settlement Agreement.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 11 of 126 394
Settlement Agreement 6 Case No. 3:05-cv-03829 MMC
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

IV. ! EFFECT OF 2018 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

4. ! Plaintiffs do not, by their consent to this 2018 Settlement Agreement, warrant or aver in any manner that Richmond’s compliance with this 2018 Settlement Agreement will constitute or result in compliance with any Federal or State law or regulation. Nothing in this 2018 Settlement Agreement shall be construed to affect or limit in any way the obligation of Richmond to comply with all Federal, State and local laws and regulations governing any activity required by this 2018 Settlement Agreement.

5. ! Neither this 2018 Settlement Agreement, nor any payment pursuant to the 2018 Settlement Agreement, shall constitute evidence or be construed as a finding, adjudication, or acknowledgement of any fact, law, or liability, nor shall it be construed as an admission of violation of any law, rule, regulation, permit, or administrative order by Richmond. However, this 2018 Settlement Agreement and/or any payment pursuant to the 2018 Settlement Agreement may constitute evidence in actions seeking to enforce compliance with this 2018 Settlement Agreement. Richmond maintains and reserves all defenses it may have to any alleged violations that may be raised in the future.

V. ! APPLICABILITY

6. ! This 2018 Settlement Agreement addresses all violations alleged by the Plaintiffs in their Motion.

7. ! The Parties certify that their undersigned representatives are fully authorized to enter into this 2018 Settlement Agreement, to execute it on behalf of the Parties, and to legally bind the Parties to its terms.

8. ! The Parties, including any successors or assigns, agree to be bound by this 2018 Settlement Agreement and not to contest its validity in any subsequent proceeding to implement and enforce its terms. No change in ownership or corporate or other legal status of Richmond or any transfer of Richmond’s assets or liabilities shall in any way alter the responsibilities of Richmond or any of its successors or assigns thereof, under this 2018 Settlement Agreement.

VI. ! EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERMINATION DATE

9. ! Effective Date : The Effective Date of this 2018 Settlement Agreement shall be the date of the Order entering the Stipulated Request for Entry of Settlement Agreement described in Section XX of Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 12 of 126 395
Settlement Agreement 7 Case No. 3:05-cv-03829 MMC
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

this 2018 Settlement Agreement.

10.! Term of 2018 Settlement Agreement : This 2018 Settlement Agreement shall continue in effect until July 15, 2028 (the “Term”) at which time, the 2018 Settlement Agreement, and all obligations under it, shall automatically terminate, unless one of the Parties has invoked Dispute Resolution in accordance with Section XVI of the 2018 Settlement Agreement.

VII. ! SSO STANDARDS

11.! Richmond shall meet the following SSO Reduction Performance Goals each calendar year:

Calendar Year Maximum Number of
SSOs per 100 Miles of
Sewer Line/Year
2018 20
2019 15
2020 13
2021 11
2022 10
2023 9
2024 8
2025 7
2026 5
2027 5

12.! Richmond shall eliminate capacity-related SSOs from the Collection System, except SSOs caused by storm events exceeding the Design Storm, in accordance with the following schedule:
a. ! Richmond shall eliminate capacity-related SSOs from areas of Richmond’s Collection System addressed by the projects listed in Paragraph 20 below, as depicted on Attachment F, on or before July 15, 2024, except such SSOs caused by storm events exceeding the Design Storm. b. ! Richmond shall further eliminate all capacity-related SSOs from Richmond’s Collection system on or before July 15, 2026, except such SSOs caused by storm events exceeding the Design Storm.
c. ! If Richmond identifies additional capital projects required to eliminate capacity-related SSOs in the SECAP described in Paragraph 17 below, the Parties shall meet and confer to negotiate a revised schedule to ensure capacity-related SSOs are eliminated during the term of this 2018 Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 13 of 126 (27)
(24)
(20)
(18)
(16)
(15)
(13)
(9)
(9)
(37)
396
Settlement Agreement 8 Case No. 3:05-cv-03829 MMC
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

Settlement Agreement. Disputes as to the engineering feasibility of any proposed schedule for implementation of those additional capacity projects shall be subject to the Dispute Resolution provisions in Section XVI below.

13.! Richmond shall have no more than two (2) SSOs from any two of the same sewer line segments or manhole/maintenance holes within any calendar year after December 31, 2024.

14.! The standards required by Paragraphs 11-13, above, are collectively referred to as “SSO Standards.”

15.! For purposes of determining compliance with the SSO Reduction Performance Goals, the maximum number of SSOs per 100 miles of sewer line per calendar year can be averaged over the entire Collection System, and SSOs caused by storm events exceeding the Design Storm shall not be counted.

16.! For purposes of initially calculating the SSO Reduction Performance Goals, the Parties assume Richmond currently has 197 miles of sewer line in its Collection System. For purposes of calculating the SSO Reduction Performance Goals, the total allowable SSOs for the year shall be rounded using standard rounding as follows: 16.1 through 16.4 is considered 16, and 16.5 through 16.9 is considered

17. For example, for the year 2027, using the current sewer line mileage of 197 for Richmond, Richmond would be allowed 10 SSOs [(1.97 x 5 = 9.85) (9.85 => 10)].

VIII. ! CAPACITY-RELATED ANALYSIS AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS

17.! Within ninety (90) days of obtaining the data from the Flow Monitoring Program described in paragraph 17.a. herein, but in any case no later than July 15, 2019, Richmond shall complete an updated System Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Plan (“Revised SECAP”), in accordance with the following requirements:
a. ! The Revised SECAP shall use flow monitoring data collected by Richmond during its Flow Monitoring Program. The Flow Monitoring Program shall collect data on a system-wide basis, so as to allow for analysis in the Revised SECAP of the impact of tidal inflow, dry-weather groundwater infiltration, and rain induced inflow and infiltration in the Collection System. Subject to the conditions set forth below, the Flow Monitoring Program shall also include data collection sufficient to analyze the hydraulic capacity of Richmond’s Collection System in the locations of capacity-related Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 14 of 126 397
Settlement Agreement 9 Case No. 3:05-cv-03829 MMC
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

improvement projects contained, but not yet completed, in the 2011 Master Plan, as described in Paragraph 20 of this 2018 Settlement Agreement, including the projected impact of those completed capacity improvement projects. The Flow Monitoring Program shall consist of two separate actions.

First, by December 1, 2018, provided rainfall has occurred in the thirty (30) days prior to December 1, 2018, Richmond shall install temporary flow meters in the Collection System, as needed, to provide sufficient data to perform a hydraulic analysis that: (1) identifies all capacity deficiencies in the Collection System, including locations predicted by the hydraulic model to result in SSOs during the Design Storm, and (2) assesses the projected impacts on the hydraulic capacity of the Collection System from the completed capacity improvement projects from the 2011 Master Plan identified in Paragraph 20 below, tidal inflow, dry-weather groundwater infiltration, and rain induced inflow and infiltration on the Collection System. The data collected during the Flow Monitoring Program shall be used to update, calibrate, and validate Richmond’s current hydraulic model. If no rainfall has occurred in the thirty (30) days prior to December 1, 2018, Richmond shall instead install temporary flow meters in the Collection System after rainfall of one (1) inch or more has occurred in a 24-hour period.

Once installed, the temporary flow meters will remain installed through March 31, 2019. Second, when the following condition is present between December 1, 2022 and March 31, 2023 or December 1, 2023 and March 31, 2024, Richmond will install temporary flow meters for a second time to obtain flow data for the 2024 SECAP described below: rainfall has occurred in the thirty (30) days prior to December 1, 2022 or December 1, 2023; or if no rainfall has occurred in the thirty (30) days prior to December 1, 2022 or December 1, 2023, rainfall of one (1) inch or more has occurred in a 24-hour period.
b. ! The Revised SECAP shall identify all measures needed to attain the capacity necessary to convey the Design Storm without capacity-related SSOs in Richmond’s Collection System. The Revised SECAP shall evaluate whether the MacDonald and Virginia, 1st Street Phase 1, and 1st Street Phase 2 projects described in Paragraph 20 herein (“Reevaluated Projects”), which were identified in the 2011 Master Plan, remain priority capacity projects or whether other projects identified while developing the Revised SECAP are higher priority. A higher priority project is determined by the reduction in the number of capacity-related SSOs the project is expected to result in, as reflected by Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 15 of 126 398
Settlement Agreement 10 Case No. 3:05-cv-03829 MMC
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

Richmond’s SSO records and the hydraulic analysis described in Paragraph 17.a. c. ! The Revised SECAP shall include an implementation schedule to complete all measures needed to attain the capacity necessary to convey the Design Storm without capacity-related SSOs in the Collection System by July 15, 2026 or alternative date agreed upon by the Parties pursuant to Paragraph 12.c. The implementation schedule shall incorporate the schedule set forth in Paragraph 20, unless a reprioritization of those projects is needed to assure a systematic program ( e.g ., to assure that downstream sewer lines are upsized prior to upstream lines). If Richmond believes reprioritization is necessary, Richmond shall set forth its justification in the Revised SECAP. In any case, Richmond shall complete all projects identified in Paragraph 20 by June 30, 2024. d. ! The Revised SECAP shall include a hydraulic analysis that includes calculation for all sewer lines and all pump stations of estimated dry weather wastewater flow, estimated peak wet weather wastewater flow under the Design Storm, and other storm event scenarios, and total wastewater flow capacity when flowing full. The hydraulic analysis will be based on the flow monitoring data collected by Richmond during its Flow Monitoring Program. The model used in the hydraulic analysis will be calibrated and validated to verify its accuracy in predicting flows in the Collection System using data collected through the Flow Monitoring Program. The hydraulic analysis shall be sufficient to identify all capacity improvements necessary to convey peak wet weather flows during the Design Storm to the wastewater treatment plant without capacity-related SSOs in the Collection System. Findings of the hydraulic analysis shall be presented on a GIS system map, where feasible, or other database.
e. ! To aid the hydraulic analysis, Richmond shall maintain an updated, accurate inventory of the Collection System in a GIS system map. The GIS system map shall include all Collection System attributes required for the hydraulic modeling and further shall include system attributes that will facilitate Collection System operation and maintenance. System attributes shall include the following:
sewer line diameters and lengths; sewer line slope; service area covered by line segment; sewer line year of construction, pipe material, inspection history, cleaning history, SSO history, repair history; conflicting utilities; proximity to storm sewer(s), in feet; whether a sewer line is located in a right of way or an easement; manhole locations, depth, lid size, manhole diameter, rim elevation, and invert Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 16 of 126 399
Settlement Agreement 11 Case No. 3:05-cv-03829 MMC
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

elevation; and pump station mechanical, electrical, and instrument data.

18.! Richmond shall provide Plaintiffs, in electronic format, the Revised SECAP and the associated GIS mapping on or before July 15, 2019. Plaintiffs shall have forty-five (45) days from receipt to comment on the Revised SECAP. Richmond shall incorporate Plaintiffs’ comments, or explain in writing why Plaintiffs’ comments were not accepted, within thirty (30) days of Richmond’s receipt of the comments. Disputes as to the adequacy of the Revised SECAP to eliminate all capacity-related spills on or before July 15, 2026 or alternative date agreed upon by the Parties pursuant to Paragraph

12.c. shall be subject to the Dispute Resolution provisions in Section XVI of this 2018 Settlement Agreement.

19.! Within one hundred twenty (120) days of completing the Revised SECAP, but no later than December 31, 2019, Richmond shall complete an update to the 2011 Master Plan incorporating the project list and schedule from the Revised SECAP (“Updated Master Plan”) and seek City Council approval of the Updated Master Plan. The project list in the Updated Master Plan shall include capacity-related improvement projects included in the 2011 Master Plan, provided still necessary and appropriate after the Revised SECAP has been performed, and all capacity-related improvement projects identified by the Revised SECAP.

20.! At a minimum, Richmond shall fund and complete the following capacity-related capital improvement projects identified in the 2011 Master Plan on the following schedule:

Capacity-Related Capital Improvement Project Deadline
13th Street August 31, 2018
Cutting and Carlson December 31, 2019
Hoffman Blvd. December 31, 2019
MacDonald & Virginia June 30, 2021
1st Street Phase 1 June 30, 2023
1st Street Phase 2 June 30, 2024
If the Reevaluated Projects have been replaced by higher priority projects as described in Paragraph

17.b, Richmond shall fund and complete those higher priority projects by July 15, 2024, unless the Parties mutually agree in writing, after meeting and conferring, that a different schedule is warranted.

21.! Beginning July 31, 2018 and on an ongoing bi-annual basis ( i.e ., on January 30 and July 31) for the term of this 2018 Settlement Agreement, Richmond shall provide Plaintiffs with bi-annual Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 17 of 126 400
Settlement Agreement 12 Case No. 3:05-cv-03829 MMC
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

reports regarding the design, funding, and construction status of all capacity-related capital improvement projects.

22.! At least once every five (5) years from the date the Revised SECAP set forth in Paragraph 17 was completed, Richmond shall reevaluate and update the hydraulic analysis of the Collection System to reflect any changes in Collection System conditions, conditions or factors relevant to volumes of system rainfall-derived Infiltration and Inflow (“RDI/I”), dry weather infiltration, added service connections, or land-use patterns that would affect peak wet weather flows in the Collection System, the hydraulic capacity of the Collection System, and the ability of the Collection System to convey peak flows during the Design Storm without capacity-related SSOs. The 5-year update to the hydraulic analysis will rely upon data collected as part of a subsequent Flow Monitoring Program consistent with Paragraph 17.a., performed during the wet season prior to submission date of the 5-year update.

The 5-year update to the hydraulic analysis of Richmond’s Collection System will be consistent with the requirements in Paragraph 17 and shall assess the projected impact of completed capacity improvement projects from the Revised SECAP on the hydraulic capacity of the Collection System.

Richmond shall update the Revised SECAP by incorporating the updated hydraulic analysis. On or before October 15, 2024, Richmond shall provide Plaintiffs, in electronic format, the updated 2024 SECAP. Plaintiffs shall have forty-five (45) days from receipt to comment on the updated 2024 SECAP. Richmond shall incorporate Plaintiffs’ comments or explain in writing why Plaintiffs’ comments were not accepted within thirty (30) days of Richmond’s receipt of the comments. Disputes as to the adequacy of the updated 2024 SECAP to achieve the SSO Standards required shall be subject to the Dispute Resolution provisions in Section XVI of this 2018 Settlement Agreement.

IX. ! COLLECTION SYSTEM CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND RISK ASSESSMENT

ANALYSIS

23.! Richmond shall ensure that, by June 30, 2018, all gravity sewer main lines and, by October 1, 2018, all force main sewer lines in Richmond’s Collection System have had their condition assessed within the last ten years. Condition assessment for gravity sewer lines shall be based on Closed Circuit Television (“CCTV”) inspection and shall employ the Sewer Line Condition Grading Matrix attached hereto as Attachment A. For force main sewer lines, condition assessment shall employ technologies Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 18 of 126 401
Settlement Agreement 13 Case No. 3:05-cv-03829 MMC
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

suitable by industry standards appropriate to the pipe material, the physical conditions encountered, and the operational parameters under which the force main assessment must be conducted, as defined in the U.S. EPA guidance document “Condition Assessment of Wastewater Collection Systems – white paper,” EPA/600/R-09/049, May 2009, attached hereto as Attachment E.

24.! Throughout the term of this 2018 Settlement Agreement, Richmond shall implement a Condition Assessment Program that employs a minimum ten (10) year CCTV re-inspection cycle for all gravity sewer lines and more frequent CCTV inspection of gravity sewer main line “hot spots” as mandated by the Sewer Line Condition Grading Matrix defect score for the sewer line in issue. Force main sewer lines shall be re-inspected on the cycle defined in Table 2-1: of Attachment E.

25.! No later than March 31, 2018, Richmond shall complete an updated Risk Assessment Analysis (“2018 Risk Assessment Analysis”) for all gravity sewer main lines in the Collection System rated as Grades 4 and 5 pursuant to the Pipeline Assessment and Certification Program (“PACP”).

26.! On or before March 31, 2018, Richmond shall provide Plaintiffs, in electronic format, the 2018 Risk Assessment Analysis. Plaintiffs shall have forty-five (45) days from receipt to comment on the 2018 Risk Assessment Analysis. Richmond shall incorporate Plaintiffs’ comments or explain in writing why Plaintiffs’ comments were not accepted within thirty (30) days of Richmond’s receipt of the comments. Disputes as to the adequacy of the 2018 Risk Assessment Analysis to achieve the SSO Standards shall be subject to the Dispute Resolution provisions in Section XVI of this 2018 Settlement Agreement.

27.! Within thirty (30) days of receipt of Plaintiffs’ comments on the 2018 Risk Assessment Analysis, Richmond shall incorporate the results of the analysis into its Collection System Rehabilitation/Repair schedule, set out in Section X below.

28.! By January 15, 2019, and annually thereafter, Richmond shall perform an updated Risk Assessment Analysis on all gravity sewer line segments in Richmond’s Collection System rated Grade 4 or 5 via the PACP process and update the Rehabilitation/Repair schedule based on its results.

29.! For the term of this 2018 Settlement Agreement, on or before January 15 of each year after 2018, Richmond shall provide Plaintiffs, in electronic format, that year’s updated Risk Assessment Analysis. Plaintiffs shall have forty-five (45) days from receipt to comment on the updated Risk Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 19 of 126 402
Settlement Agreement 14 Case No. 3:05-cv-03829 MMC
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

Assessment Analysis. Richmond shall incorporate Plaintiffs’ comments or explain in writing why Plaintiffs’ comments were not accepted within thirty (30) days of Richmond’s receipt of the comments. Disputes as to the adequacy of the updated Risk Assessment Analysis to inform a program sufficient to achieve the SSO Standards shall be subject to the Dispute Resolution provisions in Section XVI of this 2018 Settlement Agreement.

X. ! REPAIR, REPLACEMENT, AND REHABILITATION

30.! On or before April 30, 2018, Richmond shall fund and complete construction of the partially collapsed pipe located along South 23rd Street. Within ten (10) days of completion, Richmond shall provide Plaintiffs written confirmation.

31.! Within ten (10) years of the Effective Date of this 2018 Settlement Agreement, Richmond shall repair or replace approximately thirty-one miles of Grade 5 gravity sewer line, initially identified in the 2018 Risk Assessment Analysis as follows:
a. ! 4.8 miles of PACP rated Grade 5 gravity sewer line will be repaired or replaced as part of the13th Street, Cutting and Carlson, Hoffman Blvd., and South 23rd Street projects described in Paragraphs 20 and 30 of this 2018 Settlement Agreement; b. ! 6.2 miles of PACP rated Grade 5 gravity sewer line will be repaired or replaced as part of the MacDonald & Virginia, 1st Street Phase 1, and 1st Street Phase 2 projects described in Paragraph 20 of this 2018 Settlement Agreement; and
c. ! At least 20 miles of PACP rated Grade 5 gravity sewer line will be repaired or replaced at an approximate rate of at least 2 miles of gravity sewer line per year, based on a rolling 5-year average. Compliance with this requirement will be assessed beginning on July 1, 2018 (so the first year is July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019). The specific Grade 5 gravity sewer lines identified in the 2018 Risk Assessment Analysis may change over time (some of the initial Grade 5 gravity sewer lines may be removed from the list because they are determined not to be Grade 5 after further investigation, and new Grade 5 gravity sewer lines may be added to future Risk Assessment Analyses due to continued aging of the Collection System); Richmond is compliant with this Paragraph if Richmond satisfies the mileage specified. Further, if Richmond achieves compliance with the SSO Reduction Performance Goals in Paragraph 11 of this 2018 Settlement Agreement, such attainment Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 20 of 126 403
Settlement Agreement 15 Case No. 3:05-cv-03829 MMC
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

can be the basis for extending the deadline for repairing or replacing the remaining Grade 5 gravity sewer lines. The Parties shall meet and confer upon Richmond’s request, and Plaintiffs shall consider Richmond’s request in good faith.

32.! During the term of this 2018 Settlement Agreement, on or before July 31 of each year, Richmond shall report to Plaintiffs, in electronic format, documenting the completion of the annually required repairs to Grade 5 sewer line segments.

XI. ! COLLECTION SYSTEM OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

33.! On or before March 31, 2018, Richmond shall revise Veolia’s July 2013 Operations and Maintenance Plan (“2018 O&M Plan”) as follows:
a. ! Detail procedures used during cleaning for trapping debris, roots, and FOG and quantifying the amount of debris, roots, and FOG removed during cleaning, including but not limited to, identifying the debris trap type and standardized methodology used by Richmond during cleaning; b. ! Adhere to the specific cleaning frequencies and response actions in the Cleaning Frequency Response Matrix, attached hereto as Attachment D;
c. ! Require that cleaning of gravity sewer line segments by Richmond shall include use of a fixed hydro-flushing nozzle centering device ( i.e., a nozzle skid) having a minimum of four (4) endpoints with a diameter within one (1) inch of the diameter of the gravity sewer line segment being cleaned to ensure the cleaning was effective. A gravity sewer line shall be considered adequately cleaned if the device passes through the entire sewer line segment, from manhole to manhole. If passage of the device from manhole to manhole in the gravity sewer line segment is restricted by conditions in the gravity sewer line segment, the gravity sewer line segment shall be inspected by CCTV to determine the cause of the restriction. Richmond shall maintain a list of all gravity sewer line segments where structural conditions do not permit the passage of the device and incorporate that information in its GIS map of the Collection System. Response to the findings on the structural condition of the sewer line segment from the post-proofing CCTV inspection shall be in accordance with Attachment B or D, as appropriate. If the inability of the device to pass results from insufficient cleaning, the gravity sewer line segment shall be re-cleaned until CCTV inspection confirms that the debris, root, or FOG accumulation has been removed from the sewer line segment. In addition, the Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 21 of 126 404
Settlement Agreement 16 Case No. 3:05-cv-03829 MMC
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

gravity sewer line segment shall be assigned the appropriate cleaning rating as per the Cleaning Frequency Response Matrix, attached hereto as Attachment D; and, d. ! Detail the components of the cleaning Quality Assurance/Quality Control (“QA/QC”) program consisting of post-cleaning CCTV inspection of cleaned gravity sewer lines to ensure proper and complete cleaning of Richmond’s gravity sewers (“QA/QC inspection”) and a standardized response procedure when gravity sewer line segments fail the QA/QC inspection sufficient to address cleaning program inadequacies ( i.e ., identifying performance issues, providing training, increasing QA/QC inspection rates to ensure cleaning effectiveness). At least ten percent (10%) of gravity sewer segments cleaned each month shall be spot checked via CCTV inspection to ensure adequate cleaning.

A QA/QC inspection shall be considered a failure if FOG/Root/Debris accumulation are observed in the sewer segment after cleaning operations. Cleaning crews that are associated with failed QA/QC inspections shall be provided additional training in proper cleaning methods and shall be provided additional oversight in the form of increased QA/QC inspections of their cleaning operations to ensure proper and complete cleaning of Richmond’s sewers.

34.! On or before March 31, 2018, Richmond shall provide Plaintiffs, in electronic format, the 2018 O&M Plan. Plaintiffs shall have forty-five (45) days from receipt to comment on the 2018 O&M Plan.

Richmond shall incorporate Plaintiffs’ comments or explain in writing why Plaintiffs’ comments were not accepted, within thirty (30) days of Richmond’s receipt of the comments. Disputes as to the adequacy of the 2018 O&M Plan as an element of Richmond’s Collection System program described in this 2018 Settlement Agreement to achieve the SSO Standards shall be subject to the Dispute Resolution provisions in Section XVI of this 2018 Settlement Agreement.

35.! Sewer Line Cleaning : Richmond shall clean all gravity sewer lines in Richmond’s Collection System at least once every four (4) calendar years and clean designated gravity sewer line segments more frequently as warranted by its Hot Spot Cleaning Program attached hereto as Attachment C.

36.! On or before March 31, 2018, and on or before July 15 for each year thereafter during the term of this 2018 Settlement Agreement, Richmond shall complete a quantitative analysis of the effectiveness of the root foaming program to prevent root related SSOs in pipes where root foaming is performed (“Root Foaming Analysis”). Based on the results of the Root Foaming Analysis, Richmond Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 22 of 126 405
Settlement Agreement 17 Case No. 3:05-cv-03829 MMC
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

shall modify the root foaming program to include additional pipes with observed root intrusion problems or a history of root related SSOs, or transfer funds used for root foaming to other O&M activities ( e.g. , increased cleaning), as needed to meet the SSO Standards.

37.! On or before March 31, 2018, and on or before July 15 for each year thereafter, Richmond shall provide Plaintiffs, in electronic format, the Root Foaming Analysis, including recommended program changes. Plaintiffs shall have forty-five (45) days from receipt to comment on the Root Foaming Analysis. Richmond shall incorporate Plaintiffs’ comments or explain in writing why Plaintiffs’ comments were not accepted, within thirty (30) days of Richmond’s receipt of the comments. Disputes as to the adequacy of the Root Foaming Analysis as an element of Richmond’s Collection System program described in this 2018 Settlement Agreement to achieve the SSO Standards shall be subject to the Dispute Resolution provisions in Section XVI of this 2018 Settlement Agreement.

38.! On or before March 31, 2018, and on an ongoing basis thereafter during the term of this 2018 Settlement Agreement, Richmond shall complete an update to the Hot Spot Cleaning List to include cleaning frequencies adequate to reduce blockage related SSOs sufficient to achieve SSO Standards (e.g. , bi-monthly, monthly), and adjust cleaning frequencies based on the Cleaning Frequency Response Matrix, attached hereto as Attachment D. Adjustments to cleaning frequencies, including but not limited to, cleaning observations of “Moderate” or “Heavy” debris, roots, or FOG will result in an increase in cleaning frequency to the next highest frequency ( e.g ., six (6) months to three (3) months).

Adjustments to cleaning frequencies, including but not limited to, a change in cleaning observation from “Moderate” or “Heavy” after three (3) consecutive cleanings to “Clear” will result in the cleaning frequency being reduced to the next lowest cleaning frequency ( e.g. , three (3) months to six (6) months). No reduction in cleaning frequency for a sewer line segment with a previous history of SSOs in the past five (5) calendar years shall occur without the approval of Richmond’s Water Resource Recovery Director, except where a sewer line segment has been repaired and/or replaced, in which case, the sewer line segment can be removed from the Hot Spot Cleaning List.

39.! On or before March 31, 2018, and each year thereafter for the term of this 2018 Settlement Agreement, Richmond shall provide Plaintiffs, in electronic format, the updated Hot Spot Cleaning Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 23 of 126 406
Settlement Agreement 18 Case No. 3:05-cv-03829 MMC
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

List, including recommended program changes. Plaintiffs shall have forty-five (45) days from receipt to comment on the Hot Spot Cleaning List. Richmond shall incorporate Plaintiffs’ comments, or explain in writing why Plaintiffs’ comments were not accepted, within thirty (30) days of Richmond’s receipt of the comments. Disputes as to the adequacy of the cleaning frequency to achieve the SSO Standards shall be subject to the Dispute Resolution provisions in Section XVI of this 2018 Settlement Agreement.

XII. FATS, OILS, AND GREASE CONTROL

40.! On or before December 31, 2017, Richmond shall continue to implement an educational outreach program to residents of Richmond ( i.e ., public school presentations, flyers or other public advertisements, or provision of free FOG disposal receptacles) designed to curtail the discharge of FOG from residences to Richmond’s Collection System.

41.! On or before April 30, 2018, and on or before July 15 of each year thereafter, Richmond shall complete a quantitative analysis of commercial and residential FOG sources, and relative contribution to Richmond’s FOG-related SSOs ( i.e ., identify recalcitrant food service establishments (“FSE”), multi-unit housing, etc.).

42.! On or before April 30, 2018, Richmond shall complete an update to the FOG Control Program to target the primary sources of FOG into Richmond’s Collection System including but not limited to:
a. ! Public outreach/education, including door hangers, mailers, refrigerator magnets, and grease scrapers, to all locations identified as sources of residential FOG to Richmond’s Collection System;
b. ! Perform surprise inspections and increase routine inspections at FSEs that are in areas that are primary sources of FOG to Richmond’s Collection System on a quarterly basis; and c. ! Inspect FSEs and FOG generating properties ( e.g. , schools, nursing homes, churches) at a minimum frequency of once per year.
d. ! Within five (5) days of completion, Richmond shall provide Plaintiffs written confirmation.

Richmond shall provide the updated FOG Control Program procedures within fourteen (14) days of receipt of a written request from Plaintiffs.

43.! By April 30, 2018, Richmond shall update its FOG Inspection Procedures to reduce the Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 24 of 126 407
Settlement Agreement 19 Case No. 3:05-cv-03829 MMC
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

timeframe for re-inspection of FSEs as follows:
•! FSE receiving a score equal to or more than 3 shall be re-inspected at least once every calendar year;
•! FSEs receiving a score of 2 shall be re-inspected quarterly on a surprise basis until the facility achieves a score equal to or greater than 3; and
•! FSEs that receive a score of 1 shall be re-inspected at least once every month on a surprise basis until the facility achieves a score equal to or greater than 3.

FSEs shall be graded per the scoring system on a scale of 1-5 with 1 being the least compliant facilities. A “failed inspection” is one in which an FSE receives a score 1 or 2.

44.! On or before April 30, 2018, Richmond staff shall propose to the City Council for incorporation into Richmond Municipal Code Chapter 12.18 the following specific procedures in response to the results of FSE inspections:
a. After one (1) failed inspection, issue Notice of Violation ( “NOV”) and increase inspection per the frequency established in Paragraph 43;
b. After two (2) or more failed inspections, issue a citati on and administrative fine in accordance with subsection (g) and conduct surprise inspection per the frequency established in Paragraph 43;
c. Fines escalate if the same violation occurs within 365 days as follows: $250 fine for first citation; $500 fine for second citation; and $1,000 fine for third citation. d. Within five (5) days of modification to the Richmond Municipal Code as detailed above, Richmond shall provide Plaintiffs written confirmation.

45.! By April 30, 2018, Richmond and Veolia shall create a procedure by which: (1) City staff conducting FSE inspections report the locations of violations to Veolia staff maintaining Richmond’s Collection System to inform the cleaning schedule; and (2) Veolia staff maintaining Richmond’s Collection System report areas with high volumes of FOG buildup to inform Richmond’s FSE inspections.

46.! On or before April 30, 2018, and July 15 of each year thereafter for the term of this 2018 Settlement Agreement, Richmond shall provide Plaintiffs, in electronic format, the quantitative Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 25 of 126 408
Settlement Agreement 20 Case No. 3:05-cv-03829 MMC
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

analysis of commercial and residential FOG sources, including any changes to the FOG Control Program as an element of Richmond’s Collection System program described in this 2018 Settlement Agreement sufficient to achieve the SSO Standards. Plaintiffs shall have forty-five (45) days from receipt to comment on the quantitative FOG Sources analysis. Richmond shall incorporate Plaintiffs’ comments or explain in writing why Plaintiffs’ comments were not accepted, within thirty (30) days of Richmond’s receipt of the comments. Disputes as to the adequacy of the FOG sources analysis and the FOG Control Program as an element of Richmond’s Collection System program described in this 2018 Settlement Agreement to achieve the SSO Standards shall be subject to the Dispute Resolution provisions in Section XVI of this 2018 Settlement Agreement.

XIII. ! SSO REPORTING AND RESPONSE

47.! On or before March 31 of each calendar year during the term of this 2018 Settlement Agreement, Richmond shall provide Annual SSO Summary Reports to Plaintiffs. Such reports shall set forth a narrative summary, a table of SSOs for the calendar year prior, and a comparison to the SSO Standards, including that calendar year’s SSO Reduction Performance Goals. The reports shall provide the information for SSOs required by State Board Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ, amended by Order No. WQ 2013-0058-EXEC, which includes:
a. ! Location of SSO by GPS coordinates (if available) or street address; b. ! Whether or not the SSO entered a drainage channel and/or surface water; c. ! Whether or not the SSO was discharged to a storm drain pipe that was not fully captured and returned to the sanitary sewer system;
d. ! Estimated SSO volume in gallons;
e. ! Estimate of SSO volume in gallons that reached surface water, a drainage channel, or was not recovered from a storm drain;
f. ! Estimate of SSO volume in gallons recovered;
g. ! SSO source (manhole, cleanout, etc.);
h. ! SSO cause (mainline blockage, roots, etc.);
i. ! Time of SSO notification or discovery;
j. ! Estimated operator arrival time;
Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 26 of 126 409
Settlement Agreement 21 Case No. 3:05-cv-03829 MMC
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

k. ! SSO destination;
l. ! Estimated SSO end time; and
m. ! Final SSO Identification (ID) Number.

48.! For SSOs that equal or exceed one thousand (1,000) gallons, which result in a discharge to a drainage channel and/or surface water, or discharge to a storm drainpipe that was not fully captured and returned to the sanitary sewer system, the Annual SSO Summary Reports shall include all information listed above as well as:
a. Response and corrective action taken;
b. If samples were taken, identify which regulatory agencies r eceived sample results (if applicable). If no samples were taken, N/A must be indicated. c. Parameters that samples were analyzed for (if applica ble); d. Identification of whether or not health warnings were posted; e. Beaches impacted (if applicable). If no beach was impa cted, N/A must be indicated; f. Whether or not there is an ongoing investigation;
g. Steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent recurr ence of the overflow and a schedule of major milestones for those steps;
h. Office of Emergency Services (“OES”) control number (if a pplicable); i. Date OES was called (if applicable);
j. Time OES was called (if applicable);
k. Identification of whether or not County Health Officers were called; l. Date County Health Officer was called (if applicable); and m. Time County Health Officer was called (if applicable).

49.! The Annual SSO Summary Reports shall also include a summary of the capital improvements completed in Richmond’s Collection System during the calendar year, and the total cost associated with each capital expenditure. In addition, the Annual SSO Summary Reports shall include any changes to the total amount of sewer line in Richmond’s Collection System that will affect calculation of the allowable SSO Reduction Performance Goals.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 27 of 126 410
Settlement Agreement 22 Case No. 3:05-cv-03829 MMC
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

XIV. ! SSO REDUCTION ACTION PLAN

50.! If Richmond documents SSOs in excess of the SSO Reduction Performance Goals of this 2018 Settlement Agreement in its Annual SSO Summary Report , Richmond shall submit to Plaintiffs, on or before July 31 of that year, an SSO Reduction Action Plan that specifies the actions taken in the prior calendar year pursuant to this 2018 Settlement Agreement and additional measures to be taken, which are sufficient to achieve compliance with the SSO Standards in future years. The SSO Reduction Action Plan shall include a schedule for implementation of all actions proposed.

51.! Plaintiffs shall provide Richmond with all recommended revisions to the SSO Reduction Action Plan within thirty (30) days of receipt of such Plan. Richmond shall indicate within thirty (30) days of receipt of Plaintiffs’ recommended revisions whether Richmond accepts any such recommendations for revision, and if so, Richmond shall within thirty (30) days revise the SSO Reduction Action Plan in accordance with Plaintiffs’ recommendations. If Richmond does not accept Plaintiffs’ recommendations, any party may seek Formal Dispute Resolution process pursuant to Section XVI of this 2018 Settlement Agreement. To the extent the Parties do not dispute original provisions or recommended revisions, Richmond shall implement all undisputed provisions or revisions. After the Parties have reached agreement on the SSO Reduction Action Plan or after Formal Dispute Resolution resolves any dispute concerning the SSO Reduction Action Plan, Richmond shall implement the SSO Reduction Action Plan as a requirement of this 2018 Settlement Agreement.

52.! All actions and measures discussed in an SSO Reduction Action Plan shall become enforceable requirements under this 2018 Settlement Agreement. The SSO Reduction Action Plan shall consist of a quantitative analysis of the increased level of effort for each program element described in this 2018 Settlement Agreement necessary to achieve compliance with SSO Standards. If additional funding to accomplish the program elements identified is unnecessary, then Richmond shall explain in the SSO Reduction Action Plan why it is unnecessary. If additional funding is necessary, Richmond shall seek such funding and set forth in the SSO Reduction Action Plan any potential funding sources to be used or sought. If Richmond seeks financing, but is unsuccessful, Richmond will disclose in the SSO Reduction Action Plan the extent of their efforts ( e.g ., copies of applications, amount sought, from whom, reasons for rejection).

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 28 of 126 411
Settlement Agreement 23 Case No. 3:05-cv-03829 MMC
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

XV. ! FEES, COSTS, EXPENSES, AND COMPLIANCE MONITORING FUNDS

53.! Reimbursement of Fees and Costs : To help defray Plaintiffs’ attorneys, consultants, and expert fees and costs, and any other costs incurred as a result of investigating, filing, and negotiating resolution of Plaintiffs’ Motion, Richmond shall provide to Plaintiffs a total of three hundred and ten thousand dollars ($310,000.00). The total fees and costs payment shall be made payable to “Baykeeper” addressed to 1736 Franklin Street, Suite 800, Oakland, California 94612 within thirty (30) days after the Effective Date.

54.! Compliance Monitoring Funds : To compensate Plaintiffs for time spent by legal staff or technical consultants reviewing compliance reports and any other documents, Richmond shall provide to Plaintiffs thirty thousand dollars ($30,000.00) in 2018 and 2019. For all other years during the term of this 2018 Settlement Agreement, Richmond shall provide to Plaintiffs fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) per year thereafter for costs and fees associated with annual monitoring of Richmond’s compliance with this 2018 Settlement Agreement through the termination date of this 2018 Settlement Agreement. The first annual compliance monitoring fund payment shall be made payable to “Baykeeper” addressed to 1736 Franklin Street, Suite 800, Oakland, California 94612 within thirty (30) days after the Effective Date, and annually on or before January 1 of each following year during the term of this 2018 Settlement Agreement.

XVI. ! BREACH OF AGREEMENT AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURES

55.! Force Majeure: Richmond shall notify Plaintiffs pursuant to the terms of this Paragraph, where implementation of the requirements set forth in this 2018 Settlement Agreement, becomes impossible, despite the timely good-faith efforts of Richmond, due to circumstances beyond the control of Richmond or its agents, and which could not have been reasonably foreseen and prevented by the exercise of due diligence by Richmond. Any delays due to inadequate program funding, Richmond’s failure to make timely and bona fide applications and to exercise diligent efforts to obtain permits, or normal inclement weather shall not, in any event, be considered to be circumstances beyond Richmond’s control.
a. ! If Richmond claims impossibility, it shall notify Plaintiffs in writing within ten (10) days of the date that Richmond first knew of the event or circumstance or should have known of the event or Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 29 of 126 412
Settlement Agreement 24 Case No. 3:05-cv-03829 MMC
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

circumstance by the exercise of due diligence and shall describe the reason for the non-performance.

Richmond’s notice shall specifically refer to this Paragraph of this 2018 Settlement Agreement and describe the anticipated length of time the delay may persist, the cause or causes of the delay, the measures taken or to be taken by Richmond to prevent or minimize the delay, the schedule by which the measures will be implemented, and the anticipated date of compliance. Richmond shall adopt all reasonable measures to avoid and minimize such delays.
b. ! The Parties shall meet and confer in good faith concerning the non-performance and, where the Parties concur that the non-performance was or is impossible, despite the timely good faith efforts of Richmond, due to circumstances beyond the control of Richmond that could not have been reasonably foreseen and prevented by the exercise of due diligence by Richmond, new performance requirements or deadlines shall be established.
c. ! If Plaintiffs disagree with Richmond’s notice, or in the event that the Parties cannot timely agree on the terms of new performance deadlines or requirements, either Party shall have the right to invoke the Formal Dispute Resolution process pursuant to Section XVI of this 2018 Settlement Agreement. In such proceeding, Richmond shall bear the burden of proving that any delay of any requirement of this 2018 Settlement Agreement was caused or will be caused by force majeure and the extent of any delay attributable to such circumstances.

56.! Delays due to inadequate program funding, notwithstanding the good faith efforts of Richmond to secure funding, can be the basis for extending deadlines beyond the current term of this 2018 Settlement Agreement for any additional capacity-related project identified in the SECAP prepared pursuant to this 2018 Settlement Agreement. Richmond must notify Plaintiffs as soon as possible if it believes that a delay will occur due to inadequate program funding. In the notification, Richmond shall submit to Plaintiffs all documents showing its efforts to secure adequate program funding, shall explain how Richmond intends to secure adequate program funding, and propose an alternative deadline for compliance. Plaintiffs have the right to request, and Richmond shall provide, any documents related to Richmond’s notification. The Parties shall meet and confer within ten (10) days of Richmond’s notification, unless the Parties otherwise agree on a different schedule. Plaintiffs shall consider Richmond’s request in good faith but have no obligation to modify any requirement in this Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 30 of 126 413
Settlement Agreement 25 Case No. 3:05-cv-03829 MMC
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

2018 Settlement Agreement due to inadequate program funding.

57.! Alternative Dispute Resolution : The dispute-resolution procedure set forth below shall be the exclusive mechanism for resolving disputes between the Parties with regard to any aspect of this 2018 Settlement Agreement.

58.! Informal Dispute Resolution . The Parties agree to engage in Informal Dispute Resolution pursuant to the terms of this paragraph:
a. Meet and Confer : If a dispute under this 2018 Settlement Agreement arises, or any party believes that a breach of this Agreement has occurred, the Parties shall meet and confer (telephonically or in-person) within ten (10) days of receiving written notification of a request for such meeting.

During the meet and confer proceeding, the Parties shall discuss the dispute and make best efforts to devise a mutually agreed upon plan, including implementation dates, to resolve the dispute. The Parties may, upon mutual written agreement, extend the time to conduct the meet and confer discussions beyond ten (10) days.
b. If any Party fails to meet and confer within the timefr ames set forth in Paragraph 58.a. or the meet and confer does not resolve the dispute, after at least ten (10) days have passed after the meet and confer occurred or should have occurred, either party shall be entitled to initiate the Formal Dispute Resolution procedures as outlined in Paragraph 59 below.

59.! Formal Dispute Resolution : The Parties agree that any action or proceeding which is brought by any Party against any other Party pertaining to, arising out of, or related to the requirements of this 2018 Settlement Agreement shall first utilize the Informal Dispute Resolution procedures set forth in the preceding Paragraph, and, if not successful, the Parties shall utilize the Formal Dispute Resolution proceedings in this Paragraph. The Parties agree that Formal Dispute Resolution shall be initiated by filing a Motion to Show Cause or other appropriately named motion (“Dispute Motion”) in District Court, before Judge Chesney, to determine whether either Party is in breach of this 2018 Settlement Agreement and, if so, to require the breaching Party to remedy any breach identified by the District Court within a reasonable time frame. The party filing any such Dispute Motion may request expedited review of the Dispute Motion. If Judge Chesney is not available to perform the role identified herein, the Parties agree that the Dispute Motion shall be re-assigned pursuant to applicable Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 31 of 126 414
Settlement Agreement 26 Case No. 3:05-cv-03829 MMC
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

rules of the District Court. The prevailing or substantially prevailing party in the Formal Dispute Resolution proceeding shall receive its reasonable costs and attorney’s fees incurred in both Informal and Formal Dispute Resolution in accordance with the standard established by § 505 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §1365.

XVII. ! STIPULATED PAYMENTS

60.! If Richmond knows that a report will be submitted late, Richmond shall notify the Plaintiffs by telephone or email no later than two (2) business days before the report’s due date.

61.! Richmond shall pay the following stipulated payments during the Term of this 2018 Settlement Agreement:
a. ! $500 per day after the due date that Richmond fails to timely submit any document, report, or other communication required in this 2018 Settlement Agreement; and b. ! $500 per day for every day after the due date that Richmond fails to timely submit any payments due under Paragraphs 53-54 of this 2018 Settlement Agreement.

62.! In the case of a late report, Richmond shall send Plaintiffs the report per Section XVIII.

Plaintiffs shall notify Richmond of receipt of the late report, and shall include an invoice for the amount of the stipulated payment, if any, due and payable. Richmond shall contact Plaintiffs within ten (10) business days if Richmond disagrees with Plaintiffs’ stipulated payment calculation and may meet and confer with Plaintiffs or invoke other proceedings regarding the stipulated payments pursuant to Section XVI of this 2018 Settlement Agreement. Otherwise, Richmond shall pay any stipulated payments due pursuant to this 2018 Settlement Agreement within thirty (30) days after receipt of the Plaintiffs’ invoice itemizing the stipulated payment liability.

63.! All payments of stipulated payments described above shall be paid by Richmond via overnight mail to: “Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment,” 201 4th Street, Suite 102, Oakland, California 94607, Attn: Tim Little. Copies and/or notice of payment shall be sent concurrently to Plaintiffs to the addresses and via the methods set forth in Section XVIII.

XVIII. !NOTICES AND SUBMISSIONS

64.! Correspondence. Any notices, documents, or correspondence pertaining to this 2018 Settlement Agreement shall be, to the extent feasible sent via electronic mail transmission to the e- Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 32 of 126 415
Settlement Agreement 27 Case No. 3:05-cv-03829 MMC
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

mail addresses listed below, or if electronic mail transmission is not feasible, via certified U.S. Mail with return receipt, or by hand delivery as follows:

If to Plaintiffs:

Erica A. Maharg
Nicole C. Sasaki
San Francisco Baykeeper
1736 Franklin Street, Suite 800
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 735-9700
Email:

[email protected]
Email: [email protected]
Daniel Cooper
Lawyers for Clean Water
1004A O’Reilly Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94129
Telephone: (415) 440-6520
Email:

[email protected]
If to Richmond:

Everett Jenkins
City of Richmond, City Attorney’s Office
450 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
Telephone: (510) 620-6509
Email:

[email protected]
Ryan Smith
City of Richmond
450 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
Telephone: (510) 620-5846
Email:

[email protected]
Nicole Granquist

DOWNEY BRAND LLP
621 Capitol Mall, 18th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 444-1000
Email:
[email protected]

65.! Notifications and communications shall be deemed submitted on the date transmitted via email or postmarked and sent by first-class mail or deposited with an overnight mail/delivery service.

66.! Richmond also agrees to make available to Plaintiffs any documents reasonably necessary to Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 33 of 126 416
Settlement Agreement 28 Case No. 3:05-cv-03829 MMC
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

evaluate system performance and/or compliance with this 2018 Settlement Agreement within thirty (30) days of written request by Plaintiffs.

67.! During the term of this 2018 Settlement Agreement, Richmond shall preserve at least one (1) legible copy of all records and documents, including computer-stored information, in its possession, which relate to its performance of its obligations under this 2018 Settlement Agreement.

68.! Any notice, report, certification, data presentation or other document submitted by Richmond to Plaintiffs pursuant to this 2018 Settlement Agreement, which discusses, describes, demonstrates, or supports any finding or makes any representation concerning compliance or noncompliance with any requirement(s) of this 2018 Settlement Agreement, shall contain the following certification, signed by a responsible official:

I certify that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted and is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate and complete.

XIX. ! MUTUAL RELEASE OF LIABILITY

69.! Except for alleged violations of this 2018 Settlement Agreement, which shall be addressed in accordance with the Dispute Resolution in Section XVI above, and any failure to provide any ongoing payments as set forth in Paragraphs 54, in consideration of the above, upon the Effective Date of this 2018 Settlement Agreement, the Parties hereby fully release and covenant not to sue each other and their respective successors, assigns, officers, agents, attorneys, employees, representatives and all persons, firms, and corporations having an interest in them, from any and all claims and demands of any kind, nature, or description, and from any and all liabilities, relief, damages, fees (including fees of attorneys, experts, and others) alleged in the Motion or the underlying Complaint originally filed in this action, up to and including the Termination Date of this 2018 Settlement Agreement. This provision is applicable and will survive beyond the Termination Date of this Agreement.

70.! Plaintiffs and Richmond acknowledge that they are familiar with section 1542 of the California Civil Code, which provides:

A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him or her must have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor.

71.! Plaintiffs and Richmond hereby waive and relinquish any rights or benefits they may have Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 34 of 126 417
Settlement Agreement 29 Case No. 3:05-cv-03829 MMC
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

under California Civil Code section 1542 with respect to any other claims against each other arising from the allegations and claims as set forth or that could have been set forth in the Motion up to and including the Termination Date of this Agreement.

72.! Nothing in this 2018 Settlement Agreement limits or otherwise affects Plaintiffs’ right to address or take any position Plaintiffs deem necessary or appropriate in any formal or informal proceeding before the Regional Board, EPA, or any other judicial or administrative body on any other matter relating to Richmond.

XX. ! COMMITMENTS OF PLAINTIFFS

73.! Submission of 2018 Settlement Agreement to Federal Agencies : Plaintiffs shall submit this 2018 Settlement Agreement to the U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency within five (5) days of full execution of the 2018 Settlement Agreement for the 45-day agency review consistent with 40 C.F.R. § 135.5. In the event that the federal agencies comment negatively on the provisions of this 2018 Settlement Agreement, the Parties agree to meet and confer to resolve the issue(s) raised by the federal agencies.

74.! Stipulated Dismissal: Within five (5) days of receiving the U.S. Department of Justice’s comments on the 2018 Settlement Agreement, or if the U.S. Department of Justice does not comment on the 2018 Settlement Agreement within the prescribed 45-day period, Plaintiffs shall file with the Court a: (1) Stipulated Request for Entry of Settlement Agreement; and (2) Notice of Dismissal of Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Order Finding Richmond in Civil Contempt of Court.

XXI. GENERAL PROVISIONS

75.! Communications: In any public communications about fee increase(s) related to this 2018 Settlement Agreement, City staff shall not cite Plaintiffs or this 2018 Settlement Agreement as the sole reason for such fee increase.

76.! Continuing Jurisdiction : The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms and conditions of this 2018 Settlement Agreement and to resolve disputes arising hereunder as may be necessary or appropriate for the construction or execution of the 2018 Settlement Agreement up to and including the Termination Date.

77.! Construction : The language in all parts of this 2018 Settlement Agreement shall be construed Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 35 of 126 418
Settlement Agreement 30 Case No. 3:05-cv-03829 MMC
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

according to its plain and ordinary meaning, except as to those terms defined in the 2013 Joint Permit, the Clean Water Act, or specifically herein.

78.! Choice of Law : The laws of the United States shall govern this 2018 Settlement Agreement.

79.! Severability : In the event that any provision, paragraph, section, or sentence of this 2018 Settlement Agreement is held by a Court to be unenforceable, the validity of the enforceable provisions shall not be adversely affected.

80.! Counterparts : This 2018 Settlement Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, all of which together shall constitute one original document. Telecopy, emailed, and/or facsimile copies of original signature shall be deemed to be originally executed counterparts of this 2018 Settlement Agreement.

81.! Modification of the 2018 Settlement Agreement : This 2018 Settlement Agreement, and any provisions herein, may not be changed, waived, discharged, or terminated unless by a written instrument, signed by the Parties.

82.! Full Settlement : This 2018 Settlement Agreement constitutes a full and final settlement of this matter.

83.! Integration Clause : This is an integrated Settlement Agreement. This 2018 Settlement Agreement is intended to be a full and complete statement of the terms of the agreement between the Parties and expressly supersedes any and all prior oral or written agreements, covenants, representations, and warranties (express or implied) concerning the subject matter of this 2018 Settlement Agreement.

84.! Authority : The undersigned representatives for Plaintiffs and Richmond each certify that he/she is fully authorized by the party whom he/she represents to enter into the terms and conditions of this 2018 Settlement Agreement.
///
///
///
///
///
Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 36 of 126 419
Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 37 of 126 420
Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 38 of 126 421
Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 39 of 126 422

ATTACHMENT A
Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 40 of 126 423
Attachment A
Sewer Line Condition Grading Matrix
Preface:

The Pipeline Assessment and Certification Program (“PACP”) used by Richmond provides a mechanism for creating reliable descriptions of sewer line segment conditions. Richmond has also developed a system based on the PACP codes to assign a condition rating to sewer line segments. Requirements of the grading system were as follows:

1. ! The grading system should be direct and objective; and

2. ! Provide the ability to quantitatively measure the difference in sewer line segment between one inspection and subsequent inspections, and to prioritize among different sewer line segments.

Approach:

Using the PACP Code Matrix, each PACP defect code is assigned a condition grade from 1 to 5.

Grades are assigned based on potential for further deterioration or pipe failure. Pipe failure is defined as when the pipe can no longer convey the pipe design capacity.

Grades are assigned for two categories: (1) Structural Defects; and (2) Operating and Maintenance (“O&M”) Defects.

Grades are as follows:
5 – Immediate Attention Defects requiring immediate attention 4 - Poor Sever defects that will become Grade 5 defects within the foreseeable future
3 - Fair Moderate defects that will continue to deteriorate 2 - Good Defects that have not begun to deteriorate
1 - Excellent Minor defects
The mechanisms and rates of pipeline deterioration are highly dependent on local conditions.

However, the following general guidelines are provided to estimate the amount of time before the defect causes complete line failure.
5 – Pipe has failed or will likely fail within the next five (5) years 4 – Pipe will probably fail in five (5) to ten (10) years Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 41 of 126 424
3 – Pipe may fail in ten (10) to twenty (20) years
2 – Pipe unlikely to fail for at least twenty (20) years 1 – Failure unlikely in the foreseeable future
Grading of Continuous Defects:

The PACP continuous defect feature is used to denote where long portions of a sewer line segment are affected by the same defect, without Richmond having to repetitively enter point defects. However, to develop a grade for the sewer line segment, a mechanism is needed to translate a continuous defect into an equivalent number of point defects. The equivalent number (i.e., quantity) of “truly” and “repeating” continuous defects is calculated by dividing the length of the continuous defect by 5. For example, a 20-foot long continuous defect, Grade 3, should equate to four (4) Grade 3 defects. Fractions are rounded to the nearest whole number.

Pipe Ratings:

The pipe rating is based on the number of occurrences for each condition grade. Ratings are calculated separately for Structural Defects and O&M Defects. Several ways of expressing sewer line segment condition are used by the PACP Condition Grading System as follows:

Segment Grade Scores – Each sewer line segment will have a Segment Grade Score for each of the five (5) grades. The number of occurrences of each pipe grade is multiplied by the pipe grade to calculate the segment grade score. For example, six (6) Grade 5 defects would be 6 times 5 and equates to a Segment Grade 5 Score of 30. If a sewer line segment had no defects of a particular grade, then the Segment Grade Score for that grade would be 0.

Overall Pipe Rating – The five (5) Segment Grade Scores are added together to calculate the Overall Pipe Rating. Structural Pipe Ratings are calculated using only Structural Defect grades, while O&M Pipe Ratings are calculated using only O&M Defect grades.

PACP Quick Rating – The PACP Quick Rating is a shorthand way of expressing the number of occurrences for the two (2) highest severity grades. The PACP Quick Rating is a four character score as follows:

1. ! The first character is the highest severity grade occurring along the sewer line segment length.

2. ! The second character is the total number of occurrences of the highest severity grade. If the total number exceeds 9, then alphabetic characters are used as follows – 10 to 14 – A; 15 to 19 – B; 20 to 24 – C; etc.

3. ! The third character is the next highest severity grade occurring along the sewer line segment length.

4. ! The fourth character is the total number of the second highest severity grade occurrences, derived as in item 2 above.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 42 of 126 425
Examples:
4B27: 15 to 19 Grade 4 defects and seven Grade 2 defects were found. 3224: 2 Grade 3 defects and 4 Grade 3 defects were found.

If a sewer line segment only has defects of one grade, the first two characters are the grade and the quantity of defects, and the last two characters are 00 (denoting no other defect grades). A sewer line segment with no defects would have a Quick Score of 0000 (all zeros).

The PACP Quick Rating provides the ability to summarize the number and severity of defects found within a sewer line segment. As with the Pipe Rating, Quick Structural Ratings are calculated using only Structural Defect Grades, and Quick O&M Ratings are calculated using only O&M Defect Grades.

Pipe Ratings Index – The is an indicator of the distribution of defect severity. The Pipe Ratings Index is calculated by dividing the Pipe Rating by the number of defects. For example, the Structural Pipe Ratings Index would be the Structural Pipe Rating divided by the number of structural defects. Pipe Ratings Indexes are calculated for Structural, O&M, and Overall. A sewer line segment with a Pipe Rating of zero (0) would have Pipe Rating Index of zero (0).

Summary:

The following procedures are used to calculate sewer line segment ratings using the PACP Condition Grading System:

1. ! Determine the number of occurrences for each condition grade within the sewer line segment. Calculate separately for Structural Defect Grades and O&M Defect Grades.

2. ! Calculate the Segment Grade Score by multiplying the number of occurrences by the respective grade 1 through 5. Calculate the Structural Segment Grade Score and the O&M Segment Grade Score separately, then add together for the Overall Segment Grade Score.

3. ! Calculate the Pipe Rating for the pipe segment by adding the Segment Grade Scores.

Add all five (5) Structural Segment Grade Scores for the O&M Pipe Rating. Add all five (5) Overall Segment Grade Scores for the Overall Pipe Rating.

4. ! Determine the PACP Quick Rating by calculating the number of occurrences of the two (2) highest severity grades.

5. ! Calculate the Pipe Ratings Index by dividing the Pipe Rating by the number of defects. If the sewer line segment has no defects, the Pipe Rating Index is zero (0). !
Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 43 of 126 426

ATTACHMENT B
Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 44 of 126 427
Attachment B
PACP Table
Preface:

Richmond shall use the Pipeline Assessment and Certification Program (“PACP”) Table below to assess sewer line segments in Richmond’s Collection System.

PACP Table:

Observed Defect

Corrective
Action
Time Frame
(from date
defect observed)
Other Action
PACP Grade 4 or 5
Maintenance Defect
Clean sewer Schedule per Hot
Spot Cleaning
Program
Place on preventive
cleaning or root
control schedule as
appropriate, or
schedule point repair
PACP Grade 3 Maintenance
Defect
Clean sewer Schedule per Hot
Spot Cleaning
Program
Place on preventive
cleaning or root
control schedule as
appropriate, or
schedule point repair
PACP Grade 5 Structural
Defect
Repair,
rehabilitate, or
reinspect sewer
Plan and
schedule
corrective action
via the City’s
Risk Assessment
Analysis
Re-inspect within one
year if corrective not
yet taken
PACP Grade 4 Structural
Defect
Repair,
rehabilitate, or
reinspect sewer
Plan and
schedule
corrective action
via the City’s
Risk Assessment
Analysis
Re-inspect within
three years if
corrective action not
yet taken
!
Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 45 of 126 428

ATTACHMENT C
Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 46 of 126 429
Attachment C

Hot Spot Cleaning Program

Preface:

This document outlines the identification of, and management of the “Hot Spot” Cleaning Program for Richmond’s Collection System.

“Hot Spots” are defined as a specific sewer line segment, or section of sanitary sewer line that requires more frequent maintenance due to its O&M rating (i.e., amount of, severity, and frequency of buildup of grease, roots, settled deposits, mechanical or structure defect, or other materials that interferes with the normal operation of that line). By establishing a tailored, more aggressive cleaning frequency for these trouble spots, and monitoring the ongoing condition of these lines, Richmond can prevent SSOs and unwanted interruption in adequate service.

Identification and Management of Hot Spots:

Hot Spots are identified through three (3) primary mechanisms:

1. ! An SSO or backup;

2. ! Through observations and grading using the PACP Table during CCTV inspection; and !" ! Field observation during regular scheduled maintenance. #

After a sewer line segment has been identified for more frequent cleaning and inspection through the Hot Spot Program, it will be evaluated using both the PACP grading system, intimate knowledge of the system from Field Operations, and a risk assessment to assign a cleaning frequency.

There are five (5) main levels, dependent on the O&M severity of the sewer line segment:

1. ! Bi-monthly (i.e., two (2) times per month);

2. ! Monthly;

3. ! Every three (3) months;

4. ! Every six (6) months; and

5. ! Every twelve (12) months.

Pipe segments receiving a PACP Maintenance Defect score of 4 or 5 will be cleaned within 30 days and placed in the Hot Spot Cleaning Program at a 6-month cleaning frequency.

Pipe segments receiving a PACP Maintenance Defect score of 3 will be cleaned within 120 days and placed in the Hot Spot Cleaning Program at a 12-month cleaning frequency.

When a sewer line segment is determined to be put on the Hot Spot list for more frequent cleaning and observation, it will remain on that list until its condition has been observed satisfactory (i.e., not in need of more frequent cleaning) during no less than three (3) consecutive inspections while on the Hot Spot Program.
#
Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 47 of 126 430

ATTACHMENT D
Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 48 of 126 431
Attachment D

Cleaning Frequency Response Matrix

Clear Light Moderate Heavy
Debris ¼ Debris Trap
Volume/500
Linear Feet
(LF) or less

1 pass
½ Debris Trap
Volume/500
LF

2 passes
¾ Debris Trap
Volume/500 LF

3 passes
1 full Debris Trap or
Greater

Operator concern for
future stoppage

4 or more passes
Grease ¼ Debris Trap
Volume/500
LF

1 pass
½ Debris Trap
Volume/500
LF

15 minutes or
less to clean

2 passes
¾ Debris Trap
Volume/500 LF

15-30 minutes to
clean

3 passes
1 full Debris Trap or
Greater

Operator concern for
future stoppage

4 or more passes
Roots ¼ Debris Trap
Volume/500
LF

1 pass
½ Debris Trap
Volume/500
LF

2 passes
¾ Debris Trap
Volume/500 LF

3 passes
1 full Debris Trap or
Greater

Operator concern for
future stoppage

4 or more passes
Debris:

Structural
sewer line
fragments,
soil, rock,
etc.

No observable
materials
Minor amount
of material
(specify type
of material if
possible)
Moderate
amount of
material (specify
type of material
if possible) per
sewer line
segment
Significant amount of
material (specify type of
material if possible) per
sewer line segment

Operator concern for
future stoppage
Action Decrease
frequency to
next lower
frequency
after three (3)
consecutive
results ( e.g., 6
months to 12
months)
Continue
current
maintenance
frequency
Increase current
maintenance
frequency to
next higher
frequency ( e.g.,
6 months to 3
months)
Increase current
maintenance frequency
to next higher frequency
(e.g., 6 months to 3
months)
!
Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 49 of 126 432

ATTACHMENT E
Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 50 of 126 433
Condition Assessment of
Wastewater Collection Systems

WHITE PAPER
Office of Research and Development
National Risk Management Research Laboratory - Water Supply and Water Resources Division EPA/600/R-09/049 | May 2009 | www.epa.gov /nrmrl
Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 51 of 126 434
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research
and Development
Washington, DC 20460
Final Report
May 2009
EPA/600/R-09/049
White Paper on
Condition Assessment of
Wastewater Collection
Systems
Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 52 of 126 435
White Paper on
Condition Assessment of Wastewater Collection
Systems
by
Christopher S. Feeney
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Scott Thayer
Redzone Robotics, Inc.

Michael Bonomo
ADS Environmental Services, LLC
Kathy Martel, P.E.

The Cadmus Group
Contract No. EP-C-05-058
Task Order No. 59
Task Order Manager
Dr. Fu-hsiung (Dennis) F. Lai
Water Supply and Water Resources Division
2890 Woodbridge Avenue (MS-104)
Edison, NJ 08837
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 53 of 126 436
Disclaimer
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, through its Office of Research and Development, funded and managed, and collaborated in the research described herein. It has been subjected to the Agency’s pee r and administrative review and has been approved for publication. Any opinions expressed in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily r eflect the views of the Agency, therefore, no offic ial endorsement should be inferred. Any mention of trad e names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use .
ii
Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 54 of 126 437
Contents
Disclaimer ii
Contents iii
List of Figures v
List of Tables v
Symbols and Acronyms vi
Executive Summary 1

1.0 Overview of Task Order 59 1-1

1.1 Project Background 1-1

1.2 Purpose and Scope 1-1

1.3 Definition of Terms 1-2

1.4 Critical Gaps in Inspection Technologies and Con dition Assessment 1-3

1.4.1 Gravity Line Inspection 1-4

1.4.2 Pressure Line/Force Main Inspection 1-4

1.4.3 Condition Assessment Protocols 1-4

1.5 Research Questions 1-4

2.0 Condition Assessment 2-6

2.1 Program Development 2-7

2.2 Asset Inspection 2-8

2.2.1 Selection of Assets for Inspection 2-8

2.2.2 Prioritization of Assets 2-9

2.2.3 Asset Inspection 2-9

2.3 Data Management 2-9

2.3.1 Condition Assessment/Asset Management Software 2-9

2.3.2 General Database Management Software 2-10

2.3.3 Spreadsheet Software 2-10

2.4 Data Analysis 2-10

2.4.1 Hydraulic Capacity/Hydraulic Restrictions 2-10

2.4.2 Structural Condition 2-11

2.5 Decision Making 2-13

3.0 Dynamics of Wastewater Collection System Failure 3-16

3.1 Failure Mechanisms 3-16

3.1.1 Hydraulic Restrictions 3-16

3.1.2 Hydraulic Capacity 3-16

3.1.3 Structural Failure 3-17

3.2 Pipe Defects 3-18

3.3 Correlations between Assessed Conditions and Per formance Measures 3-19 Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 55 of 126 438

4.0 Inspection Technologies 4-21

4.1 Camera Inspection 4-22

4.1.1 Zoom Camera Inspection 4-23

4.1.2 Digital Scanning 4-25

4.1.3 Camera Deployment 4-27

4.2 Acoustic Technologies 4-30

4.2.1 Leak Detectors 4-31

4.2.2 Acoustic Monitoring Systems 4-33

4.2.3 Sonar and Ultrasonic Testing 4-34

4.3 Electrical and Electromagnetic Methods 4-35

4.3.1 Electrical Leak Location Method 4-36

4.3.2 Eddy Current Testing and Remote Field Eddy Cur rent Technology 4-37

4.3.3 Magnetic Flux Leakage Detection 4-40

4.4 Laser Profiling 4-41

4.5 Flow Meters 4-42

4.6 Innovative Technologies 4-43

4.6.1 Gamma-Gamma Logging 4-43

4.6.2 Ground Penetrating Radar 4-44

4.6.3 Infrared Thermography 4-44

4.6.4 Micro-Deflection 4-45

4.6.5 Impact Echo/Spectral Analysis of Surface Waves (SASW) 4-45

4.6.6 Ultrasonic Testing Systems 4-45

5.0 Technology Forum Summary 5-46

5.1 Background 5-46

5.2 General Discussion 5-46

5.3 Critical Gaps Identified in State of the Science 5-47

5.4 Recommended Next Steps 5-48

6.0 References 6-50
Appendix A A-1
Camera Technologies A-2
Acoustic Technologies A-5
Electrical and Electromagnetic Products A-7
Laser Products A-9
iv
Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 56 of 126 439
List of Figures
Figure 2-1: Condition Assessment 2-6
Figure 5-1: Technology Forum Attendees 5-49
List of Tables
Table ES-1: Summary of Emerging and Innovative Technologies ES-4 Table 2-1: Condition Assessment Matrix 2-15
Table 3-1: Most Common Pipe Defects Identified 3-19
Table 4-1: Inspection Technology Overview 4-21
Table 4-2: Zoom Camera Inspection Summary 4-24
Table 4-3: Digital Camera Scanning Inspection Summa ry 4-26 Table 4-4: Pushcam Product Comparison 4-28
Table 4-5: Lateral Launcher Product Comparison 4-29
Table 4-6: Small Diameter Tractor Product Compariso n 4-29 Table 4-7: Long Range Tractor Product Comparison 4-29
Table 4-8: Acoustic Technology Summary 4-31
Table 4-9: Sonar Product Comparison 4-35
Table 4-10: Electrical and Electromagnetic Methods Summary 4-36 Table 4-11: MFL Product Comparison 4-41
Table 4-12: Laser Profiling Summary 4-41
v
Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 57 of 126 440
Symbols and Acronyms
2D Two dimensional
3D Three dimensional
A Access point
ACI American Concrete Institute
AET Acoustic emission testing
AwwaRF American Water Works Association Research Fou ndation (now Water Research Foundation)
B Broken
BEM Broadband electromagnetic methodology
BW Brick work
C Crack
CARE-S Computer Aided Rehabilitation Program for Sew ers CCTV Closed-Circuit Television
CDMA Code Division Multiple Access
CMOM Capacity, Management, Operation and Maintenance
CWA Clean Water Act
D Deformed or deposits
DVD Digital video discs
ECT Eddy current testing
EDGE Enhanced Data Rates for Global Evolution
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
F Fracture
FELL Focused Electrode Leak Location System
FL Longitudinal fracture
FMEA Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
ft. feet
GIS Geographic Information System
gpm gallons per minute
gpm/in-mile gallons per minute per inch diameter pe r mile length GPR Ground penetrating radar
GPRS General Packet Radio Service
GPS Global positioning system
H Hole
HDPE high density polyethylene
HSV Hole with visible soil
I Infiltration
I/I Inflow and infiltration
in. inches
vi
Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 58 of 126 441
IP internet protocol
IRT Infrared thermography
IS Intruding seal material
J Joint
KPI Key performance indicator
L Line
LED Light-emitting diode
LF Lining failure
M Miscellaneous
MACP Manhole Assessment Certification Program
MCU Camera underwater
MFL Magnetic flux leakage
NA Not applicable
NACWA National Association of Clean Water Agencies
NASSCO National Association of Sewer Service Compani es OB Obstacles
O&M Operations and Maintenance
ORD Office of Research and Development
PACP Pipeline Assessment Certification Program
PCCP Pre-stressed concrete cylinder pipe
PR Point repair
psi pounds per square inch
PTZ Pan-Tilt-Zoom
PVC Polyvinyl chloride
R Roots
RCP Reinforced concrete pipe
RFEC Remote field eddy current
RFEC/TC Remote field eddy current/transformer coupli ng S Surface damage
SASW Spectral Analysis of Surface Waves
SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
SCRAPS Sewer Cataloging, Retrieval, and Prioritizati on System Sonar Sound navigation and ranging
SSET Sewer scanning evaluation technology
SSO Sanitary sewer overflow
T Tap
TC Transformer coupling
U.S. United States of America
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
VCP Vitrified clay pipe
V Vermin
vii
Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 59 of 126 442
VR Vermin including rats
WEF Water Environment Federation
WERF Water Environment Research Federation
WF Weld failure
WRc Water Research Centre (United Kingdom)
X Collapse
viii
Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 60 of 126 443
Executive Summary
In 2007, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) finalized a research program entitled “Innovation and Research for Water Infrastructure for the 21 st Century” that will generate the science and engineering knowledge needed to improve and evaluate innovative technologies to reduce the cost while improving the effectiveness of operation, maintenance, and replacement of aging and failing drinking water and wastewater treatment and conveyance systems (USEPA, 2007). Task Order 59, Condition Assessment of Wastewater Collection Systems, is one of several projects being conducted under this research initiative.

Overview
The objectives of Task Order 59 are to comprehensively review condition assessment technologies and to investigate condition assessment approaches for wastewater collection systems. Specific project objectives include:
x Identify and characterize the state of condition a ssessment technology for wastewater collection systems.
x Research and evaluate performance and cost of inno vative and advanced infrastructure monitoring technologies including wireless and remote sensing approaches developed in other industries and their applicability to wastewater collection sewers. x Identify and evaluate innovative closed-circuit te levision (CCTV) technologies currently used by more advanced wastewater utilities for transfer to utilities at large. x Prepare protocols, metrics, and site selection cri teria for field demonstration of selected innovative condition assessment technologies and decision-support systems.

This White Paper is one of the first work products created under Task Order 59 and was used as a basis for discussions at the project’s Technology Forum in September 2008. The White Paper summarizes the current state of condition assessment technologies, reviews mechanisms of pipe failure, discusses emerging and innovative technologies for sewer inspection, and presents a summary of the Technology Forum. It incorporates feedback received at the Technology Forum.

Condition Assessment
The primary components of any asset management program include the identification, location, and condition of assets. Condition assessment provides the critical information needed to assess the physical condition and functionality of a wastewater collection system, and to estimate remaining service life and asset value. After the field inspection, pipe defec ts are classified using a standard coding system and pipe condition is assessed using a systematic method to produce consistent, useful information. Following data analysis, condition assessment information is used to make estimates of a pipe’s remaining useful life and its long-term performance, and to make decisions about pipe rehabilitation, pipe replacement and/or further inspections.

Dynamics of Wastewater System Failure
In conducting condition assessment, it is important to understand the dynamics of pipe failure including the level, type, and severity of a failure mechanism. Failure can be a sudden, catastrophic collapse of a pipe, restricted hydraulic capacity, or a variety of other performance conditions that result in the inability of the pipe to perform as necessary for the minimum acceptable level of operation of the system. The purpose of condition assessment is to detect pipe defects which indicate the likelihood of pipe failure, as well as to assess the collection system’s performance. This section discusses the mechanisms of pipe failure, the various types of pipe defects, and the relationship between the condition of a pipe and its Page ES-1
Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 61 of 126 444
performance. It is important to understand that the mechanisms and impacts of pipe failure are highly dependent upon the pipe material and type of sewer (i.e. force main, gravity line).

Inspection Technologies
There are a variety of technologies available for assessment of collection systems. These technologies, summarized in Table ES-1, include:
x CCTV is a well-established and common industry met hod used for inspecting pipes. It provides visual data on leaks, location of service laterals, and sediment and debris accumulation. The primary disadvantages to CCTV technology are that it only provides a view of the pipe surface above the waterline; it does not provide any structural data on the pipe wall integrity; and it does not provide a view of the soil envelope supporting the pipe.

For inspections of gravity lines, basic CCTV systems are not able to measure slope. There are needs for higher resolution cameras with better lighting; and improvements in crawler technology to better negotiate obstructions, grease, and off-set joints. The quality of defect identification and pipe condition assessment using CCTV is highly dependent on many factors including operator interpretation, picture quality, and flow level. Innovative camera technologies include zoom cameras, digital inspection, push cameras, and advances in crawler technology.
x Acoustic technologies use measuring devices to detect vibrations and/or sound waves. In pipeline assessment, acoustic sensors are used to detect signals emitted by defects. Three types of acoustic technologies are used for pipeline assessment: leak detectors, which are used to detect the acoustic signals emitted by pipeline leaks; acoustic monitoring systems, which are used to evaluate the condition of pre-stressed concrete cylinder pipe (PCCP) by detecting the signals emitted by breaking pre-stressed wires; and sonar, or ultrasonic systems, which emit high frequency sound waves and measure their reflection in order to detect a variety of pipe defects.
x Electrical/Electromagnetic currents are the basis of several sewer evaluation techniques.

The electrical leak location method is used to detect leaks in surcharged non-ferrous pipes.

Eddy Current Testing (ECT) and Remote Field Eddy Current (RFEC) technology identify defects in ferrous pipes. Magnetic Flux Leakage (MF L) inspection is widely used in the oil and gas industry to measure metal loss and detect cracks in ferrous pipelines. x Laser profiling uses a laser to create a line of light around the pipe wall, highlighting the shape of the sewer. This technique allows for the d etection of changes to the pipe’s shape, which may be caused by deformation, corrosion, or siltation. Laser inspection can only be used to inspect the portions of a pipe wall that are above the water line. To assess the entire internal surface of a pipeline requires the pipe to be taken out of service. Lasers are often used in combination with other inspection methods, most commonly CCTV and/or sonar. x Innovative methods based on a variety of technologies are currently being developed for the evaluation of sewer collection systems. Gamma-gamma logging is a technique used primarily to evaluate cast-in-place concrete pilings and can provide information on the average bulk density of the concrete and the location of voids. Ground Penetrating Radar can detect underground voids, and is potentially useful for examination of pipe bedding and to locate leaks. Infrared Thermography involves the us e of an infrared camera to measure the temperature differential across an object and is a potential method of detecting sewer defects such as leaks and voids. Micro-Deflection is a nondestructive technology used to evaluate general conditions and joint integrity of brick, concrete, and clay structures using a load to create a slight deformation or micro-deflection in the test material. Impact Echo and Spectral Analysis of Surface Waves (SASW) are acoustic wave techniques for locating and measuring cracks, delaminations, voids, and honeycombing in concrete and masonry.

Page ES-2
Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 62 of 126 445
Summary of Technology Forum
A technology forum was held on September 11 and 12, 2008 in Edison, New Jersey to discuss the state of the science for condition assessment of wastewater collection systems and to identify critical gaps in current knowledge. A draft of the White Paper was distributed to participants in advance of the meeting and served as a basis for forum discussions. The objective of the forum was to present the findings of the research and obtain direction for additional research and further evaluation during the field demonstration tasks. The forum included discussions on data needs for conducting condition assessment and making asset management decisions; use of flow monitoring for asset management; systematic approaches to condition assessment; the importance of understanding the mechanisms of pipe failure; and tools and models available for conducting risk-based decision making related to wastewater assets.

Critical gaps in our knowledge of inspection technologies, and our ability to diagnose and predict infrastructure failures were identified at the Technology Forum and summarized below.

1. Research is needed to further define the costs a nd benefits of pipe inspection and rehabilitation as part of a utility’s condition assessment program. Methods of determining the impact of deteriorating collection systems on municipal budgets are needed.

2. Inspection technologies need to be identified fo r the following applications:
a. Reduce use of confined space entry during sewer system inspections and investigations. b. Affordable inspection technology that utilizes m ulti-sensor devices on a small transportable package.
c. Inspecting pipes below the waterline.
d. Inspecting force mains that are in service.
e. Inspecting laterals.

3. Data management methods and models are available , but a lack of data standardization makes it difficult to compare historical data collected with different inspection technologies that have proprietary data structures.

4. Research is needed to improve how asset conditio n is tracked over time. Geospatial information (with a high degree of accuracy) needs to be collected along with pipe condition data in order to link historical inspection data with an exact physical location.

Information transfer to practitioners was identified as a critical industry need. Practitioners need training on topics such as infrastructure failure mechanisms; using historical inspection data for condition assessment applications; applying the Pipeline Assessment Certification Program (PACP) coding system to characterize pipe defects; developing a condition assessment program; and preparing accurate record drawings for new and rehabilitated pipe. In additio n, practitioners need simple condition assessment tools (i.e. scattergraphs for analyzing flow data, decision trees, rules of thumb).

Page ES-3
Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 63 of 126 446
Table ES-1: Summary of Emerging and Innovative Technologies Technology
CCTV Acoustic Electrical &
Electro-magnetic
Lase
r Innovative Technologies
Conventional
Zoom camera
Digital scanning
Push-camera inspection
In-line leak detectors
Acoustic monitoring
systems
Sonar/ultrasonic
Electrical leak location
Remote field eddy current
Magnetic flux leakage
Laser profiling
Gamma-gamma logging
Ground penetrating radar
Infrared thermography
Micro-deflection
Impact echo/SASW
Application
Pipe type G G G S G, F F G, F G, F, S G,F,S G,F,S G, F G,F,S G,F,S G,F,S G G Pipe material Any Any Any Any Any PCCP Any NF F F, PCC P Any C Any Any B B, C
Pipe size >6” >6” 6”-60” 1”-
12” >4” >18” >2” >3” >2” 2”-56” > 4”
Not yet
defined
Not yet
defined
Not yet
defined
Not yet
defined >6’
Defects Detected
Sediment, debris, roots Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
Pipe sags & deflections Ɣ Ɣ Partial Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
External pits & voids Ɣ Ɣ Partial Ɣ
Corrosion & metal loss Partial Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
Off-set joints Ɣ Ɣ Partial Ɣ
Pipe cracks Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
Leaks Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
Broken pre-stressed wires Ɣ Ɣ
Wall thickness Ɣ Ɣ
Service connections Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
Bedding condition Ɣ Ɣ
Bedding voids Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ Partial
Deteriorated insulation Ɣ
Overall condition Ɣ
Pipe type: G – Gravity line F – Force main S – S ervice lateral Pipe material: NF – Nonferrous F – Ferrous B – Brick C – Concrete PCCP – Pre-stressed con crete cylinder pipe Page ES-4
Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 64 of 126 447

1.0 Overview of Task Order 59
In 2007, USEPA finalized a research program entitled “Innovation and Research for Water Infrastructure for the 21 st Century” that is being implemented by the Office of Research and Development. It will generate the science and engineering knowledge needed to improve and evaluate innovative technologies to reduce the cost while improving the effectiveness of operation, maintenance, and replacement of aging and failing drinking water and wastewater treatment and conveyance systems (USEPA, 2007). Task Order 59, Condition Assessment of Wastewater Collection Systems, is one of several projects being conducted under this research initiative.

1.1 Project Background
In 2002, the USEPA Office of Water published a report entitled “Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis” (USEPA, 2002). The Gap Analysis report identified a critical shortfall in funding of the nation’s water and wastewater infrastructure including a $270 billion gap for wastewater infrastructure for the years 2000-2019. The deferred maintenance approach to operating and maintaining the nation’s aging wastewater infrastructure has become a paramount concern of the Agency.

Failing wastewater infrastructure can pose a significant threat to public health and the environment.

Wastewater infrastructure may include sanitary and combined sewer components, but this project is focused only on sanitary sewer systems. Systems with inadequate hydraulic capacity and/or blockages may lead to sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) and may cause flooding damage to private property or release untreated sewage to receiving waters. Some of the health hazards associated with basement flooding by untreated wastewater include the potential presence of pathogenic microorganisms such as viruses, bacteria, and protozoa.

USEPA and State regulators have taken legal action against utility districts for property damage and SSOs. For example, in 2005, a settlement of $300 mi llion was reached with the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission to implement a program to reduce occurrences of basement flooding. This joint settlement was reached among the utility district, USEPA, State of Maryland, and five local citizens groups. In 2004, Knoxville Utility Board reached a settlement with the State of Tennessee for a capital improvements program of $350 million to eliminate flooding due to hydraulic restrictions. In 2004, Hamilton, Ohio reached a settlement to implement a program to eliminate SSOs and basement flooding that was estimated to cost approximately $1.5 billion.

1.2 Purpose and Scope
The objectives of Task Order 59 are to comprehensively review condition assessment technologies and to investigate condition assessment approaches for wastewater collection systems. The primary goal of the project is to develop more efficient and cost-effective means to conduct condition assessment and to use the information as part of a risk-based asset management approach to planning. Specific project objectives include:
x Identify and characterize the state of condition a ssessment technology for wastewater collection systems.
x Research and evaluate performance and cost of inno vative and advanced infrastructure monitoring technologies including wireless and remote sensing approaches developed in other industries and their applicability to wastewater collection sewers. x Identify and evaluate innovative CCTV technologies currently used by more advanced wastewater utilities for transfer to utilities at large.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 65 of 126 448
x Prepare protocols, metrics, and site selection cri teria for field demonstration of selected innovative condition assessment technologies and decision-support systems.

To meet these project objectives, a stakeholder group was established to review all task products, and a technology forum was convened to help compile and assess the current state-of-the-art and evolving technologies including any critical gaps in performance, affordability or applicability to wastewater collection systems. During the literature review for the White Paper, internal camera inspection technologies were researched and evaluated for immediate transfer to utilities at large; advanced integrity assessment technologies that apply non-contact, remote sensing approaches were also reviewed. In the main portion of the project, protocols/metrics for field demonstration of selected technologies will be developed, as will criteria for selecting demonstration sites. Finally, field demonstrations of select technologies will be conducted.

The work products resulting from the project will include:
x White paper summarizing current state of the technology. x Summary of technology forum discussions and findings. x Comprehensive inventory of condition assessment technologies. x Information transfer document on internal camera inspection technologies. x Information transfer document on advanced integrity monitoring technologies. x Quality assurance project plan for conducting field demonstrations and data analysis. x Technical memoranda summarizing each task.
x Final project report.

A draft white paper was prepared and used as a basis for discussion at the project’s Technology Forum held in Edison, NJ on September 11 and 12, 2008. It was distributed to the expert panel, stakeholders and other participants in advance of the meeting. This final white paper incorporates feedback received at the Technology Forum.

1.3 Definition of Terms
A wastewater collection system or sanitary sewer system is defined as the network of pipes and pumping systems used to convey sanitary flow to a wastewater treatment facility for treatment prior to discharge to the environment. A wastewater collection system is designed to convey only sanitary flow, whereas a combined system is designed to convey sanitary and stormwater flows.

A gravity line is a sewer pipe that is sloped to convey flow via gravitational forces. Typical design standards are based on open channel flow equations under normal flow conditions utilizing Manning’s equation. Design criteria for a gravity line genera lly take into consideration anticipated defects as a pipe remains in service. An allowable rate of inflow and infiltration expressed in terms of gallons per minute per in. diameter per mile length (gpm/in-mile) is included in hydraulic design of gravity lines. It is also typical to select a frictional coefficient that is based upon a sediment accumulation at the invert of the pipe. The minimum diameter of a gravity line (exclu ding service laterals) is typically 8 inches (in.); however, large interceptors can have diameters in excess of 12 feet (ft). Older systems may contain 6-in. gravity lines.

Service laterals are the gravity lines that convey wastewater from a building’s foundation to the sanitary line, or main, in the street. The ownership of the service lateral varies widely from area to area. It may be defined by property line limits, with the private sewer lateral extending from the house or building foundation to the property line and the municipal or public lateral located within the public right of way.

In other cases, the property owner may own the service lateral all the way to the main.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 66 of 126 449
A force main is a pressure line used to convey pumped sewage. The Water Environment Research Federation (WERF) 2004 survey indicated that force mains comprise, on average, 7.5% of a collection system. This percentage does vary considerably depending on the region and the topography.

Approximately 46% of the force mains have diameters less than 12-in. and 20% are greater than 36-in.

The most common pipe materials for force mains are cast iron and ductile iron.

Asset Management - The primary components of any asset management program include the identification, location, and condition of assets; the determination of their useful life and their valuation.

The key to asset management is to understand the types, frequency, and costs of failure. Asset management often employs a risk-based management approach that utilizes information on asset failures as part of a decision making model to manage funding and maintenance priorities. One risk model often employed is Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA). FMEA analyzes a system’s potential failure modes so they can be classified by severity or determination of the effect upon the system. It is widely used in manufacturing as a risk mitigation tool in various phases of product life cycle and product quality planning.

The Water Research Foundation (formerly the American Water Works Association Research Foundation (AwwaRF)) and the Water Environment Federation (WEF) have both produced guidance documents on asset management and risk-based analysis of assets. The Capacity, Management, Operation and Maintenance (CMOM) program also outlines the framework necessary to develop an information-based strategy on managing assets. Such approaches are not unique to the wastewater industry. Developing an understanding of the risks and potential costs of system failure can aid in the decision making process.

Condition assessment is one of the core components of an asset management program. It provides the critical information needed to assess the condition and remaining useful life and long-term performance of a piping system. Condition assessment can also be used to determine the functionality of the pipes in meeting their design criteria. USEPA has defined “c ondition assessment” as the collection of data and information through the direct inspection, observation, and investigation and in-direct monitoring and reporting, and the analysis of the data and information to make a determination of the structural, operational and performance status of capital infrastructure assets (USEPA, 2007).

The type of pipe defect varies depending on the pipe material and pipe diameter, as discussed in Section

3.2. The most prevalent defects are as follows: cra cks/broken pipe, root intrusion, sediment, grease build-up, off-set joints, corrosion, manhole frame and cover leaks, and pipe sags.

Pipe failure includes collapse, which may cause extensive property damage and/or discharge of untreated sewage, severe hydraulic restrictions, and severe decrease in hydraulic capacity. Other less severe pipe conditions could also be considered “failure” depending on the performance standards set for the system.

The term inspection technologies in this white paper refers to the various methods used for detecting pipe defects, structural and operational condition, and environmental conditions that could potentially impact pipe condition. These technologies, discussed in Section 4.0, have varying abilities for detecting and quantifying specific types of pipe defects. Inspection technologies may have limited applications depending on pipe material and/or pipe diameter. A robust condition assessment method would likely include a variety of inspection technologies, based on the specific characteristics of a utility’s sewer network.

1.4 Critical Gaps in Inspection Technologies and Condition Assessment A previous research project (Thomson et al., 2004) surveyed large wastewater utility districts to determine critical gaps in condition assessment of gravity pipelines and force mains. The survey found that 100% of the 31 survey respondents relied almost exclusively on CCTV as the primary means to inspect pipes. The general limitations of current C CTV technology were the focus of the identification of critical gaps. There were also several respondents who expressed concerns with the inability to measure

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 67 of 126 450
the structural integrity of the pipe wall and the inability to measure crown corrosion of concrete pipe and internal corrosion for ferrous pipes.

1.4.1 Gravity Line Inspection
The majority of sewer pipeline inspection activities performed by utilities involve gravity pipelines. In the 2004 utility survey (Thomson et al. 2004), critical gaps for inspection technologies for gravity lines were defined as follows:
x The needs for improvements to CCTV - higher resolution cameras with better lighting; improvements in crawler technology to negotiate obstructions, grease, offset-joints; and cameras for inspection of laterals.
x Ability to monitor in surcharged (i.e., flooded) conditions. x Inability to obtain information on pipe wall thickness. x Inability to measure slope.
x Inability to locate manholes 1.
x Inability to locate soil voids above or below a pipe segment. x Inability to quantify corrosion (e.g ., internal, external).

1.4.2 Pressure Line/Force Main Inspection
Inspection of force mains is currently limited to pipelines that are taken out of service. For this reason, force mains are infrequently inspected by utilities, primarily because of the inability to take the line out of service without costly by-pass pumping. Other critical gaps in inspection of force mains include the limited number of inspection technologies suitable for use in force mains; and the inability to determine wall thickness, cracking, and pitting with currently available inspection technologies (Thomson et al. 2004).

1.4.3 Condition Assessment Protocols
Based on a survey of twenty-four Canadian sewer agencies using condition assessment protocols, Rahman and Vanier (2004) identified the lack of consistent, standard condition assessment protocols as a critical gap. The survey results showed 68% of the respondents used a protocol based on that of the National Water Research Council. The biggest gaps identified were systematic collection of data and use of formal risk assessment methods to prioritize resources for maintenance and rehabilitation activities.

Research has focused on the use of models to standardize the risk-based decision-making process.

1.5 Research Questions
The following key research questions relating to sewer inspection and condition assessment have emerged from EPA research (USEPA, 2007). These questions reflect critical gaps in our knowledge of the performance of innovative inspection technologies, our understanding of proven condition assessment techniques, and our ability to diagnose and predict infrastructure failures. x Can emerging and innovative inspection technologies be identified and demonstrated in field settings to improve our understanding of their cost-effectiveness, technical performance, and reliability?
1 Other sources indicate that manholes can be locate d via CCTV inspection. CCTV crawlers can be equipp ed with radio transponders to aid in manhole location.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 68 of 126 451
x Can advances in remote monitoring and wireless technologies be applied to reduce confined- space entry requirements for sewer system inspection and investigation? x What measurements or operational data can be used to determine and track the condition of assets over time?
x Can standard technical guidelines, uniform data requirements, and indicators be developed for condition assessment of sewers and non-sewer assets, including manholes, service laterals, and pipe joints?
x Can technical guidance be developed for establishing an overall wastewater infrastructure inspection program, including inspection prioritization, inspection frequency, inspection type (physical vs. visual, maintenance vs. structural), inspection by asset type, and inspection cost- effectiveness?
x How can a municipality determine the impact of deteriorating collection systems on their financial budgets?
x Can infrastructure failure mechanisms be better characterized to improve risk assessment models?

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 69 of 126 452

2.0 Condition Assessment
Condition assessment has gained considerable attention in recent years amongst municipalities and utility districts as a component of an asset management program. It can be used to prioritize infrastructure projects based on relative risk, thereby easing the financial burden on wastewater utilities and their customers. WERF estimates that wastewater utility purveyors spend approximately $4.2 billion annually to rehabilitate sanitary pipelines. Local and state governments are required to tabulate the value of their public assets (i.e., buildings, roads, utilities, etc.) to support the development of a unified cost accounting system, per the Governmental Accounting Standards Board Bulletin 34. This program requires detailed financial accounting of all assets, however, the level of detail to which it is implemented can vary from city to city. Condition assessment can also assist utilities in implementing USEPA’s proposed guidance for evaluating the Capacity, Management, Operation, and Maintenance (CMOM) program for sanitary sewer collection systems (USEPA, 2005). The CMOM program requires a municipality that operates a sanitary sewer system to provide adequate conveyance capacity for all parts of the system and to take all feasible steps to stop and mitigate the impacts of sanitary sewer overflows.

A variety of processes have been developed for performing condition assessments, ranging from simple to complex. They generally follow a similar progression of steps: setting objectives for the condition assessment, identification of assets and available data, asset inspection, data analysis, and decision making. Specific condition assessment processes are described in the WERF publication “Condition Assessment Strategies and Protocols for Water and Wastewater Utilities” (Marlow et al., 2007) and in the National Research Council’s “Guidelines for Condition Assessment and Rehabilitation of Large Sewers” (McDonald and Zhao, 2001). Figure 2-1 illustrates t he steps in the condition assessment process.

Inventory database
Impact assessment
Prioritization
Frequency of
next inspection
Inspection
Rehabilitation Condition
Assessment
Decision- making on
rehabilitation actions
Source: McDonald and Zhao, 2001
Figure 2-1: Condition Assessment

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 70 of 126 453

2.1 Program Development
The development of a condition assessment program must first consider the program drivers and objectives. The drivers may include regulatory comp liance, operation and maintenance efficiency, risk management, and/or financial budgeting forecast. Often, the primary driver for wastewater utilities is investigation of sources of infiltration/inflow (I/I) that would require a system-wide condition assessment program. Other utilities are more concerned with identifying high risk pipes for which a catastrophic failure could lead to extensive service disruptions and environmental damage. A risk-based condition assessment program would focus on specific pipes that present these types of risk.

Objectives for performing the condition assessment should be explicitly stated, so that the program’s effectiveness can be evaluated. The objectives will also establish how the results of the condition assessment will be used in the decision making process, the final step of condition assessment. Key performance indicators (KPIs), metrics used to determine the utility’s progress to defined goals, would be defined at this step. Objectives for performing a condition assessment could be to understand the structural condition, performance, and/or progression of deterioration (i.e. remaining service life) of the asset.

The costs of conducting condition assessment must be documented and compared to the anticipated benefits in order to justify the program. The costs are typically easier to quantify but should include both the direct costs of inspection and the indirect costs to the utility and other parties of carrying out the inspection work and collecting and analyzing the data. The benefits are more difficult to quantify and derive mainly from the reduction in the risk of failure (likelihood times consequences of failure) and from the knowledge that allows maintenance, rehabilitation and replacement to be carried out on the most cost effective schedule. More specifically, the costs of condition assessment include:
x Equipment and labor costs to conduct field inspections including excavation, traffic control, road surface restoration, monitoring equipment and data collection. x Labor costs before and after field work for planning, data analysis and reporting. x Cost of service disruptions due to inspection work.

Specific benefits of a condition assessment program may include:
x Avoided emergency repair costs.
x Avoided costs of extended service disruptions due to a catastrophic failure. x Avoided restoration costs due to environmental and property damage from a catastrophic failure.
x Avoided public health costs (i.e. injury, death, disease transmission) from catastrophic failure.
x Improved planning and prioritization of rehabilitation and replacement projects due to condition assessment information and improved estimates of service life. x Avoided costs of premature pipe replacement or rehabilitation.

Comparing the costs to benefits for gravity sewers and force mains, it has been reported (Thomson 2008) that:
x The cost of inspection of gravity sewers is typically low with respect to the value of the asset (e.g. the cost of inspection of a 12-in diameter sewer at 13-ft depth is less than 1% of the asset value) and the proportion decreases with increasing depth and diameter of sewer. x The benefits from inspection of gravity sewers are likely to exceed costs for all but small diameter sewers at shallow depths.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 71 of 126 454
x The cost of inspection of force mains is high with indirect costs often exceeding the direct costs of inspection (emptying the line, providing temporary bypass, accessing the line). x The monetary benefits of inspection may be less than the cost of inspection for smaller lines in less populated areas (fail and fix approach may be chosen) although this ratio may change in environmentally sensitive areas. The benefits increase greatly for larger diameter force mains and urban areas due to the increased risk of major consequences.

When performing condition assessment, it is essential to compile an inventory of assets and existing system data (i.e. pipe material, size, age, maintenance history, inspection records). The utility should understand the content and form of existing data, and should identify data gaps at this step. System maps and geographic information system (GIS) databases are good information resources. Inspection and testing records may include I/I studies: flow data, smoke testing, flow isolation studies, and/or dye tracer studies. Failure data from within the system or fro m research on similar conditions (e.g., soil bedding type, material, age) in utility districts can be used to define risk of failure. Data gaps identified in this step are used to plan the inspection program.

A key difficulty in developing a rational inspection, condition assessment, and asset management program is that some of the most critical elements of the sewer infrastructure are the most difficult and expensive to inspect. For example, large diameter sewers have continuous and high levels of flow that make bypassing the sewer difficult or impossible. They may contain large debris that hinder inspections unless the pipes are cleaned first, and they may not have been inspected for decades. Similar conditions exist for force mains in terms of the consequences of failure vs. the ability to inspect.

2.2 Asset Inspection
The primary purpose of an inspection is to define the current condition of an asset, in order to detect and evaluate the progression of deterioration and to make informed decisions on asset management. A well developed inspection plan will maximize the value of the program, while minimizing the cost of inspection. A detailed work plan and quality assura nce project plan should also be established at this step to outline how the proposed inspection program would meet the program objectives. The inspection plan should focus on what assets to inspect, when they should be inspected, and what technologies will be used for inspection. Ideally, an inspection would occur at a point prior to failure where an intervention could effectively renew the asset. For a buried pipeline, there is limited ability to obtain a warning indicator as to the appropriate time and location to perform an inspection. It is this unknown state that is the inherent risk in managing buried assets.

2.2.1 Selection of Assets for Inspection
It may be considered cost prohibitive to inspect every linear foot of a wastewater collection system especially when confronting the need to inspect a large system with little prior inspection history. It is for this reason that condition assessment programs generally use a planned approach to focus on high consequence/high risk pipes or to utilize statistical sampling to select assets for inspection. Decisions on which assets to inspect should be related to the objectives and KPIs defined in the program development phase of the condition assessment process. For example, if the objective or KPI is to reduce SSOs, then a utility may focus on service lateral, which are often a large source of I/I. If the objective or KPI is to reduce risk of failure of high consequence pipes, then a utility may focus on pipes with higher impact and probability of failure, and not inspect service laterals, as they are not high risk or high consequence.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 72 of 126 455

2.2.2 Prioritization of Assets
Two models for prioritizing assets for inspection are described below:
x The National Research Council’s approach (McDonald and Zhao, 2001) utilizes an “impact assessment” to prioritize assets for inspection. Impact assessment is a weighted average of six separate impact factors: location, soil support, size, depth, sewer function, and seismic factors. Impact assessment can then be directly cal culated in a uniform approach based on a weighted average.
x SCRAPS (Sewer Cataloging, Retrieval, and Prioritization System) is based on the general approach of defining risk factors based on consequence of failure and likelihood of failure (Merrill et al ., 2004). The term “Consequence of Failure” is defined as the impact of a failure in terms of repair cost, disruption to the public and economy, impairment of system operation, regulatory compliance, public health and safety, and damages to the environment.

The same terminology can also be applied to the decision making process used in applying condition assessment to asset management. The impact of a failure must be understood and quantified. If the impact can be quantified in doll ars, then it can be compared to both the cost of condition assessment and the cost of replacement and/or rehabilitation.

2.2.3 Asset Inspection
The type of inspection performed depends on the objective of the condition assessment program. The selected inspection technique needs to be consistent with the type of asset to be inspected and provide the information and data required to support decision making. Flow monitoring is usually utilized when conducting I/I studies, to evaluate hydraulic capacity and determine hydraulic restrictions. CCTV is the most commonly used method of inspecting sewers for structural defects; however, there are a variety of technologies available for this type of inspection; these technologies are discussed in-depth in Section 4.0.

A detailed work plan and quality assurance project plan should be established; these documents ideally would outline how the proposed inspection program would meet the program objectives.

2.3 Data Management
A successful condition assessment program as part of an asset management program requires that the data collected are organized, analyzed, and maintained in a database system. This important step allows a utility to develop an understanding of trends. There are three general approaches to database management that have varying degrees of cost and complexity but all of which use commercially available software:

1. Software specifically designed for condition ass essment and asset management.

2. Database software that is not specifically desig ned for condition assessment.

3. Spreadsheet software.

2.3.1 Condition Assessment/Asset Management Software
There are numerous commercially available data management programs for condition assessment that range in level of complexity and cost. The primary component is a database to store defect coding on pipe segments both spatially and over time. The commercially available systems can also incorporate additional elements such as cost accounting, develop work orders for maintenance calls, and order parts to maintain required spare parts. Another useful featu re is the incorporation of GIS functionality into the system. The GIS component highlights the geo-spatial distribution of the data, and can provide a very effective tool for the utility to plan subsequent inspections and/or rehabilitation activities. The benefit of

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 73 of 126 456
the commercially available programs is that they are designed specifically for the intended purpose.

However, the cost of system maintenance can be significant, as can licensing costs, depending upon system complexity.

Another type of commercially available software is designed to summarize the results of a CCTV inspection and the resulting defect code data. This has become standard practice in the industry. The National Association of Sewer Service Companies (NASSCO) licenses software programs to be consistent using the PACP and Manhole Assessment Certification Program (MACP) rating systems, which are discussed in Section 2.4.2. The certification programs allow commercial providers to submit their pipe assessment software for evaluation and certification to ensure that their software adheres to NASSCO standards. It is important to verify the software has been approved to decrease the set-up time required to enter ranking and coding information. Pipeline inspection software is used simultaneously with pipeline inspection hardware to accurately document the status of sewer pipe, storm drains, or water pipelines. The software gives access to text data, video, and still photos all of which help the user identify the condition of the pipe and precisely complete a pipeline inspection. Defects can be quickly categorized by location, type, and severity. The software compiles this data into a searchable database which can be distributed into printed reports.

2.3.2 General Database Management Software
Utilization of commercially available database software requires a utility to design a database specific to their needs. The benefit would be the reduced initi al licensing cost of the software. Most utilities would have database software as part of their professional software packages licensed for their operating system.

Another benefit is that it may cost less to maintain than the condition assessment software described above. A drawback to this approach is the significa nt up-front work and required expertise to design a database system for the intended purpose.

2.3.3 Spreadsheet Software
Spreadsheet software is the least costly of the three systems; however, it also has the most limitations.

This type of software is readily available and likely exists at each of the utilities. A simple yet effective system can be designed to collect and store data. However, spreadsheets are a flat file system and are very limited in usefulness as the database expands. It can become overly cumbersome if multiple spread sheets are required.

2.4 Data Analysis
The data resulting from inspection may quantify the level of service and/or structural defects. It doe s not, however, provide any ability to reduce risk or define the significance of the finding. The follow-up step is to process and analyze the inspection data. There are two general analysis methods used, based on the type of inspection performed. If flow monitoring was employed as the inspection technology, an analysis of hydraulic capacity is performed, using hydraulic modeling techniques. If an inspection of structural defects utilizing CCTV or one of the other non-destructive technologies was performed, analysis is generally performed by coding defects in accordance with one of the various methods available, such as the Water Research Centre (WRc)’s system or NASCCO’s PACP and MACP programs

2.4.1 Hydraulic Capacity/Hydraulic Restrictions
Hydraulic capacity is the primary performance measure for a wastewater collection system. Flow data gathered by flow meters has been used to guide sewer system management for at least three decades.