Written Public Comments Received 5-5-2026 — Richmond City Council, May 5, 2026

From: Claudia Citroen
To: City Clerk Dept User; Shasa Curl; Shasa Curl; Shannon Moore; Jamelia Brown; Cesar Zepeda; Eduardo Martinez; Code Enforcement Renee Souza; LaShonda White; Lina Velasco Subject: Open forum / public comment council meeting 05.05.26 Date: Monday, May 4, 2026 6:28:58 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Council and mayor continue with their egregious misappropriation of time and resources! Mayor Martinez’s lofty proclamations are wasteful council time, especially when basic needs are blind sighted and ignored (city hall green space property is overgrown with weeds. See photos of dragon spine, a weed if inhaled by dogs can be fatal and cause high emergency vet bills!) LET ME REMIND YOU:

Under the Richmond City Charter, California Government Code (including Sections 54950 et seq. (Brown Act), 38771–38773(nuisance abatement authority), and applicable open government provisions), the California Health and Safety Code, and the City’s fiduciary duties to taxpayers, the Richmond City Council, City departments, commissions, publicly funded nonprofit organizations, contractors, consultants, and quasi-independent municipal bodies are obligated to maintain transparency, fiscal accountability, and enforceable public oversight.

The ongoing lacking weed abatement, accumulation of hazardous dumped trash and Blade corridor waste like condoms, needles and human waste create unacceptable environmental contamination associated with unmanaged homeless encampments. It constitutes a public nuisance (see photos) under California law, including California Civil Code Section 3479 (public nuisance definition), Health and Safety Code sanitation provisions, and state and regional stormwater permitting requirements under the Clean Water Act (NPDES framework). These conditions create municipal exposure to liability for dangerous conditions on public property and regulatory noncompliance. Under California Government Code §§
38771–38773, Richmond is obligated to abate public nuisances affecting health and safety. Residents demand sanity conditions enforced so parents can walk children to school, neighbors safely walk their pets. Council members tolerate Selective, delayed enforcement, hazardous conditions on public property while enforcing higher standards against private parties! City council routinely keeps quiet on claim exposure to arbitrary governance, unequal application of municipal authority, and breach of fiduciary duty. ->> The City’s continued approval of public funding (example over budgeted Tiny Homes )
without mandatory in-person accountability requirements for departments, contractors, nonprofit organizations, advocacy groups, consultants, and publicly funded entities raises additional compliance concerns under Brown Act transparency requirements (Gov. Code § 54950 et seq.), which require meaningful public access to deliberation, questioning, and decision-making in open meetings.
->> This requirement must expressly include the Richmond Rent Board which operates under Richmond’s rent control and tenant protection ordinances and exercises regulatory, administrative, enforcement, and fiscal functions funded through City-approved budgets and fee structures. The Board’s activities implicate public expenditure oversight, administrative enforcement authority, and policy implementation affecting tenants, landlords, and housing stability. The Board has acknowledged fiduciary responsibilities to Richmond taxpayers in its official governance framework. IT is EGREGIOUSLY NEGLIGENT because it NEVER presented to the public in order to allow questions by concerned residents and council! Instead all reports are submitted to consent calendar without disclosure or discussion! California Government Code § 54954.3 guarantees public rights to address legislative bodies on matters within their jurisdiction. This includes the right to question expenditures, performance, and public program outcomes in open session, reinforcing the necessity of in-person presentations and public questioning rather than closed or purely written reporting structures.

City departments, Richmond Rent Board, Office of Neighborhood Safety, independent consultants, contractors, nonprofit organizations, and publicly funded entities are required to provide scheduled in-person presentations before Richmond City Council!

->> Residents demand enforcement as a condition of continued funding eligibility and authorization, consistent with California open government and public accountability law.

Failure to enforce such standards increases legal exposure related to transparency violations, fiduciary breaches, sanitation enforcement failures, and misuse or ineffective stewardship of taxpayer resources.
->> Written reports, remote appearances, consent-calendar approvals, or self-certifying performance narratives are insufficient substitutes for direct public accountability where public funds are involved. Public agencies and funded entities are not permitted to self- report success while simultaneously seeking continued or expanded appropriations without independent public scrutiny.

Meaningful oversight requires compliance with Brown Act open meeting standards, allowing residents to directly question expenditures, contracts, sanitation response, environmental mitigation efforts, program performance, and measurable outcomes before funding decisions are made. Continued funding should be conditioned on documented deliverables, measurable performance benchmarks, compliance with sanitation and environmental obligations, and verifiable expenditure reporting.

Lastly Reimagine Richmond held a raffle with generous cash prizes at the 1 of May celebration this Sunday! The “CEO” Melendez oversaw unsecured gathering of personal information and enticed
under-informed festival goers to take part in order to “win a prize” presumably coming out of their budget!
Attached are:

1. Condoms and wrappers frequently found on 26t right next to child daycare center on Gaynor

2. Green space right side auditorium overgrown dragon spine seeds extremely dangerous to animals

3. Neglected green space in front of city hall

4. Unhoused lady routinely dumping shopping cart with trash, recently tried to abandon young Frenchie on 24th/ Gaynor

5. Reimagine Richmond booth at the DeMayo celebration 23rd/Gaynor

From: Claudia Citroen
To: City Clerk Dept User; Shannon Moore; Shasa Curl; Shasa Curl; LaShonda White; Irene Lozano; Lina Velasco; Cesar Zepeda; Jamelia Brown; Eduardo Martinez
Subject: Open forum public comment council meeting 05.05.26 Date: Monday, May 4, 2026 6:48:56 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

BUDGET HEARING PUBLIC COMMENT / FORMAL OBJECTION: Richmond City Council Budget Deliberations
To the Richmond City Council, City Manager, Budget Office, and all relevant departments.

Submitted as formal public objection for the record during budget deliberations under applicable City, State, and Federal law. This statement constitutes a formal objection during the City’s budget hearing process based on deficiencies in transparency, fiscal oversight, enforcement consistency, and compliance with governing law, including the Richmond City Charter, California Government Code (including §§ 54950 et seq. (Brown Act), §§ 38771–38773 (public nuisance abatement authority)), California Civil Code § 3479 (public nuisance), California Health and Safety Code sanitation provisions, and federal Clean Water Act stormwater requirements (NPDES framework

1. Legal Duty for Uniform Oversight and Open Government Compliance Under the Richmond City Charter and the Brown Act (Gov. Code § 54950 et seq.), all legislative bodies, commissions, boards, and publicly funded programs must conduct business in a manner that ensures meaningful public participation, transparency in decision-making, and accountability in the expenditure of public funds. California Government Code § 54954.3 guarantees public rights to comment on agenda items and question agency actions in open session. These provisions require more than written reporting—they require accessible, public-facing accountability in decision-making processes affecting expenditures, performance, and public services.

2. Encampments, Dumping, and Public Nuisance Enforcement Obligations Unmanaged encampments involving accumulation of trash, hazardous waste, needles, human waste, abandoned property, and environmental contamination constitute a public nuisance under California Civil Code § 3479 and trigger municipal abatement duties under Government Code §§ 38771–38773. Failure to enforce nuisance abatement standards consistently exposes the City to legal risk for arbitrary enforcement, unequal application of municipal authority, and breach of fiduciary duty to residents.

California Health and Safety Code sanitation requirements governing public health hazards California Regional Water Quality Control Board stormwater permitting requirements (NPDES under the federal Clean Water Act)
Municipal liability exposure for dangerous conditions on public property

3. Failure of Uniform Accountability Across All Funded Entities The City continues to appropriate public funds to departments, commissions, boards, contractors, consultants, nonprofit organizations, and quasi-independent entities without requiring uniform in- person public reporting before the City Council. Brown Act requirements (Gov. Code § 54950 et seq.) require open meeting deliberation and meaningful public participation in decisions involving public expenditures. Reliance on written reports, consent-calendar approvals, or remote updates does not satisfy the statutory intent of open government law when substantial public funds and policy impacts are involved. Comparable enforcement expectations across California require auditable, performance-based reporting for publicly funded programs involving health, safety, housing, and violence prevention.

4. Richmond Rent Board Accountability and Statutory Oversight The Richmond Rent Board operates under Richmond’s rent control and tenant protection ordinances and exercises regulatory, administrative, enforcement, and fiscal authority funded through City-approved budgets and fee-based revenues. Fails to inform on:

Enforcement actions under local rent control ordinances Administrative hearings and adjudications
Policy implementation affecting housing stability
Fee administration and use of public funds
Oversight affecting tenants, landlords, and housing regulation As a public body subject to the Brown Act (Gov. Code § 54950 et seq.), the Rent Board is required to ensure transparency and public participation, including compliance with Gov. Code § 54954.3.Despite this, the Rent Board has not consistently been required to provide structured, recurring in-person budget and performance presentations before the City Council addressing:

Expenditures and budget justification
Enforcement activity and outcomes
Administrative performance metrics
Contracting and use of public funds

5. Office of Neighborhood Safety (ONS) Reporting and Accountability Gap The Office of Neighborhood Safety (ONS), as a City-funded violence prevention and intervention program, operates using public funds intended to reduce community violence and produce measurable public safety outcomes.Under Brown Act principles (Gov. Code § 54950 et seq.), programs funded by taxpayers must remain subject to transparent, publicly accessible evaluation.

However, ONS has not at all been held to structured in-person Council reporting requirements addressing:

Program expenditures and budget allocations
Outcome-based performance metrics
Contracting and staffing funded through public resources Verifiable public safety impact data and deliverables

6. Legal Standards Requiring Consistent Transparency and Enforcement Failure to enforce these obligations uniformly raises exposure to claims of arbitrary governance, inconsistent municipal authority, and inadequate public health protection. California law requires consistent application of public health, safety, and nuisance enforcement obligations:

Government Code §§ 38771–38773 authorize and require abatement of public nuisances affecting health and safety
Civil Code § 3479 defines public nuisance as conditions injurious to health or obstructing the free use of property
California Health and Safety Code imposes sanitation obligations on local agencies Clean Water Act (NPDES framework) requires prevention of pollutant discharge into waterways

7. Required Corrective Standard for ALL Budget Approval and Continued Funding Failure to impose uniform oversight standards across all publicly funded entities undermines statutory transparency requirements, weakens fiscal accountability, and increases legal exposure related to public funds stewardship, environmental compliance, and municipal governance obligations. As a condition of continued budget appropriations and public funding authorization, all City departments, commissions, boards, contractors, consultants, nonprofit organizations, and publicly funded programs—including the Richmond Rent Board and the Office of Neighborhood Safety (ONS)—must comply with a uniform accountability standard consistent with:

Richmond City Charter transparency obligations
Brown Act (Gov. Code § 54950 et seq.) open meeting requirements Gov. Code § 54954.3 public participation rights
Gov. Code §§ 38771–38773 nuisance abatement authority
Civil Code § 3479 public nuisance law
Health and Safety Code sanitation requirements
Clean Water Act (NPDES) stormwater compliance obligations This standard requires:

Scheduled in-person public presentations before the City Council Full expenditure disclosure and budget justification
Measurable performance outcomes and deliverables
Environmental and sanitation compliance reporting
Public questioning in noticed Brown Act meetings
Auditable documentation of program effectiveness

From: Juliet J
To: City Clerk Dept User
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENTS - OPEN FORUM
Date: Tuesday, May 5, 2026 12:28:18 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Greetings -
I have a comment for the board regarding the City of Richmond's transit center:
"I have a comment for the board regarding the current long range facility plan for the Richmond Transit Center landscaping

and

bioswale upkeep. It is in a current state of needing
scheduled maintenance

for the upkeep of the design and engineering landscaping in place.

There is also a serious rodent infestation in place that

could be seen as a danger to the public.

Will this be work the city will be soliciting for in the upcoming months? " Thank you,
Juliet Jacobsen
Golden Bay Engineering

From: TRAC
To: Eduardo Martinez; Jamelia Brown; Sue Wilson; Soheila Bana; Cesar Zepeda; Doria Robinson; Claudia Jimenez; City Clerk Dept User
Cc: Lina Velasco; Avery Stark; Jonathan Harrison; Bruce Brubaker; Gay Timmons; Alexander Golovets Subject: Public Comments - Agenda Item P.1: Marina Point Residential Project Appeals Date: Sunday, May 3, 2026 1:24:16 PM
Attachments: Attachment 4 – Applicant Appeal (March 12, 2026).pdf MarinaPointL2Anno 060923.pdf
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Mayor Martinez and City Councilors,
During the Agenda Item P.1 public hearing Tuesday night, TRAC will be using its allotted eight minutes to advocate for adoption of the following requested new condition to resolve our appeal of the Marina Point Residential Project:
“
The applicant shall obtain from the Bay Conservation and Development Commission a permit to install and maintain landscaping and public access facilities in the space between the San Francisco Bay Trail and the project’s wall fronting the Bay, and shall open this space for public use and enjoyment prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for any residence.”
This email deals with the attached appeal by applicant Guardian Capital of Carlsbad, CA ….. specifically its attempt to avoid compliance with provisions the City’s Shoreline Overlay District ordinance applying to a 100-foot zone inland from the mean high tide line. This is another element of their attempt to circumvent the need for obtaining a permit from BCDC by refusing to install landscaping and public access facilities in the 50’ - 60’ wide area between the San Francisco Bay Trail and the project’s wall.

The appeal asserts that “… Guardian is willing to make
commercially
reasonably (sic) efforts to work with the City and BCDC to provide for reasonably (sic) landscaping and other improvements in the 100’ shoreline area, subject to fee credits against the City’s parks and open space impact fees.” (emphasis added). This is a hollow promise when contrasted with the proposed Condition 65 of the proposed CC resolution stating:
“The Project sponsor shall have no obligation to seek, obtain, or participate in seeking or obtaining any required approvals from any third-party agencies.” Please do
NOT comply with Guardian Capital’s request to eliminate the following Conditions 49 & 51 adopted by the Planning Commission:
“49. Shoreline Overlay Use Permit Required. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, building permit, site development permit, or improvement plans, the applicant shall obtain a Use Permit pursuant to Article 15.04.806 demonstrating full compliance with the Shoreline Overlay (-S) standards in RMC § 15.04.306. The Use Permit shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission.” "51. Shoreline Access, Public Access Easements, and Trail Connectivity. The project shall comply with all applicable public access requirements of the Shoreline Overlay and any Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) public-access requirements.

This includes:
e. Providing public pedestrian access along or to the shoreline, if required; f. Maintaining unobstructed connections to the Bay Trail; g. Recording any required shoreline public access easement; h. Installing signage, paving, lighting, and street
furniture consistent
with shoreline public access design standards.”
The project application deemed complete on June 12, 2023 included landscaping, a plaza gathering area, art/interpretive hub, a wide stairway for residents of the new houses to reach the shoreline and more between the Bay Trail and the first row of houses as shown on the attached annotated plan drawing L2. Therefore landscaping and other public access amenities between the Bay Trail and the houses may be, in fact must be, part of the approved project under the Permit Streamlining and Housing Accountability Acts.

Please add Planning Commission Conditions 49 & 51 to the proposed City Council resolution.

Bruce
___________________
Bruce Beyaert, TRAC
Chair
[email protected]
Mobile 510-789-3078
http://www.pointrichmond.com/baytrail/
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/109/TRAC

From: Han-Yu Loo
To: City Clerk Dept User; Jamelia Brown; Sue Wilson; Soheila Bana; Cesar Zepeda; Doria Robinson; Claudia Jimenez; Eduardo Martinez
Cc: Avery Stark; Lina Velasco; [email protected]
Subject: Public Comments - Agenda Item P.1: Marina Point Residential Project Appeal Date: Friday, May 1, 2026 8:50:00 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Council Members, Planning Commission Members and Mayor , As a longtime resident of Marina Bay who regularly walks on the SF Bay trail, I would like to voice my support for the points already presented and will be updated and reiterated at the next council meeting by TRAC.

The proposed Shoreline Conditions 64 - 67 aren’t fair for the City or current and future residents.

I am for the following:
“The applicant shall obtain from the Bay Conservation and Development Commission a permit to install and maintain landscaping and public access facilities in the space between the San Francisco Bay Trail and the project’s wall fronting the Bay, and shall open this space for public use and enjoyment prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for any residence.”
As stated by TRAC:
“The alternative conditions staff negotiated with the developer would unreasonably burden the City with the costs of obtaining a BCDC permit for these public access facilities and delay their opening for public use and enjoyment until the last (70th) certificate of occupancy or later.

Requiring attractive landscaping and public access amenities along the shoreline has been a consistent expectation of waterfront development in Richmond ever since Marina Bay was built in the 1980s and should be continued today. Ensuring that the Marina Point project meets this same standard will uphold the City’s shoreline policies and continue Richmond’s proud tradition of providing public access to San Francisco Bay.” Thank you for your consideration and time,
Han-Yu Loo
Promontory, Marina Bay, Richmond, CA

From: Harriman, Kathleen@CDPH
To: City Clerk Dept User; Jamelia Brown; Sue Wilson; Soheila Bana; Cesar Zepeda; Doria Robinson; Claudia Jimenez; Eduardo Martinez
Cc: Avery Stark; Lina Velasco; [email protected]
Subject: Public Comments - Agenda Item P.1: Marina Point Residential Project Appeal Date: Friday, May 1, 2026 8:26:10 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Dear Mayor Martinez and City Council Members,
I’m sorry the Marina Point residential project is going forward, but since it is, I urge you to adopt the requested new condition stating:
“The applicant shall obtain from the Bay Conservation and Development Commission a permit to install and maintain landscaping and public access facilities in the space between the San Francisco Bay Trail and the project’s wall fronting the Bay, and shall open this space for public use and enjoyment prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for any residence.” The alternative conditions staff negotiated with the developer would unreasonably burden the City with the costs of obtaining a BCDC permit for these public access facilities and delay their opening for public use and enjoyment until the last (70th) certificate of occupancy or later.

Ensuring that the Marina Point project meets this same standard will uphold the City’s shoreline policies and continue Richmond’s proud tradition of providing public access to San Francisco Bay.

Sincerely,
Kathleen Harriman

167 Marina Lakes Drive

Richmond CA 94804
From: Claudia Citroen
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Q.1 Budget session public comment council meeting 05.05.26 Date: Monday, May 4, 2026 8:11:28 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Please publish in Q.1 public comment and include date and all recipients Date: May 4, 2026 at 6:47:58 PM PDT
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>, Shannon Moore <[email protected]>, Shasa Curl
<[email protected]>, Shasa Curl <[email protected]>, LaShonda White <[email protected]>,
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Open forum public comment council meeting 05.05.26 BUDGET HEARING PUBLIC COMMENT / FORMAL OBJECTION: Richmond City Council Budget Deliberations
To the Richmond City Council, City Manager, Budget Office, and all relevant departments. Submitted as formal public objection for the record during budget deliberations under applicable City, State, and Federal law. This statement constitutes a formal objection during the City’s budget hearing process based on deficiencies in transparency, fiscal oversight, enforcement consistency, and compliance with governing law, including the Richmond City Charter, California Government Code (including §§ 54950 et seq. (Brown Act), §§ 38771–38773 (public nuisance abatement authority)), California Civil Code § 3479 (public nuisance), California Health and Safety Code sanitation provisions, and federal Clean Water Act stormwater requirements (NPDES framework

1. Legal Duty for Uniform Oversight and Open Government Compliance Under the Richmond City Charter and the Brown Act (Gov. Code § 54950 et seq.), all legislative bodies, commissions, boards, and publicly funded programs must conduct business in a manner that ensures meaningful public participation, transparency in decision-making, and accountability in the expenditure of public funds. California Government Code § 54954.3 guarantees public rights to comment on agenda items and question agency actions in open session. These provisions require more than written reporting—they require accessible, public-facing accountability in decision- making processes affecting expenditures, performance, and public services.

California Health and Safety Code sanitation requirements governing public health hazards
California Regional Water Quality Control Board stormwater permitting requirements (NPDES under the federal Clean Water Act)
Municipal liability exposure for dangerous conditions on public property

3. Failure of Uniform Accountability Across All Funded Entities The City continues to appropriate public funds to departments, commissions, boards, contractors, consultants, nonprofit organizations, and quasi-independent entities without requiring uniform in-person public reporting before the City Council. Brown Act requirements (Gov. Code § 54950 et seq.) require open meeting deliberation and meaningful public participation in decisions involving public expenditures. Reliance on written reports, consent-calendar approvals, or remote updates does not satisfy the statutory intent of open government law when substantial public funds and policy impacts are involved. Comparable enforcement expectations across California require auditable, performance-based reporting for publicly funded programs involving health, safety, housing, and violence prevention.

Expenditures and budget justification
Enforcement activity and outcomes
Administrative performance metrics
Contracting and use of public funds

Program expenditures and budget allocations
Outcome-based performance metrics
Contracting and staffing funded through public resources Verifiable public safety impact data and deliverables

Government Code §§ 38771–38773 authorize and require abatement of public nuisances affecting health and safety
Civil Code § 3479 defines public nuisance as conditions injurious to health or obstructing the free use of property
California Health and Safety Code imposes sanitation obligations on local agencies
Clean Water Act (NPDES framework) requires prevention of pollutant discharge into waterways

7. Required Corrective Standard for ALL Budget Approval and Continued Funding
Failure to impose uniform oversight standards across all publicly funded entities undermines statutory transparency requirements, weakens fiscal accountability, and increases legal exposure related to public funds stewardship, environmental compliance, and municipal governance obligations. As a condition of continued budget appropriations and public funding authorization, all City departments, commissions, boards, contractors, consultants, nonprofit organizations, and publicly funded programs—including the Richmond Rent Board and the Office of Neighborhood Safety (ONS)—must comply with a uniform accountability standard consistent with:

From: Dick Offerman
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comment on Agenda Item Q.1
Date: Tuesday, May 5, 2026 8:10:45 AM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
2222 Heritage Hills Dr
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
May 5, 2026

City of Richmond City Council
Public Comment on Agenda Item Q.1 - Opposition to Proposed CO2 Waste Dumping Projects & CO2 Pipelines in Richmond, Contra Costa, and Solano Counties Hello,
My Name is Dick Offerman and I live in Pleasant Hill, downwind of the proposed Montezuma CO2 Injection sites.

I strongly urge this Council to take the brave strong leadership role and pass this resolution opposing carbon dioxide waste dumping projects and carbon dioxide (CO2) pipelines.

Please help protect the vulnerable of thousands of unsuspecting residents along the pipeline’s dangerous underwater path.

Is CO2 injection a safe method? Will there be long lasting effects to our Delta marshlands? How will we all breath if our air becomes saturated in CO2 due to a pipeline rupture? I worked as an engineer for a local company called Pipeline Systems Inc and yes, pipelines do leak and they do fail.

Does the proposed project include a proven and already tested “Leak Detection System”? Leak detection
is a must and it’s engineering must be first explained in fine detail. This is a long pipeline and it should have leak detection active along it’s complete course. Leak detection can make the difference between life and a very painful death.

I am not joking. CO2 is serious shit. We need your help to put a stop to this hazardous risk. We don’t want Chevron’s leftover CO2 dumped into any of our highly urban Bay Area Counties.

I appreciate your work on this issue and I sincerely ask that you pass this resolution.

Thank you,
Dick Offerman
From: Jeannette Kortz
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comment on Agenda Item Q.1, City Council Meeting, May 5, 2026 Date: Sunday, May 3, 2026 12:42:11 AM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Dear City Clerk,
I support the resolution opposing the Montezuma CO2 project for the following reasons (see below). I urge the City Council to vote yes on this resolution.

Thank you for your time.

Kind regards,
Jeannette Kortz
Richmond
● Montezuma’s carbon waste dumping proposal in the Bay Area would be used to justify prolonging the lifespan of refineries, like the Chevron Refinery, putting our communities at risk of continued and increased pollution and pipeline leaks.
● Richmond must say NO to the Montezuma Carbon Hub project and all other similar carbon dumping projects.
● We should not let new dangerous pipelines be built right next to communities. A leak would be disastrous, even potentially deadly, for Richmond residents. ● Instead of giving facilities, like the Richmond Chevron Refinery, an excuse to extend polluting operations, there should be investment in a community-driven, managed transition away from fossil fuels.
● A carbon dumping project like this would result in an increase in Chevron Refinery pollutants being emitted into the community because carbon capture technology is so energy intensive, facilities must burn more fuel in order to operate the technology. Increased facility pollutants are emitted into the atmosphere, further burdening nearby communities.

I support the resolution opposing the Montezuma Carbon Hub and any other similar carbon dumping projects in Richmond.

--
Jeannette Kortz
From: Maureen Brennan
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public comment agenda item #Q.1
Date: Tuesday, May 5, 2026 4:26:09 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

I would like to support the proposal, to “oppose” construction of a CO2 pipeline on the 45 mile stretch
along the Carquinez Strait. I live in Rodeo and face the same dangerous scenario as that of Richmond.

This technology is not scientifically proven. It is extraordinarily expensive. And the CO2 collection results at other global locations, fall way below the

predicted outcomes. The technology is not working. There are no plans for secondary containment at present, even near Sensitive Receptor sites. There are no plans for CO2 detection monitoring. Regulations should establish that no CO2 pipeline project can be approved if there is any credible scenario where pipeline failure could result in fatalities or serious injury among the public, workers, or our precious wetlands. Well, sinking a pipeline in the Straits leaves it vulnerable to anchor drag of the many ships that use this busy and narrow thoroughfare. The refinery industry is even concerned at the runaway costs to them, of technologies to connect their facility to the pipeline. I oppose construction of this CO2 pipeline boondoggle. Thanks Maureen Brennan
Rodeo citizen
/0 /1 /2 /3 /4 /5 /6/7/8
/9 /10 /11 /12 /13 /14 /15 /15 /15/16
/i255
/i255
/18 /19/18 /19 /20 /21 /20 /22 /i255 /24 /25 /24 /21 /i255 /26/27/28 /29 /29 /30 /31 /32 /i255 /33 /34 /i255 /26 /32 /31 /35 /35 /36 /35 /37 /38 /33/39/39/36/40 /40 /36 /33 /35
/38 /33 /35 /41 /36 /42 /36 /33 /35 /31 /32
/28 /29 /29 /43 /33 /44 /31 /32 /i255 /33 /34 /i255/27/31/43 /36 /35 /31 /26 /33 /36 /35 /42 /i255 /45 /30 /40 /36 /41 /30 /35 /42 /36 /31 /32 /26 /43 /33 /46 /30 /47 /42
/48 /31/39/30/40 /i255 /49 /50 /i255 /49 /33 /51 /47 /52/53/39 /31/42 /36 /40 /40 /30 /54 /21 /54/55/37/39/31/36 /32 /50 /47 /33 /39
/56 /33 /25 /i255 /56 /52 /30 /i255 /38 /36 /42 /57 /i255 /33 /34 /45 /36 /47 /52/39/33/35 /41 /58 /i255 /38 /36 /42 /57
/38 /33 /51 /35 /47 /36 /32 /i255 /49 /43 /33/39/25/i255 /48 /31/39/30/40 /49 /50 /i255 /49 /33 /51 /47 /52 /53 /i255 /28 /40 /i255 /31 /27/31/43 /36 /35 /31 /i255 /59 /31 /57
/52 /33/39/30/33/60/35/30 /43 /i255 /31 /35 /41
/43 /30 /40 /36 /41 /30 /35 /42 /i255 /61 /i255 /31/39/i255/51 /43 /37 /36 /35 /37 /42 /52 /30 /i255 /38 /36 /42 /57 /i255 /38 /33 /51 /35 /47 /36 /32 /i255 /42 /33 /47 /33/39/29/32 /57 /i255/60/36/42 /52 /i255 /56 /43 /31 /36 /32 /40 /34 /33 /43 /i255 /45 /36 /47 /52/39/33/35 /41 /i255 /28 /47 /42 /36 /33 /35 /38 /33/39/39/36/42 /42 /30 /30 /i255 /62 /56 /45 /28 /38 /63 /40 /64 /43 /30 /65 /51 /30 /40 /42 /50 /i255 /66 /29 /30 /47 /36 /67 /47 /31 /32 /32 /57 /50 /68 /i255 /56 /52 /30 /i255 /31 /29 /29 /32 /36 /47 /31 /35 /42 /i255 /40 /52 /31 /32 /32 /33 /69 /42 /31 /36 /35 /i255 /34 /43 /33/39/i255/42 /52 /30 /i255 /59 /31 /57 /38 /33 /35 /40 /30 /43 /44 /31 /42 /36 /33 /35 /i255 /31 /35 /41 /70 /30 /44 /30 /32 /33 /29/39/30/35 /42
/38 /33/39/39/36/40 /40 /36 /33 /35 /i255 /31
/29 /30 /43/39/36/42 /i255 /42 /33 /i255 /36 /35 /40 /42 /31 /32 /32 /i255 /31 /35 /41 /39/31/36 /35 /42 /31 /36 /35
/32 /31 /35 /41 /40 /47 /31 /29 /36 /35 /37 /i255 /31 /35 /41 /29 /51 /69 /32 /36 /47 /i255 /31 /47 /47 /30 /40 /40
/34 /31 /47 /36 /32 /36 /42 /36 /30 /40 /i255 /36 /35 /i255 /42 /52 /30 /40 /29 /31 /47 /30 /i255 /69 /30 /42/60/30/30 /35 /i255 /42 /52 /30 /66 /31 /35 /i255 /49 /43 /31 /35 /47 /36 /40 /47 /33 /i255 /59 /31 /57 /56 /43 /31 /36 /32 /i255 /31 /35 /41 /i255 /42 /52 /30 /29 /43 /33/46 /30 /47 /42 /71 /40 /i255/60/31/32 /32
/34 /43 /33 /35 /42 /36 /35 /37 /i255 /42 /52 /30 /i255 /59 /31 /57 /58 /31 /35 /41 /i255 /40 /52 /31 /32 /32 /i255 /33 /29 /30 /35 /i255 /42 /52 /36 /40 /40 /29 /31 /47 /30 /i255 /34 /33 /43 /i255 /29 /51 /69 /32 /36 /47 /i255 /51 /40 /30 /31 /35 /41 /i255 /30 /35 /46 /33 /57/39/30/35 /42
/29 /43 /36 /33 /43 /i255 /42 /33 /i255 /36 /40 /40 /51 /31 /35 /47 /30 /i255 /33 /34 /42 /52 /30 /i255 /67 /43 /40 /42 /i255 /47 /30 /43 /42 /36 /67 /47 /31 /42 /30 /33 /34 /i255 /33 /47 /47 /51 /29 /31 /35 /47 /57 /i255 /34 /33 /43 /31 /35 /57 /i255 /43 /30 /40 /36 /41 /30 /35 /47 /30 /50 /72 /i255 /61 /47 /33 /35 /40 /36 /41 /30 /43 /i255 /42 /52 /36 /40 /i255 /42 /33 /i255 /69 /30 /i255 /31 /39/33/40 /42 /i255 /36/39/29/33 /43 /42 /31 /35 /42
/43 /30 /65 /51 /36 /43 /30/39/30/35 /42 /i255 /34 /33 /43 /i255 /38 /36 /42 /57 /31 /29 /29 /43 /33 /44 /31 /32 /50 /i255 /56 /52 /31 /35 /73 /i255 /57 /33 /51 /28 /37 /31 /36 /35 /40/42/28 /29 /29 /43 /33 /44 /30/41/74

Richmond City CouncilMay 5, 2026

Richmond City Council
May 5, 2026