Richmond City Council
July 28, 2026

Certification A: Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters - Primary Covered Transactions

1. The prospective primary participant certifies to the best of its knowledge and belief that its principals; a. Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions by any Federal debarment or agency;
b. Have not within a three-year period preceding this proposal, been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (Federal, State, or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; violation of Federal or State antitrust statutes or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification, or destruction of records, making false statements, or receiving stolen property;
c. Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity (Federal, State, or local) with commission of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph (1)(b) of this certification; and
d. Have not within a three-year period preceding this application/ proposal had one or more public transactions (Federal, State, or local) terminated for cause or default.

2. Where the prospective primary participant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, such prospective participant shall attach an explanation to this proposal.

Instructions for Certification (A)

1. By signing and submitting this proposal, the prospective primary participant is providing the certification set out below.

2. The inability of a person to provide the certification required below will not necessarily result in denial of participation in this covered transaction. The prospective participant shall submit an explanation of why it cannot provide the certification set out below. The certification or explanation will be considered in connection with the department or agency’s determination whether to enter into this transaction. However, failure of the prospective primary participant to furnish a certification or an explanation shall disqualify such person from participation in this transaction.

3. The certification in this clause is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was place when the department or agency determined to enter into this transaction. If it is later determined that the prospective primary participant knowingly rendered an erroneous certification, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government, the department or agency may terminate this transaction for cause of default.

4. The prospective primary participant shall provide immediate written notice to the department or agency to whom this proposal is submitted if at any time the prospective primary participant learns that its certification was erroneous when submitted or has become erroneous by reason of changed circumstances.

5. The terms covered transaction, debarred, suspended, ineligible, lower tier covered transaction, participant, person, primary covered transaction, principal, proposal, and voluntarily excluded, as used in this clause, have the meanings set out in the Definitions and Coverage sections of the rules implementing Executive Order 12549.

You may contact the department or agency to which this proposal is being submitted for assistance in obtaining a copy of these regulations.

6. The prospective primary participant agrees by submitting this proposal that, should the proposed covered transaction be entered into, it shall not knowingly enter into any lower tier covered transaction with a person who is debarred, suspended, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this covered transaction, unless authorized by the department or agency entering into this transaction.

7. The prospective primary participant further agrees by submitting this proposal that it will include the clause titled “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion - Lower Tier Covered Transaction,” provided by the department or agency entering into this covered transaction, without modification, in all lower tier covered transactions and in all solicitations for lower tier covered transactions.

8. A participant in a covered transaction may rely upon a certification of a prospective participant in a lower tier covered transaction that it is not debarred, suspended, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from the covered transaction, unless it knows that the certification is erroneous.

A participant may decide the method and frequency by which it determines this eligibility of its principals. Each participant may, but is not required to, check the Nonprocurement List.

9. Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to require establishment of a system of records in order to render in good faith the certification required by this clause. The knowledge and information of a participant is not required to exceed that which is normally possessed by a prudent person in the ordinary course of business dealings.

10. Except for transactions authorized under paragraph (6) of these instructions, if a participant in a covered transaction knowingly enters into a lower tier covered transaction with a person who is suspended, debarred, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government, the department or agency may terminate this transaction for cause of default.

Certification Regarding
Debarment and Suspension
U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development
557

Certification B: Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion - Lower Tier Covered Transactions

1. The prospective lower tier participant certifies, by submission of this proposal, that neither it nor its principals is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction by any Federal department or agency.

2. Where the prospective lower tier participant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, such prospective participant shall attach an explanation to this proposal.

Instructions for Certification (B)

1. By signing and submitting this proposal, the prospective lower tier participant is providing the certification set out below.

2. The certification in this clause is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was entered into.

If it is later determined that the prospective lower tier participant knowingly rendered an erroneous certification, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government, the department or agency with which this transaction originated may pursue available remedies, including suspension and/or debarment.

3. The prospective lower tier participant shall provide immediate written notice to the person to which this proposal is submitted if at any time the prospective lower tier participant learns that its certification was erroneous when submitted or has become erroneous by reason of changed circumstances.

4. The terms covered transaction, debarred, suspended, ineligible, lower tier covered transaction, participant, person, primary covered transaction, principal, proposal, and voluntarily excluded, as used in this clause, have the meanings set out in the Definitions and Coverage sections of rules implementing Executive Order 12549. You may contact the person to which this proposal is submitted for assistance in obtaining a copy of these regulations.

5. The prospective lower tier participant agrees by submitting this proposal that, should the proposed covered transaction be entered into, it shall not knowingly enter into any lower tier covered transaction with a person who is debarred, suspended, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this covered transaction, unless authorized by the department or agency with which this transaction originated.

6. The prospective lower tier participant further agrees by submitting this proposal that it will include this clause titled “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion - Lower Tier Covered Transaction,” without modification, in all lower tier covered transactions and in all solicitations for lower tier covered transactions.

7. A participant in a covered transaction may rely upon a certification of a prospective participant in a lower tier covered transaction that it is not debarred, suspended, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from the covered transaction, unless it knows that the certification is erroneous.

A participant may decide the method and frequency by which it determines the eligibility of its principals. Each participant may, but is not required to, check the Nonprocurement List.

8. Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to require establishment of a system of records in order to render in good faith the certification required by this clause. The knowledge and information of a participant is not required to exceed that which is normally possessed by a prudent person in the ordinary course of business dealings.

9. Except for transactions authorized under paragraph (5) of these instructions, if a participant in a lower covered transaction knowingly enters into a lower tier covered transaction with a person who is suspended, debarred, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government, the department or agency with which this transaction originated may pursue available remedies including suspension and/or debarment.

Applicant Date
Signature of Authorized Certifying Official Title
558
form HUD-92010 (3/2006)
VA form 26-421
U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development
Office of Housing OMB Control No. 2502-0029
Federal Housing Commissioner (exp. 9/30/2016)
Equal Employment
Opportunity Certification
Excerpt From 41 CFR §60-1.4(b)
The applicant hereby agrees that it will incorporate or cause to be incorporated into any contract for construction work, or modification thereof, as defined in the regulations of the Secretary of Labor at 41 CFR Chapter 60, which is paid for in whole or in part with funds obtained from the Federal Government or borrowed on the credit of the Federal Government pursuant to a grant, contract, loan insurance, or guarantee, or undertaken pursuant to any Federal program involving such grant, contract, loan, insurance, or guarantee, the following equal opportunity clause:

During the performance of this contract, the contractor agrees as follows:
(1) The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, such action shall include, but not be limited to the following: Employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause.
(2) The contractor will, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of the contractor, state that all qualified applicants will receive considerations for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
(3) The contractor will send to each labor union or representative of workers with which it has a collective bargaining agreement or other contract or understanding, a notice to be provided advising the said labor union or workers' representatives of the contractor's commitments under this section, and shall post copies of the notice in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment.
(4) The contractor will comply with all provisions of Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, and of the rules, regulations and relevant orders of the Secretary of Labor. (5) The contractor will furnish all information and reports required by Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, and by rules, regulations, and orders of the Secretary of Labor, or pursuant thereto, and will permit access to its books, records, and accounts by the administering agency and the Secretary of Labor for purposes of investigation to ascertain compliance with such rules, regulations, and orders. (6) In the event of the contractor's noncompliance with the nondiscrimination clauses of this contract or with any of the said rules, regulations, or orders, this contract may be canceled, terminated, or suspended in whole or in part and the contractor may be declared ineligible for further Government contracts or federally assisted construction contracts in accordance with procedures authorized in Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, and such other sanctions may be imposed and remedies invoked as provided in Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, or by rule, regulation, or order of the Secretary of Labor, or as otherwise provided by law. (7) The contractor will include the portion of the sentence immediately preceding paragraph (1) and the provisions of paragraphs (1) through (7) in every subcontract or purchase order unless exempted by rules, regulations, or orders of the Secretary of Labor issued pursuant to section 204 of Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, so that such provisions will be binding upon each subcontractor or vendor. The
contractor will take such action with respect to any subcontract or purchase order as the administering agency may direct as a means of enforcing such provisions, including sanctions for noncompliance: Provided, however, That in the event a contractor becomes involved in, or is threatened with, litigation with a subcontractor or vendor as a result of such direction by the administering agency the contractor may request the United States to enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the United States.

The applicant further agrees that it will be bound by the above equal opportunity clause with respect to its own employment practices when it participates in federally assisted construction work:

Provided, That if the applicant so participating is a State or local government, the above equal opportunity clause is not applicable to any agency, instrumentality or subdivision of such government which does not participate in work on or under the contract.

The applicant agrees that it will assist and cooperate actively with the administering agency and the Secretary of Labor in obtaining the compliance of contractors and subcontractors with the equal opportunity clause and the rules, regulations, and relevant orders of the Secretary of Labor, that it will furnish the administering agency and the Secretary of Labor such information as they may require for the supervision of such compliance, and that it will otherwise assist the administering agency in the discharge of the agency's primary responsibility for securing compliance.

The applicant further agrees that it will refrain from entering into any contract or contract modification subject to Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, with a contractor debarred from, or who has not demonstrated eligibility for, Government contracts and Federally-assisted construction contracts pursuant to the Executive order and will carry out such sanctions and penalties for violation of the equal opportunity clause as may be imposed Firm Name and Address By
Title
Department of Veterans Affairs
559
form HUD-92010 (3/06)
VA form 26-421
upon contractors and subcontractors by the administering agency or the Secretary of Labor pursuant to Part II, Subpart D of the Executive order. In addition, the applicant agrees that if it fails or refuses to comply with these undertakings, the administering agency may take any or all of the following actions: Cancel, terminate, or suspend in whole or in part this grant (contract, loan, insurance, guarantee); refrain from extending any further assistance to the applicant under the program with respect to which the failure or refund occurred until satisfactory assurance of future compliance has been received from such applicant; and refer the case to the Department of Justice for appropriate legal proceedings.

Excerpt from HUD Regulations
200.410Definition of term “applicant”.
(a) In multifamily housing transactions where controls over the mortgagor are exercised by the Commissioner either through the ownership of corporate stock or under the provisions of a regulatory agreement, the term “applicant” as used in this subpart shall mean the mortgagor.
(b) In transactions other than those specified in paragraph(a) of this section, the term “applicant” as used in this subpart shall mean the builder, dealer or contractor performing the construction, repair or rehabilitation work for the mortgagor or other borrower.
200.420Equal Opportunity Clause to be included in contracts and subcontracts.
(a) The following equal opportunity clause shall be included in each contract and subcontract which is not exempt:

During the performance of this contract, the contractor agrees as follows:
(1) The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensured that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided setting forth the provisions of the nondiscrimination clause.
(2)The contractor will in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of the contractor, state that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard race, creed, color, or national origin.
(3) The contractor will send to each labor union or representative of workers with which he has a collective bargaining agreement or other contract or understanding, a notice, to be provided, advising the said labor union or workers’ representative of the contractor’s commitments under this section, and shall post copies of the notices in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment.
(4) The contractor will comply with all provisions of Executive Order 10925 of March 6 1961, as amended, and of the regulations, and relevant orders of the President’s Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity created thereby. (5) The contractor will furnish all information and reports required by Executive Order 10925 of March 6, 1961, as
amended, and by the regulations, and orders of the said Committee , or pursuant thereto, and will permit access to his books, records, and accounts by HUD and the Committee for purposes of investigation to ascertain compliance with such regulations, and orders.
(6) In the event of the contractor’s non-compliance with the nondiscrimination clause of this contract or with any of the said regulations, or orders, this contract may be cancelled, terminated or suspended in whole or in part and the contractor may be declared ineligible for further Government contracts or Federally-assisted construction contracts in accordance with procedures authorized in Executive Order 10925 of March 6, 1961, as amende, and such other sanctions may be imposed and remedies invoke s provided in the said Executive Order or by regulations, or order of the President’s Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity, or as otherwise provided by law. (7) The contractor will include the provisions of Paragraphs(1) through (7) in every subcontract or purchase order unless exempted by regulations, or orders of the President’s Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity issued pursuant to Section 303 of Executive Order 10925 of March 6, 1961, as amended, so that such provisions will be binding upon each subcontractor or vender. The contractor will take such action with respect to any subcontract or purchase orders as HUD may direct as a means of enforcing such
provisions, including sanctions for noncompliance: Provided, however, that in the event the contractor becomes involved in, or is threatened with, litigation with a subcontractor or vender as a result of such direction by HUD, the contractor may request the United States to enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the United States.
(b) Except in subcontracts for the performance of construction work at the site of construction, the clause is not required to be inserted in subcontracts below the second tier. Subcontracts may incorporate by referenced to the equal opportunity clause. 200.425Modification in and exemptions from the regulations in this subpart.
(a) The following transactions and contracts are exempt from the regulations in this subpart:
(1) Loans, mortgages, contracts and subcontracts not exceeding $10,000. (2) Contract and subcontracts not exceeding $100,000 for standard commercial supplies or raw material;
(3)Contracts and subcontracts under which work is to be or has been performed outside the United States and where no recruitment of workers within the United States in involved. To the extent that work pursuant to such contracts is done within the Untied States, the equal opportunity clause shall be applicable; (4) Contracts for the sale of Government property where no appreciable amount of work is involved; and
(5) Contracts and subcontracts for an indefinite quantity which are not to extend for ore than one year if the purchaser determines that the amounts to be ordered under any such contract or subcontract are not reasonably expected to exceed $100,000 in the case of contracts or subcontracts for standard commercial supplies and raw materials, or $10,000 in the case of all other contracts and subcontracts.
560
___ Exhibit F
___ Section 8
City of Richmond - Insurance Requirements – Type 1:

Consultants and Contractors
Type 1 – Page 1 of 4
Revised: September 2011
In all instances where a CONTRACTOR or its representatives will be conducting business and/or providing services, 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, 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) including coverage for bodily and personal injury, property damage, and products and completed operations.

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

3. Original and Separate Additional Insured Endorsements 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 and Builder’s Risk/ Course of Construction Insurance.

6. Builder’s Risk/Course of Construction insurance covering all risks of loss less policy exclusions when the City of Richmond has a financial interest in the property. – (Only required for Construction Contracts involving property)

7. Contractor’s Pollution Liability (if applicable for Construction Contractors) 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 SelfInsure, signed by the California Department of Industrial Relations and SelfInsurance. 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.
561
___ Exhibit F
___ Section 8
City of Richmond - Insurance Requirements – Type 1:

Consultants and Contractors
Type 1 – Page 2 of 4
Revised: September 2011

PROJECT COST REQUIRED LIMIT
$0 - $5 million $2 million p/o
$5 million - $10 million $5 million p/o
Over $10 million $10 million p/o
Fireworks $5 million p/o
General Liability
(primary and excess limits
combined)

Includes coverage for bodily injury, personal injury, property damage and products and completed operations. The policy shall not exclude coverage for XCU perils (explosion, collapse, or damage to underground property).

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.

Automobile Liability $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage.

Builders’ Risk/Course of
Construction – Covers property
under construction, repair or
renovation as well as equipment
and materials to be installed.
(Only required for Construction
Projects involving property and
equipment installation.)
Coverage shall include all risks of direct physical loss, excluding earthquake, for an amount equal to the full completed value of the covered structure or replacement value of alterations or additions, including soft costs and business interruption.

If the project does not involve new or major reconstruction, an Installation Floater may be acceptable. For such projects, a property installation floater shall be obtained that provides for the improvement, remodel, modification, alteration, conversion or adjustment to existing buildings, structures, processes, machinery and equipment. The Property Installation Floater shall provide property damage coverage for any building, structure, machinery or equipment damaged, impaired, broken or destroyed during the performance of the Work, including during transit, installation and testing at the City of Richmond’s site.

The City of Richmond shall be named as loss payee as its interest may appear. The insurer shall waive all rights of subrogation against City.

Contractor’s Pollution Liability (if
applicable)
Protects against:
unexpected/unintended release of
pollution resulting from contractors
covered operations such as:

HVAC, paving, carpentry, pipeline
& tank installation, drillers,
remediation contractors,
maintenance, mechanical,
demolition, excavation, grading,
street/road construction,
residential & commercial builders.

Same limits as General Liability.

Required Policy Conditions
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.

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 but not limited to 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. The endorsement must not exclude products and completed operations coverage. If it does, then CG 20 37 (10/01) is also required. 562
___ Exhibit F
___ Section 8
City of Richmond - Insurance Requirements – Type 1:

Consultants and Contractors
Type 1 – Page 3 of 4
Revised: September 2011
Additional Insured Endorsement
(continued)
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 and Builder’s Risk/ Course of Construction coverage 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.

Loss Payable Endorsement (only
required when Builder’s Risk
and/or Course of Construction
Insurance is required.)
Applicable to Builder’s Risk/Course of Construction naming the City of Richmond as Loss Payee.

SURETY BONDS
(If a Public Works/Engineering
Project)
The Contractor shall provide:

1. A Bid bond

2. A Performance Bond

3. A Payment Bond
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 coverages and cover those insured in the underlying policies.

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 nonrenewed, 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.
563
___ Exhibit F
___ Section 8
City of Richmond - Insurance Requirements – Type 1:

Consultants and Contractors
Type 1 – Page 4 of 4
Revised: September 2011
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 Manager. 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.
564

CITY OF RICHMOND
Sanctuary City Compliance Statement
The undersigned, an authorized agent of (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. Executed this day of , 20 , at , California.

Printed Name: Title:

Signed: Date:

Business Entity:

Vendor SCCO Compliance Statement (Augt2020)
565

REQUEST FOR LEGAL OPINION
City Attorney’s Office
Attorney-Client Privilege Communication
REV. 04/11/2024
DocID #13932v1
Date: Initiated By:

Department: Division:

Phone: Dept. Head Approval (initial to approve):

Subject:

Requested Deadline Date: Meeting Date (if applicable):

REQUEST TYPE (Check one and indicate the required attachments are enclosed) ☐ CONTRACT/AGREEMENT
☐ Initial
☐ Amendment No. ___
Required Attachments
☐ Proposed Contract or Amendment
☐ Initial Contract and All Prior
Amendments (if amendment)
☐ Applicable Insurance Requirements
☐ Bids/Quotes or Approved Sole Source
☐ After-the-Fact Form (if required)
☐ Sanctuary City Compliance Stmt.
☐ RESOLUTION
Required Attachments
☐ Draft Resolution
☐ Agenda Report
☐ ORDINANCE
Required Attachments
☐ Draft Ordinance
☐ Agenda Report
☐ AGENDA REPORT
Required Attachments
☐ Relevant background documents
(statute, ordinance, policy, contract,
court decision)
☐ Relevant communications (emails,
letters)
☐ LEGAL OPINION/ANALYSIS
Required Attachments
☐ Relevant background
documents (statute, ordinance,
policy, contract, court decision)
☐ Relevant communications
(emails, letters)
☐ OTHER (Explain)
__________________________
__________________________
Required Attachments
☐ Relevant background documents
(statute, ordinance, policy, contract,
court decision)
☐ Relevant communications
(emails, letters)
Summarize the request (Include context, historical background, prior actions, and need for meeting body approval (e.g., City Council, RHA, etc.). Attach a separate sheet if necessary.):

RESPONSE BY CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
1st Review: 2nd Review: 3rd Review: 4th Review:
☐ APPROVED AS TO FORM ☐ APPROVED SUBJECT TO CHANGES SHOWN ☐ REPLY BELOW/ATTACHED ☐ OTHER ________________________________ Attorney’s Signature: ________________________________________ Date: _______________ June 29, 2026 Gregory Palomino Economic Development Richmond Housing Authority (510) 621-1361 RLO for HD Supply Piggyback Contract 07/16/2026 07/28/2026 7/15/26 Please review the "piggyback" contract for HD Supply. The lead agency for the procurement is Maricopa County, AZ.

Attached is the Staff Report, Piggyback Approval Form, the lead agency's contract, and Contract for HD Supply.

NJB
566

DocID #1193v2
CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
Guidelines for Submitting Requests for Legal Opinion to the Richmond City Attorney’s Office
(last updated 4/11/2024)
PURPOSE:

The purpose of this policy is to ensure:
1) the City of Richmond’s (COR) legal interests are protected, 2) the efficient use of resources of the City Attorney’s Office (CAO), and 3) the quality of the legal review and legal opinions.

The CAO provides legal opinions, research, and recommendations on specific issues made in the form of a Request for Legal Opinion (RLO) that are of legal significance for the COR. RLOs address different subject matters, including but not limited to: approvals as to form for all proposed contracts and amendments, resolutions and ordinances, agenda reports; responding to questions which require legal interpretation and guidance; and conducting legal research. RLOs, however, are not requests to conduct factual research, edit, or proof-read documents.

RLO PROCESS:

1. Submission:
1) All RLOs must be submitted in writing, utilizing the RLO form.

The RLO form is available at:
https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/738/AP250-1-Request-for-LegalOpinion-or-Funding?bidId= ➢ A RLO submission not sent using the RLO form will be returned for resubmission.
2) All RLOs must be sent via email to: [email protected].

No RLO may be verbal, sent directly to an attorney or CAO staff member, or via alternate channels of communication. This ensures coordination and tracking to avoid duplication of effort, efficient use of resources, objectivity, and accountability. ➢ A RLO submission not sent via the RLO email will be returned for resubmission.
567

DocID #1193v2
3) All RLOs require full disclosure of underlying, relevant facts and documentation.

All RLO forms should be filled-out completely and attach all relevant documentation.

Drafts of contracts, resolutions, ordinances, and agenda reports should be in final form, thoroughly researched, and fully proof-read before attaching to a RLO form.

2. Review of RLO Submission:

When an RLO is received, CAO staff will review for completeness (the RLO form is filled out completely; the indicated documents are attached).
➢ A RLO submission that is incomplete, does not enclose all pertinent documentation, and/or is not in final form will be returned for resubmission.

3. Attorney Assignment:

Once staff determines the RLO is complete, an attorney will be assigned within 24 hours.

The requester will receive an email confirmation noting the assigned attorney. If necessary, the assigned attorney may contact the requester for clarification, further information, or additional documents. The assigned attorney will then conduct a thorough and detailed review of applicable law(s) and documents relevant to the issue(s) presented. Once the research is complete, the attorney prepares a response to the RLO. There may be several levels of review with the requester before the RLO is ultimately approved with the assigned attorney’s signature.
➢ All email communications between the attorney(s) and requestor should include a cc to [email protected] for tracking purposes.

4. Review Times and Response Dates:
➢ All RLOs require a minimum of 5-business day response time (exclusive of holidays and RLOs received after 5 p.m. on weekdays and on weekends).

Once an attorney is assigned to an RLO, the requester will receive an initial response date.

The response date may change if, during review, additional information is needed, revisions are required for approval, and/or more time is required due to the issues presented in the RLO.

Attorneys have an ethical duty of due diligence, and must often review and analyze statutes, case law, and numerous documents to render informed, well-researched, and well-analyzed opinions on legal questions. As such, “One Size Doesn’t Always Fit All.” RLOs which require more detailed review and analysis may require more time. There may be circumstances when a quicker review is needed, but that should be the exception rather than the rule. If the opinion involves complex issues, the Chief Assistant City Attorney may assign additional attorney(s) to review the RLO, which may require additional time. 568

DocID #1193v2
For example, City Attorneys are often asked by council members that ordinances adopted by another agency or “model” ordinances be considered as a possible approach to address COR issues. Although this can save time, particularly if the “model” ordinance has already been legally tested, an ordinance that works for one agency does not necessarily address the needs of or meet the requirements of another. As such, thorough review and customization by the CAO is imperative before considering the adoption of a “model” ordinance.

Below are anticipated review times for frequently requested RLOs, but CAO reserves the right to determine review times on a case-by-case basis based on the novelty or complexity of the issue presented:

Type of RLO Anticipated Review Time Needed
Contracts (valued at $10,000 of less) 5 business days
Contracts (valued at more than $10,000) 10 business days Agenda Reports Only 5 business days
Agenda Reports with RLO Approved
Resolutions, Ordinances, or Contracts
10 business days
Resolutions 15 business days
Ordinances 20 business days
Legal Opinion/Analysis Memoranda 20 business days

5. RLO Response
The CAO will issue a final response to an RLO in writing via email. The assigned attorney will return a signed RLO form and may attach documentation, such as a memorandum, relevant statutes or ordinances, and/or applicable cases when appropriate. 569
cc21June2026 – sl/prc

RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA, June 16, 2026
Community Services Building
440 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
_____________________________________________________________________ F. SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE RICHMOND HOUSING

AUTHORITY/RICHMOND CITY COUNCIL
The Special Joint Meeting of the Richmond Housing Authority/Richmond City Council was called to order at 5:40 p.m. by Chairperson/Mayor Eduardo Martinez.

G. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairperson/Mayor Martinez led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.

H. ROLL CALL

Present: Commissioners/Councilmembers Soheila Bana, Claudia Jimenez, Sue Wilson, Cesar Zepeda, Vice Chairperson/Vice Mayor Doria Robinson, Chairperson/Mayor Eduardo Martinez, and Tenant Commissioner Jaycine Scott. Absent:

Commissioner/Councilmember Jamelia Brown was absent for the entire meeting.

I. STATEMENT OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
None.

J. REPORT FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
None.

K. AGENDA REVIEW
None.

L. HOUSING AUTHORITY OPEN FORUM
Cordell Hindler gave comments in person recommending that the council approve the Housing Authority Consent Calendar as presented.

M. HOUSING AUTHORITY CONSENT CALENDAR
Motion by Tenant Commissioner Scott
Seconded by Chairperson/Mayor Martinez
To approve all items on the Housing Authority Consent Calendar.

Ayes (7): Commissioners/Councilmembers Bana, Jimenez, Wilson, Zepeda, Vice Chairperson/Vice Mayor Robinson, Chairperson/Mayor Martinez, and Tenant Commissioner Scott.

Absent: (1): Commissioner/Councilmember Brown.

Passed (7 to 1)
M.1 Meeting Minutes
APPROVE the minutes of the March 17, 2026, special and April 7, 2026, regular Housing Authority meetings - City Clerk's Office (Pamela Christian 510-620- 6513).
570
cc21June2026 – sl/prc

M.2 Richmond Housing Authority (RHA) Cost Allocation Plan Approval ADOPT a resolution approving the Title 2 Code of Federal Regulations 200 Compliant Version Cost Allocation Plan to be implemented for Richmond Housing Authority (RHA) Budgeting (Fiscal Year 2026-2027) – Richmond Housing Authority/Finance Department (Nannette Beacham/Antoinette Terrell 510-621-1300).

Adopted Resolution No. 2227
N. JOINT RICHMOND HOUSING AUTHORITY / RICHMOND CITY COUNCIL

BUDGET SESSION
N.1 Proposed Richmond Housing Authority Budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2026- 2027
ADOPT a joint resolution approving the proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2026-2027 Richmond Housing Authority (RHA) budget, with total estimated revenues of $4,154,579 and total estimated expenditures of $5,439,652; APPROVE an RHA subsidy from the City of Richmond General Fund in the amount of $1,260,073, and AUTHORIZE the use of available Hacienda proceeds in the amount of $25,000 to balance the RHA budget to $5,439,652 in estimated revenues and $5,439,652 in expenditures - Richmond Housing Authority/Finance Department (Antoinette Terrell 510-620-6784/Rita Martinez 510-621-1546).

Richmond Housing Authority Executive Director Antoinette Terrell presented a PowerPoint: Link to view Proposed RHA Budget for Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Cordell Hindler gave comments in person. Discussion ensued.

Motion by Commissioner/Councilmember Zepeda
Seconded by Commissioner/Councilmember Jimenez
To adopt said joint resolution as recommended.

Ayes (6): Commissioners/Councilmembers Jimenez, Wilson, Zepeda, Vice Chairperson/Vice Mayor Robinson, Chairperson/Mayor Martinez, and Tenant Commissioner Scott.

Absent: (2): Commissioners/Councilmembers Bana and Brown.

Passed (6 to 2)
Adopted Resolution Nos. 2228 and 88-26
O. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:05 p.m. 571

July 28, 2026
Mayor's Office
DATE: July 28, 2026
TO: Members of the City Council
FROM: Mayor Martinez
Subject: Proclamation Recognizing Maxine Finley and Declaring the Week Beginning August 23, 2026, as “Maxine Finley
Week”
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with this item.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

N/A

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

Proclamation recognizing the week beginning August 23,
2026, as “Maxine Finley Week” in the City of Richmond.

The proclamation honors Maxine Finley, affectionately
known throughout the Point Richmond community as
“The Smiling Crossing Guard,” for her more than two
decades of dedicated service, kindness, and commitment
to the safety and well-being of Richmond residents.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: PROCLAMATION recognizing the week beginning August 23, 2026, as “Maxine Finley Week” in the City of Richmond – Mayor Eduardo Martinez (510-620-6503).

DISCUSSION: For more than two decades, Maxine Finley has served the Point Richmond community with unwavering dedication and compassion. Known affectionately as “The Smiling Crossing Guard,” Ms. Finley has become a cherished AGENDA
REPORT
572

July 28, 2026
neighborhood figure, greeting generations of students, pedestrians, and commuters with her signature smile, warm spirit, and commitment to keeping the community safe.

Ms. Finley’s service to others extends beyond her role as a crossing guard. Throughout her life, she has supported Richmond families through her work as a Licensed Vocational Nurse and daycare provider, providing care and guidance to countless individuals. She has also served as a respected leader within her faith community, sharing her compassion and commitment to uplifting others.

The City of Richmond recognizes the significant impact that dedicated community members can have through consistent acts of service and kindness. By declaring the week beginning August 23, 2026, as “Maxine Finley Week,” the City honors Ms. Finley’s decades of contributions, her positive influence on generations of residents, and her embodiment of Richmond’s values of community, care, and connection.

Documents Attached:

Attachment 1 – Proclamation Recognizing Maxine Finley and Declaring the Week Beginning August 23, 2026, as “Maxine Finley Week”
573
Declaring “Maxine Finley Week” Beginning August 23, 2026 WHEREAS, the safety, vibrancy, and strength of the City of Richmond are built upon the dedication of its exemplary community members who serve our community with love, care, and consistency, such as Maxine Finley, known affectionately by generations of local residents as "The Smiling Crossing Guard," who has served the Point Richmond community with unwavering dedication for more than two decades; and
WHEREAS, her profound impact on the city extends across a lifetime of service, including her vital career as a Licensed Vocational Nurse and daycare provider, roles through which she has protected, nurtured, and supported countless local families; and
WHEREAS, her deep devotion to others shines brightly through her faith, serving with grace as a cherished Church Mother and an active, guiding leader within her faith community; and
WHEREAS, beyond her essential duties of traffic safety, Maxine Finley has become a beloved neighborhood matriarch, greeting every pedestrian, student, and commuter with a radiant smile, an enthusiastic wave, and a warm spirit that embodies the absolute best of Richmond’s community culture; and WHEREAS, through her decades of service, Maxine Finley stands as a powerful and inspiring role model, beautifully demonstrating to the entire city that individuals can remain deeply productive, capable, and impactful at any stage of life as long as they are willing and able; and WHEREAS, the City of Richmond recognizes the profound impact that a single individual’s daily kindness can have on an entire community and wishes to express its deepest gratitude to Maxine Finley for her vital service, her resilience, and her lifelong dedication to the protection of our youth; 574
Councilmember Zepeda
District 2
Mayor Eduardo Martinez
City of Richmond
July 28, 2026
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, I, Eduardo Martinez, Mayor of the City of Richmond, California, do hereby proclaim the week beginning August 23, 2026, as: "MAXINE FINLEY WEEK" in the City of Richmond, and I urge all residents, community organizations, and local businesses to join in honoring her extraordinary contribution, her years of service, and her status as a cherished treasure of our community.
575

July 28, 2026
DocID #75797v1
City Attorney's Office
DATE: July 28, 2026
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM: Shannon Moore, Interim City Attorney
James Atencio, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Subject: Legal Services Agreement with Anzel Galvan, LLP to Serve as Bond Counsel
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The proposed $18,500 expenditure is included within the approved Fiscal Year 2026-2027 City Attorney’s Office
budget (Account String: 01151014-400201).

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None.

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

The City needs bond counsel to assist in submitting to
the voters a general obligation bond measure. Anzel
Galvan LLP would advise the City Council and City staff on the legal requirements applicable to submitting a
general obligation bond measure to the voters at the
November 3, 2026, general election, including the
requirements of the California Constitution, the
Government Code, the Elections Code, and the City’s
charter.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: APPROVE a legal services agreement with Anzel Galvan LLP to serve as Bond Counsel to the City for a fixed fee of $18,500, with a term ending June 30, 2027, or earlier upon completion of the services described in the
agreement – City Attorney’s Office (James Atencio 510-
620-6704/Shannon Moore 510-620-6509).

AGENDA
REPORT
576

July 28, 2026
DocID #75797v1
DISCUSSION:

The City requires specialized bond counsel to advise the City Council and City staff regarding the legal requirements associated with submitting a general obligation bond measure to the voters at the November 3, 2026, General Municipal Election. Bond counsel will provide legal advice regarding applicable requirements of the California Constitution, Government Code, Elections Code, and the City's Charter, and assist in preparing the documents necessary to place the measure before the voters.

Anzel Galvan LLP (AG) was founded in 2024 by Josh Anzel and Juan Galvan and specializes in serving as bond counsel for tax-exempt and taxable municipal financings.

Juan Galvan leads the firm's governmental finance practice and would serve as the primary attorney responsible for preparing the core election documents, participating in working group meetings, and attending City Council meetings as requested.

Working closely with City staff, the City Attorney's Office, and the City's election consultants, AG would provide legal services including, but not limited to:
 Participating in working group meetings and City Council meetings, as requested;  Preparing the resolutions and ordinance necessary to place the measure on the ballot;
 Assisting in the preparation of the ballot question, tax rate statement, and full text of the measure;
 Coordinating with the City Clerk regarding applicable filing deadlines and submission of election materials to the Contra Costa County Elections Office; and
 Providing legal advice throughout the election process regarding applicable bond and election laws.

The City Attorney's Office recommends that the City Council approve the proposed Legal Services Agreement with Anzel Galvan LLP for a fixed fee of $18,500, with a term ending June 30, 2027, or earlier upon completion of the services described in the agreement.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Proposed Legal Services Agreement with Anzel Galvan LLP 577
1 DocID #75201v1

LEGAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

BY AND BETWEEN

THE CITY OF RICHMOND
AND

ANZEL GALVAN LLP

PREAMBLE
This legal services agreement (“Agreement”) is made and entered into on this 6 TH of JULY, 2026
(the “Effective Date”) by and between the City of Richmond, California, a chartered California municipal corporation (“City”), with its principal place of business located at 450 Civic Center Plaza, Richmond, California 94804 and ANZEL GALVAN LLP comprised of attorneys licensed to practice law in the State of California (“Special Counsel”) with its principal place of business located at, 595 PACIFIC AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94133. Special Counsel may be referred to herein individually as a “Party” or collectively as the “Parties” or the “Parties to this Agreement.”

RECITALS
The following recitals are as follows:

A. City desires to secure professional services more fully described in this Agreement; and, B. Special Counsel represents that it has the professional qualifications, expertise, necessary licenses and desire to provide legal services of the quality and type, which meet objectives, and requirements of City.

AGREEMENT PROVISIONS
The Parties agree as follows:

1. RETENTION OF FIRM.

A. City hereby confirms, retains and authorizes Special Counsel to represent City and provide legal services as may be requested, from time to time, orally or in writing, by authorized representatives of City on an as-needed basis. By this Agreement, City is retaining Special Counsel and not individual members of the Special Counsel. Special Counsel’s client is the City, as a public entity, and not any of its individual members, groups of individuals or any other entity.

B. The Special Counsel shall report to and receive direction from the City Attorney only and not from any other Department Head or City staff.

C. Special Counsel shall perform such legal services for and on behalf of City under the primary direction of the City Attorney. Special Counsel shall undertake, subject to approval of the City Attorney, additional duties as may be authorized by City from time 578
2 DocID #75201v1
to time under the terms and conditions of this Agreement.

2. DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED.

See “Scope of Work” in Exhibit A.

3. TERM OF AGREEMENT.

The services of Special Counsel are to commence upon the Effective Date of this Agreement and shall terminate on the earlier of (i) the date on which the Fixed Fee becomes fully earned pursuant to Exhibit A and (ii)JUNE 30, 2027; provided, that the Parties may extend the date set forth in clause (ii) by written agreement. The services shall be undertaken and completed in such sequence as to assure their completion as expeditiously as is consistent with professional skill and care.

4. ASSIGNMENT OF DUTIES.

It is contemplated that no other attorney will be assigned from Special Counsel other than JUAN M. GALVAN and STACEY HANSON. It is agreed by and between the Parties that should it be desirable for any attorney other than JUAN M. GALVAN and STACEY HANSON to work under this Agreement, such attorney may only be added with the express oral consent of the City Attorney. Should any associate in the Special Counsel be assigned a substantive role under this Agreement, City Attorney should approve the assignment of such associate orally.

5. PUBLIC FUNDING.

Special Counsel and City mutually recognize that Special Counsel’s services under this Agreement are being paid for with tax dollars from citizens and taxpayers of the City of Richmond, California, and that, given this fact, a heightened duty of care exists in both Special Counsel and City to ensure that Special Counsel scrupulously adheres to principles of moderation, frugality and cost consciousness in carrying forth the goals of this Agreement.

Special Counsel and each of its attorneys pledge themselves to scrupulously observe a duty of reasonableness and cost effective representation in all aspects of this Agreement.

6. PAYMENT FOR SERVICE.

In consideration for Special Counsel’s performance of legal services on behalf of City under the terms of this Agreement, and upon submission and approval of Special Counsel’s invoice by the City Attorney, Special Counsel shall be compensated the Fixed Fee (as defined in Exhibit A) and for authorized expenses set forth in the “Scope of Work and Schedule of Fees and Charges” set forth in Exhibit A, attached and incorporated by this reference. This engagement is compensated on a fixed fee basis. No fees shall be charged or billed at an hourly rate, and Special Counsel shall not be required to maintain or submit individual time or billing records. The Fixed Fee shall be deemed fully earned as set forth in Exhibit A. Fees for services performed by retained consultants, subcontractors, experts or other personnel 579
3 DocID #75201v1
may be billed to City only if approved in writing by the City Attorney. Exhibit A may be amended from time to time by letter agreement duly signed and approved by the City Attorney.

7. BILLING INVOICES.

Special Counsel shall submit to the City an invoice for the Fixed Fee promptly following the date on which the Fixed Fee becomes fully earned pursuant to Exhibit A, together with an invoice for any authorized, reimbursable expenses incurred through that date.

Because this engagement is compensated on a fixed-fee basis, invoices need not itemize hours worked, billing rates, or individual time records. Special Counsel shall adhere to the Protocols and Guidelines set forth in Exhibit B, attached and incorporated by this reference. The invoice shall be electronically submitted to [email protected].

8. RESERVES.

No project plan or budget shall be required under this Agreement. If the services provided under this Agreement become reportable to the City’s excess insurance carrier, California Joint Powers Risk Management Authority (CJPRMA), Special Counsel shall provide an initial report notifying CJPRMA of the claim or lawsuit within 30 days of receipt of the assignment and the estimated exposure, in accordance with the guidelines set forth in Exhibit D (Mandatory Case Reporting Policy). The City Attorney and Risk Manager shall be copied on all correspondence sent to CJPRMA.

9. LITIGATION GUIDELINES.

When litigation is included in the scope of work, litigation guidelines as specified in Exhibit E are to be followed.

10. BILLING.

Special Counsel shall scrupulously examine all invoices submitted for services rendered under this Agreement to assure that appropriate billing judgment is employed. Because this engagement is compensated on a fixed fee, Special Counsel shall not bill for its services at an hourly rate or maintain individual time records for work performed under this Agreement.

Special Counsel shall not use legal professionals for secretarial work and under no circumstances shall Special Counsel have lawyers billing for making copies, scheduling appointments or taking care of matters or work that would otherwise be work performed by a law clerk, assistant or secretary.

11. STATUS REPORTS.

Special Counsel shall, every thirty (30) days, submit via electronic mail a written update setting forth a summary of activities performed on behalf of City during the preceding month, the current status of each pending matter, results obtained or expected to be obtained, a 580
4 DocID #75201v1
summary of invoices for the preceding month and other information relating to the services rendered as City may reasonably request. The update should be emailed to the City Attorney with a copy to the Risk Manager and CJPRMA, if applicable. Please keep the status reports brief. Please also attach any referenced filings to your status report.

12. TERMINATION.

Either Party may terminate this Agreement by providing written notice to the other. Any termination hereunder shall become effective immediately upon receipt of written notice of termination; provided, however, that Special Counsel may exercise its right of termination only to the extent and under terms and conditions consistent with the obligations of Special Counsel under the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California; and provided, that in the event of termination, the amount due Special Counsel for services rendered and costs and expenses incurred prior to termination shall remain due and payable.

Special Counsel agrees to turn over to any attorney substituted in its place, the entire file and attorney work product regarding any such matter within seven (7) days of any such termination.

13. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.

A. No member of the governing body of the City, and no other officer, employee or agent of the City who exercises any discretion, function or responsibility in connection with the carrying out of any project to which this Agreement pertains, shall have any personal interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement.

B. Special Counsel agrees to secure the informed written consent of the City Attorney before accepting any representation adverse to the City (actual or apparent) during the term of this Agreement, and to forego the representation if the City Attorney, in his or her sole discretion, objects for any reason. This provision is intended to provide rights to the City above and beyond the rights Special Counsel owes to the City under all applicable rules of professional conduct relating to conflict of interest.

14. ASSIGNMENTS AND SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST.

City and Special Counsel bind themselves, their partners, successors, assigns, executors and administrators to the terms of this Agreement. Except as otherwise set forth in this Agreement, no interest in this Agreement or any of the work provided for in this Agreement shall be assigned or transferred, either voluntarily or by operation of law, without the prior written approval of the City Attorney.

15. AUDITS, RECORDS, AND DOCUMENTATION.

A. The City and any other federal, State or local governmental agency, and any of their authorized auditors or representatives, including auditors, shall have access to, and the right to audit and reproduce any of Special Counsel's records to the extent the City or such other governmental agency deems necessary to ensure that City is paying only the 581
5 DocID #75201v1
amounts to which Special Counsel is properly entitled or for other purposes relating to the Agreement. Special Counsel shall assist the City in responding to any requests from the City’s auditors, and Special Counsel shall not charge the City any additional fee for time spent responding to any such audit requests.

B. Special Counsel shall maintain complete and accurate records of the services provided to City and expenses incurred on behalf of City. Special Counsel shall maintain and preserve all such records for at least three (3) years after termination of the Agreement or until an audit has been completed and accepted in writing by City. Upon written notice by the City, the Special Counsel shall promptly make all such records available to auditors or other representatives of the City or other governmental agencies.

16. NON-DISCRIMINATION.

A. Special Counsel agrees to observe the provisions of Section 2.28.030 of the Municipal Code of the City of Richmond, obligating every contractor or subcontractor under a contract or subcontract with the City of Richmond for services to refrain from discriminatory employment or subcontracting practices on the basis of the race, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, religious creed, national origin or ancestry of any employee, any applicant for employment or any potential subcontractor.

Said Section 2.28.030 is, by this reference, a part of this Agreement.

B. If Special Counsel is found in violation of the nondiscrimination provisions of the State of California Fair Employment Practices Act or similar provisions of federal law or executive order in the performance of this Agreement, it will be in default of this Agreement. Thereupon, City will have the power to cancel or suspend this Agreement, in whole or in part.

17. HOLD HARMLESS/INDEMNIFICATION.

Special Counsel agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, release and defend to the maximum extent permitted by law, and covenants not to sue, the City, its City Council and each member thereof, and its officers, employees, commission members and representatives, from any and all liability, loss, suits, claims, damages, costs, judgments and expenses (including attorney’s fees and costs of litigation) which in whole or in part result from, or arise out of, any negligent acts, errors or omissions (including, without limitation, professional negligence) of Special Counsel, its employees, representatives, subcontractors, or agents in connection with the performance of this Agreement. This Agreement to indemnify, hold harmless, release and defend includes, but is not limited to, personal injury (including death at any time) and property or other damage (including, but without limitation, contract or tort or patent, copyright, trade secret or trademark infringement) sustained by any person or persons (including, but not limited to, companies, or corporations, Special Counsel and its employees or agents, and members of the general public).

18. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS.
582
6 DocID #75201v1
Special Counsel shall maintain in full force and effect the following insurance policies:

A. Commercial general liability policy (bodily injury and property damage); B. Worker’s compensation/employer’s liability policy;
C. Business automobile liability insurance policy; and, D. Professional liability policy.

Said policies shall be maintained with respect to employees and vehicles assigned to the performance of work under this Agreement with coverage amounts, endorsements, certificates of insurance and coverage verifications as defined in Exhibit G, attached to this Agreement and incorporated by this reference.

19. CONFIDENTIALITY AND MEDIA STATEMENTS.

The data, information and reports acquired or prepared by Special Counsel in connection with matters upon which the City has retained Special Counsel shall not be shown or distributed to any other public or private person or entity except as authorized by the City Attorney and in no event prior to having been first disclosed to the City Attorney. All information, documents, records, reports, data or other materials furnished by City to Special Counsel or other such information, documents, records, data or other materials to which the Special Counsel has access during its performance pursuant to this Agreement are deemed confidential and shall remain the property of City. Special Counsel shall not make oral or written disclosure of such documents or materials, other than as necessary for its performance under this Agreement, without the prior written approval of the City Attorney.

Special Counsel shall not provide any written or oral statements to the media without the prior written authorization of the City Attorney.

20. AMENDMENTS.

This Agreement, including any Exhibits attached to it, represents the entire understanding of the Parties as to those matters contained herein. No prior oral or written understanding shall be of any force or effect with respect to those matters covered hereunder. This Agreement may be modified only by a written amendment duly executed by the Parties to this Agreement.

21. ENGAGEMENT OF OTHER COUNSEL, SPECIALISTS, OR EXPERTS.

Special Counsel will not engage or otherwise incur an obligation to pay other counsel, specialists, or experts for services in connection with this Agreement without the prior written approval of the City Attorney.

22. NOTICES.

All notices, pleadings, reports or other communication to the Parties shall be properly sent via electronic mail to [email protected], and to Special Counsel at its principal place of business listed on page one of this Agreement. 583
7 DocID #75201v1
Either Party may change its address for receipt of notices under this Agreement by notice given in the manner provided herein.

23. LAW GOVERNING AGREEMENT.

This Agreement shall be interpreted under the laws of the State of California. All claims or controversies arising out of or related to performance under this Agreement shall be submitted to and resolved in a forum within Contra Costa County.

24. INVALID PROVISIONS.

If any provision of this Agreement is held to be illegal, invalid or unenforceable, in full or in part, then such provision shall be modified to the minimum extent necessary to make the provision legal, valid and enforceable, and the other provisions of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby.

25. LICENSE REQUIREMENTS.

Special Counsel shall demonstrate that the attorney(s) who provide legal services to City under this Agreement are licensed to practice law in the State of California and, if not, indicate to the satisfaction of the City Attorney why such license is not required to perform the services required.

26. SANCTUARY CITY CONTRACTING ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE
STATEMENT.

Contractor agrees to comply with the provisions of the Richmond Sanctuary City Contracting Ordinance (SCCO, Ordinance No. 12-18). Contractor must submit the Sanctuary City Compliance Statement included herein as Exhibit F along with the bid or proposal prior to execution of the contract.
584
8 DocID #75201v1
The Parties acknowledge and accept the terms and conditions of this Agreement as evidenced by the following signatures of their duly authorized representatives. It is the intent of the Parties that this Agreement shall become operative on the Effective Date.

ANZEL GALVAN LLP
By:_______________________________
Title:_____________________________

CITY OF RICHMOND
____________________________
Mayor
Name:______________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
City Attorney
ATTEST:
__________________________
City Clerk
585
Exhibit A
9 DocID #75201v1

SCOPE OF WORK AND SCHEDULE OF FEES & CHARGES
Scope of work:

Special Counsel shall serve as bond counsel to the City of Richmond and shall advise the City Council and City staff on the legal requirements applicable to submitting a general obligation bond measure to the voters at the November 3, 2026 general election, including the requirements of the California Constitution, the Government Code, the Elections Code, and the City’s charter, and including the two-thirds voter approval requirement applicable to City general obligation bonds. Working with City staff, the City Attorney’s Office and the City’s election consultants, Special Counsel shall provide the following services:
(a) prepare the resolution determining the necessity of the bonds; (b) prepare the ordinance submitting the proposition to the voters; (c) prepare the resolution calling the election and consolidating the measure; (d) prepare the ballot question with input of the City’s other election consultants; (e) prepare the tax rate statement, based on information provided by the City’s Finance Department;
(f) prepare the full text of the measure;
(g) advise on the form and content of the foregoing documents to satisfy applicable procedural and disclosure requirements;
(h) coordinate with the City Clerk regarding filing deadlines and the submission of the documents referenced above to the Contra Costa County elections official; (i) prepare a bond election schedule for the financing team; (j) attend working group calls and City Council meetings as requested; and (k) respond to inquiries from the City and its officials throughout the bond election process.

The duties of Special Counsel in this engagement are limited to those expressly set forth above, except as expressly set forth in a written amendment to this Agreement. Among other things, Special Counsel’s duties do not include the submission of documents to the Contra Costa County elections official. Submission of all election documents shall be handled by the City Clerk. in submitting to the voters a general obligation bond measure. 586
Exhibit A
10 DocID #75201v1
Special Counsel’s point(s) of contact in the City of Richmond City Attorney’s office is/are:

Shannon Moore, Interim City Attorney
James Atencio, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Fixed Fee:

This engagement is compensated on a fixed-fee basis. No hourly rates apply, no fees will be charged or billed at an hourly rate, and Special Counsel is not required to maintain individual time or billing records.

COMPENSATION
Only those costs and expenses set forth in Section III of Exhibit "B", entitled "Reimbursements" shall be paid to Special Counsel.

Special Counsel’s compensation for legal services rendered under this Agreement, inclusive of attorneys’ fees and reimbursable expenses charged in accordance with Exhibits “A” and “B”, is a fixed fee of EIGHTEEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($18,500) (the “Fixed Fee”). No portion of the Fixed Fee shall be charged, billed, or calculated at an hourly rate, and Special Counsel shall not be required to maintain or submit individual time records or itemized hourly billing under this Agreement. The Fixed Fee shall be deemed fully earned by Special Counsel upon the conclusion of the City Council meeting at which the City Council considers the second reading and adoption of the ordinance submitting the proposition to the voters and the adoption of the resolution calling the election (collectively, the "Fee Earned Event"). Upon the Fee Earned Event, the full amount of the Fixed Fee shall be payable to Special Counsel and due within 30 days of the City Attorney’s receipt of Special Counsel’s invoice, regardless of the number of hours expended by Special Counsel in performing the services described in the Scope of Work. 587
Exhibit B
11 DocID #75201v1

BILLING PROTOCOLS/GUIDELINES
The City of Richmond (“City”) has adopted the following protocols for billing, budgeting, and planning for projects involving outside counsel. Special Counsel will be required to comply with this protocol. If you have questions concerning it, please contact the City Attorney for clarification. In the event you wish to negotiate changes due to the internal operation of your firm, please raise them in writing as soon as possible. Any changes to this protocol will need prior, written approval from the City Attorney. In the interest of fairness, all Special Counsel is required to comply with this protocol. This protocol is also to be used in conjunction with any new proposal for services.

These protocols and guidelines are instituted to ensure that Special Counsel conveys the information necessary for the City Attorney to manage outside projects and litigation.

Also, because these guidelines are set out in advance, they are designed to minimize any confusion or misunderstanding. Compliance with these guidelines should enhance the attorney-client relationship. If you have any comments or suggestions that could improve this system, please feel free to contact the City Attorney.

I. BILLING FORMAT
Unless otherwise agreed, the following information must be provided in monthly bills:
a. A detailed description of work, in time increments of .1 hour (one tenth of an hour) for and by each and every individual billing services. b. Identification of the lawyer who is in charge of the matter. c. Reasonably detailed disbursement breakdowns with backup documentation of any individual charge exceeding $100.00.
d. Each billing item must be separately stated on a separate line identifying the individual performing the services, the time spent and the exact nature of the service rendered.
e. When charges are made for research time, the specific issue being researched and the need for the research should be identified.
f. Each item billed should be coded to a specific litigation budget line item, if applicable.
g. The City Attorney reserves the right to request various levels of detail and specific formats (such as columnar comparisons with established budgets). 588
Exhibit B
12 DocID #75201v1
II. BILLING GUIDELINES
a. All tasks set forth in Special Counsel’s billing documentation shall be specific and detailed. Overly generalized listings of task descriptions such as “review contract” or “prepare for negotiations” are not acceptable. b. Billings under this Agreement shall not be provided in more than six (6) minute increments and shall represent the devotion of a full six minutes before an increment is billed. Under no circumstances shall Special Counsel use “block billing” procedures, wherein a list or series of activities is done each day with only an aggregate amount of time specified. c. Special Counsel shall keep the City advised of the identity and billing rates of those people working on the project account.
d. All time shall be billed within 30 days of the end of the month in which services were performed.
e. Counsel shall advise City whenever it anticipates the amount of services necessary to properly execute the task will exceed the amount of the contract.

When accrued billings are equal to eighty percent (80%) of the Payment Limit, written notice shall be given to the City as soon as possible, via e-mail, to the City Attorney’s Office, of this fact. In order to satisfy this notification requirement, Counsel shall monitor its accrued billings on a weekly basis and immediately notify the City Attorney if the eighty percent (80%) threshold is met. Special Counsel acknowledges the fiscal constraints on City funding and therefore Special Counsel assumes risk of non-payment for services rendered in the event the amount of services rendered exceeds the amount of the contract unless prior written authorization is received. Authorization to exceed the amount set forth in Exhibit A may be given only by City Attorney in writing.
f. Only those attorneys approved by the City may bill on the case. g. The City expects the attorney assigned to the case to handle all significant matters in the litigation. The City Attorney must approve in advance the assignment of other attorneys to the litigation or project. The City may request that the assigned work be instead handled by the primary attorney. h. Special Counsel shall not charge for more than one attorney at any hearing, deposition, or meeting of any kind without advance approval of the City Attorney.
i. No more than two paraprofessionals may bill on a particular case without the prior approval of the City.
589
Exhibit B
13 DocID #75201v1
j. The City has retained Special Counsel for its expertise, and therefore expects not to be billed for introductory or background research. City appreciates when Special Counsel has researched an issue previously and uses that research on present cases or projects. Do not charge the City for work Special Counsel has done and billed another client for in the past. k. Within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, Special Counsel shall provide any manuals or policies describing Special Counsel’s billing practices.
l. The City does not allow “double billing” of any sort. If Special Counsel is working on another client’s matter, do not bill City for that time. This applies to travel time or any other matter.
m. Training time is not billable. Law clerks may be used only with prior approval.
n. City will not pay for new attorneys to “get up to speed” on a file unless it has been preapproved.
o. If a matter arises that requires Special Counsel to open a new file, the City Attorney should be informed immediately.
p. City reserves the right to require additional substantiation of any item of claimed expense.

III. REIMBURSEMENTS
a. The City will reimburse Special Counsel for the following expenses, and for no other expenses:
 Actual printing costs;
 Copying costs at $.12 / page (for legal documents and file materials, but not library materials);
 Actual cost of postage (including express mail delivery charges);  Facsimile charges at the rate of $0.25 per page;
 Actual cost of long distance telephone calls;
 Transcription and reporter's fees; and
 Reasonable travel. The City does not pay for meals unless Attorney is required to be away from office for one full day. All meals and/or travel reimbursements will be subject to approval by the City Attorney. Travel expenses are limited to the lesser of actual expenses or expenses that would be authorized for City employee travel pursuant to City policy. b. The City Attorney must approve in advance any single reimbursement item in excess of $250.
590
Exhibit B
14 DocID #75201v1
c. Any expense other than those listed in section “a.” must be approved by the City Attorney in writing and in advance in an approved budget. d. No compensation shall be allowed for administrative overhead or premiums added to the direct cost of research support or other services. e. Court filings shall be prepared in a timely manner so that “rush” or “expedited” messenger fees are not incurred.
f. Messenger and other charges in excess of actual costs are not permitted. City does not allow cost, plus a percentage, for actual outside costs g. City does not pay for secretarial time or secretarial overtime. City does not pay attorneys or paralegals for secretarial tasks or tasks that should not be included in Special Counsel’s overhead. For example, faxing, mailing, arranging for messengers and calendaring are not acceptable charges. h. City does not pay for billing or discussions of bills, including discussions initiated by the City or City’s requests for additional information about a bill. i. The practice of minimum billing charges is prohibited. Please charge for actual time spent. For example, a minimum of .2 for phone calls or .4 for letters is unreasonable unless it is an accurate measure of time spent. j. Do not charge for file opening or file closing. These are not true legal services, tasks or adequate descriptions of legal activities. 591
Exhibit C
15 DocID #75201v1

PROJECT PLAN AND BUDGET
Project plans and budgets should conform to the following guidelines:
a. The project plan shall include a projection of recommended strategies and actions to be taken in the project and a range of costs for each such strategy or action. b. If the scope of work includes representation of the City in litigation, the project plan shall include the following elements, with explanations:
 Anticipated total costs;
 The primary issues;
 The probability of success; and
 A settlement/trial recommendation
The project plan will be modified during the litigation as the need arises. c. The project budget shall include an estimate of the attorneys' hours and fees and disbursements during each phase and/or activity. All anticipated expenses must be listed and costs estimated.
d. In the event of litigation, the project budget shall include, but not be limited to, estimates for:
 Pre-commencement (legal and factual research for the complaint or answer);  Pleadings;
 Preliminary motions;
 Initial discovery;
 Factual investigation of merits (interviewing clients, employees and third parties);  Review and abstract City's documents;
 Expert (non-medical) investigation and reports;
 Medical experts and examinations;
 Legal research on merits;
 More thorough discovery (including the identity of deponents and expected costs of each deposition and preparation);
 Settlement negotiations;
 Trial preparation; and
 Trial.
e. The project budget should include the anticipated cost of each line item, the time allotted to complete it and the professional level of the person handling it. f. The project budget is not a fixed fee agreement and is subject to revision. g. Special Counsel shall provide revisions to the project plan or budget at the request of the City Attorney.
h. Special Counsel understands and agrees that major unjustified deviations from the project budget, or failure to timely submit a project budget or revisions, if requested, may constitute a breach and result in termination of this Agreement.
592
Exhibit D
16 DocID #75201v1
California Joint Powers Risk Management Authority
Mandatory Case Reporting Policy
Pursuant to Section VII (Conditions) of the Memorandum of Coverage, the following rule is applicable to all cases reported to CJPRMA.

The Authority shall be entitled to complete access to the covered party’s claim file, the defense attorney’s complete file, and all investigation material and reports, including all evaluations and information on negotiations. The covered party shall be responsible to report the progress of the litigation and any significant developments at least quarterly to the Authority, and to provide the Authority with simultaneous copies of all correspondence provided to the covered party by its defense attorneys and/or its agents.

In addition, the CJPRMA Board of Directors has adopted the following mandatory case reporting standards:
1) Defense counsel is expected to provide a written analysis of liability and exposure in any reported claim no later than ninety days following receipt of the file from the member agency. CJPRMA understands that the liability picture may develop as discovery is ongoing, but this does not excuse the responsibility of providing an early, objective analysis of the file, subject to later developments. An early analysis not only permits the JPA member to set an accurate reserve level, but also permits the member entity to decide whether to actively litigate the case, try to settle the case, or limit discovery based upon the exposure.
2) The initial status report should provide, at a minimum, a brief synopsis of the facts giving rise to the lawsuit; the status of the pleadings, including any discussions of demurrers or motions to dismiss, or cross-complaints; a summary and analysis of plaintiff’s injuries, damages and exposures in the case; an initial impression of liability; any requests for additional investigation; a brief outline of the discovery planned; and an evaluation of anticipated litigation costs. The report need not be lengthy, and typically might not exceed three to five pages, but must address the issues directly and in a straightforward manner so that the member entity and CJPRMA can set cost and loss reserves as necessary. 3) Defense counsel is responsible to report, in writing, the setting of a trial date, settlement conference date, hearing date on motion for summary judgment or similar dispositive motion in any litigated case, within one week of the date on which a court establishes such date.
4) Defense counsel is responsible to report, in writing, all settlement demands or offers within one week of the time the offer is made or the demand is received. 593
Exhibit D
17 DocID #75201v1
5) Defense counsel is responsible to report, in writing, on the substance of all depositions taken in the case. This need not be a multi-page deposition summary, but must, at a minimum, include a concise report of major events occurring at the deposition, and an evaluation of the effect of the deposition testimony on the case. 6) Finally, no later than sixty days before the date set for trial in any case, defense counsel is responsible to report, in writing, on (1) an assessment of liability in the case, (2) the adverse potential exposure if liability is found, (3) a concise summary of injuries sustained and/or claims, (4) an assessment of any other factors (such as local jury tendencies, appearance of important witnesses, etc.) that may affect the liability analysis or exposure assessment, and (5) an opinion on the settlement value of the case. 7) All status reports from defense counsel must be copied to the CJPRMA Board member whose entity is involved in the claim.

This policy is designed to protect the member entity and CJPRMA, so that they can make informed litigation decisions on reported cases. Past experience has shown that defense counsel retained by the member entities of CJPRMA are high-caliber, hard working attorneys who have done very well for their clients, and CJPRMA is grateful for their efforts. Defense counsel are cautioned, however, that case reporting is given a high priority by CJPRMA and its members, and is a major consideration in evaluating counsel’s performance. 594
Exhibit E
18 DocID #75201v1

LITIGATION GUIDELINES
The following guidelines should be followed when the scope of work includes representing the City in litigation:
a. The Special Counsel shall consult the City Attorney regarding the component parts of litigation handled so that the City Attorney, in consultation with the City Council, if necessary, can determine whether a particular activity is reasonable in light of its costs and benefits.
b. The City Attorney must approve the identity and number of staff assigned to the litigation, and any changes.
c. All pleadings shall be submitted to the City Attorney for review prior to filing. d. Copies of major work product, pleadings, motions, orders, decisions, research memoranda, reports on significant developments, and quarterly status reports shall be submitted to keep the City Attorney advised of any major developments in the lawsuit.

Such copies shall be provided in electronic format compatible with software in the City Attorney’s office.
e. Generally, the City Attorney will rely upon Special Counsel for guidance on litigation strategy. Nonetheless, prior approval from the City Attorney is necessary for demurrers, motions for summary judgment and discovery motions.
f. City expects that Special Counsel will resolve all discovery disputes without court intervention. If this is impossible due to the conduct of others, please inform the City Attorney immediately. City’s intent is to have discovery be fair and open with the money spent on reviewing relevant items that are discovered, not on discovery battles. g. Provide full descriptions of legal tasks performed. This will help the City Attorney follow case development and understand Firm’s strategy. h. Some types of litigation-related expenses require prior approval by the City Attorney, including, but not limited to, experts and investigators. Expenses over a certain dollar amount always require prior approval. See Section III (Reimbursements) of Exhibit B (Billing Protocols and Guidelines) of this Agreement for a list of those expenses that may be reimbursed.
595
Exhibit F
19 DocID #75201v1

CITY OF RICHMOND
Sanctuary City Compliance Statement
The undersigned, (hereafter "Contractor"), has had an opportunity to review the requirements of City of Richmond Ordinance 12-18 (hereafter "SanctuaryCity Contracting Ordinance" or “SCCO”). Contractor understands and agreesthat 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 servicesto the U.S. Immigration and Customs EnforcementDivision 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 sourcesfor 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 servicesto 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 certifiesthat it complies with the requirements ofthe SCCO and that if at anytime 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 underthe laws ofthe State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Printed Name: Title:

Signed: Date:

Business Entity:
596
Exhibit F
20 DocID #75201v1
Vendor SCCO Compliance Statement (July2024)
597
Exhibit G
21 DocID #75201v1
City of Richmond - Insurance Requirements - Type 2:

Professional Services
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 SelfInsure, signed by the California Department of Industrial Relations and SelfInsurance. 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.
598
Exhibit G
22 DocID #75201v1
City of Richmond - Insurance Requirements - Type 2:

Professional Services
Automobile Liability $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage.

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.

PROJECT COST
$0 - $1 million
$1 million - $5 million
Over $5 million

REQUIRED LIMIT
$1 million p/o
$2 million p/o
$5 million p/o
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. 599
Exhibit G
23 DocID #75201v1
City of Richmond - Insurance Requirements - Type 2:

Professional Services
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 Manager. 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. 600
cc21June2026 – sl/prc

RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA, June 16, 2026
Community Services Building
440 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
_____________________________________________________________________ A. SPECIAL OPEN SESSION TO HEAR PUBLIC COMMENT BEFORE CLOSED

SESSION
The Richmond City Council Special Evening Open Session was called to order at 4:30 p.m. by Mayor Eduardo Martinez.

B. ROLL CALL

Present: Councilmembers Claudia Jimenez, Sue Wilson, Cesar Zepeda, Vice Mayor Doria Robinson, and Mayor Eduardo Martinez. Absent: Councilmember Soheila Bana arrived after the Open Session adjourned to Closed Session. Councilmember Jamelia Brown was absent for the entire meeting.

C. CLOSED SESSION
C.1 CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Government Code
Section 54957.6)
 Agency Representatives: Sharrone Taylor, Jack Hughes, and Lisa Charbonneau
Employee organizations:

1. SEIU Local 1021 Full-Time Unit and Part-Time Unit

2. IFPTE Local 21 Mid-Level Management Unit and Executive Management Units

3. Richmond Police Officers Association RPOA

4. Richmond Police Management Association RPMA

5. IAFF Local 188

6. Richmond Fire Management Association RFMA
D. PUBLIC COMMENT BEFORE CLOSED SESSION (limited to items on the Closed Session agenda only)
Cordell Hindler gave comments in person regarding Item C.1 (labor negotiations).

E. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION
The Open Session adjourned to Closed Session at 4:33 p.m. Closed Session adjourned at 5:37 p.m.

F. SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE RICHMOND HOUSING

AUTHORITY/RICHMOND CITY COUNCIL
The Special Joint Meeting of the Richmond Housing Authority/Richmond City Council was called to order at 5:40 p.m. by Chairperson/Mayor Eduardo Martinez.

G. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairperson/Mayor Martinez led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 601
cc21June2026 – sl/prc

H. ROLL CALL

Present: Commissioners/Councilmembers Soheila Bana, Claudia Jimenez, Sue Wilson, Cesar Zepeda, Vice Chairperson/Vice Mayor Doria Robinson, Chairperson/Mayor Eduardo Martinez, and Tenant Commissioner Jaycine Scott. Absent:

Commissioner/Councilmember Jamelia Brown was absent for the entire meeting.

I. STATEMENT OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
None.

J. REPORT FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
None.

K. AGENDA REVIEW
None.

L. HOUSING AUTHORITY OPEN FORUM
Cordell Hindler gave comments in person recommending that the council approve the Housing Authority Consent Calendar as presented.

M. HOUSING AUTHORITY CONSENT CALENDAR
Motion by Tenant Commissioner Scott
Seconded by Chairperson/Mayor Martinez
To approve all items on the Housing Authority Consent Calendar.

Ayes (7): Commissioners/Councilmembers Bana, Jimenez, Wilson, Zepeda, Vice Chairperson/Vice Mayor Robinson, Chairperson/Mayor Martinez, and Tenant Commissioner Scott.

Absent: (1): Commissioner/Councilmember Brown.

Passed (7 to 1)
M.1 Meeting Minutes
APPROVE the minutes of the March 17, 2026, special and April 7, 2026, regular Housing Authority meetings - City Clerk's Office (Pamela Christian 510-620- 6513).

M.2 Richmond Housing Authority (RHA) Cost Allocation Plan Approval ADOPT a resolution approving the Title 2 Code of Federal Regulations 200 Compliant Version Cost Allocation Plan to be implemented for Richmond Housing Authority (RHA) Budgeting (Fiscal Year 2026-2027) – Richmond Housing Authority/Finance Department (Nannette Beacham/Antoinette Terrell 510-621-1300).

Adopted Resolution No. 2227
N. JOINT RICHMOND HOUSING AUTHORITY / RICHMOND CITY COUNCIL

BUDGET SESSION
N.1 Proposed Richmond Housing Authority Budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2026- 2027
ADOPT a joint resolution approving the proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2026-2027 Richmond Housing Authority (RHA) budget, with total estimated revenues of $4,154,579 and total estimated expenditures of $5,439,652; APPROVE an RHA subsidy from the City of Richmond General Fund in the amount of $1,260,073, 602
cc21June2026 – sl/prc

and AUTHORIZE the use of available Hacienda proceeds in the amount of $25,000 to balance the RHA budget to $5,439,652 in estimated revenues and $5,439,652 in expenditures - Richmond Housing Authority/Finance Department (Antoinette Terrell 510-620-6784/Rita Martinez 510-621-1546).

Richmond Housing Authority Executive Director Antoinette Terrell presented a PowerPoint: Link to view Proposed RHA Budget for Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Cordell Hindler gave comments in person. Discussion ensued.

Motion by Commissioner/Councilmember Zepeda
Seconded by Commissioner/Councilmember Jimenez
To adopt said joint resolution as recommended.

Ayes (6): Commissioners/Councilmembers Jimenez, Wilson, Zepeda, Vice Chairperson/Vice Mayor Robinson, Chairperson/Mayor Martinez, and Tenant Commissioner Scott.

Absent: (2): Commissioners/Councilmembers Bana and Brown.

Passed (6 to 2)
Adopted Resolution Nos. 2228 and 88-26
O. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:05 p.m.

P. REGULAR MEETING OF THE RICHMOND CITY COUNCIL
The Regular Meeting of the Richmond City Council was called to order at 6:05 p.m. by Mayor Eduardo Martinez.

Q. ROLL CALL

Present: Councilmembers Soheila Bana, Claudia Jimenez, Sue Wilson, Cesar Zepeda, Vice Mayor Doria Robinson, and Mayor Eduardo Martinez. Absent: Councilmember Jamelia Brown was absent for the entire meeting.

R. STATEMENT OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Vice Mayor Robinson stated a conflict of interest regarding a portion of Item X.1 (budget session) related to the Transformative Climate Communities grant.

S. AGENDA REVIEW
The following items were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion at the end of the agenda:

Item W.3.c (Contract Amendment No. 2 with Just Cities, LLC for Implementation of the Housing Equity Roadmap).

Item W.5.b (Contract with All Star Painting KD Inc. for Graffiti Removal of Historic Concrete).

Item W.10.e (Roadway Modification at Glenn Avenue and McBryde Avenue for the McBryde Avenue Safe Routes to Park Project).

New Business Item Z.5 (Support for SB 1259 – Transparency for Refinery Asset Retirement Obligations) was added to the Consent Calendar for approval. The City Council Office was requested to submit the letter of support, instead of the City Manager's Office. (Item Z.5 was subsequently continued to the June 23, 2026, City Council meeting).
603
cc21June2026 – sl/prc

New Business Item Z.1 (2025 Annual Military Equipment Use Report) and New Business Item Y.3 (Ordinance Modifying Chapter 12.19 of the Richmond Municipal Code entitled “Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems”) were continued to the July 7, 2026, City Council meeting.

T. REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY OF FINAL DECISIONS MADE

DURING CLOSED SESSION
Interim City Attorney Shannon Moore reported that there were no final decisions made.

U. REPORT FROM THE CITY MANAGER (public comment allowed under Open Forum)
City Manager Shasa Curl presented a PowerPoint: Link to view City Manager Report V. OPEN FORUM FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
(public comment on items that remained on the Consent Calendar or items that were not on the agenda – was limited to 2 minutes unless otherwise specified - Back and forth dialogue with the Council was prohibited)
The following individuals gave comments in person:

Travis Keeton acknowledged city staff for sending residents street-sweeping citation reminder letters. He pointed out that the streets on Macdonald Avenue, Nevin Avenue, and Carlson Boulevard needed repaving.

Cordell Hindler shared the City of Walnut Creek's Economic Development Plan. He advocated for more retail development in downtown Richmond. Mr. Hindler gave comments in support of Item W.8.b (appointment of Sherwin Harris to the Macdonald Avenue Corridor Task Force).

Don Gosney expressed concerns regarding the City Council meeting rules and moving discussion items to the Consent Calendar during the meeting.

Kimberly Graves requested that dash cameras be provided in all city police vehicles. She shared her experience during a recent police traffic stop where there was no dash camera to provide independent evidence. Ms. Graves urged the council to review the Police Department's policies and equipment.

Anthony Contraras, Tarnel Abbott, O'Neill Fernandez, Jennifer Brayfield, Janny Castillo, Terro McMillion, Justin Wilson, Ricardo Haros, Lateshia Starling, Tshombe Perkins, Marcela Hidalgo, Emily Lowry, Shelby Lowry, Leanna Dechine, Robert Pascale, Zahra Zyed, Angelina Brasana, Prasona, Matthew Breault, Daniel Barth, and Randy Scott gave comments in support of unhoused services provided by the Safe Organized Spaces (SOS) organization. They urged the council to continue SOS's full funding allocation. Mr.

Fernandez invited the council and community to visit SOS on any Monday or Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., at 32 Harbor Way in Richmond.

Claudia Citroen gave comments against private conversations on the council dais and the practice of moving discussion items to the Consent Calendar during the meeting. She expressed concerns regarding equal speaking time limits for all councilmembers.

Philip Rosenthal praised the council for restoring Flock cameras in the city to help police find criminals. He encouraged the council to approve public safety labor contracts before adopting the budget. Mr. Rosenthal objected to the city's use of the term "military equipment" to describe a police drone.

Jill McLemore gave comments in support of unhoused services provided by SOS. She requested that the city's Community Crisis Response Program's mobile response team, Reach Out with Compassion and Kindness (ROCK), be defunded. 604
cc21June2026 – sl/prc

Mark Wassberg shared his experience during a 1972 riot in Point Richmond.

Sue Dean-McGilpin and Jayne Dean-McGilpin reminded the council that the Hilltop Green neighborhood needed an emergency escape route. They expressed concerns regarding the existing single point of entry and exit and urged the council to restore funding to complete the project.

Carlos Torres and Mayeli Rico gave comments in support of the community bicycle services provided by Rich City Rides. They urged the council to support the proposed E-bike Lending Library.

Irania De La Mora opposed the public comment time limit. She announced that she would be singing on June 28, 2026, at the Richmond Flea Market and possibly at the city's Juneteenth event and in Berkeley, near the Ashby BART station.

Nana Johnson shared a letter written by a friend (Ms. B) describing an incident at the Budget Motel in El Cerrito on June 10, 2026, involving an alleged threat with a machete.

Ms. B expressed concerns regarding safety at the site.

The following individuals gave comments via teleconference:

Kevin Molaney advocated for an emergency exit in the Hilltop Green neighborhood. He informed the council that there was only one point of ingress and egress. Mr. Molaney urged the council to ensure funding for a secondary fire escape and evacuation egress.

Jenny B. gave comments in support of the proposed E-bike Lending Library that would potentially provide e-bikes to Richmond residents free of charge.

W. CITY COUNCIL CONSENT CALENDAR
(All items placed under the Consent Calendar were considered to be routine and noncontroversial. These items were enacted upon together with a motion and second, without discussion, of any member of the City Council, and each item was deemed to have received the action recommended.)
Motion by Councilmember Jimenez
Seconded by Vice Mayor Robinson
To approve all items on the City Council calendar except Items W.3.c, W.5.b, and W.10.e.

Ayes (6): Councilmember Bana, Councilmember Jimenez, Councilmember Wilson, Councilmember Zepeda, Vice Mayor Robinson, and Mayor Martinez.

Absent (1): Councilmember Brown
Passed (6 to 1)
W.1 City Attorney's Office
W.1.a Legal Services Agreement Amendment No. 4 with Liebert Cassidy Whitmore for Labor and Employment Matters
APPROVE a fourth amendment to the Legal Services Agreement with Liebert Cassidy Whitmore for support in labor relations and police personnel matters, extending the term through June 30, 2027, and increasing the payment limit by $400,000 for a total amount not to exceed $1,965,000 – City Attorney’s Office/Human Resources Department (Shannon Moore 510-620-6505/Sharrone Taylor 510-620-6803). 605
cc21June2026 – sl/prc

W.2 City Clerk's Office
W.2.a Contract with eScribe Software Ltd. for Agenda Preparation and Management System
APPROVE a sole-source contract with eScribe Software Ltd. for agenda management software and related support services for the production and publication of City Council agendas and agenda packets, for a three-year term from July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2029, in an amount not to exceed $56,251.20 for the first year, with annual increases of up to eight percent in each subsequent year – City Clerk’s Office (Pamela Christian 510-620- 6513).

W.3 Community Development
W.3.a Zoning Text Amendments Related to 6th Cycle Housing Element Program Implementation
ADOPT an ordinance (second reading) as recommended by Richmond’s Planning Commission, amending Articles 15.04.104, 15.04.201,

15.04.202, 15.04.203, 15.04.602, 15.04.607; Sections 15.04.610.180,

15.04.610.360, 15.04.805.040 and 15.04.806.040 of the Richmond Municipal Code (RMC) - Community Development Department (Lina Velasco/Avery Stark 510-620-6714).

Adopted Ordinance No. 9-26 N.S.

W.3.b Contract Amendment No. 4 NV5 Environmental, L.P. for Environmental Consulting at the Miraflores Property
APPROVE a fourth contract amendment with NV5 Environmental, L.P. (NV5), increasing the contract amount by $250,000, for a total contract amount not to exceed $686,300, for environmental consulting services related to the Miraflores Property, for a term ending December 31, 2027 – Community Development Department (Lina Velasco 510-620-6841).

W.3.c Contract Amendment No. 2 with Just Cities, LLC for Implementation of the Housing Equity Roadmap
APPROVE a second contract amendment with Just Cities, LLC to support completion and implementation of the Housing Equity Road Map increasing the payment limit by $49,999, for a total payment limit of $209,994, and extending the term through December 31, 2027– Community Development Department (Lina Velasco 510-620-6841/Jesus Morales 510-620-6649).

Continued to the June 23, 2026, City Council meeting.

W.3.d Contract with Contra Costa County Health, Housing, and Human Services Department for Encampment Resolution Funding Round 2 Services APPROVE a sole-source contract with Contra Costa County Health, Housing, and Human Services Department to provide project management and support services related to the City’s Encampment Resolution Funding Round 2 Project, for a total contract amount not to exceed $2,600,000, for a term extending through August 31, 2027 – Community Development Department (Lina Velasco/Jesus Morales 510-620-6706).
606
cc21June2026 – sl/prc

W.4 Community Services
W.4.a Contract with Health Management Association, Inc. to Conduct an Assessment of Richmond’s Mental Health and Trauma-Response Services APPROVE a contract with Health Management Associates, Inc. to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the City’s mental health and trauma-response services, in an amount not to exceed $150,000 with a term beginning June 16, 2026, and ending December 31, 2026, and authorize the city manager or designee to approve any necessary amendments within the approved budget – Community Services Department (Sam Vaughn 510-620-5404/Angelica Howay 510-307-8049).

W.4.b Accept the 2026-2029 California Violence Intervention and Prevention Grant and Contract with RPAL and Evident Change for Program Services and Evaluation
ADOPT a resolution to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE grant funds associated with the 2026-2029 California Violence Intervention and Prevention Program (CalVIP) grant award in the amount of $2,034,800 and APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the city manager or their designee to negotiate and execute (1) the CalVIP grant agreement and any amendments thereto; and (2) multi-year contracts, with termination dates ranging from March 31, 2029, through September 30, 2029, with Richmond Police Activities League (RPAL) ($450,000) and Evident Change ($100,000) – Community Services Department (LaShonda White/Sam Vaughn 510-620-5404).

Adopted Resolution No. 89-26
W.4.c Approve the Production Agreement Contract with Pyro Spectaculars North Inc. for a Fireworks display Show on July 3, 2026
APPROVE the production agreement contract with Pyro Spectaculars North Inc. to provide a fireworks display show on July 3, 2026, at the Richmond Marina in an amount not to exceed $106,500, with a term from June 16, 2026, through December 31, 2026 - Community Services Department (Ranjana Maharaj/Troy Porter 510-829-1825).

W.5 Economic Development
W.5.a Contract with Deonta Allen for the Civic Center Apartments Art Mural APPROVE a contract with Deonta Allen for the design and installation of a public art mural at the Civic Center Apartments in an amount not to exceed $70,000, with a term commencing on June 16, 2026, and ending June 30, 2027; and ADOPT a resolution to APPROPRIATE $73,742.49 in developer-paid public art funds currently held in the Arts & Culture 1.5 percent Capital Improvements Program Fund for contract costs and related project expenditures - Economic Development Department (Nannette Beacham 510-215-4600).

Adopted Resolution No. 90-26
W.5.b Contract with All Star Painting KD Inc. for Graffiti Removal of Historic Concrete
ADOPT a resolution to APPROVE a contract with All Star Painting KD Inc. for graffiti removal from the historic concrete surfaces of the General Warehouse Building, for a term expiring December 31, 2027, in an 607
cc21June2026 – sl/prc

amount not to exceed $87,777 – Economic Development Department/Port (Charles Gerard 510-620-6792).

Continued to the June 23, 2026, City Council meeting.

W.6 Finance Department
W.6.a Investment and Cash Balance Report, Monthly Overtime Reports, Documentary Transfer Tax Report, and Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) and Pension Report for the month of April 2026
RECEIVE the City’s Investment and Cash Balance Report, Monthly Overtime Reports, Documentary Transfer Tax Report, and Other PostEmployment Benefits (OPEB) and Pension Report for the month of April 2026 – Finance Department (Emily Combs 510-620-6740).

W.6.b Contract with SCI Consulting Group for Ballot Measure Feasibility, Strategic Communications, and Public Opinion, and Public Outreach APPROVE a sole-source contract with SCI Consulting Group to provide ballot‑measure feasibility analysis, strategic communications services, public‑opinion research, and public information outreach for the period of April 28, 2026, through June 30, 2027, in an amount not to exceed $247,000 for Phase 1, with Phase 2 services – Finance Department (Emily Combs/Mubeen Qader 510-412-2077).

W.6.c Special Assessments for Unpaid Garbage Collection Service Fees ADOPT a resolution and AUTHORIZE placement of liens and special assessments for unpaid garbage collection service fees on Contra Costa County’s property tax records – Finance Department (Emily Combs/Mubeen Qader 510-620-6740/Antonio Banuelos 510-620-6741).

Adopted Resolution No. 91-26
W.7 Human Resources
W.7.a Amendments to Position Control List
ADOPT a resolution amending staffing and position control list and allocating the necessary salary, wages, and benefits as required – Human Resources Department (Nickie Mastay/Sharrone Taylor/Emily Combs 510-620-6602).

Adopted Resolution No. 92-96
W.8 Mayor's Office
W.8.a Appointment of Courtney Bulletti to the Human Relations Commission APPOINT Courtney Bulletti to the Human Relations Commission to a vacant seat with a new term ending March 30, 2029 – Mayor’s Office (Mayor Eduardo Martinez 510-620-6503).

W.8.b Appointment of Sherwin Harris to the Macdonald Avenue Corridor Task Force
APPOINT Sherwin Harris to the Macdonald Avenue Corridor Task Force with the term that expires on December 31, 2026 – Mayor’s Office (Mayor Eduardo Martinez 510-620-6503).
608
cc21June2026 – sl/prc

W.8.c Reappointment of Lorene Holmes Dees to the Commission On Aging REAPPOINT Lorene Holmes Dees to the Commission On Aging to a vacant seat with a new term ending May 19, 2030 – Mayor’s Office (Mayor Eduardo Martinez 510-620-6503).

W.8.d Appointment of Ysela Lopez to the Richmond Youth Council APPOINT Ysela Lopez to the Richmond Youth Council to a vacant seat with a term ending December 31, 2027 – Mayor’s Office (Mayor Eduardo Martinez 510-620-6503).

W.8.e Expansion of the Macdonald Avenue Corridor Task Force Membership Correction
APPROVE the correction to the May 19, 2026 Council action by adding one (1) additional seat to the Macdonald Avenue Corridor Task Force, for a total of five (5) new seats, consisting of three (3) business representatives, one (1) resident representative, and one (1) flexible seat designated for either a property owner, business owner, or a combination thereof, to be filled through the standard Boards and Commissions process — Mayor’s Office (Mayor Eduardo Martinez 510-620-6502).

W.8.f Proclamation Recognizing the First Friday in June as National Gun Violence Awareness Day
PROCLAMATION recognizing the first Friday in June to be National Gun Violence Awareness Day – Mayor Eduardo Martinez (510-620- 6503)/Councilmember Jamelia Brown (510-412-2050).

W.9 Police Department
W.9.a Monthly Crime Report for April 2026
RECEIVE the monthly Crime Report from the Richmond Police Department for April 2026 – Police Department (Chief Timothy Simmons 510-621-1802).

W.10 Public Works
W.10.a Joint Powers Agreement for Participation in the Contra Costa County Regional Alternative Compliance System
ADOPT a resolution to APPROVE a Joint Powers Agreement for participation in the Contra Costa County Regional Alternative Compliance System, which provides an off-site stormwater treatment compliance option for projects that cannot feasibly meet on-site stormwater treatment requirements; and AUTHORIZE the city manager, or their designee, to execute the agreement and any related documents necessary to implement the program – Public Works Department (Bradley Harms 510-307-8094).

Adopted Resolution No. 93-26
609
cc21June2026 – sl/prc

W.10.bTask Authorization to Veolia for Fiscal Year 2025-26 Grade 5 Risk Assessment Analysis Sewer Rehabilitation Work
ADOPT a resolution to AUTHORIZE the issuance of a Task Authorization to Veolia Water West Operating Services, Inc. for the Fiscal Year 2025-26 Grade 5 Risk Assessment Analysis Project to repair and/or rehabilitate two miles of sanitary sewer pipes, in an amount not to exceed $5,441,812, including a base amount of $4,534,843 and a 20 percent
contingency - Public Works Department (Tawfic Halaby 510-620-5482).

Adopted Resolution No. 94-26
W.10.c Purchase Eight Fleet Vehicles for the Port, Parks, and Abatement Operations from Dublin Chevrolet
ADOPT a resolution to APPROVE the purchase of eight (8) fleet vehicles from California Automotive Retailing Group, Inc. DBA Dublin Chevrolet, utilizing Alameda County Master Contract No. 901979, in a not-to-exceed amount of $700,000, for use by Port, Parks, and Abatement operations – Public Works Department (Daniel Chavarria 510-620-5478/Darin Fitzpatrick 510-231-3044).

Adopted Resolution No. 95-26
W.10.d Freeway Maintenance Agreement Amendment with California Department of Transportation at the intersection of Central Ave and I-80 (“Caltrans”).

ADOPT a resolution to APPROVE an amendment to the Freeway Maintenance Agreement with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to update maintenance responsibilities associated with new bicycle and pedestrian improvements at the Central Avenue and Interstate80 interchange and AUTHORIZE the city manager, or their designee, to execute the agreement – Public Works Department (Hillal Hamdan 510- 621-1612/Daniel Chavarria 510-620-5478).

Adopted Resolution No. 96-26
W.10.e Roadway Modification at Glenn Avenue and McBryde Avenue for the McBryde Avenue Safe Routes to Park Project
ADOPT a resolution to APPROVE a roadway modification associated with the McBryde Avenue Safe Routes to Park Project, including closure of the direct vehicular connection between Glenn Avenue and McBryde Avenue to improve traffic safety, reduce cut-through traffic, and support pedestrian and bicycle connectivity – Public Works Department (Hillal Hamdan 510-621-1612/Daniel Chavarria 510-620-5478).

Continued to the June 23, 2026, City Council meeting.

W.10.f Construction Agreement Amendments and Accept the Shields-Reid Park Field for the Soccer Fields-Restrooms-Parks Project
ADOPT a resolution to APPROVE the first amendment to the construction agreement with Bauman Landscape & Construction, Inc. to increase the agreement amount by $450,000 for a revised total agreement amount of $2,135,580.98; APPROVE the first amendment to the construction agreement with Calico California Constructores, Inc. to increase the agreement amount by $300,000, for a revised total agreement amount of $2,625,479.61; AUTHORIZE the director of public works to approve change orders up to 10 percent of the revised construction agreement amounts for revised not-to-exceed totals of $2,349,139.08 for Bauman 610
cc21June2026 – sl/prc

Landscape & Construction, Inc. and $2,888,027.57 for Calico California Constructores, Inc; ACCEPT the Shields-Reid Park Field project as complete; AUTHORIZE the city clerk to file the Notice of Completion with the Contra Costa County Recorder’s Office; and AUTHORIZE the city engineer to release the contractor bonds and retention payment, provided there are no outstanding liens or stop notices – Public Works Department (Darcie DeLashmutt 510-672-3944/Daniel Chavarria 510- 620-5478).

Adopted Resolution No. 97-26
W.10.gGrade Crossing Construction and Maintenance Agreement with Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) for the Harbour Way South and Wright Avenue Crossing
ADOPT a resolution to APPROVE a Grade Crossing Construction and Maintenance Agreement with Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) and related project documents for the Harbour Way South and Wright Avenue railroad crossing safety improvements project; AUTHORIZE payment of associated easement, license, railroad coordination, and force-account costs using available grant reimbursement funding; and AUTHORIZE the city manager, or their designee, to execute the agreement and related project documents – Public Works Department (Hillal Hamdan 510-631-1398/Daniel Chavarria 510-620-5478).

Adopted Resolution No. 98-26
W.10.hContract with FBD Vanguard Construction, Inc. for the Richmond Art and Lighting Safety and Accessibility Improvements Project
ADOPT a resolution to APPROVE a construction contract with FBD Vanguard Construction, Inc. for the Richmond Art and Lighting Safety and Accessibility Improvements Project in an amount not to exceed $3,577,318 (Base Bid of $3,252,107 plus a City-controlled contingency of $325,211, equal to ten percent of the contract amount); AUTHORIZE the city manager, or designee, to execute; and AUTHORIZE the director of public works to approve change orders, if necessary, up to the contingency amount - Public Works Department (Jene Levine Snipes 510-307- 8132/Daniel Chavarria 510-620-5478).

Adopted Resolution No. 99-26
W.10.i Civil Rights Act Title VI Implementation Plan for Public Works Federally Funded Projects
ADOPT a resolution approving the City of Richmond Public Works Department Title VI Implementation Plan to ensure compliance with federal nondiscrimination requirements for federally funded programs and projects - Public Works Department (Hillal Hamdan 510-621-1612).

Resolution No. 100-26
X. BUDGET SESSION
X.1 Review and Provide Direction on the Fiscal Year (FY) 2026-27 Proposed Budget and FY 2026-31 Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan REVIEW proposed Fiscal Year 2026-27 Budget, Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan Budget for Fiscal Years 2026-27 through 2030-31; and PROVIDE DIRECTION to staff prior to final budget adoption – City Manager’s 611
cc21June2026 – sl/prc

Office/Finance Department (Shasa Curl/Emily Combs/Mubeen Qader 510-412- 2077).

City Manager Shasa Curl introduced the matter. Ms. Curl, Administrative Chief Patrick Seals, Director of Finance Emily Combs, and Director of Public Works Daniel Chavarria presented a PowerPoint: Link to view Moving Richmond Forward
The following individuals gave comments in person: Cordell Hindler, Claudia Citroen, Bruce Beyaert, BK Williams, and Tarnel Abbott. Kevin Tisdell gave comments via teleconference.

Discussion ensued. Vice Mayor Robinson recused herself from portions of the discussion related to the Transformative Climate Communities grant due to a conflict of interest. The council requested or suggested the following: Analysis of the increase in business revenue broken down by sector for non-housing related economic development over a term of five to ten years similar to the PowerPoint Slide 11; consider funding the budget cuts listed on PowerPoint Slide 13 with any funds that became available before funding new non-emergency items; look into the Point Molate Bay Trail Project encroachment issue; provide a list of potential risks associated with proposed Ballot Measure 1983 (retroactive invalidation of special taxes); consider acquiring fleet and electric vehicles from local dealers; remove bars from the windows at the Shields-Reid Community Center; formalize the Earthquake Preparedness Ad Hoc Committee; funding for a Home Hardening Program and an emergency exit for the Hilltop Green neighborhood; funding for two care navigators for the Community Crisis Response Program (ROCK); provide a multi-year position control list showing actuals and highlighting positions with no intent to fill; continue to work on grazing for fire prevention; provide the plans for the portion of the Bay Trail under construction that was receiving $1 million in funding; and move forward with the staff recommendation to fill the funding gap (Option 1) with the adjustment to allocate $260,000 for fire prevention grazing and the Hilltop Green emergency exit, and place everything else on the "bike rack" for future consideration.

Y. PUBLIC HEARINGS
City Clerk Pamela Christian announced that it was time, pursuant to public notice, to hold public hearings.

Y.1 Master Fee Schedule Update
HOLD a public hearing; and INTRODUCE an ordinance (first reading) establishing certain fees for the proposed Master Fee Schedule – Finance Department (Emily Combs/Mubeen Qader/Antonio Banuelos 510-620-6741).

This item was continued from the May 19, 2026, and May 26, 2026, meetings.

Accounting Manager Antonio Banuelo and Director of Finance Emily Combs presented a PowerPoint: Link to view Master Fee Schedule Update Mayor Martinez declared the pubic hearing opened. Claudia Citroen gave comments in person. Hope Dixon gave comments via teleconference. Mayor Martinez closed the public hearing.

Discussion ensued. The council requested or suggested the following: provide access to the city's small facilities for community members to host events at a reasonable rental rate; address issues with and improve the city's facilities rental fee waiver program to make the process easier; establish partnerships with the Merchant Association, county, and school district, and consider a facilty rental fee waiver policy for ongoing community events; determine the amount of funds the 612
cc21June2026 – sl/prc

city can afford for facility rental fee waivers and publicize the policy to the community at-large; explore providing blanket insurance for community block party events; review the existing tobacco retail fees to ensure they reflect staff time; reevaluate the park land dedication fee to ensure it met the desired service level; consider fee discounts for seniors; and determine whether the taxi fee applies to Uber and Lyft.

Motion by Councilmember Zepeda
Seconded by Councilmember Wilson
Ayes (6): Councilmember Bana, Councilmember Jimenez, Councilmember Wilson, Councilmember Zepeda, Vice Mayor Robinson, and Mayor Martinez.

Absent (1): Councilmember Brown
Passed (Passed 6 to 1)
Y.2 Annual Public Hearing on Vacancies
HOLD a public hearing and RECEIVE a presentation on the status of vacancies and the City’s recruitment and retention efforts in 2025 – Human Resources Department (Nickie Mastay/Sharrone Taylor 510-620-6803). This item was continued from the May 19, 2026, and May 26, 2026, meetings.

Deputy City Manager Internal Services Nickie Mastay and Director of Human Resources Sharrone Taylor presented a PowerPoint: Link to view City of Richmond Vacancy Report
Mayor Martinez declared the public hearing opened. Cordell Hindler gave comments in person.

SEIU Local 1021 President Kevin Tisdell and Field Representative Josiah Branaman presented a PowerPoint: Link to view 2026 SEIU Local 1021 Vacancy & Staffing
(At 9:55 p.m. - a motion by Councilmember Bana, seconded by Councilmember Jimenez, to extend the meeting until 11:00 p.m. passed by the following vote:

Ayes: Councilmembers Bana, Jimenez, Wilson, Zepeda, Vice Mayor Robinson, and Mayor Martinez. Noes: None. Abstentions: None. Absent:

Councilmember Brown.)
Richmond Police Officers Association (RPOA) President Ben Therriault presented a PowerPoint: Link to view RPOA Vacancies, Recruitment & Retention
Sara Cantor and Claudia Citroen gave comments via teleconference. Mayor Martinez declared the public hearing closed.

Discussion ensued. The council requested or suggested the following: in future presentations, show Attachment 2 (comparison table) using actual counts rather than percentages; provide a supplemental document showing the fiscal year budget numbers as reference when approving additional funds; and publish the budget PowerPoint presentations on the city's website.

Y.3 Ordinance Modifying Chapter 12.19 of the Richmond Municipal Code entitled “Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems.”)
INTRODUCE an ordinance (first reading) amending Chapter 12.19 of the Richmond Municipal Code entitled "Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems" to establish temporary sewage holding tank construction standards and a permitting process for properties unable to connect to the sanitary sewer system – Public 613
cc21June2026 – sl/prc

Works Department (Daniel Chavarria 510-620-5478/Tawfic Halaby 510-620- 5482/José Valenzuela 510-620-6955).

Continued to the July 7, 2026, City Council meeting.

Z. NEW BUSINESS
Z.1 2025 Annual Military Equipment Use Report
ADOPT a resolution approving the Richmond Police Department’s 2025 Annual Military Equipment Use Report and authorizing the continued use of approved military equipment consistent with Government Code sections 7070 through 7075, Policy Manual section 707, and the findings required by Government Code section 7071(d) – Police Department (Chief Timothy Simmons/Captain John Lopez 510-621-1802).

Continued to the July 7, 2026, City Council meeting.

Z.2 Update on Richmond Asset Inventory and Management Initiative RECEIVE a presentation on the Richmond Asset Inventory and Management Initiative – Public Works Department (Tawfic Halaby 510-620-5482).

Director of Public Works Daniel Chavarria introduced the matter. Deputy Director of Public Works Tawfic Halaby presented a PowerPoint: Link to view Richmond Asset Inventory and Management
Discussion ensued. The council requested that dog parks be added to the list of assets in the future.

Z.3 Explore Regional Partnerships and "Piggyback" Contracting Opportunities for a July 3rd Drone Light Show at Hilltop Mall
DIRECT the city manager to contact neighboring municipalities to identify regional 4th of July drone show contracts, assess the feasibility of "piggybacking" onto an existing municipal vendor agreement to secure discounted regional pricing, and explore hosting a sustainable drone light show at Hilltop Mall on July 3rd at a discounted price and bring back findings for a City Council decision by June 23, 2026 - Councilmember Soheila Bana (510-672-3490).

Continued to the June 23, 2026, City Council meeting.

Z.4 23rd Street Ciclovía Pilot Project
RECEIVE an update on the proposed 23rd Street Ciclovía Pilot Project and PROVIDE DIRECTION to staff regarding whether this effort should be prioritized within the current Transportation and Public Works work plan, including consideration of staffing capacity, cost, trade-offs with existing Councildirected priorities, and impacts to ongoing traffic safety, traffic calming, grantfunded project delivery, and resident/Council traffic-related requests - Public Works Department (Gail Payne 510-620-6716/Daniel Chavarria 510-620-5478).

Continued to the June 23, 2026, City Council meeting.

Z.5 Support for SB 1259 – Transparency for Refinery Asset Retirement Obligations
DIRECT the city manager to submit a letter of support to the California State Legislature for Senate Bill 1259 on behalf of the City of Richmond – Councilmember Claudia Jimenez (510-620-6565).

Continued to the June 23, 2026, City Council meeting.
614
cc21June2026 – sl/prc

AA. REPORTS OF OFFICERS: REFERRALS TO STAFF, AND GENERAL REPORTS (INCLUDING AB 1234 REPORTS)(limited to two minutes per Councilmember) AB. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:57 p.m., to meet again on June 23, 2026, at 6:00 p.m.

Pamela Christian, Clerk of the City of
Richmond
Eduardo Martinez, Mayor
615

July 28, 2026
City Clerk's Office
DATE: July 28, 2026
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM: Pamela Christian, City Clerk
Subject: Sole-Source Contract with Logik Systems, Inc.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: The total proposed expenditure is $144,000 ($48,000 annually for a three-year term). The proposed $48,000
expenditure for the first year of the contract is included within the City Clerk’s Fiscal Year 2026-2027 budget
(Account String: 01141013–400209).

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None.

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

The City is experiencing high volumes of requests for
records in the form of California Public Records Act
(PRA) requests, subpoenas, etc. Many of the documents
responsive to requests require review prior to release.

Document review has become increasingly difficult due to limited staff and the inability of current software systems to meet the demand. The City Clerk’s Office is seeking
approval of a sole-source contract with Logik Systems,
Inc. to implement an E-Discovery software system which
offers features that would improve the current document review process.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: APPROVE a sole-source contract with Logik Systems, Inc., for subscription services to Logikcull E-Discovery software to support management and review of
documents related to California Public Records Act
(PRA) requests, subpoenas, and other regulatory
matters, in an amount not to exceed $144,000 for a threeyear term of July 29, 2026, through July 28, 2029, subject AGENDA
REPORT
616

July 28, 2026
to final review and approval of all terms by the city
attorney – City Clerk’s Office (Pamela Christian 510-620- 6513).

DISCUSSION:

In recent years there has been a high increase in the number of requests for records the City receives. Additionally, the complexity of requests along with the volume of documents in need of review have also grown. City staff that assist with reviewing records responsive to California Public Records Act (PRA) requests, subpoenas, etc. are facing significant challenges as the current software systems in place are not effective in handling the growing number of requests.

Tables 1 and 2 below illustrate the number of PRA requests received and files uploaded to NextRequest by City staff in response over the last few years. Of note is that some files uploaded contain multiple documents within a single file (i.e. zip files, pst. files, emails with attachments, etc.). Furthermore, the page numbers of documents range anywhere from single digits to thousands.

Table 1: California Public Records Act Requests (PRA) Received 2023-2026

DATE RANGE TOTAL NUMBER OF NEW PRA REQUESTS RECEIVED
January 1, 2023-December 31, 2023 843
January 1, 2024-December 31, 2024 1,105
January 1, 2025-December 31, 2025 1,605
January 1, 2026-July 21, 2026 1,123
TOTAL = 4,676
Table 2: Files Uploaded to NextRequest by Staff in Response to PRA Requests 2023-2026

DATE RANGE TOTAL NUMBER OF FILES UPLOADED TO

NEXTREQUEST IN RESPONSE TO PRA REQUESTS
January 1, 2023-December 31, 2023 24,216
January 1, 2024-December 31, 2024 14,691
January 1, 2025-December 31, 2025 8,083
January 1, 2026-July 21, 2026 13,807
TOTAL = 60,797
The City’s existing software systems exhibit slow processing speeds, an inability to efficiently process different types of document formats and are lacking duplicate document detection in addition to filtering/organizational features. City staff time spent reviewing/redacting records has become excessive since many of these functions are 617

July 28, 2026
being performed manually for each file. As a result, response times and staff workload have been heavily impacted, making the current process unsustainable.

The City Clerk’s Office in collaboration with the City Attorney’s Office has determined that the Logikcull platform meets the operational requirements for collecting, processing, searching, reviewing, redacting and producing electronically stored records. Logikcull offers features that would expand the City’s ability to handle review of voluminous records such as bulk redaction, document indexing/filtering, deduplication, personally identifiable information (PII) detection, and semi-automated PII redaction.

Implementation of Logikcull would assist the City in streamlining the current document review process, improving response times and compliance with statutory deadlines.

Other companies offer similar software; however, the Logikcull platform is best suited for the City’s current needs due to its capability for quick implementation, integrated workflows, hosted environment and proprietary functionality. Logikcull offers its platform directly to public agencies and also through Carahsoft Technology Corporation under a cooperative purchasing agreement. Purchasing through Carahsoft would provide the same underlying Logikcull software through an intermediary but is expected to add approximately 5% to 10% to the direct subscription price without providing additional required functionality or services. A direct agreement would establish responsibility for implementation, licensing, hosting, security, technical support and account administration directly with the software provider.

Contracting directly with Logikcull is therefore in the City’s best interest because it provides the required proprietary platform through the company responsible for developing and supporting the service, avoids unnecessary intermediary costs and establishes direct accountability for system performance, data security, and customer support.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Proposed Contract
Attachment 2 – Sole Source Justification
Attachment 3 – IT Authorization Form
618

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.

CITY CLERK'S OFFICE JASUARA CASTANEDA [email protected] (510) 620-6674 Document review/redaction software
LOGIK SYSTEMS INC. 548 MARKET ST., PMB 40135 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 Kevin O'Malley (630) 634-7989 [email protected] A Delaware corporation July 29, 2026 July 28, 2029 144,000.00 619

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
LOGIK SYSTEMS INC.
620
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]:

LOGIK SYSTEMS INC.

Provide Logikcull E-Discovery software to support management and review of documents related to California Public Records Act (PRA) requests and subpoenas. Key features of the Logikcull software include:
- Bulk Redaction
- Document indexing/filtering
- De-duplication
- Personally Identifiable Information (PII) detection
- Semi-automated PII redaction
- Re-usable data storage (150 gb)
621
Logikcull Subscription Order
Customer: City of Richmond, CA
Address: 450 Civic Center Plaza Richmond, California 94804 Primary
Account Holder
Name: Jasuara Castaneda
Email Address: [email protected]
Service Terms ● Logikcull Discovery Solution: drag & drop collection & ingestion, automated processing, ECA & review platform, search capability, unlimited productions & exports
○ Unlimited Users
○ Unlimited Matters
○ 150 GB of re-usable Active Data Storage space
● Premium in-app support with 24/7 coverage
Annual: $48,000.00
Contract Terms ● Contract Term: 7/29/2026 – 7/28/2029
● Payment Terms: Annual, Due Upon Receipt of Invoice
● Payment Method: Credit Card, Wire, or ACH
● Active Data (GB) size is based on the post-processed, post de-duplicated high watermark data size.
● Flex Usage for Active Data Storage over 150 GB will be invoiced at $44 per GB per month, or Customer can elect to increase capacity in discounted bulk data packages. ● This Order Form is entered into by and between Logik Systems, Inc. and Customer effective as of the date on which it is fully executed by both parties. ● Governed by the Logikcull Terms of Service: https://logikcull.com/terms-of-service City of Richmond, CA:

Sign:

Name:

Title:

Date:

Logik Systems, Inc.:

Sign:

Name:

Title:

Date:
622
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.

JASUARA CASTANEDA JASUARA CASTANEDA LOGIK SYSTEMS INC.
623
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: ________________________________________________ JASUARA CASTANEDA [email protected] LOGIK SYSTEMS INC. LOGIK SYSTEMS INC. 548 MARKET ST., PMB 40135 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 [email protected] 624
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, LOGIK SYSTEMS INC.
625
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.

LOGIK SYSTEMS INC.
626
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 LOGIK SYSTEMS INC.
627
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 LOGIK SYSTEMS INC.
628
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 jointventure 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 subcontractors 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 LOGIK SYSTEMS INC.
629
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.

LOGIK SYSTEMS INC.
630
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 LOGIK SYSTEMS INC.
631
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, LOGIK SYSTEMS INC.
632
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.

LOGIK SYSTEMS INC.
633
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”):

LOGIK SYSTEMS INC.

NONE
634
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
LOGIK SYSTEMS INC.
635
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)
LOGIK SYSTEMS INC.
636
___ Exhibit F
___ Section 8
City of Richmond - Insurance Requirements – Type 8:

IT and Cyber Risks
Type 1 – Page 1 of 4
Revised: September 2011
In all instances where a CONTRACTOR or its representatives will be conducting business and/or providing services, 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, 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) including coverage for bodily and personal injury, property damage, and products and completed operations.

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

3. Original and Separate Additional Insured Endorsements 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 and Builder’s Risk/ Course of Construction Insurance.

6. Cyber Liability Insurance
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 SelfInsure, signed by the California Department of Industrial Relations and SelfInsurance. 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)

PROJECT COST REQUIRED LIMIT
$0 - $5 million $2 million p/o
$5 million - $10 million $5 million p/o
Over $10 million $10 million p/o
637
___ Exhibit F
___ Section 8
City of Richmond - Insurance Requirements – Type 8:

IT and Cyber Risks
Type 1 – Page 2 of 4
Revised: September 2011

Automobile Liability $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage.

Cyber Liability Cyber Liability Insurance, with limits not less than $2,000,000 per occurrence or claim, $2,000,000 aggregate. Coverage shall be sufficiently broad to respond to the duties and obligations as is undertaken by Vendor in this agreement and shall include, but not be limited to, claims involving infringement of intellectual property, including but not limited to infringement of copyright, trademark, trade dress, invasion of privacy violations, information theft, damage to or destruction of electronic information, release of private information, alteration of electronic information, extortion and network security. The policy shall provide coverage for breach response costs as well as regulatory fines and penalties as well as credit monitoring expenses with limits sufficient to respond to these obligations.

If the Vendor maintains broader coverage and/or higher limits than the minimums shown above, the Entity requires and shall be entitled to the broader coverage and/or the higher limits maintained by the contractor. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the Entity.

Same limits as General Liability.

Required Policy Conditions
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.

Additional Insured Endorsement
Additional Insured Endorsement
(continued)
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 but not limited to 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. 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.
638
___ Exhibit F
___ Section 8
City of Richmond - Insurance Requirements – Type 8:

IT and Cyber Risks
Type 1 – Page 3 of 4
Revised: September 2011
Waiver of Subrogation
Endorsement Form
Contractor’s insurer will provide a Waiver of Subrogation in favor of the City for Workers Compensation and Builder’s Risk/ Course of Construction coverage 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.

1. 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 coverages and cover those insured in the underlying policies.

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 nonrenewed, 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 Manager. 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 639
___ Exhibit F
___ Section 8
City of Richmond - Insurance Requirements – Type 8:

IT and Cyber Risks
Type 1 – Page 4 of 4
Revised: September 2011
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.
640
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:

LOGIK SYSTEMS INC.
641
642
643
Emily
Combs
Digitally signed
by Emily Combs
Date: 2026.07.23
16:00:00 -07'00'
644
Sue
Hartman
Digitally signed
by Sue Hartman
Date: 2026.07.23
16:37:59 -07'00'
645
646

July 28, 2026
City Council
DATE: July 28, 2026
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM: Councilmember Sue Wilson (Sponsor)
Mayor Eduardo Martinez (Co-sponsor)
Subject: Resolution Opposing New Coal and Petcoke Export Facilities and Urging Stringent Regulation by the Bay
Area Air District
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with adopting this resolution.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
2015 Resolution: The City Council adopted Resolution
No. 48-15 on May 19, 2015, opposing the transport and
export of coal and petroleum coke (petcoke) due to
concerns regarding coal dust and public safety hazards.

On the same night, the Council also passed a companion
measure, Resolution No. 47-15 which specifically called on the Bay Area Air District (BAAD) (formerly known as
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District or
BAAQMD) to enact stricter air quality regulations
regarding the storage and handling of coal and petcoke. 2020 Coal Phase-Out Ordinance: On January 14,
2020.The City passed an ordinance requiring the phaseout of coal and petcoke handling at the Levin-Richmond Terminal over a three-year period in response to
community health complaints.
2021 Levin Terminal Agreement: The City reached a
legal agreement requiring strict dust-control measures
and cessation of coal and petcoke operations by the end of 2026. The City Council approved the settlement terms in closed executive session, and the finalized agreement was signed by representatives of all parties on November 12, 2021.

AGENDA
REPORT
647

July 28, 2026

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

The storage and handling of coal and petcoke at bulk
transfer facilities releases significant quantities of
particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), which are linked to severe respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses. Current proposals for the Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal
(OBOT) threaten to introduce millions of tons of coal
annually into the regional rail and marine corridor, directly impacting Richmond residents.

This resolution expresses solidarity with Oakland,
opposes the OBOT project, and petitions the Bay Area
Air District (BAAD) to perform a comprehensive review
under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of all potentially significant environmental impacts from the terminal and to close regulatory loopholes by adopting a stringent new Fugitive Dust Rule.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: ADOPT a resolution opposing facilities that engage in handling and storage of coal and petcoke in the San
Francisco Bay region and urging stringent regulation of such facilities by the Bay Area Air District (BAAD) -
Councilmember Sue Wilson (510-609-2111)/Mayor
Eduardo Martinez (510-620-6503).

DISCUSSION:

This resolution:

1. Expresses solidarity with Oakland

2. Opposes the development of a new Bay Area fossil fuel transit hub called Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal (OBOT)

3. Petitions the Bay Area Air District (BAAD) to close regulatory loopholes around coal and petcoke dust by adopting a stringent new Fugitive Dust Rule

4. Encourages BAAD to perform a comprehensive review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of all potentially significant environmental impacts from the OBOT project.

The City of Oakland has been opposing the development of the Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal (OBOT) for more than 10 years. Although the Oakland City Council banned the handling and storage of coal within the city in 2016, subsequent lawsuits supported the developers position that the ban did not cover the OBOT project because it existed prior to 2016. The City of Oakland lost a separate lawsuit against the OBOT developers in 2025, and more recently, President Trump has singled out the project as a centerpiece of his energy policy plans (Oaklandside). 648

July 28, 2026
One reason to oppose the OBOT development is that the storage and handling of coal and petcoke at bulk transfer facilities releases significant quantities of particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), which are linked to severe respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses.

The health of both Oakland and Richmond residents will be compromised if the OBOT is completed. Even though the terminal would be in Oakland, trains carrying coal and petcoke – and spreading harmful particulate matter -- would run through Richmond to reach OBOT. The Richmond 2020 coal ban would not be sufficient to prohibit coal and petcoke transfer through Richmond when the shipping terminal is in another city.

The health effects of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and coarse particulate matter (PM10) are well-documented by the EPA; exposure is linked to premature death, aggravated asthma, and decreased lung function. Inhaling coal dust specifically contributes to risk of a wide range of health effects including cardiovascular and respiratory hospitalization or urgent care visits, adverse birth outcomes, possible neurological impacts, days with respiratory symptoms, restricted activity, and work or school loss. Even short PM2.5 exposures can increase the risk of adverse health outcomes including acute myocardial infarction, hospitalization and emergency department visits for cardiovascular and respiratory disease, and ambulance calls.

Furthermore, coal and petcoke dust often contain toxic heavy metals, including arsenic, lead, and chromium. Beyond human health, uncovered coal trains run alongside the San Francisco Bay, presenting an immediate threat of toxic deposition into public trust waters, which undermines regional investments in habitat restoration.

The proposed Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal (OBOT) in Oakland aims for an initial 9 to 10-million-ton annual throughput, which expert analysis predicts would increase long-term PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations over a wide area. While the project developer has promised "state-of-the-art" controls in court, these have not yet been codified into enforceable permits. Moreover, the current BAAD regulations (Regulation 6, Rule 1) contain a significant "loophole": they primarily apply to "open or unenclosed" storage piles. This resolution urges BAAD to initiate rulemaking for a coal-specific Fugitive Dust Rule—modeled after stricter standards in the South Coast Air District—to mandate the highest level of pollution control, such as covered rail cars and enclosed conveyors.

No agency has yet performed a comprehensive review under CEQA that explicitly examines the air quality impacts of handling coal at the proposed Oakland terminal.

Since the project's original 2002 EIR, new studies have confirmed that coal terminal operations significantly increase local PM10 and PM2.5 levels. This resolution also urges BAAD to conduct a supplemental CEQA review before issuing any permits for the project.

Passing this resolution would be a continuation of 10 years of Richmond City Council actions aimed at eliminating the health and environmental hazards created when coal and petcoke are shipped via trains through the city. In 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 48-15 on May 19, 2015, opposing the transport and export of coal and petroleum coke (petcoke) due to concerns regarding coal dust and public safety 649

July 28, 2026
hazards. The resolution passed 6-1 in favor, with Councilmember Nat Bates voting no.

On the same night, the Council also passed a companion measure, Resolution No. 47- 15, by an identical 6–1 vote, which specifically called on the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (now the Bay Area Air District) to enact stricter air quality regulations regarding the storage and handling of coal and petcoke.

In 2020, the City Council passed an ordinance requiring the phase-out of coal and petcoke handling at the Levin-Richmond Terminal over a three-year period in response to community health complaints. The final vote on the coal ordinance was taken on January 14, 2020: 5-1 in favor, with Councilmember Demnlus Johnson absent and Councilmember Nat Bates voting no.

In 2021 the City council signed the Levin Terminal Agreement, a legal agreement requiring strict dust-control measures and cessation of coal and petcoke operations by the end of 2026. The City Council approved the settlement terms in closed executive session, and the finalized agreement was signed by representatives of all parties on November 12, 2021.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Draft Resolution Opposing Coal and Petcoke Facilities Attachment 2 – Earthjustice Technical Petition to BAAD: Providing the legal and scientific justification for a new fugitive dust rule.

Attachment 3 – Ostro B, Spada N, Kuiper H. The impact of coal trains on PM2.5 in the San Francisco Bay Area. Air Qual Atmos Health. 2023;16(6):1173-1183. doi:

10.1007/s11869-023-01333-0. Epub 2023 Mar 15. PMID: 37303962; PMCID:

PMC10015136.

Attachment 4 – Oaklandside: Plans to fund Oakland coal terminal: The president will use the Defense Production Act to provide $75 million for a controversial West Oakland coal export hub
650
Reso. No. _____

RESOLUTION NO. ______

RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND OPPOSING

FACILITIES THAT ENGAGE IN HANDLING AND STORAGE OF COAL AND PETCOKE IN

THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION AND URGING STRINGENT REGULATION OF SUCH

FACILITIES BY THE BAY AREA AIR DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the City of Richmond in the past has expressed its concern over coal and related fossil fuels. In 2015, a City Council resolution opposed the transport and export of coal and petroleum coke. The Council declared its concern over the emissions of coal dust during the transportation of coal. It noted that the transportation of coal in open cars and the accumulation of coal on or near rail lines have been known to create public safety hazards:1and WHEREAS, the Council also noted that increased rail traffic in California from coal can lead to an increase in diesel emissions in communities along rail lines.

Other nearby jurisdictions have shared these concerns. For example, the City of Oakland has actively opposed the transport of fossil fuels by rail; and WHEREAS, the City of Richmond has also taken action regarding the storage of coal and petcoke at the Levin-Richmond Terminal. The city passed an ordinance requiring the phase out of the handling of coal and petcoke over a three-year period. The ordinance responded to complaints by many residents about the harmful effects of coal and petcoke dust on them.

Ultimately, the city reached an agreement with the Terminal’s owners that required the implementation of dust-control measures and the phasing out of coal and petcoke by the end of 2026; and
WHEREAS, emissions of coal dust can occur when products are handled and stored at bulk transfer facilities. Coal handling has been shown to significantly increase ambient fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and coarse particulate matter (PM10). These emissions can arise from operations such as the loading and unloading of cars, and the transfer of material between unloading, storage, and loading. Another source of emissions is the storage of materials in piles or silos, particularly in high wind conditions; and
WHEREAS, the health effects of PM2.5 are well-documented. According to the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, small particle pollution can affect both human health and the heart. Numerous studies have linked particle pollution to premature deaths, nonfatal heart attacks, irregular heartbeats, aggravated asthma, decreased lung function, and increased respiratory symptoms, such as irritation of the airways, coughing or difficulty breathing;2and WHEREAS, inhaling fine coal dust has been directly linked to increased asthma rates, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, and reduced lung capacity. Adverse health effects can range from minor respiratory symptoms or work loss to severe consequences including asthma and heart attacks, adverse birth outcomes, emergency room visits and hospitalizations, and neurological and cognitive impacts;3and
WHEREAS, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency concluded that “[s]ignificant quantities of fugitive dust from pet coke storage and handling operations present a health risk.” The agency expressed particular concern about particles that are 10 micrometers in diameter or smaller (PM10) because those particles generally pass through the throat and nose and enter the lungs;4 and
WHEREAS, dust from coal and petcoke can contain toxic heavy metals including arsenic, lead, and chromium. These toxic materials can have significant adverse health effects; and

1 City of Richmond Resolution No. 48-15.
2 https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/health-and-environmental-effects-particulate-matter-pm 3 See, e.g., Hendryx, M., Zullig, K. J., & Luo, J. (2020). Impacts of coal use on health. Annual Review of Public Health, 41(1), 397–415. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040119-094104 (linking coal dust exposure to a wide spectrum of health issues, including cardiovascular diseases, respiratory illnesses, and birth defects) 4 https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/petroleum-coke-chicago/health-effects-petroleum-coke_.html 651
Reso. No. _____

WHEREAS, dust from coal and petcoke can have significant impacts on fish and wildlife and on water quality in nearby public trust waterbodies such as San Francisco Bay. The transit routes for uncovered coal trains run immediately alongside the San Francisco Bay, its estuary system, and its key tributaries, presenting an immediate threat of toxic deposition into navigable waters.

Such deposition would directly undermine regional investments in water quality and habitat restoration; and
WHEREAS, proponents have proposed the approval of a facility, known as the Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal (OBOT), at a location on the former Oakland Army Base. The proponents have indicated that the terminal will receive shipments of coal on rail lines, store the coal, and then transfer the coal onto ships for transport; and WHEREAS, the residents of Richmond stand in solidarity with the residents of Oakland in their opposition to the handling and storage of coal and petcoke, given the well-documented adverse health effects from these activities;5and
WHEREAS, proponents of the proposed OBOT facility have emphasized OBOT’s “commitment toward unparalleled environmental responsibility” at the terminal. They have promised that their “preeminent concern regarding the acceptance and handling of all commodities is the mitigation and elimination of fugitive dust such that the ambient air would actually improve” as a result of the project;6and
WHEREAS, the Bay Area Air District (the Air District) has indicated that it will consider additional controls on sources of fugitive coal and petcoke dust as part of its commitment to strengthen regulatory controls on fugitive dust; and
WHEREAS, the City of Oakland, alongside neighboring municipalities such as Richmond and Berkeley, has historically voted to oppose the transport and storage of hazardous fossil fuels, including coal and petcoke, due to the documented public health and safety concerns.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Richmond opposes the transport of coal and petcoke through the city and through nearby cities. The City also opposes the handling and storage of coal at the proposed OBOT facility in Oakland.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City urges the Air District to adopt measures that would strengthen regulation of coal and petcoke as components of fugitive dust.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City urges the Air District to ensure that any air permit it issues to the OBOT facility fully protects Oakland and other Bay area residents from exposure to dangerous coal and petcoke emissions.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City urges the Air District, as part of its consideration of any air permit for the OBOT terminal, first to perform a comprehensive review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of all potentially significant environmental impacts from the terminal. No agency has yet undertaken a review that examined the environmental impacts associated with the handling and storage of coal and petcoke at the proposed OBOT terminal. The City strongly supports Assembly Bill 40, which would require such a review under CEQA.

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Council directs the City Manager and City Staff to transmit copies of this Resolution to the Oakland City Council, the Air District, the California State Legislature, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to ensure that our community's opposition is officially recorded and recognized in all pending permit evaluations and legal proceedings.
******************

5 See, e.g, Ostro, et al., The impact of coal trains on PM2.5 in the San Francisco Bay Area, AIR QUALITY, ATMOSPHERE & HEALTH, March 20, 2023 at p. 7, available https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11869-023- 01333-0
6 Letter from TLS to Hon. Mayor Libby Schaaf (July 15, 2015). 652
Reso. No. _____

***THE CLERK’S OFFICE WILL COMPLETE THE INFORMATION BELOW**** I certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting thereof held on Mmmm dd, yyyy, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:

CLERK OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
(SEAL)
Approved:

Mayor
Approved as to form:

City Attorney
State of California }
County of Contra Costa : ss.

City of Richmond }
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of Resolution No. _____, finally passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting held on Mmmm dd, yyyy.
_______________________________________
Pamela Christian, Clerk of the City of Richmond
653
July 6, 2026
Via electronic mail
Philip Fine, Ph.D.

Executive Officer
Bay Area Air District
375 Beale Street, Suite 600
San Francisco, CA 94105
[email protected]
Alexander “Sandy” Crockett
General Counsel
Bay Area Air District
375 Beale Street, Suite 600
San Francisco, CA 94105
[email protected]
Re: Permitting Process for Proposed Oakland Coal Facility Dear Dr. Fine and Mr. Crockett:

This letter is sent on behalf of Earthjustice, West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project, San Francisco Baykeeper, and Sierra Club to address the forthcoming permitting process that the Air District is expected to engage in for a proposed coal storage and handling terminal in West Oakland. Promoted by Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal, LLC (OBOT), Insight Terminal Solutions (ITS), and affiliated entities (“the developers”), the project is opposed by an overwhelming majority of residents and local and state leaders owing to the air pollution and health risks it poses to the West Oakland community.

Although the developers themselves have made few public statements in recent months, on June 4, 2026, the Trump administration announced it intends to provide $75 million in funds for the construction of the project.
1 According to the federal Department of Energy, OBOT “aims for an initial 9 to 10-million-ton throughput capacity” and ITS “plans to finalize design, secure outstanding permits, and complete terminal construction to enable the first cargo shipment by the end of 2028.”
2 1 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Department to Use Defense Production Act Funding to Expand Coal Capacity at 13 Plants and Build Export Infrastructure (June 4, 2026), https://www.energy.gov/articles/energy-department-use-defense-production-act-funding-expand-coalcapacity-13-plants-and; U.S. Department of Energy, Defense Production Act Title III Project Selections:

Coal Fleet Projects and West Gateway Terminal, https://www.energy.gov/hgeo/defense-production-acttitle-iii-project-selections-coal-fleet-projects-and-west-gateway (last visited June 28, 2026). 2 U.S. Department of Energy, Defense Production Act Title III Project Selections: Coal Fleet Projects and West Gateway Terminal.
654
2 As described below, the Bay Area Air District (Air District) will play a singularly important role in evaluating the project and imposing effective mitigation measures, especially for fugitive coal dust emissions. More specifically, the Air District must evaluate whether to issue the facility both an authority to construct and a permit to operate. As you know, such permits are discretionary, triggering a duty for the Air District to perform an analysis pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Further, any permits issued by the Air District should require the developers to institute the facility design elements and fugitive dust control measures that OBOT has represented publicly and in court that it will implement at the facility.

I. OBOT has acknowledged the proposed coal project must obtain discretionary permits from the Air District.

In 2015, after the developers’ plans to build a coal (and petroleum coke) facility were exposed, plans that flatly contradicted their previous, public denials of such a project, 3 the City of Oakland
adopted an ordinance and resolution that purported to ban the storage and handling of coal within City limits. OBOT successfully sued the City in federal court to void application of the ordinance to the project on the grounds that it violated a development agreement that limited the City’s authority to impose new laws and regulations.
4 One of OBOT’s principal arguments in the litigation was that the City’s ordinance was unneeded because the City and public could rely on the Air District’s permitting process to prevent any air quality issues.5 As OBOT testified to the court: “There is no dispute that OBOT must obtain an Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate . . . before it may construct, operate and continue to operate the Terminal” and these permits, if issued, “will protect against a substantially dangerous air quality condition.”
6 Similarly, in a sworn declaration filed with the court, Phil Tagami, the President and CEO of California Capital Investment Group, Inc. (CCIG), the sole member of OBOT, averred:
3 A newsletter emailed by the developers to community members in December 2013 denied that OBOT would handle coal, quoting Phil Tagami: “‘It has come to my attention that there are community concerns about a purported plan to develop a coal plant or coal distribution facility as part of the Oakland Global project,’ Tagami said. ‘This is simply untrue. The individuals spreading this notion are misinformed.

CCIG is publicly on record as having no interest or involvement in the pursuit of coal-related operations at the former Oakland Army Base.’” Oakland Global Trade & Logistics Center and California Capital & Investment Group, Oakland Global News: Monthly Updates on the Oakland Global Trade & Logistics Center Project (Dec. 2013).
4 See generally Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal, LLC v. City of Oakland (OBOT I), 321 F. Supp. 3d 986, 988 (N.D. Cal. 2018).
5 See, e.g., Plaintiff OBOT’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Summary Judgment, Dkt. No. 135, OBOT I, Case No. 3:16-cv-07014-VC at ECF pp. 38-41 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2017). 6 Id. at ECF p. 40; accord id. at ECF p. 16 (“OBOT has always acknowledged that whatever terminal it builds and operates may not be built or operated without a multitude of permits . . . includ[ing] permits from BAAQMD.”); accord Plaintiff OBOT’s Trial Brief, Dkt. No. 208, OBOT I, Case No. 3:16-cv07014-VC at ECF p. 8 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 1, 2018) (“OBOT must obtain an Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate . . . before it may construct, operate and continue to operate the Terminal.”). 655
3 OBOT has always understood, stated and agreed that whatever terminal it wishes to build and operate will be subject to a multitude of permits. Among the agencies that I understand and agree will have to issue permits to OBOT before any permit to build and/or operate the terminal would be granted will be the Bay Area Air Quality Management District . . . .
7 Consultants retained by OBOT also highlighted that the coal storage and handling project could proceed only after the Air District issues the needed authorizations. For example, Lyle Chinkin of Sonoma Technology, an OBOT expert witness, testified during trial that both a construction permit and a permit to operate “are required of stationary sources, like the proposed terminal operation.”8 Mr. Chinkin’s expert report, filed with the court, similarly explained that OBOT would need to obtain permits, including “a permit to operate its facility . . . which would require use of [Best Available Control Technology], among other requirements.” 9 Significantly, not only did OBOT acknowledge to the court that the proposed coal facility would need to obtain permits from the Air District, but it also emphasized the Air District’s authority and discretion to institute stringent, site-specific requirements to control fugitive coal dust emissions that would protect local residents. For example, one OBOT filing described the Air District’s permitting process as “an iterative, cooperative process between [the agency] and an applicant,” which involves “‘a dialogue’ to discuss the design and construction aspects before a permit is issued or any development takes place.”
10 These assertions confirm the testimony of
OBOT’s expert, Lyle Chinkin, who told the court that a source typically “negotiate[s] . . . permit conditions” with the Air District.11
OBOT also underscored the scope of the Air District’s permitting discretion. It represented to the court that “BAAQMD may condition the issuance of a permit on an applicant’s compliance with various restrictions, the simplest of which is a limitation on throughput.” 12 A report by HDR
Engineering (HDR) submitted to the court by OBOT made the same point, stating the Air District “will ensure that Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for emissions reduction is applied as required, and will enforce any additional appropriate air permit conditions needed for 7 Declaration of Phil Tagami, Dkt. No. 137, OBOT I, Case No. 3:16-cv-07014-VC at ¶ 3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2017).
8 Trial Transcript, OBOT I, Case No. 3:16-cv-07014-VC at 333 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2018) (testimony of Lyle Chinkin).
9 Supplemental Declaration of Lyle Chinkin, Exhibit G, Expert Report of Mr. Lyle Chinkin, dated Oct. 6, 2017 [hereinafter Chinkin Expert Report], Dkt. No. 185, OBOT I, Case No. 3:16-cv-07014-VC at ECF p. 98 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2017); accord Declaration of David E. Myre, Exhibit 47, Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal, Air Quality & Human Health and Safety Assessment prepared by HDR Engineering, dated Sept. 2015 [hereinafter HDR Engineering Report], Dkt. No. 141-47, OBOT I, Case No. 3:16-cv07014-VC at ECF p. 16 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2017) (“Operations at OBOT will require an air permit through BAAQMD”).
10 Plaintiff OBOT’s Proposed Findings of Fact, Dkt. No. 238, OBOT I, Case no. 3:16-cv-07014-VC at ECF p. 25 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2018).
11 Trial Transcript at 334.
12 Plaintiff OBOT’s Proposed Findings of Fact, Dkt. No. 238 at ECF p. 25; see also Trial Transcript at 334, 337 (Lyle Chinkin’s testimony discussing the Air District’s authority to impose “conditions”). 656
4 these specific operations.”
13 According to HDR, the Air District is “one of the most stringent regulatory agencies in the U.S.”
14 The agency, it went on, will “impose emissions limits with monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements to ensure that the facility will not cause or contribute to a violation of air quality standards . . . .” 15 The federal district court accepted these statements in overturning the Oakland coal ordinance. It concluded that “the Air District would require OBOT to obtain permits to operate and that the Air District could impose conditions to limit emissions from the project.” 16 According to the
court, “the Air District can, and typically will, impose conditions on both the authority to construct and the permit to operate. And the Air District will not issue the permit to operate if the developer does not comply with the conditions associated with the authority to construct.” 17 Most importantly, the court cited the Air District’s rules in underscoring the scope of the Air District’s regulatory discretion. It found that “[t]he Air District has a fair amount of latitude: it can impose almost any condition that it deems necessary to ensure compliance with its emissions limits and other regulations.”
18 II. Before issuing any permits for the proposed coal project, CEQA requires the Air District to perform a subsequent or supplemental environmental review.

Before issuing any discretionary permits for the coal project, CEQA requires the Air District to independently assess the environmental review performed by the City to ensure that the analysis and mitigation measures are adequate for the Air District’s own decision making. Here, the outdated reviews for the coal project wholly fail to address coal and therefore are plainly inadequate. Given OBOT’s repeated promises of stringent regulatory controls and the documented health risks posed by fugitive coal dust emissions, a complete analysis of the project’s air impacts is unquestionably needed, with CEQA playing a central role in that analysis.

A. CEQA imposes independent obligations upon the Air District.

CEQA applies when an agency like the Air District “can use its judgment in deciding whether and how to carry out or approve a project.”19 The permitting decisions the Air District will make for the proposed coal storage and handling facility are subject to CEQA because, as discussed above, it is beyond dispute (and OBOT in fact has conceded) that the Air District “has the power to shape” the design, pollution controls, and operations of the facility “in ways that are responsive to environmental concerns.”20
13 HDR Engineering Report, Dkt. No. 141-47 at ECF p. 8. 14 Id. at ECF p. 14.
15 Id.
16 OBOT I, 321 F. Supp. 3d at 1001.
17 Id.
18 Id. at 1001-02 (citing BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rule 2 at 2-2-16, 2-2-18). 19 CEQA Guidelines, Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, §§ 15002(i); 15060(c); accord Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21081(a).
20 Friends of Juana Briones House v. City of Palo Alto, 190 Cal. App. 4th 286, 302 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010). 657
5 While the Air District’s obligations under CEQA are greatest when it serves in the role of “lead agency” for a project,21 CEQA still imposes meaningful substantive duties on the Air District when it acts as a “responsible agency” (i.e., where another agency conducts its own CEQA review).
22 As the CEQA Guidelines explain, the Air District must “reach[] its own conclusions on whether and how to approve the project involved.”23
The Air District’s important, independent obligations as a responsible agency to evaluate and mitigate the impacts of its permitting decisions include the following:
• The Air District must determine whether the environmental impact report (EIR) prepared by the lead agency is “adequate” for purposes of the Air District’s own approval(s).24 • If a change in circumstances, project modifications, or new information indicates the possibility of new or substantially more significant impacts than those disclosed by the lead agency, then the Air District must prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR.25 • The Air District itself must evaluate and impose “any feasible alternative or feasible mitigation measures within its powers that would substantially lessen or avoid any significant effect the project would have on the environment.”26 According to the Guidelines, “the Responsible Agency shall not approve the project as proposed if the agency finds any [such] feasible alternative or feasible mitigation measures within its powers.”27
• Further, the Air District must record independent findings and a statement of facts for each significant effect of the permitted project, supported by substantial evidence.28 B. The outdated environmental reviews for the proposed coal project do not address project operations, fugitive coal dust impacts, or feasible mitigation measures for coal handling and storage.

Regarding the proposed coal storage and handling facility, the City of Oakland, as lead agency, prepared (1) an initial EIR for the much broader Oakland Army Base (OARB) Area Redevelopment Plan in 2002,
29 and (2) an Initial Study/Addendum in 2012 that focused more 21 See, e.g., Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21002.1(d), 21067; CEQA Guidelines, § 15042. 22 Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21002.1(d), 21069; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15042, 15096. 23 CEQA Guidelines, § 15096(a).
24 Id. § 15096(e), (f).
25 Id. §§ 15096(e), (f); 15162, 15163; accord Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21166. 26 CEQA Guidelines, § 15096(g).
27 Id. (emphasis added).
28 Id. §§ 15064(a)(2), 15091,15096(h); see also We Advocate Thorough Environmental Review v. City of Mount Shasta, 78 Cal. App. 5th 629, 640 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022). 29 See generally City of Oakland, Environmental Impact Report for Oakland Army Base Redevelopment Plan, draft (Apr. 2002) and final EIR (July 2002) [hereinafter, collectively, 2002 EIR], https://www.oaklandca.gov/Planning-Building/General-Plan-Neighborhood-Plans/Neighborhood-and658 6 narrowly on project changes to an area referred to as the “OARB sub-district,” including the “West Gateway” area, where the proposed coal facility would be located.30 However, these reports are not remotely adequate under CEQA to support the Air District’s forthcoming air permitting process for the proposed coal project.

First and foremost, the existing reports neither explicitly contemplate, let alone evaluate, the development of a coal facility at the site. In the 2002 EIR, the City only examined using the Gateway area for “light industrial, research and development (R&D), and flex-office space uses, with business-serving retail space” along with “some warehousing and distribution facilities and ancillary maritime support facilities.”31 The EIR did not assess rail use or a new maritime terminal.
32 And nowhere does the document mention—let alone address—the impacts of storing or handling dusty, toxic coal.

The 2012 Addendum does acknowledge that the West Gateway might be used for either a “working waterfront” where “[c]argo would move directly between ships and rail,” or for R&D and open space.33 But, for the working waterfront project variant, the Addendum only notes vaguely that “[e]xport cargo would consist of non-containerized bulk goods.”34 The Addendum provide no further discussion about potential commodities, and it wholly fails to examine the possibility that coal will be stored, handled, or shipped through the facility.

Second, neither the 2002 EIR nor the 2012 Addendum considers the possibility that, after the West Gateway site is redeveloped, future site operations might generate significant quantities of harmful fine particulate matter (PM2.5) or coarse particulate matter (PM10) as fugitive dust.

Instead, both reports focus exclusively on fugitive PM2.5 and PM10 emissions generated from construction and remediation activities.35
But studies show the operations of a coal terminal pose the greatest threat to air quality and the public. For example, a recent study funded by the California Air Resources Board measured significant, coal-related increases in air pollution associated with coal and petroleum coke operations at the Levin Richmond Terminal.
36 The study found that rail conveyance of coal
through Richmond, storage of full and empty coal rail cars at a holding yard, and coal storage Citywide-Plans/Gateway-Industrial-District-Oakland-Army-Base/2012-Oakland-Army-Base-ProjectInitial-Study-and-Documents. 30 City of Oakland, 2012 Oakland Army Base Project Initial Study / Addendum at 4-9, 19-20, 30, Figure 2-5a, 44 (May 2012) [hereinafter 2012 Addendum], https://www.oaklandca.gov/Planning-Buil ding/General-Plan-Neighborhood-Plans/Neighborhood-and-Citywide-Plans/Gateway-Industrial-DistrictOakland-Army-Base/2012-Oakland-Army-Base-Project-Initial-Study-and-Documents. 31 2002 EIR at 3-31; accord id. at 1-9, 3-8, Table 3-1, 3-31. 32 See id. at 3-8, Table 3-1.
33 2012 Addendum at Figure 1-2, 7, Table 1-1, 30, 44.
34 Id. at 30.
35 2002 EIR at 4.4-15 to 4.4-31; 2012 Addendum at 123-24, 133, Table 3.3-1, 147-53. 36 See generally Bart Ostro et al., Assessment of Coal and Petroleum Coke Pollution; Air Quality, Health, and Environmental Justice (Apr. 2023),
https://ucdavis.app.box.com/s/sh55sgeix0r39k07zfsai1tcamux8qpw; see also Bart Ostro et al., The impact of coal trains on PM2.5 in the San Francisco Bay area, 16 Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health 1173 (2023), https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10015136/. 659
7 and handling activities at the terminal all increased community exposure to PM2.5.37 The 2002 EIR and 2012 Addendum do not account for any operational fugitive dust emissions from the site, let alone the toxic emissions from fugitive coal dust expected during the planned 66-year lifespan of the project. Accordingly, further environmental review is necessary.

Third, putting aside that the 2002 EIR did not discuss a bulk goods terminal at the site and that the 2012 Addendum provides scant details and never mentions coal as a bulk commodity, the project proponents apparently intend to build a higher-volume facility than the Addendum evaluated. As noted above, the Trump administration’s announcement of funding for the project stated that OBOT “aims for an initial 9 to 10-million-ton throughput capacity.”38 A second release by the Trump administration raises the figure even higher, asserting the facility will be “capable of handling more than 10 million tons of bulk commodities annually.” 39 Such a capacity is significantly higher than the project described in the 2012 Addendum.

Although the 2012 Addendum did not directly state the project’s throughput capacity, it did offer that the anticipated volume of train activity “would serve one ‘panamax’ vessel call per week,” with each such vessel “65,000 to 80,000 deadweight tonnage in size.”40 This equates to an annual facility throughput of 4.16 million tons or less.
41 A 2015 submission by OBOT to the City
offered a higher figure, stating the project was targeting a “minimum throughput of 6.3 million metric tons of bulk products” with a potential maximum capacity of “up to 7.5 million metric tons of 2 bulk commodities annually.”42 In any event, both the 2012 Addendum and OBOT’s subsequent report to the City identify volumes that are significantly smaller than the current reported capacity of 9 to 10 million tons or more annually.

Fourth, beyond substantial changes to the purpose and size of the project itself, in the 24 years since the original EIR was prepared and 14 years since the Addendum was issued, circumstances have changed and new information has emerged. These factors indicate both that the coal project poses new significant impacts not yet examined and that significant impacts previously identified will be more severe. For example:
37 Ostro et al., Assessment of Coal and Petroleum Coke Pollution at iv-v, 52-53. 38 U.S. Department of Energy, Defense Production Act Title III Project Selections: Coal Fleet Projects and West Gateway Terminal.
39 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Department to Use Defense Production Act Funding to Expand Coal Capacity at 13 Plants and Build Export Infrastructure (emphasis added). 40 2012 Addendum at 30.
41 One panamax vessel each week for a year (52 weeks), multiplied by the maximum described size of 80,000 deadweight tonnage, equals 4.16 million tons. Actual facility throughput necessarily would be lower because deadweight tonnage “is not the same as cargo capacity,” which is less, since deadweight tonnage “includes everything loaded onto the ship: cargo, fuel, freshwater, ballast water, provisions, crew, and stores.” Charles Hays, What Is Deadweight Tonnage (DWT) and How Is It Calculated?, American Nautical Services (Apr. 8, 2026), https://www.amnautical.com/blogs/the-mariners-blog/deadweighttonnage?srsltid=AfmBOorTG1D5GD9Jm_B47bqL-3mSTfnF4i2tvZNZXUO6yt49EVNqXRGP. 42 Letter from Phil Tagami of CCIG and OBOT and Jerry Bridges of TLS to Claudia Cappio, Assistant City Administrator, City of Oakland at PC_007662 (Oct. 6, 2015) [hereinafter October 2015 Letter from Tagami to City] (response to question #6: “How much coal would actually go to Break Bulk Terminal . . . ?”).
660
8 • As noted above, a new study fully documents the significant quantities of fugitive coal dust and harmful PM2.5 emissions generated by coal terminal operations (passing train cars, rail car staging, and terminal operations).
43 • The body of studies addressing particulate matter pollution and health impacts has grown, demonstrating new and more harmful health consequences. 44 • Consistent with these studies, in 2024, EPA strengthened the national ambient air quality standard for PM2.5, lowering it from a level of 12 micrograms per cubic meter to 9 micrograms per cubic meter to better protect public health. 45 • Since the original EIR in 2002, the Air District updated its CEQA Guidelines for criteria air pollutants like PM2.5, amending the thresholds of significance that the Air District uses to address local risks and hazards.
46 • “Climate change and greenhouse gas emissions were not expressly addressed in the 2002 EIR.”47 The 2012 Addendum, for informational purposes only, included “an analysis of the proposed 2012 Project” that used “recommended May 2011 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines and Thresholds.”48 Although the 2012 Addendum calculated that greenhouse gas emissions would exceed the Air District’s then-recommended 2011 thresholds of significance, it nonetheless concluded there was no significant impact and no mitigation was required because there were no applicable greenhouse gas thresholds that applied when the 2002 43 Ostro et al., Assessment of Coal and Petroleum Coke Pollution. 44 For example, since the 2012 Addendum, COVID-19 has emerged as a significant health concern and studies demonstrate that infection rates and mortality are higher in areas with elevated levels of PM2.5 pollution. See, e.g., Paul B. English et al., Association between long-term exposure to particulate air pollution with SARS-CoV-2 infections and COVID-19 deaths in California, U.S.A., 9 Environmental Advances 100270 (2022), 10.1016/j.envadv.2022.100270 (“The increased risks for SARS-CoV-2 Infections and COVID-19 mortality associated with highest long-term PM2.5 concentrations at the neighborhood-level in California were consistent with a growing body of literature from studies worldwide, and further highlight the importance of reducing levels of air pollution to protect public health.”).
45 See generally Reconsideration of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter, 89 Fed. Reg. 16202 (Mar. 6, 2024); accord U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Finalizes Stronger Standards for Harmful Soot Pollution, Significantly Increasing Health and Clean Air Protections for Families, Workers, and Communities (Feb. 7, 2024), https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-finalizesstronger-standards-harmful-soot-pollution-significantly-increasing. 46 Compare 2012 Addendum at 133, Table 3.3-1 (summarizing the Air District’s 1999 and 2011 CEQA significance thresholds) with Bay Area Air Quality Management District, California Environmental Quality Act, Air Quality Guidelines at 3-4 to 3.5, Table 3-1 (2022) (identifying current significance thresholds). The 2012 Addendum prepared for the project identified the Air District’s 2011 thresholds of significance but did not apply them to evaluate whether air quality impacts were significant; instead, it applied the 1999 thresholds originally utilized in the 2002 EIR. 2012 Addendum at 11, 123, 144. 47 2012 Addendum at 217.
48 Id. at 217; accord id. at 231.
661
9 EIR was prepared.49
• Since the 2012 Addendum was issued, the Air District has updated the significance thresholds that it uses to evaluate climate impacts.50
• Beyond the Air District’s revised CEQA thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants and climate change impacts, many studies released over the past two decades document the major role that fossil fuel production and combustion play in bringing us closer to the serious consequences of climate change, including triggering more frequent and severe droughts, forest fires, floods, heatwaves, and other extreme weather—all of which affect the health and welfare of Bay Area residents.51
A full itemization of the changed circumstances, new studies, and other new information is beyond the scope of this letter. Beyond question, however, the existing environmental analyses of the proposed coal project are woefully outdated and cannot support informed decision making by the Air District.

Finally, the original 2002 EIR and 2012 Addendum utterly fail to identify, let alone evaluate, the mitigation measures necessary to address fugitive dust emissions from operations at a highvolume coal facility. The two documents never even acknowledge that the facility might store or handle coal, much less assess operational fugitive dust emissions of PM2.5 or PM10. As a result, the generic and incomplete mitigation measures in the two documents52 in no way meet CEQA’s requirement to identify and then impose all feasible mitigation.

49 Id. at 231 (“[T]he 1999 BAAQMD Thresholds that are the applicable thresholds for this project do not contain a greenhouse gas threshold, therefore this impact would not be considered significant.”), 232 (stating no mitigation required), 234 (same).
50 Compare 2012 Addendum at 229 (“listed below are the BAAQMD’s May 2011 quantitative significance criteria:”) with Bay Area Air Quality Management District, California Environmental Quality Act, Air Quality Guidelines at 3-6 to 3-7, Tables 3-2 & 3-3. 51 Recent studies show that climate change exacerbates poor air quality. See, e.g., Barrak Alahmad et al., Connections Between Air Pollution, Climate Change, and Cardiovascular Health, 39 Canadian Journal of Cardiology 1182 (2023), https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11097327/ (“[I]ncreases in hot climates as a result of climate change have increased the risk of major air pollution events such as severe wildfires and dust storms. In addition, . . . altered atmospheric chemistry and changing patterns of weather conditions can promote the formation and accumulation of air pollutants: a phenomenon known as the climate penalty.”). Further, recent studies show that extreme heat amplifies the adverse health effects of particle pollution. See, e.g., Mostafijur Rahman et al., The Effects of Coexposure to Extremes of Heat and Particulate Air Pollution on Mortality in California: Implications for Climate Change, 206 American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 1117 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.202204- 0657OC (“Short-term exposure to extreme heat and air pollution alone were individually associated with increased risk of mortality, but their coexposure had larger effects beyond the sum of their individual effects.”).
52 See, e.g., 2012 Addendum at 124-128, 147, 149, 151-55, 157, 165-66 (adopting no mitigation beyond the measures set forth in the 2002 EIR and the City of Oakland’s “Standard Conditions of Approval” that “apply to all projects withing the City regardless of a project’s environmental determination”) 662
10 In previous CEQA litigation concerning the proposed coal project, OBOT explicitly recognized that CEQA sometimes requires further review. In Communities for a Better Environment et al. v.

City of Oakland, local environmental groups, reacting to the news that the developers intended to store and handle coal despite prior public claims to the contrary, filed suit seeking to compel the City to perform additional CEQA review.53 OBOT, as a real party in the case, filed a demurrer, arguing that the case was untimely because, at the time, no discretionary action was pending or recently taken.54 In so arguing, however, OBOT acknowledged that “[i]f significant new information [after project approval] develops, a supplemental or subsequent EIR might be required in connection with the agency’s next discretionary approval.” 55, 56
Similarly, in state court litigation against the City of Oakland, OBOT recognized that “[t]here are legal principles that would justify re-opening of CEQA” including “a significant change in the Project proposed by OBOT.”57 In that litigation, OBOT asserted that “none of those principles were or are present in this instance,” but it premised its argument on the assertion that “[n]o further permits are required to develop and construct the Project that require discretionary review by the City.”
58 OBOT also pointed out that the City had contractually committed in its development agreement to “rely on the EIR to satisfy the requirements of CEQA to the fullest extent permissible by CEQA.”
59 Whether or not the City still has discretionary decisions to make, it is undisputed that the Air District must engage in its own discretionary review before the coal project may proceed, a duty unaffected by the City’s contractual commitments to the developer. Moreover, CEQA charges the Air District with its own, independent obligations as a responsible agency. It must ensure that an EIR’s analysis and mitigation measures are adequate and not superseded by significant changes in the project, other changed circumstances, or the emergence of new information that indicates impacts will be worse than initially disclosed. In this case, all these factors compel further environmental review of the proposed coal project.

Finally, the report submitted by OBOT’s proffered air quality expert, Lyle Chinkin, explained that “CEQA provides the basis and guidelines for compliance with [stationary source] 53 See generally Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate CBE Complaint, Communities for a Better Environment et al. v. City of Oakland (CBE v. City of Oakland), Case No. RG15788084 (Alameda Cnty.

Super. Ct. Oct. 2, 2015).
54 See generally Real Parties in Interest Notice of Hearing on Demurrer and Demurrer, and Memorandum of Points and Authorities, CBE v. City of Oakland, Case No. RG15788084 (Alameda Cnty. Super. Ct.

Nov. 9, 2015).
55 Id. at 6, 8 (emphasis in original) (quoting El Morro Community Association v. California Department of Parks and Recreation 122 Cal. App. 4th 1341, 1360-61 (2004)). 56 In its own briefing on demurrer, the City of Oakland noted it was evaluating potential discretionary actions to address the coal project, including additional permit requirements and new legislation.

Consequently, petitioners Communities for a Better Environment et al. agreed to stipulate to a dismissal of their case without prejudice. See Joint Stipulation, CBE et al. v. City of Oakland, Case No.

RG15788084, at 2 (Alameda Cnty. Super. Ct. Dec. 1, 2015). 57 Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal, LLC et al. City of Oakland (OBOT II), Case No. RG18930929, at 20, fn.8 (Alameda Cnty. Super. Ct. Dec. 4, 2018). 58 Id. at 18, 20, fn.8 (emphasis added).
59 Id. at 18.
663
11 requirements in California.”
60 Here, the 2002 EIR and 2012 Addendum unquestionably lack the information needed to develop lawful permits for the proposed coal facility.

III. The Air District must require the developers to institute the design elements and fugitive dust control measures for the facility that OBOT has committed to implementing both publicly and in court.

As noted above, OBOT emphasized in its federal court filings that the Air District would require it to install BACT at its proposed coal storage and handling facility. Indeed, not only did OBOT acknowledge that “[t]he use of BACT at the Terminal will be required by BAAQMD,” it further represented that the developers “intend to develop and construct a state-of-the-art Terminal that will implement BACT, using the newest available technologies and protective measures.” 61 As
OBOT’s expert Lyle Chinkin explained, “BACT are generally defined as the most effective emissions controls or the most stringent emissions limitations that apply to specific types of equipment or industrial processes as determined on a case-by-case basis” by the Air District. 62 Having represented in public court documents that the proposed coal project will “be a state-ofthe-art covered bulk terminal which would minimize all fugitive PM emissions to the fullest extent practicable,”63 the facility design elements and fugitive dust control measures identified by OBOT should be deemed components of BACT for the project’s operational fugitive dust emissions. They should be memorialized as requirements in its permits. 64 Those design elements and measures include the following:
• Covered rail cars – OBOT has declared it is willing “to only accept covered rail cars carrying coal at the Terminal.”
65 In the federal litigation, the court credited OBOT’s representation that OBOT has “require[ed] the terminal operator to use covered rail cars as part of its lease agreement.”
66 Notably, the court also concluded that “[n]ot only could the Air District in the Bay Area require the use of covers as a condition of issuing a permit to operate, but it could pass similar regulations that would apply more generally.” 67 60 Chinkin Expert Report, Dkt. No. 185 at ECF p. 94. 61 Plaintiff OBOT’s Proposed Findings of Fact, Dkt. No. 238 at ECF p. 38; see also Chinkin Expert Report, Dkt. No. 185 at ECF pp. 95, 98 (“For new stationary sources, the BAAQMD requires that the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) permit conditions are applied,” meaning “OBOT would be unable to obtain a permit to operate its facility without first receiving a BAAQMD permit which would require use of BACT.”).
62 Chinkin Expert Report, Dkt. No. 185 at ECF p. 95.
63 Id. at ECF p. 75; see also October 2015 Letter from Tagami to City at PC_007653 (stating the project “will incorporate . . . state-of-the art controls for handling of bulk material at a marine terminal”). 64 This letter addresses facility design elements, control technologies, and permit conditions necessary to address harmful fugitive dust emissions from operation of the proposed terminal. The proposed coal project would also generate significant emissions during construction, as well as significant operational emissions from expected train, truck, and vehicle exhaust, which are beyond the scope of this letter. 65 Plaintiff OBOT’s Proposed Findings of Fact, Dkt. No. 238 at ECF p. 12. 66 OBOT I, 321 F. Supp. 3d at 996 (citing testimony of Phil Tagami). 67 Id.
664
12 OBOT’s expert, Lyle Chinkin, stated in his expert report that he conducted a thorough literature review, and the literature “indicates that the optimal solution to reduce or eliminate fugitive coal dust is to cover rail cars transporting coal, and covers for rail cars exist and are used to cover other bulk commodities as OBOT has proposed.”68 In documentation submitted to the court and the City, OBOT indicated it planned to use removable fiberglass covers on the rail cars.69, 70
• Covered facility and operations – OBOT told the federal district court that it would build “a state-of-the-art covered bulk terminal” that would effectively enclose nearly all facets of its operations to eliminate fugitive coal dust.
71 According to OBOT’s expert and consultants, coal cars “will be unloaded systematically in a rail car unloading system that is a covered building.” 72 Next, “[t]he coal will then be
moved to different parts of the OBOT facility by a system of enclosed conveyors.” 73 The
transfer points between these conveyors will likewise be covered.74 Any onsite storage of coal will occur in “two enclosed storage buildings and one dome storage building.” 75 From
this storage area, coal will be placed “onto the ship loading conveyor” that likewise “will 68 Chinkin Expert Report, Dkt. No. 185 at ECF p. 106 (drawing on “more than a dozen sources of peerreview and gray literature”). 69 Declaration of David E. Myre, Exhibit 49, Oakland Bulk and Oversize Terminal Basis of Design, dated July 21, 2015 [hereinafter Basis of Design], Dkt. No. 141-49, OBOT I, Case No. 3:16-cv-07014-VC at ECF p. 15 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2017) (describing “cars . . . with removable, fiberglass covers”); see also October 2015 Letter from Tagami to City at PC_007691-94 (describing plans to use rail car covers manufactured by “EcoFab”).
70 OBOT has insisted that it will used covered railcars at the facility but also identified surfactants as another available option for dust suppression. Letter from Tagami to City at PC_007695; accord Plaintiff OBOT’s Proposed Findings of Fact, Dkt. No. 238, OBOT I, Case no. 3:16-cv-07014-VC at ECF pp. 12, 35 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2018); see also OBOT I, 321 F. Supp. 3d at 997 (“[T]he Air District or another agency could impose regulations or permitting conditions requiring OBOT to use surfactants.”). 71 Chinkin Expert Report, Dkt. No. 185 at ECF p. 75; see also October 2015 Letter from Tagami to City at PC_007653 (stating the project will use “state-of-the-art controls” that “represent enclosed operations for purposes of transferring commodities, including coal, from rail to ship”); id. at Exhibit 15-A, Best Practices for the Design of Multi-Commodity Loading Terminals, prepared by Cardno and dated Oct. 2015, at PC_007713 [hereinafter Cardno Report] (“[S]tate-of-the-art controls and best operating practices” will “ensure that all potential dust emissions . . . are negligible.”). 72 Chinkin Expert Report, Dkt. No. 185 at ECF p. 120; accord HDR Engineering Report, Dkt. No. 141-47 at ECF p. 7 (describing “[r]ail car unloading buildings”). 73 Chinkin Expert Report, Dkt. No. 185 at ECF p. 120; Basis of Design, Dkt. No. 141-49 at ECF p. 13 (“All conveyors will be housed in fully-enclosed galleries . . . .”). 74 HDR Engineering Report, Dkt. No. 141-47 at ECF p. 7 (“Coal conveyed to coal storage buildings or directly to docked ships should be conveyed in totally enclosed systems (including transfer points from one conveyor to another).”); Basis of Design, Dkt. No. 141-49 at ECF p. 14 (describing “enclosed transfers”); see also Chinkin Expert Report, Dkt. No. 185 at ECF p. 125 (noting that Chinkin’s analysis assumes “the transfer towers are enclosed”).
75 Chinkin Expert Report, Dkt. No. 185 at ECF p. 120; accord HDR Engineering Report, Dkt. No. 141-47 at ECF p. 7 (“Coal not immediately loaded to a ship should be conveyed to piles in the fully enclosed storage buildings . . . .”); Basis of Design, Dkt. No. 141-49 at ECF p. 13 (describing “covered” storage). 665
13 be enclosed.”
76 OBOT’s expert recognized and endorsed the feasibility of enclosing all operations at the terminal. He stated that “[c]overed bulk terminals . . . where essentially all of the unloading, movement, handling, and transloading of material occur in covered or enclosed systems” “have become more widespread.”77 Indeed, he noted that there are “several covered bulk terminals currently operating in California.” 78 OBOT’s representations to the court align with statements it made to the City, asserting “[a]ll material handling systems will be enclosed to the maximum extent possible” and “[c]ommodities at the . . . facility will be stored in fully enclosed buildings or domes.”79 These statements track a report submitted by OBOT to the City that “describe[s] what are considered best practices for the design of dry bulk loading terminals.” 80 • Bottom-dumping coal cars – OBOT represented to the court that “[c]oal would be unloaded from the bottom of the rail cars . . . over ‘dumper pits,’” with “bottom outlet gates . . . used on these rail cars to prevent the release of fugitive coal dust.”81 • Additional pollution controls – Even within the facility’s contained systems, OBOT’s expert and consultants identified the need for further dust control with the use of dry fogging and/or water spray systems during coal car unloading, conveyance of coal within the facility, and during ship loading.
82 In materials submitted to the City, OBOT also stated that “[t]he drop height of material that is transferred from railcars to conveyors to storage to shiploading will be reduced to the maximum extent possible to prevent dust” and “[c]ontrolled flow transfer chutes will be used to gently slide the material from one belt to another to prevent dust.”83 In addition to committing to the installation of BACT at the proposed coal project, OBOT has acknowledged that the Air District will not issue a permit to the facility where its “operation would result in air concentration levels that exceed the [National Ambient Air Quality 76 Chinkin Expert Report, Dkt. No. 185 at ECF p. 120.
77 Id. at ECF p. 96.
78 Id.
79 October 2015 Letter from Tagami to City at PC_007703. 80 Cardno Report at PC_007713.
81 Plaintiff OBOT’s Proposed Findings of Fact, Dkt. No. 238 at ECF p. 38; accord HDR Engineering Report, Dkt. No. 141-47 at ECF p. 7; Basis of Design, Dkt. No. 141-49 at ECF p. 15 (“[C]ars will be bottom hopper, rapid discharge style cars.”).
82 Chinkin Expert Report, Dkt. No. 185 at ECF at pp. 125-27; HDR Engineering Report, Dkt. No. 141-47 at ECF p. 7-8; Basis of Design, Dkt. No. 141-49 at ECF p. 14 (noting “[d]ry fog and/or water sprays at the covered railcar dumper building” and “transfer points and stockpiles”); October 2015 Letter from Tagami to City at PC_007703 (stating “a ‘dry fog’ dust suppression system will be installed before and after each commodity transfer point including the railcar unloading station, conveyor system, and shiploader”); Cardno Report at PC_07713, PC_07715-16.
83 October 2015 Letter from Tagami to City at PC_007703; accord Cardno Report at PC_007713. 666
14 Standards]” or otherwise “would cause an unacceptable increment in pollution.”84 To prevent these consequences, OBOT agreed that the Air District “may condition the issuance of a permit on an applicant’s compliance with various restrictions.”85 OBOT’s expert noted that example conditions include “limits on throughput, operating parameter ranges, or dust mitigation measures.”86
The federal district court endorsed OBOT’s acknowledgment of the Air District’s authority to impose additional permit conditions as needed, stating “[t]he Air District has a fair amount of latitude: it can impose almost any condition that it deems necessary to ensure compliance with its emissions limits and other regulations.”87
During court proceedings, OBOT offered two conditions that should be included in any permits for the proposed coal project:
• Limit the type of coal – OBOT represented to the court a willingness “to handle only western bituminous” or higher grade coal.88 Previously, it made the same representation to the City.89 Limiting the type of coal that can be stored and handled at the facility is an important air quality restriction because, as the federal district court noted, lower-rank “Powder River Basin coal is far dustier and likelier to emit particulate matter than western bituminous coal from Utah.”90
• Limit the throughput of coal – OBOT also represented that it would be appropriate for the Air District to “condition the issuance of a permit on . . . a limitation on throughput.”91 According to OBOT and its expert Lyle Chinking, “If OBOT’s throughput were cut in half, its emissions would correspondingly be cut in half.”
92 The federal district court emphasized this approach, agreeing that “the Air District could impose permitting conditions that would limit the amount of coal that could be processed at the terminal.”
93 Crucially, “[l]imiting the magnitude of the coal operations would have a significant impact on emissions, even if the Air District did not directly regulate coal dust from the rail transport or staging phase.”
94 84 Plaintiff OBOT’s Proposed Findings of Fact, Dkt. No. 238 at ECF pp. 24-25. 85 Id. at ECF p. 25; accord HDR Engineering Report, Dkt. No. 141-47 at ECF p. 8 (“the [Air District] . . . will enforce any additional appropriate air permit conditions needed for these specific operations”). 86 Chinkin Expert Report, Dkt. No. 185 at ECF p. 95.
87 OBOT I, 321 F. Supp. 3d at 1001-02 (citing BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rule 2 at 2-2-16, 2-2-18). 88 Plaintiff OBOT’s Proposed Findings of Fact, Dkt. No. 238 at ECF p. 12. 89 October 2015 Letter from Tagami to City at PC_007654 (stating that, “[w]ith respect to coal, if it is a commodity exported through the . . . bulk terminal, [the operator] will agree to handle only high-rank bituminous or anthracite-grade coal”).
90 OBOT I, 321 F. Supp. 3d at 1003.
91 Plaintiff OBOT’s Proposed Findings of Fact, Dkt. No. 238 at ECF p. 12. 92 Id. (citing Trial Transcript at 337 (testimony of Lyle Chinkin: “The simplest, most common restriction that was put on a permit is the amount of throughput. If your emissions are too high, you can cut them in half by cutting your throughput in half. That’s the most common approach.”)). 93 OBOT I, 321 F. Supp. 3d at 1002.
94 Id.
667
15 IV. Conclusion
The proposed coal project threatens to release significant quantities of harmful fugitive coal dust emissions, to the detriment of West Oakland and nearby communities that must already endure unhealthy levels of PM2.5 and other pollution. As the developers continue to push forward, the Air District must exercise strict oversight during its discretionary permitting process, ensuring the completion of a thorough and up-to-date assessment of air quality impacts and mitigation pursuant to CEQA. Further, the Air District must mandate the modern facility design elements, pollution control technologies, and operational limits that OBOT has promised the public, and assured the court, the Air District will impose to limit fugitive coal dust.

We hope this letter provides additional clarity regarding legal matters within your jurisdiction. In support of this letter, under separate cover, we will provide you with the key court documents and reports that we have cited. Please let us know if you have any follow-up questions or concerns that we can address.

We reserve the right to modify or add to these comments in response to any actual permit application(s) for the project.

Sincerely,
Colin O’Brien
Deputy Managing Attorney
California Regional Office, Earthjustice
[email protected]
(415) 217-2010
cc: Meredith Bauer, Principal Deputy Executive Officer
Arsenio Mataka, Deputy Executive Officer of Equity & Community Programs Kelly Crawford, Deputy Executive Officer for Enforcement and Engineering Viet Tran, Deputy Executive Officer of Public Affairs
Supervisor Lynda Hopkins, Chair, Board of Directors
Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker, Vice Chair, Board of Directors 668
Vol.:(0123456789) 1 3
Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health (2023) 16:1173–1183
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-023-01333-0
The impact of coal trains on PM2.5 in the San Francisco Bay area Bart Ostro1  · Nicholas Spada1 · Heather Kuiper2
Received: 12 December 2022 / Accepted: 25 February 2023 / Published online: 15 March 2023 © The Author(s) 2023
Abstract
Exposure to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) is associated with adverse health effects, including mortality, even at low concentrations. Rail conveyance of coal, accounting for one-third of American rail freight tonnage, is a source of PM2.5. However, there are limited studies of its contribution to PM2.5, especially in urban settings where residents experience higher exposure and vulnerability to air pollution. We developed a novel artificial intelligence-driven monitoring system to quantify average and maximum PM2.5 concentrations of full and empty (unloaded) coal trains compared to freight and passenger trains. The monitor was close to the train tracks in Richmond, California, a city with a racially diverse population of 115,000 and high rates of asthma and heart disease. We used multiple linear regression models controlling for diurnal patterns and meteorology. The results indicate coal trains add on average 8.32 µg/m3 (95% CI=6.37, 10.28; p<0.01) to ambient PM2.5, while
sensitivity analysis produced midpoints ranging from 5 to 12 µg/m3. Coal trains contributed 2 to 3 µg/m3 more of PM2.5 than freight trains, and 7 µg/m3 more under calm wind conditions, suggesting our study underestimates emissions and subsequent concentrations of coal train dust. Empty coal cars tended to add 2 µg/m3 . Regarding peak concentrations of PM2.5, our
models suggest an increase of 17.4 µg/m3 (95% CI=6.2, 28.5; p<0.01) from coal trains, about 3 µg/m3 more than freight trains. Given rail shipment of coal occurs globally, including in populous areas, it is likely to have adverse effects on health and environmental justice.

Keywords Particulate matter · PM2.5 · Train · Rail · Coal · Health Introduction
Myriad large epidemiological studies definitively establish that exposure to fine particulate matter (particles less than 2.5microns in diameter or PM2.5) is associated with a wide range of adverse health effects. Exposure to PM2.5 has been linked to premature mortality, cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, and respiratory diseases, other chronic diseases, adverse birth outcomes, and cognitive and developmental impairments (WHO 2021, U.S. EPA 2019). These effects
occur even at concentrations lower than current regulatory standards (Brunekreef et al. 2021).While most studies of PM2.5 have examined daily or multi-year exposures, there is evidence of health effects from exposures of as short as one hour (Liu et al. 2021; Peters et al. 2001; Wu et al. 2020).

The World Health Organization recently lowered their air quality guidelines and indicated there is no known safe level of PM2.5 (U.S. EPA 2019; WHO 2021). The recent study
of the Global Burden of Disease estimates that exposure to PM2.5 contributed to 6.7 million deaths per year worldwide, nearly 12% of the global total and the fourth highest risk factor for global mortality (Fuller et al. 2022). Of note, exposure to PM2.5 constitutes an environmental justice concern as exposure and adverse effects are borne disproportionately by the most vulnerable, including infants, children, the elderly, people of color, those with low incomes, and those with underlying health conditions (Tessum et al. 2021).

Recent studies report that the combustion of fossil fuels, including coal, oil, and natural gas, is the largest source of ambient PM2.5-related mortality with coal the largest source of this mortality (Vohra et al. 2021; McDuffie et al. 2015). Combustion, however, is not the only source of coalrelated particulate matter as fugitive dust from rail transport is known to be significant (BNSF Railway 2011). Trains
transport nearly 70% of coal deliveries in the United States, * Bart Ostro
[email protected]
1 Air Quality Research Center, University of California, Davis,

CA, USA
2 Oakland, CA, USA
669
1174 Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health (2023) 16:1173–1183 1 3
with coal accounting for 1 of every 3 tons of American rail freight (US Energy Information Administration 2022). In a note to its customers, the BNSF Railway’s own assessment stated: “The amount of coal dust that escapes from PRB [Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana] is
surprisingly large” and reports have indicated that as much as 3% of the coal loaded into a coal car can be lost in transit (Baruya 2012; BNSF Railway 2011). Studies have confirmed that coal trains produce particulate matter through not only engine diesel emissions but also directly from the coal. These latter emissions are via blow-off, suspension, and re-entrainment from wind erosion and wind scouring of loaded and unloaded coal cars, door leakage, and the “parasitic load, i.e., coal spilled and carried on external parts of the train (Prakash et al. 2018). The magnitude of ambient particulates from coal trains are influenced by train and wind speed, weather, moisture, rail car and load geometry, physical properties of the coal, vibration, and the use and efficacy of dust suppression methods (Prakash et al. 2018). Unfortunately, the actual contribution of coal trains to ambient PM2.5 is poorly documented.

Given the dearth of studies quantifying the effects of coal transport on subsequent concentrations of particulate matter and the significant health implications of exposure to particulate matter, additional study is warranted. Below, we report results from the novel monitoring system we developed and utilized to quantify the contribution to ambient PM2.5 from uncovered railcars that convey coal predominantly from mines in Southern Utah to the Levin Terminal in Richmond, California.

Methods and materials
Data collection
Particulate matter from coal is known to contain many impurities and elements including heavy metals known to be toxic or carcinogenic to humans (OEHHA 2015). Specifically, the coal of interest in this study originated from the Wasatch Plateau coal fields, a coal-bearing outcrop approximately 145 km long and 11 to 32 km wide (Hatch et al. 1979). Previous assessments have determined coal from the plateau to be high volatile bituminous (Hatch et al. 1979). The coal is primarily carbonaceous with various inclusions and impurities, including several mineral species along with elemental impurities of Cr, Ni, and Se. There are also trace elements including As, Ba, Cd, F, Mn, Sb, Sr, Th, U, and V (Hatch et al. 1979).

To determine the PM2.5 concentration resulting from
passing full and unloaded (“empty”) coal, freight and passenger trains, passing trains were monitored from May 19, 2022 through October 31, 2022 at a populated residential site approximately 7 km north of the terminal. The site is near the culmination of an 800-mile journey, thereby capturing the realistic conditions of long-haul coal conveyance as compared to the conditions at departure where dust suppressants are freshly applied, and trains are optimally loaded.

The monitoring site is approximately 21.5 meters east (generally downwind) of the rail line, with parkland to the east and the San Francisco Bay to the west (Fig. 1). The site was selected to avoid PM2.5 from other important sources such as major roadways, industrial facilities, Richmond port operations and the Levin terminal itself. This location and our study methodology ensured that any observed changes in PM2.5 as the trains passed were strictly due to the trains themselves.

The train monitoring system comprises three data collection systems:

1. A personal weather station

2. An air quality sensor

3. A custom camera system
The personal weather station was selected for direct data output via serial communication (VantageVue, Davis Instruments, USA). It provides temperature, ambient pressure, relative humidity, precipitation, and other meteorological parameters. The meteorological data is collected every oneminute. In addition, hourly wind speed and direction were derived from the NOAA site in Richmond for comparison.

The air quality sensor is a custom package consisting of three optical PM sensors (PMS5003, Nanchang Panteng
Technology Co., Ltd, China). These are equivalent to cellreciprocal nephelometers and are commonly recognized as the sensors used in the widely-distributed PurpleAir PA-II monitor (Ouimette et al. 2022). The sensor responds to optical scattering from a 657 nm laser. Therefore, it is associated with mass via the mass scattering coefficient, which is a function of the chemical, morphological, and optical properties of the observed particles. The accuracy of this determination is governed by the variability of particle characteristics in the temporal and spatial dimensions. The sensors’ high temporal resolution of one second and their inter-instrument precision, as assessed by numerous field and laboratory studies, were the principal qualities that enabled the detection of rapid train events (Tsai et al. 2020; AQSPEC 2022). Three channels were included to strengthen data quality control and calculate variance for each observation. The raw data from all three sensors was collected every second.

Data quality metrics of the PM2.5 data were evaluated for 1 s, 10 s, and 10 min, equivalent to instantaneous readings, train event averaging, and pre-event background conditions, respectively. Prior to evaluation, the data was cleaned to remove aberrant sensor readings. Specifically, 670
Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health (2023) 16:1173–1183 1175 1 3
values outside two standard deviations were omitted. In all cases, these values were excessively high readings from the low-cost sensor. The observations used in the subsequent statistical analysis ranged from 0 to 117.45 µg m−3 with a median uncertainty of 27%, well within the linearity range of the sensors of<300 µg3 (Barkjohn et al. 2022).

The custom camera system consists of a microcomputer
(Jetson Nano, Nvidia, USA), a camera (NoIR PiCamera,
Raspberry Pi), an artificial intelligence (AI) accelerator (Coral Edge TPU, Google, USA), a solid-state hard drive (500 GB T5, Samsung, S. Korea), and an infrared floodlight (IR Illuminator 30 deg, Axton Technologies, USA). The system is placed approximately 60 m from the chosen source and operates autonomously on a continuous basis, except for a daily 30-min period when data is being uploaded to a cloud server (Lightsail, Amazon Web Services, USA).

The camera system is the pivotal technology that enables detection of passing trains. Images from the camera are passed to the computer at 30 frames per second, where they are pre-processed and passed to the AI accelerator. The accelerator is a Tensor Processing Unit (TPU, Coral Edge TPU, Alphabet, USA), which runs an image classification model customized for the monitoring location. This model identifies whether or not a train is present in the image. If so, the computer creates a train event and records: one second before the train was detected, the entire train event, and one second after the train is no longer detected. This recording is saved as an individual train event to an external hard drive. Train speed (meters per second) and the train direction towards or away from the terminal were determined during manual post-processing of the data. Determining object velocity from video recordings is error prone due to variable image processing rates. Instead, train speeds were estimated by using the average frame rate (frames per second) recorded during the monitoring period and fixed observation points in the camera’s field of view. A schematic diagram of the system is presented in Fig. 2.

For each 24-h period, data was aggregated from all three data sources and standardized into one second observations for each measurement parameter including meteorology, PM2.5 concentrations and train detection. During this<30-min period, the monitoring systems were disabled and the data file along with associated video files were uploaded to the cloud server. The data aggregation and
upload period were scheduled in the early morning hours when train activity was determined to be consistently absent.

Fig. 1Location of monitor site
and surroundings
Fig. 2A schemata of the data
collection system
671
1176 Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health (2023) 16:1173–1183 1 3
Files located in the cloud were retrieved at the user’s convenience for post-processing, which consisted of associating particulate matter and meteorological data with the observed train events based on the shared data timestamps. Accurate date and time determinations were ensured by consistent internet connection and verification by the operating system.

Further detail on the derivation of the variables used in our analysis is provided in Appendix A.

Data management
The PM2.5 during train passage was recorded in one-second concentrations and averaged for the roughly 4 to 5 min of passage (longer for freight trains). In addition to the PM2.5 average during the passage of the train, the maximum 10-s average concentrations during the train passage were also recorded and analyzed in order to compare with previous studies.

To determine the change in PM2.5 due to passing trains, we quantified the difference between the measured PM2.5 at the rail site and a “control” period of exposure. The control, also considered a “pre-exposure” period, corresponded to the period just prior to a train’s passage, allowing capture of ambient PM2.5 without the train’s contribution as well as controlling for normal diurnal and regional changes in PM2.5 concentrations. A generally similar approach was used by previous studies (Jaffe et al. 2015; Akaoka et al. 2017).

We also established a gap between the control period and the train passage to ensure that particles influenced by the high-pressure zone in front of an oncoming train would not be included in the control.

To select the duration of the control exposure and this gap immediately before the train passage, we examined several alternatives including: a five-minute average ending with a 2- minute gap before the train (5/2) as well as 3/2, 5/5, 10/2, 10/5 and 10/10. Ultimately, the results were insensitive to the alternative control and gap periods, so only the results using 10/10 are reported below.

Analysis
We addressed several issues including whether full or empty coal cars contribute to local ambient PM2.5 concentrations and, if so, by how much. We also compared the impacts
of coal cars relative to those of both freight and passenger trains. Using multiple linear regression with the change in PM2.5 concentration as the dependent variable, our model included binary variables for each of the four train types (passenger, freight, empty and full coal) and examined and controlled for potential confounders. For example, a previous study found a strong association between PM2.5 from coal trains and the effective wind speed (the sum of train and wind speed) (Jaffe et al. 2015). To test the sensitivity of our results to the model specification, we examined the impact of several covariates including train speed, wind speed, effective wind speed, duration of exposure (based on the elapsed time of the train passing), average temperature, dewpoint and relative humidity. The inclusion of humidity served to control for the potential impact of the hygroscopic property of fine particles when measured with optical sensors. We ran the model without a constant term, which facilitated the direct comparison of the impact among the train types. The model results were identical to a model that adds a constant term and drops one of the train types to avoid multi-collinearity.

Additional sensitivity analysis included examining the
impact of converting the negative values for the change in PM2.5 into zero values. The negative change from the control period could be a result of significant dust from activities at the monitor’s residential location, dust from trains occurring in the control period, or from a sudden change in wind speed or direction prior to the train arrival. We also considered subsets of certain covariates. For example, we examined those days where wind was below the mean level of 3.1 mph since these calmer periods may relate to higher concentration at the nearby monitor, whereas particles may disperse to a larger area under other wind conditions. Finally, we tested a model where the air quality sensor was calibrated and directly corrected for relative humidity using the closest Federal Equivalency Method (FEM) monitor to our site.

This monitor was located in nearby San Pablo (Air Quality System Site ID: 06–013-1004), 1.6 km from our site and
generated the following fit, with an R2
of 0.58:
where PM2.5_C is the calibrated and corrected concentration of PM2.5, and PM_PA is the original reading at the train site. In addition to the average change in PM2.5 (difference of PM2.5 during train passage and the control), the maximum (10 s average) concentration relative to the control period was analyzed to compare with findings of previous studies.

Results
Ultimately, during the six-month observation period, the increases in ambient PM2.5 concentrations were measured during the passage of four different train types. Complete data were available for full coal trains (n=15), empty coal trains (n=14), freight trains (n=568) and passenger trains (n=2235) as identified by the video recordings from the camera system described above. There were some significant differences between characteristics of the train types (see Appendix B for detailed summary statistics). For example, focusing on freight trains versus full coal trains, the mean PM2.5_C= 9.79 + .76 ∗ PM_PA − 0.095 ∗ humidity
672
Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health (2023) 16:1173–1183 1177 1 3
duration (in seconds) and speed (m/s) for the former were 236 and 18.3, versus 144 and 12.5 for the latter. At the other extreme, the means of these same parameters for passenger trains were 2.2 s and 31.7 m/s.

The results for the basic regression model are presented in Table 1. As expected, wind and train speed were both statistically significant. In addition, the passage of an empty coal car contributed about 2.3 µg/m3 (95% CI=-0.28, 4.82; p<0.1) to the ambient air, while freight and full coal cars contributed 4.5 µg/m3 (95% CI=3.82, 5.18; p<0.01) and

6.8 µg/m3 (95% CI=4.34, 9.24; p<0.01). Controlling for
the direction of the freight train did not alter the results.

This finding indicated that the regression coefficients of these three train types (freight and full/empty coal) were statistically significant from zero and also statistically different from each other. In contrast, the PM2.5 increment from passenger trains was relatively small and not significantly different from zero, so it was not included in the sensitivity analyses below. The amount of explained variation from the basic model was relatively low at 16%.

The findings of the sensitivity analysis are displayed in Table 2. Given the null impact of passenger trains, further results for this mode were not included. Model (1) reproduces the results of the basic model. Model (2) added the average temperature during the one-hour average that included the train passage, and resulted in increases in the PM2.5 impact for all three train types with empty coal, freight and full coal cars contributing 5.6 µg/m3 (95% CI=2.5, 8.7),

7.5 µg/m3 (95% CI=5.8. 9.2) and 9.7 µg/m3 (95% CI=6.8,

12.6), respectively. All were statistically significant with p<0.01. Model (3) indicates the impact of adding humidity which resulted in reductions of approximately 2.5 µg/m3 from the basic case. Model (4) again includes humidity but assigns a zero value when the change in PM2.5 was negative.

This adjustment slightly increased the PM2.5 contribution of all of the train types. Model (5) adds a control for dewpoint, a combination of temperature and humidity, which resulted in an increase in the change in PM2.5 from the basic model, while in Model (6) observations are restricted to those occurring during calm wind conditions (less than the mean of 3.0 mph). This constraint significantly increased the contribution of coal trains to ambient PM2.5 to 12.1 µg/ m3 (95% CI=7.7, 16.5; p<0.01) versus 5.1 µg/m3 (95%
CI=3.8, 6.4; p<0.01) for freight cars. Finally, Model (7) uses the data from the calibrated PM2.5 concentrations and generated statistically significant estimates of 8.3 µg/m3 (95% CI=6.4, 10.3; p<0.01) and 6.5 µg/m3 (95% CI=6.0,

7.1; p<0.01), respectively, for full coal and freight trains.

Models (1) through (6) each exhibited modest R2 less than

0.19. However, the calibrated Model (7), which provided a robust correction for humidity, explained 53% of the variation in the change in PM2.5. Additional model specifications of Model (7) with covariates used in the earlier models such as train duration, effective wind speed or quadratic terms failed to improve the model fit.

Table 1Regression Results for Basic Model
PM2.5ave=average during train passage; PM2.5max=maximum 10 s during train passage; standard errors in parentheses
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Variables PM2.5ave PM2.5max
Windspeed -0.256*** -3.865***
(0.0628) (0.742)
Train speed 0.0131** 0.185*
(0.00582) (0.089)
Passenger 0.257 7.785
(0.455) (7.265)
Empty Coal 2.274* 12.179
(1.301) (8.194)
Freight 4.496*** 18.498***
(0.347) (4.095)
Full Coal 6.794*** 22.838***
(1.252) (7.484)
R2 0.16 0.25
n 2829 550
Table 2Regression Results of
the Increase in Average PM2.5
(µg/m3
) in Alternative Models
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Models are: (1) Basic (2) Basic+temperature (3) Basic+humidity 4) Basic+humidity+negatives=0 (5) Basic+dew point (6) wind speed<mean (7) Calibrated monitor. (Note: Basic model includes wind speed, train speed and a binary variable for each train type, no constant) Train type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Empty Coal 2.27* 5.64*** 0.96 1.10 5.84*** 2.19 6.41*** Freight 4.50*** 7.49*** 2.78*** 3.05*** 7.80*** 5.07*** 6.53*** Full Coal 6.79*** 9.71*** 5.09*** 5.20*** 10.00*** 12.12*** 8.32*** R2 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.18 0.16 0.20 0.53
n 2829 2829 2829 2829 2829 1330 2829
673
1178 Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health (2023) 16:1173–1183 1 3
Table 3 displays the regression results for the increase in peak (10 s average) PM2.5 concentrations above the control concentrations during the passing of full coal cars (n=18), empty coal cars (n=16) and freight cars (n=653). Results for passenger trains were not included since few of these trains had durations that were 10 seconds or more. The
model specifications were similar to those used in the previous analyses and included wind speed, train speed and the 3 train types. Given the above findings, we focused on 3 different models: a basic model (Model 1), a model corrected and calibrated for humidity as above (Model 2), and the calibrated model under calm wind conditions defined as average wind less than the mean (Model 3).

For the basic model, the results indicated an increment in maximum PM2.5 over the control period of 22.9 µg/m3
(95% CI=8.1, 37.5); p<0.01) for full coal trains. For the model calibrated and corrected for humidity, the increment from coal cars was 17 µg/m3 (95% CI=6.2, 28.5; p<0.01)
while the corresponding change in PM2.5 was 14.1 µg/m3
(95% CI=7.9, 20.2; p<0.01) for freight trains and 9.3 µg/ m3 (95% CI=-3.0, 21.5, NS) for empty coal cars. Under
calm wind conditions, the impact from coal cars increased to almost 20 µg/m3
(95% CI=3.4, 36.6; p<0.05) while the
freight increment did not change from the previous case.

Discussion
Our results indicate that the average change from passing coal trains adds approximately 8.32 µg/m3 (95% CI=6.37,

10.28; p<0.01) to the ambient PM2.5, with a range of midpoint estimates, based on the sensitivity analysis, of 5 to 12 µg/m3. These results also suggest that full coal cars contribute approximately to 2 to 3 μg/m3 of PM2.5 more than
freight trains observed in our Richmond, California sample.

Strikingly, with very calm winds, the nearby concentrations from coal trains were about 12 μg/m3 versus 5.1 for freight trains. This suggests the possibility of our study underestimating the emissions and overall impact of dust from coal trains, since on windier days the dust may simply be dispersed over a wider region beyond our monitoring site. We also observed that unloaded coal cars tended to add 2 μg/ m3
of PM2.5 to the existing ambient concentrations, with a range from our sensitivity analysis of from about one (nonsignificant) to over 5 µg/m3 . Regarding peak (10 s) concentrations of PM2.5, the calibrated model indicated an increase of 17.4 µg/m3 (95% CI=6.2, 28.5) from coal trains which tended to contribute about 3.5 µg/m3 more than freight trains across the models examined. Calm wind conditions resulted in an increase from coal trains of 20 µg/m3 (95% CI=3.4,

36.6; p<0.01).

Given the known bias of humidity on optical PM monitors, in addition to controlling for humidity and dewpoint directly in the model specification, a regression model was estimated using data calibrated and corrected for humidity using a nearby FEM monitor (Barkjohn et al. 2021). It is well established that mass calibrations of optical sensors are temporally and spatially dependent on particle optical characteristics (Dubovik et al. 2002; Bond and Bergstrom 2006). The assumption here is that consistent calibration factors from monitors within the same geographic region and time period are reasonable surrogates for in situ calibration.

There are only a few previous studies that have measured PM2.5 concentrations from coal trains. One study examined coal and freight trains passing through the rural Columbia River Gorge (Washington) in the summer of 2014 (Jaffe
et al. 2015). The study examined the difference between the 10 s maximum PM2.5 and the background concentration. The authors observed a doubling in peak concentration for coal trains (20.9 µg/m3) versus freight trains (10.7 µg/m3). This is consistent with our results for coal trains using a similar averaging time of 17.4 µg/m3. The average effective wind speeds in the Jaffe study were much higher than those in our study and were often associated with very high concentrations of PM2.5. This suggests that PM2.5 concentrations associated with train passage are likely to be even greater in certain areas farther away from the City of Richmond’s urban setting due to greater train speeds.

A previous study collected data on coal trains operating in the Fraser River Delta area of British Columbia, Canada. In comparing ambient air impacts of the coal trains (n=20) to background concentrations, the results suggested an increase of 5.3 (a 54% increase over background), 4.1, and 2.6 µg/ m3, respectively, for PM3 (comparable to PM2.5), PM10, and PM20, with occasional spikes in PM3 from coal trains to 100 µg/m3
(Akaoka et al. 2017).

Another study collected data on a single day from four
monitors located at varied distances from the train line on full (n=10) and empty (n=11) coal trains heading to and from the Port of Newcastle in New South Wales, Australia Table 3Regression Results of the Increase in Peak PM2.5 (µg/m3) in Alternative Models
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1;
Models are: (1) Basic (2) Calibrated monitor (3) Calibrated monitor with wind<mean
Basic model includes wind speed, train speed and a binary variable for each train type
Train type 1 2 3
Empty Coal 12.8 9.26 8.09
Freight 18.50*** 14.06*** 14.37***
Full Coal 22.84*** 17.37*** 19.96 **
R2 0.25 0.25 0.27
n 550 550 360
674
Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health (2023) 16:1173–1183 1179 1 3
(Higginbotham et al. 2013). For full coal cars, there were increases of 2.9 and 7.2 µg/m3, respectively for PM2.5 and PM10 and 7.1 and 18.9 for empty coal cars. Higher impacts for empty coal cars were also reported in studies by Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd (2013).

Finally, Ryan and Wand (2014) analyzed the impacts of
freight, empty coal and full coal trains in the Hunter Valley in New South Wales, Australia (Ryan and Wand 2014). The crude (unadjusted) increases in PM2.5 for passing freight, empty coal and full coal cars was 0.53, 1.13 and 1.20 µg/ m3, respectively; all statistically significant differences from baseline levels. Their measurements indicated that particulate level concentrations were elevated not only during but also prior to and especially after a train’s passing.

Most of the dust from coal trains occurs from the rail car (80%), with spilled coal (9%) and door leakage (6%) being other sources (Connell Hatch 2008). A consequence is coal dust deposition, with studies finding that, on average, coal composed 6—25% of deposited dust in rail corridors, although Akaoka et al. reports up to 90% in local dust (Akaoka et al. 2017; DSITIA 2015). Evidence indicates that particulate matter from coal trains, storage and open mines can disperse at least 500 m from the source (Trivedi et al. 2009; Akaoka et al. 2017; Srivastava et al. 2021; Sahu and Pakra 2022).

To put our results into perspective, the current U.S.EPA 24-h and annual average standards are 12 and 25 μg/m3
,
respectively, while the World Health Organization guidelines for the same averaging times are 5 and 10 μg/m3 (U.S.

EPA 2019; World Health Organization 2021). In addition, both U.S.EPA and WHO indicate that there is no threshold or safe level for ambient PM2.5. Therefore, a hypothetical three coal trains per week in an urban area could represent an important increase in PM2.5 to nearby residents. Incremental concentrations would subsequently increase the risk of a wide range of health effects including: premature mortality, cardiovascular and respiratory hospitalization or urgent care visits, increases in or exacerbation of asthma, adverse birth outcomes (e.g., low birth weight, prematurity, birth defects and neurodevelopment), possible neurological impacts in children and adults (autism, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s) as well as functional impacts such as days with respiratory symptoms, restricted activity, and work or school loss (WHO 2021). As noted above, even acute PM2.5 exposures as short as one hour (or a few hours) can increase the risk of adverse health outcomes, including: acute myocardial infarction, hospitalization and emergency department visits for cardiovascular and respiratory disease, ambulance calls and asthma exacerbation (Yorifuji et al. 2014; Kim et al. 2015; Chen et al. 2019).

Our study has several advantages including the development of an AI-based platform for precise identification of train types during the day or night; real time measurement of PM2.5 and meteorology; siting of a monitor with only the trains as a source of PM2.5; and the ability to produce data on train direction and speed. There were also some shortcomings in our study. There was only a small number of full and unloaded coal cars due to the reduction in economic activity during the COVID-19 pandemic and related supply chain issues. There was only a single monitor to measure the impact of passing trains. This was due to both logistical constraints pursuant to the COVID-19 pandemic and the difficulty in finding monitor host sites that were not impacted by other PM2.5 pollution sources in Richmond, a city transected by major highways, refineries, other heavy industry and a port. There is the possibility of exposure misclassification if some of the freight trains also included coal cars. The low R2 in some of the regression models could be due to several factors including the assignment of hourly wind, temperature and humidity to the 4–5 min of train passage and uncertainty in estimating train speed and length. There were also unmeasured factors such as train weight and number of engines. Finally, it is important to note that our analysis did not include measurements of either ultrafine (particles less than 0.1 micron) or coarse particles (PM10) which will always be generated from the passing
trains. Since there is substantial evidence of adverse health effects from both of these particle sizes, the actual health risks posed by passing coal trains are clearly underestimated in this present study (Adar et al. 2014; Ostro et al. 2015).

Identifying the source of fugitive dust is important in part because the implications of exposure extend beyond individual and population health effects to matters of environmental and racial justice (Mikati et al. 2018). While coal dust can have farranging population exposures, the communities in relatively close proximity to the rail lines will be disproportionately exposed. These residents are more likely to be of lower-income or people of color (or both) and also more vulnerable to adverse health outcomes (Hricko et al. 2014; Jha and Muller 2017).

Finally, the impacts of the rail transport of coal are compounding because it involves traversing thousands of kilometers, meaning multiple environmental justice communities are impacted. Ecosystems such as rivers and coastlines also receive extended exposure as the rails often trace their contours. Further, the climate change implications of coal transport, storage and handling are significant, ultimately resulting in up to 16% of US carbon pollution (Meyer 2019).

Conclusion
In this paper, we have reported evidence of significant increases in PM2.5 due to passing coal-carrying trains
in Richmond, California. The observed increases were
greater than those produced by freight trains and passenger trains. Unloaded coal cars also generated increases in PM2.5, but at lower concentrations than full coal cars.

Quantifying the contribution of coal trains in urban air 675
1180 Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health (2023) 16:1173–1183 1 3
populations is important since vulnerable communities are typically found in close proximity to rail lines. In addition, inevitable dispersion of PM2.5 will increase population exposure over a much wider area. Since shipment of coal by train occurs throughout the world and for many
urban areas, it represents a significant public health hazard. Finally, to overcome technical challenges that have historically been barriers to the study of coal trains, we developed an artificial intelligence-driven monitoring
platform to detect and quantify air pollution from passing trains. These advancements will contribute to future studies of health effects from mobile sources.

Appendix A. Data field descriptions
The following discussion provides more background
regarding the data fields, their units, and their calculation. • TrainStart:
– This field reports the date and time, to the second,
that a train was observed by the customized artificial intelligence camera system • TrainType:
– This study classified the observed trains into four
types:

Passenger – either Amtrak or CalTrain trains
Freight – Union Pacific trains that are carrying
various products on rail cars but not identifiable
coal-bearing cars
Coal – Union Pacific trains exclusively carrying
coal hopper rail cars, either full or unloaded
• PreTrainPM#:
– These fields represent the air quality levels prior to the arrival of a train. We explored various combinations of averaging times (1, 3, 5 and 10 min) and gap lengths between the PreTrainPM average and
the observed train start time (1, 2, 5 and 10 min. For
example, PreTrainPM10-10 utilizes a 10-min average PM2.5 that is a 10-min gap between the averaging period and the train event start. This field is presented in micrograms per cubic meter.
• AvgPM:
– This field is the average PM2.5 concentration, in
micrograms per cubic meter, observed during the
time that a train was observed at the monitoring
location. Note that each second of recorded data is
the average of three separate PM sensors, and this
value is the average of those averages.
• MaxPM:
– This field is the maximum 10-s PM2.5 concentration, in micrograms per cubic meter, observed during the time that a train was observed at the
monitoring location. Again, the data point is the
average of three separate PM sensors.
• PMdelta_10_10:
– These fields represent the difference between the
PM2.5 concentrations observed during the train event
and the pre-event levels. They are calculated as:

Where XPM is either the AvgPM or the MaxPM,
• Meters per second:

This field is the estimated speed of the train using a
custom video processing algorithm. The video is separated into individual images. Two positions (x-coordinates) are selected on either side of each image to act as positional triggers. The pixel values (in RGB) are
collected from every pixel in each of these two lines.

As the trains pass, we anticipate the pixel values to
oscillate more than in the rest of the image; therefore, a y-coordinate is chosen with the maximum relative
standard deviation out of all the y-coordinates in each line. Since each image is related to a distinct timestamp, we compare the first derivative of pixel intensity change in each optical band (R, G, and B) to find the
temporal difference in peaks. Specifically, we are calculating the lag time between when the train is observed in each of the two locations. The distance between
these two points is calculated from a conversion factor of pixels per meter, as determined by image analysis of Amtrak engines and train cars, whose dimensions are
publicly available. Knowing the distance traveled (in
meters) and the time difference (in seconds), we converted and calculated the speed in meters per second. • Direction:

This field indicates the direction the train was traveling in the observation. The determination of this parameter uses the same algorithm described for the
previous parameter (m/s). The derivative peaks analyzed inform whether the train is moving to the right (northward and away from the terminal) or left (southward or towards the terminal), which result in binary values of 1 and 0, respectively.

XPM − Pretrain_10_10
676
Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health (2023) 16:1173–1183 1181 1 3
Appendix B Table 4
Table 4Descriptive statistics for regression variables
PMave Change in average PM2.5 (µg/m3
), PMave_C Change in average Corrected PM2.5 (µg/m3), PMmax10 Change in peak PM2.5 (µg/m3), PMmax10_C Change in peak Corrected PM2.5 (µg/m3
), Wind Average wind speed (m/s), TS Train speed (m/s), Temp Average Temp (F) Stats Pmave PMave_C PMmax10 PMmax10_C Wind TS Humidity Temp Passenger Trains
Mean .36212 -.15727 9.7675 -.15437 1.37 30.759 70.741 66.291 SD 1.7242 1.5461 7.8401 1.5532 .621 7.1571 15.351 7.6733 Min -18.84 -9.4019 2.5 -9.4019 0 3.576 20 51.3
Max 29.84 13.801 39.75 13.801 3.62 44.253 95 93.1
N 2235 2235 20 20 2235 2235 2235 2235
Freight Trains
Mean 4.2347 1.3748 22.745 2.5612 1.25 17.064 76.505 63.841 SD 9.8485 5.2076 31.526 7.3161 .657 5.6849 15.177 8.2692 Min -9.8 -7.057 0 -5.2539 0 1.341 20 49.5
Max 68.46 36.208 157.73 49.002 3.88 38.889 96 100
N 568 568 507 507 568 568 568 568
Full Coal Trains
Mean 6.3867 2.5569 24.305 4.2791 1.35 12.779 75.867 62.14 SD 13.3 6.5004 42.809 9.5825 .724 5.5336 16.274 7.929
Min -.42 -2.5676 1.7 -2.0174 .441 6.705 49 53.5
Max 41.43 19.443 162.4 33.68 2.73 29.055 94 76.6
N 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
Empty Coal Trains
Mean 1.935 1.5673 12.286 1.8331 1.38 15.837 60.286 71.943 SD 4.8405 2.5167 18.95 2.5482 .582 3.192 15.544 6.9966
Min -.57 -1.0231 1.35 -1.0231 .661 10.281 37 58.4
Max 18.54 9 74.3 9 2.73 20.115 84 85.9
N 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14
Acknowledgements This research was funded by the California Air Resources Board Community Air Monitoring Grants Program and supported with fiscal sponsorship provided by Human Impact Partners.

Several residents, local businesses and the City of Richmond enabled this study to conduct air monitoring on their premises.

Author contributions All authors contributed to the study conception, design and literature review. Monitoring system and data collection were performed primarily by Dr. Nicholas Spada. Data analysis was performed primarily by Dr. Bart Ostro. Drafting of the manuscript was conducted primarily by Dr. Bart Ostro and Dr. Heather Kuiper, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding This work was supported by the California Air Resources Board Community Air Monitoring Grant Program (Grant G19- CAGP-17). The pilot portion of this study was also funded in part by a local community member.

The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.

Data availability Reasonable requests for the datasets generated and/ or analyzed during the current study are available by contacting Dr.

Nicholas Spada at [email protected].

Declarations
Competing interests The authors have no relevant financial or nonfinancial interests to disclose.

Ethics approval This is an observational study that does not involve human or animal subjects.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/.
677
1182 Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health (2023) 16:1173–1183 1 3
References
Adar SD, Filigrana PA, Clements N, Peel JL (2014) Ambient Coarse Particulate Matter and Human Health: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Curr Environ Health Rep 1(3):258–274. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s40572-014-0022-z
Akaoka K, McKendry I, Saxton J, Cottle PW (2017) Impact of coalcarrying trains on particulate matter concentrations in South Delta, British Columbia, Canada. Environ Pollut 223:376–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.01.034
AQ-SPEC (2022) http://www.aqmd.gov/aq-spec, last access: 6 December 2022
Barkjohn KK, Holder AL, Frederick SG, Clements AL (2022) Correction and Accuracy of PurpleAir PM2.5 Measurements for Extreme Wildfire Smoke. Sensors 22, no. 24 (January 2022):9669 https://doi.org/10.3390/s22249669
Barkjohn KK, Gantt, B, Clements AL (2021) Development and Application of a United States wide correction for PM2.5 data collected with the PurpleAir sensor. Atmos Meas Tech 4(6) https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-4617-2021
Baruya P (2012) Losses in the coal supply chain. IEA Clean Coal Centre. https://usea.org/sites/default/files/122012_Losses% 20in%20the%20coal%20supply%20chain_ccc212.pdf. Accessed 13 Oct 2022
BNSF Railway (2011) Coal dust frequently asked questions [2011 version]. http://www.bnsf.com/customers/what-can-iship/coal/ coal-dust.html
Bond TC, Bergstrom RW (2006) Light Absorption by Carbonaceous Particles: An Investigative Review. Aerosol Science and Technology 40(January 2006):27–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/02786 820500421521
Brunekreef B, Strak M, Chen J et al (2021) Mortality and Morbidity Effects of Long-Term Exposure to Low-Level PM2.5, BC, NO2, and O3: An Analysis of European Cohorts in the ELAPSE Project. Research Reports: Health Effects Institute 208. Health Effects Institute, Boston, MA
Chen D, Zhang F, Yu C, Jiao A, Xiang Q, Yu Y, Mayvaneh F, Hu K, Ding Z, Zhang Y (2019) Hourly associations between exposure to ambient particulate matter and emergency department visits in an urban population of Shenzhen, China. Atmos Environ 209:78–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2019.04.021 Connell Hatch (2008) Final Report Environmental Evaluation of Fugitive Coal Dust Emissions from Coal Trains Goonyella, Blackwater and Moura Coal Rail Systems Queensland Rail
Limited Report no. H327578-N00-EE00.00. (March 31, 2008). https://majorprojects.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/prweb/PRRes tService/mp/01/getContent?AttachRef=MP09_0024%21201
90814T054754.584%20GMT
Dubovik O, Holben B, Eck TF, Smirnov A, Kaufman YJ, King MD, Tanre D, Slutsker I (2002) Variability of Absorption and Optical Properties of Key Aerosol Types Observed in Worldwide Locations. J Atmos Sci 59:590–608. https://doi.org/10.1175/ 1520-0469(2002)059%3c0590:voaaop%3e2.0.co;2
DSITIA (2015) Initial Report on the Independent Review of Rail Coal Dust Emissions Management Practices in the NSW Coal Chain. https://www.chiefscientist.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_ file/0009/79884/Initial-Report_Review-rail-coal-dust-emissions. pdf. Accessed 15 Oct 2022
Fuller R, Landrigan PJ, Balakrishnan K, Bathan G, Bose-O'Reilly S, Brauer M, Caravanos J, Chiles T, Cohen A, Corra L, Cropper M, Ferraro G, Hanna J, Hanrahan D, Hu H Hunter D, Janata G, Kupka R, Lanphear B, ... Yan C (2022) Pollution and health: a progress update. Lancet Planet Health 6(6):e535-e547. https:// doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(22)00090-0
Hatch J, Affolter R, Davis F (1979) Chemical analyses of coal from the Blackhawk Formation, Wasatch Plateau coal field, Carbon, Emery, and Sevier Counties, Utah. Utah Geological and Mineral Survey Coal Studies 49:69–102
Higginbotham N, Ewald B, Mozeley F, Whelan J (2013) Coal Train Signature Study, Briefing Paper Prepared for Coal Terminal Action Group Dust and Health Committee. Coal Terminal
Action Group (August, 2013):pp1–26. https://cdn.newsnow.io/ storypad-bzDwk8TrKQYKjEefACKcS8/CoalTrainSignatureRe
portAug2013.pdf
Hricko A, Rowland G, Eckel S, Logan A, Taher M, Wilson J (2014) Global Trade, Local Impacts: Lessons from California on Health Impacts and Environmental Justice Concerns for Residents Living near Freight Rail Yards. Int J Environ Res Public Health 11(2):1914–1941. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph110201914 Jaffe D, Putz J, Hof G, Hof G, Hee J, Lommers-Johnson DA, Gabela F, Fry JL, Ayres B, Kelp M, Minsk M (2015) Diesel particulate matter and coal dust from trains in the Columbia River Gorge, Washington State, USA. Atmos Pollut Res 6(6):946–952.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apr.2015.04.004
Jha A, Muller M (2017) Handle with Care: The Local Air Pollution Costs of Coal Storage. National Bureau of Economic Research Report no. w23417, Cambridge, MA. https://doi.org/10.3386/w23417
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd. (2013). Pollution Reduction Program 4.2 Particulate Emissions from Coal Trains. Queensland:

Prepared for Australian Rail Track Corporation Pty Ltd.

Kim J, Kim H, Kweon J (2015) Hourly differences in air pollution on the risk of asthma exacerbation. Environ Pollut (Barking, Essex:
1987) 203:15–21 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2015.03.040 Liu L, Song F, Fang J, Wei J, Ho HC, Song Y, Zhang Y, Wang L, Yang Z, Hu C, Zhang Y (2021) Intraday effects of ambient PM1 on emergency department visits in Guangzhou, China: A casecrossover study. Sci Total Environ 750:142347 https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142347
McDuffie E, Martin R, Brauer M (2015) A Global Assessment of Burden of Disease from Exposure to Major Air Pollution Sources:

Synopsis of Research Report 210. December. https://www.healt heffects.org/system/files/mcduf​fie-rr-210-statement.pdf. Accessed 22 Sept 2022
Meyer, R. (2019). A Major but Little-Known Supporter of Climate Denial: Freight Railroads. Atlantic, 2019–12–13T17:43:47Z https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/12/freight-railr oads-funded-climate-denial-decades/603559/
Mikati I, Benson AF, Luben TJ, Sacks JD, Richmond-Bryant J (2018) Disparities in Distribution of Particulate Matter Emission Sources by Race and Poverty Status. Am J Public Health 108(4):480–485. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2017.304297
OEHHA (2015) Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, Appendices A-N. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program, Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment. February 2015. https://oehha.ca.gov/media/ downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf
Ostro B, Hu J, Goldberg D, Reynolds P, Hertz A, Bernstein L, Kleeman MJ (2015) Associations of Mortality with Long-Term Exposures to Fine and Ultrafine Particles, Species and Sources: Results from the California Teachers Study Cohort. Environ Health Perspect 123(6):549–556. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1408565
Ouimette JR, Malm WC, Schichtel BA, Sheridan PJ, Andrews E, Ogren JA, Arnott WP (2022) Evaluating the PurpleAir monitor as an aerosol light scattering instrument. Atmos Meas Tech 15:655–676. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-655-2022
Peters A, Dockery DW, Muller JE, Mittleman MA (2001) Increased particulate air pollution and the triggering of myocardial infarction. Circulation 103(23):2810–2815. https://doi.org/10.1161/01. cir.103.23.2810
678
Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health (2023) 16:1173–1183 1183 1 3
Prakash BB, Kecojevic V, Lashgari A (2018) Analysis of dust emission at coal train loading facility. Int J Min Reclam Environ 32(1):56–

74. https://doi.org/10.1080/17480930.2016.1253138
Ryan L, Wand M (2014) Re-analysis of ARTC Data on Particulate Emissions from Coal Trains. NSW Environment Protection Authority. (February 25, 2014):1–24. https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/~/media/ EPA/Corporate%20Site/resources/air/ARTCreanalysisFeb2014.ashx Sahu SP, Pakra AK (2022) Assessment of dispersion of respirable particles emitted from opencast mining operations: development and validation of stepwise regression models. Environ Dev Sustain 24:9139–9164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01816-z Srivastava A, Kumar A, Elumalai SP (2021) Evaluating Dispersion Modeling of Inhalable Particulates (PM10) Emissions in Complex Terrain of Coal Mines. Environ Model Assess 26:85–403
Tessum CW, Paolella DA, Chambliss SE, Apte JS, Hill JD, Marshall JD (2021) PM2.5 polluters disproportionately and systemically affect people of color in the United States. Sci Adv 7(18): eabf4491 https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abf4491
Trivedi R, Chakraborty MK, Tewary BK (2009) Dust dispersion modeling using fugitive dust model at an opencast coal project of Western Coalfields Limited, India. J Sci Ind Res 68:71–78 Tsai CJ, Nair U, Hafner H (Eds.) (2020) Low-cost Sensors for Air Quality Monitoring, Aerosol Air Qual Res 20(2). https://aaqr.org/ articles/20/2. Accessed Jan 2022
US Energy Information Administration (2022) Annual Energy Outlook. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/ U.S. EPA (2019) Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Particulate Matter (Final Report, Dec 2019). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/isa/recor display.cfm?deid=347534
Vohra K, Vodonos A, Schwartz J, Marais EA, Sulprizio M, Mickley LJ (2021) Global mortality from outdoor fine particle pollution generated by fossil fuel combustion: Results from GEOS-Chem. Environ Res 195:110754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.110754 WHO (2021) WHO global air quality guidelines: Particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide (License: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO; pp. xxi, 273). World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/345329 Wu PC, Cheng TJ, Kuo C-P, Fu, JS, Lai, H-C, Chiu T-Y, Lai, L-W (2020) Transient risk of ambient fine particulate matter on hourly cardiovascular events in Tainan City, Taiwan. PLoS One 15(8):e0238082. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238082 Yorifuji T, Suzuki E, Kashima S (2014) Cardiovascular Emergency Hospital Visits and Hourly Changes in Air Pollution. Stroke 45(5):1264–1268. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.114. 005227
Publisher's note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. 679
Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon told Trump the construction of a coal export terminal in Oakland is "essential for the lifeblood" of his state. Credit: Courtesy of the White House

HEALTH & ENVIRONMENT
Trump plans to fund Oakland coal terminal
The president will use the Defense Production Act to provide $75 million for a controversial West Oakland coal export hub, according to reports.
by Eli Wolfe
June 4, 2026, 12:25 p.m.

President Donald Trump announced on Thursday that he’s sending $75 million to help pay for the construction of a coal export terminal in West Oakland.
680
In oval office remarks, Trump invoked the Defense Production Act to invest $700 million in the coal industry, with the bulk of the money — $425 million — to support 13 existing coal plants across the country. Another $185 million will be used to build two new plants in Alaska and West Virginia, and to resume production at a facility in Maryland. “Starting this summer, the West Gateway project will break ground, and by summer 2028, over 12 million tons of clean beautiful coal per year will be shipped to countries all around the world,” Trump said, referring to the West Oakland coal terminal.

Calling previous administration’s efforts to fund a clean energy economy the “green new scam,” Trump falsely blamed former presidents Joseph Biden and Barack Obama for delaying the Oakland terminal: neither took any steps to stop the project.

Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon thanked Trump at the press conference. Gordon said he recently visited Japan and Taiwan, and that Asian countries are interested in purchasing “clean” coal from the United States. Officials tried and failed to do this through West Coast ports during Trump’s first term, he said. “To be able to open that Oakland port is absolutely essential for the lifeblood of our state and our coal mines,” Gordon said.

Trump’s plans for major investments in the coal industry were reported by Politico’s E&E News last month.

The administration funding is a major boon for developer Phil Tagami and his company, Oakland Bulk Oversized Terminal.

Tagami has been trying to build the fossil fuel transit hub for over a decade but has faced staunch opposition from city leaders, residents, and environmental activists who are worried about pollution and climate change. In several court battles, Tagami’s companies have beaten back legal challenges and successfully sued the city for stalling construction of the terminal.

Coal has always been a centerpiece of Trump’s energy policy but the president’s announcement also comes during a protracted war with Iran that has constricted oil supplies and driven energy costs higher. The Defense Production Act gives the president broad authority to take certain measures, including financial grants and loans, to expand production of strategic resources.

News about Trump’s expected announcement prompted outrage from environmental groups. Kit Kennedy, a managing director with the Natural Resources Defense Council, told Bloomberg, “Propping up coal billionaires with taxpayer money is one more way for the Trump administration to put polluters first and put the rest of us at risk.” Environmental advocates in Oakland have been strategizing new ways block the construction of a terminal.

Organizers with No Coal in Oakland, a group of city residents and environmentalists, recently petitioned the Bay Area 681
Air District to impose stricter air regulations that would make it more difficult for any planned coal terminal to operate.

They’re also busy resurrecting a coalition of residents, activists, union organizers, and faith leaders to stop construction. The goal of the campaign is to drive away potential investors, making it financially infeasible to build the terminal. Trump’s announcement will make that ambition harder to realize.

A decade-long battle over the planned Oakland coal terminal In 2015, media outlets reported that Utah officials were planning to invest in a terminal that would ship coal through Oakland to overseas markets. The terminal would be located in West Oakland on the former Oakland Army Base.

This site is owned by the city, not the Port of Oakland.

The proposal prompted backlash from the public. Many were concerned about the prospect of coal trains releasing particulate matter in West Oakland, where residents are already burdened by air pollution from industrial operations and highways.

Then-Mayor Libby Schaaf and several City Councilmembers, including former District 1 representative Dan Kalb, mounted a legislative attempt to stop Tagami’s project. In 2016, the City Council banned the handling and storage of coal within the city. The developers responded by suing Oakland for breaching its contract.

What followed were a series of courtroom losses for Oakland. In 2018, a federal judge sided with Tagami’s company and ruled that the city’s coal ban didn’t apply to the terminal project. While the case was pending, Oakland officials terminated OBOT’s lease for the land. They argued that the developers had failed to meet construction deadlines.

OBOT sued the city again in 2020, alleging that Oakland was responsible for the delays. In 2023, an Alameda County Superior Court judge agreed with OBOT and ruled that Oakland had improperly terminated its contract. Oakland appealed and lost, and in 2025, the state Supreme Court declined to review the appellate ruling.

This paved the way for Tagami and OBOT to pursue the terminal. In previous interviews, Tagami has indicated that the original proposed terminal will proceed as planned. He has also estimated that the first cargo ships could start leaving the terminal within two years.

Oakland isn’t totally free from coal litigation. Insight Terminal Solutions, a company that wants to operate the terminal, alleged in federal court that Oakland interfered with efforts to develop the project, leading to the firm’s bankruptcy. Insight Terminal Solutions claims that Oakland owes hundreds of millions of dollars, which city officials deny. A federal judge in Kentucky is currently reviewing the matter. 682
This article may be subject to copyright. Contact [email protected] for details. 683