Minutes — Richmond City Council, September 15, 2026

From: Claudia Citroen
To: City Clerk Dept User; Shannon Moore; Shasa Curl; Lina Velasco; LaShonda White; Irene Lozano; Jamelia Brown; Cesar Zepeda; Eduardo Martinez; Soheila Bana; Daniel Chavarria Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT BEFORE CLOSED SESSION (Closed Session agenda only) 09.15.26 Date: Monday, September 14, 2026 5:33:06 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

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

Open forum public comment closed council meeting 09.01.26. (4 pages) THE PUBLIC IS ENTITLED TO ACCOUNTABILITY during LEADERSHIP HIRING! The new city manager shall follow the current city manager’s astute approach in seeking new contracts for all of Richmond’s services, prioritizing accountability and results. This effort continues to shift all contracts to an outcomes-driven model and incorporate performance metrics instead of relying on qualitative consultant data (who have historically had close ties to council members). The next city manager shall continue to seek feedback from the community and providers throughout this process and fundamentally transform how the city tackles issues like long overdue infrastructure projects, accountable pension funding, effective housing solutions, and curtailing all unessential council pet projects which continue to drain financial reserves. The incoming city manager shall primarily focus on reducing the multi billion unfunded budget projects and get the city on the path to recovery and stability. It can only succeed with a council that understands to deliver results, with accountability since current outcomes aren't good enough.

The public has a legitimate interest in knowing council selects leadership positions, based on what qualifications and why the council believes they are the right choice. Residents deserve a transparent selection process and the opportunity to watch the process, to request records, and to ask questions. These aren’t unreasonable demands, but the minimum standard residents expect from their council. WHY was THE COMMUNITY EXCLUDED or INCLUDED RANDOMLY AT WILL OF COUNCIL’S POLITICAL preference. For example Wilson, Martinez, Jimenez can not secretly appoint a city attorney! The council has to deliberate this during open council meetings. California law permits certain personnel matters to be discussed in closed session. That authority does not make the entire hiring process immune from public scrutiny or relieve the Council of its obligations under California's open-government laws. We demand transparency around the selection process! Public records, meeting materials and employment records concerning Richmond's previous City Manager hiring and termination decisions confirm political charades. It was the council’s overreaching manipulation and corrupt power grab. The record includes the 2018 City Manager search, the rejection of a qualified private-sector management candidate, the subsequent selection of a former San Jose City Manager, and the later termination. And appointment and termination of another City Manager, all suing the city beyond extensive severance packages. Richmond Progressive Alliance previously forced a candidate forum, giving their political supporters an opportunity to directly influence candidates presentations. Why should residents be denied this opportunity now? This decision needs to be made during a council meeting under NEW BUSINESS, allowing the public to express their opinions. The community hopes Lina Velasco will be chosen.

From: Claudia Citroen
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Fwd: Open forum public comment closed session council meeting 09.01.26 Date: Tuesday, September 1, 2026 6:29:31 AM
Attachments: image0.jpeg
image1.jpeg
image2.jpeg
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

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

From: claudia citroen <[email protected]>
Date: September 1, 2026 at 6:26:02 AM PDT
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>, Shannon Moore <[email protected]>, Shasa Curl
<[email protected]>, LaShonda White
<[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], Soheila Bana
<[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Open forum public comment closed session council meeting 09.01.26 Open forum public comment closed council meeting 09.01.26. (4 pages) THE PUBLIC IS ENTITLED TO ACCOUNTABILITY during LEADERSHIP HIRING!
The new city manager shall follow the current city manager’s astute approach in seeking new contracts for all of Richmond’s services, prioritizing accountability and results. This effort continues to shift all contracts to an outcomes-driven model and incorporate performance metrics instead of relying on qualitative consultant data (who have historically had close ties to council members). The next city manager shall continue to seek feedback from the community and providers throughout this process and fundamentally transform how the city tackles issues like long overdue infrastructure projects, accountable pension funding, effective housing solutions, and curtailing all unessential council pet projects which continue to drain financial reserves. The incoming city manager shall primarily focus on reducing the multi billion unfunded budget projects and get the city on the path to recovery and stability. It can only succeed with a council that understands to deliver results, with accountability since current outcomes aren't good enough.

The public has a legitimate interest in knowing council selects leadership positions, based on what qualifications and why the council believes they are the right choice.

Residents deserve a transparent selection process and the opportunity to watch the process, to request records, and to ask questions. These aren’t unreasonable demands, but the minimum standard residents expect from their council. WHY was THE COMMUNITY EXCLUDED or INCLUDED RANDOMLY AT WILL OF COUNCIL’S POLITICAL preference. For example Wilson, Martinez, Jimenez can not secretly appoint a city attorney! The council has to deliberate this during open council meetings.

California law permits certain personnel matters to be discussed in closed session. That authority does not make the entire hiring process immune from public scrutiny or relieve the Council of its obligations under California's open-government laws. We demand transparency around the selection process! Public records, meeting materials and employment records concerning Richmond's previous City Manager hiring and termination decisions confirm political charades. It was the council’s overreaching manipulation and corrupt power grab. The record includes the 2018 City Manager search, the rejection of a qualified private-sector management candidate, the subsequent selection of a former San Jose City Manager, and the later termination. And appointment and termination of another City Manager, all suing the city beyond extensive severance packages. Richmond Progressive Alliance previously forced a candidate forum, giving their political supporters an opportunity to directly influence candidates presentations. Why should residents be denied this opportunity now? This decision needs to be made during a council meeting under NEW BUSINESS, allowing the public to express their opinions. The community hopes Lina Velasco will be chosen.

Best,
Claudia Citroen
"Be useful. Be mindful. Be kind. Be bold."
António Guterres
From: Claudia Citroen
To: City Clerk Dept User; Shasa Curl; Shannon Moore; LaShonda White; Irene Lozano; Jamelia Brown; Cesar Zepeda; Eduardo Martinez; Daniel Chavarria; Lina Velasco
Subject: M - Open forum public comment council meeting 09.15.09 “Violations of council rules and CA laws” Date: Monday, September 14, 2026 9:13:39 PM
Attachments: image0.jpeg
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

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

Yes, ethical, transparent and accountable leadership is missing from this RPA council majority! Council Claudia Jimenez and council Sue Wilson regularly ignore that private conversations among council members about city business (including government corruption) are STRICTLY ILLEGAL during official city council meetings, It’s called CORRUPTION! Open meeting laws regulate what happens during meetings:

During official city council meetings, private conversations among council members about city business (including government corruption) are strictly illegal. Public meetings are legally designed for the public to hear the entire deliberation.

1. Laws for Texting and Emailing Under the Dais Rule:

Council members cannot privately text, email, or chat with one another, city staff, or special interest groups about council business while sitting at the podium. This creates a "secret meeting within a public meeting." If two or more members are whispering or texting to align their votes while a public hearing is happening.

VIOLATION: It violates the requirement for open deliberation. Any texts or emails sent during a meeting regarding city business on either personal or city-issued devices are subject to immediate public disclosure under public records laws.

2. Law for Whispering and Side Conversations:

Brief, administrative whispers ( "What page are we on?") are generally tolerated, but substantive discussions are not.

VIOLATION: Council members leaning over to privately debate anyone’s opinions, discuss talking points or votes break the law.

3. Laws for Passing Notes:

All communications shaping votes must be part of the public record.

VIOLATION: Passing physical notes or having staff members pass notes between council members to influence opinions or align votes during the meeting is prohibited.

4. Laws for “Walking Quorums" During Recesses:

LAW: When a council takes a brief recess or a break during a long meeting, members cannot gather in the hallway or a back room to continue the debate privately. -VIOLATION: If a controversial topic like budget appropriations, public safety related police equipment or ethical corruption comes up and a recess is called, members cannot use that break to build a consensus behind closed doors before coming back out to vote.

Source:

1. California Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code § 54950 et seq.)

2. The California Public Records Act (CPRA) & City of San Jose v. Superior Court (2017)

3. Local Municipal Codes & Council Rules of Procedure
From: TRAC
To: Soheila Bana; Jamelia Brown; Claudia Jimenez; Eduardo Martinez; Doria Robinson; Sue Wilson; Cesar Zepeda; City Clerk Dept User
Cc: Daniel Chavarria; Gail Payne; Bruce Brubaker
Subject: Public Comments Agenda Item N.13.b - Preliminary Engineering Services Agreement with BNSF Date: Saturday, September 12, 2026 9:38:23 PM
Attachments: 2026-09-15(sr)(reso)BNSF Agreement - Point Richmond Connectivity Project.pdf This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

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

Mayor Martinez and City Councilors,
Please approve by Consent the request of Public Works management to enter into a Preliminary Engineering Services Agreement with BNSF Railway for review of proposed plans, specifications, and construction of cyclist and pedestrian safety improvements at the West Richmond Avenue crossing.

The proposed $50,000 expenditure is is fully funded and included within the approved Fiscal Year 2026-2027 budget for the Downtown Point Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity Project.

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

Page 1 of 2 ends

September 15, 2026
Error! Unknown document property name.

Public Works
DATE: September 15, 2026
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM: Gail Payne, Senior Transportation Planner
Daniel Chavarria, PE, Director of Public Works /City
Engineer
Subject: Preliminary Engineering Services Agreement with the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company
(“BNSF”) for the Downtown Point Richmond Bicycle and
Pedestrian Connectivity Project
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The proposed $50,000 expenditure is included within the approved Fiscal Year 2026-2027 budget for the
Downtown Point Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian
Connectivity Project and is fully funded by a combination of a Transportation Development Act state grant, a
federal Housing Incentive Pool grant, a Subregional
Transportation Mitigation Program grant, and developer
impact fees totaling $1,904,567 (Account String:
10636031-331327-23060).

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

November 4, 2025

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) requires
all work conducted by the City of Richmond within the
BNSF right-of-way to be subject to a Preliminary
Engineering Services Agreement for BNSF to collaborate
with City of Richmond on the development of the project.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: APPROVE a Preliminary Engineering Services Agreement with Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway
(BNSF) Railway Company for a term commencing on
September 16, 2026, and terminating on June 30, 2029,
in an amount not to exceed $50,000 and ADOPT a
resolution authorizing the city manager to execute the
AGENDA
REPORT

Page 2 of 2 ends

September 15, 2026
Error! Unknown document property name.
agreement – Public Works Department (Gail Payne 510-
620-6716/Daniel Chavarria 510-620-5478).

DISCUSSION:

The Downtown Point Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity Project, a component of the 2021 Richmond Ferry to Bridge to Greenway Complete Streets Plan, seeks to close a key gap in the citywide bicycle network and the regional San Francisco Bay Trail while improving bicycle and pedestrian safety and access (Attachment 1).

The proposed improvements at the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF) crossing will require encroaching on the BNSF Railway Company right-of-way. As such, BNSF is requiring the City to enter into a Preliminary Engineering Services Agreement (Agreement) to allow BNSF to review and provide services related to the City’s proposed plans, specifications, and construction of improvements at the West Richmond Avenue crossing (Attachments 2 and 3).

City staff are recommending that the City Council approve the Agreement with BNSF Railway Company for the Downtown Point Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity Project, for a term of September 16, 2026, to June 30, 2029, in an amount not to exceed $50,000 and authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement, as set forth in the proposed resolution (Attachment 4). The costs related to the Agreement are fully funded by the Downtown Point Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity Project – Fund #23060. The conceptual design and community engagement phase of the project commenced in March 2026, with design completion expected by July 2027.

Construction is anticipated to begin in March 2028 and conclude by spring 2029.

SYNERGISTIC POLICIES:

The project supports citywide goals related to active transportation, economic vitality, quality of life and health equity and is a component of the 2021 Richmond Ferry to Bridge to Greenway Complete Streets Plan.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Project Overview
Attachment 2 – BNSF Agreement
Attachment 3 – Map
Attachment 4 – Resolution
From: Claudia Citroen
To: City Clerk Dept User; Shasa Curl; Irene Lozano; LaShonda White; Lina Velasco; Shannon Moore; Cesar Zepeda; Jamelia Brown; Eduardo Martinez; Soheila Bana
Subject: Open forum public comment O.1. Fiscal Year 2025-26 Quarter 4 and Quarter 3 Financial Report and Administrative Budget Adjustments
Date: Monday, September 14, 2026 9:04:58 PM
Attachments: image0.jpeg
image1.jpeg
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

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

General Budget: TRAFFIC SAFETY, PUBLIC ENDANGERMENT, ACCOUNTABILITY Council must be held accountable for failing to hold urgent adoption of traffic-safety. Local Roadway Safety Plans identify a High-Injury Network in 8% of the city’s 22 mile network, which accounts for 63% of all crashes and 74% of fatal and serious-injury crashes. The numbers represent public-safety concerns, requiring immediate intervention. El Cerrito advances a Local Road Safety Plan, reducing fatal and serious-injury collisions while this council creates political chaos.

1. Failure to address known high-risk corridors. The council fails to prioritize dangerous intersections and roadways. City staff safety analysis identifies high-risk locations: 23rd Street corridor, Rumrill Blvd, Cutting Blvd, Virginia Ave - 23rd Str, Downer Ave - 23rd Street, Cutting Blvd - 49th Str, Solano Ave and San Pablo Ave, and Carlson Blvd corridor. Cutting Blvd, safety analysis identified 90 total collisions, including 12 fatal or serious-injury collisions and 22 bicycle and pedestrian collisions. Repeated complaints, documented collisions and known roadway deficiencies are dismissed as isolated incidents. The council inaction to address hazardous conditions and safety obligations is concerning.

2. Unsafe roadway redesign and inadequate environmental review. Plans to narrow traffic lanes, remove street parking, alter traffic circulation, install traffic-calming devices, or redesign major corridors is not supported by current traffic engineering, collision analysis, pedestrian and cyclist safety assessments, or legal adequate environmental review. Council votes are based on older planning assumptions. Implementing roadway changes without adequately assessing present-day traffic volumes, emergency access, congestion and accessibility create extensive legal liabilities.

3. Pedestrian and e-bike safety. Council fails to protect pedestrians, children, seniors and residents with mobility limitations. Lane reduction cause chronic traffic congestion and disproportionate increase of air and noise pollution. Council fails to expedite improved crossings, adequate lighting and traffic-calming measures. Council fails to prioritize establishing ordinances addressing bicycle and e-bike use, reckless conduct, excessive speed, wrong-way and failure to yield. Infrastructure and enforcement fail to protect.

Safety infrastructure are political favors while documented hazards persist.

4. Equal treatment of neighborhoods and road users. Council fails to focus on long overdue trafficsafety infrastructure and enforcement. Instead it approves cosmetic enhancements to politically influential neighborhoods, organizations, or constituencies while leaving low income and high density communities exposed to documented dangers. Council fails to justify decisions by objective collision data, engineering assessments, accessibility requirements, and demonstrated public need. Selective enforcement, inconsistent and arbitrary prioritization, capricious decision-making and unequal delivery.

5. Emergency response and roadway obstruction. Council fails to require documented assessments of lane reductions, traffic-calming devices, parking changes, bicycle infrastructure, construction projects, and event-related street closures impede fire, EMS, police, transit, evacuation or other operations.

Traffic safety cannot be separated from emergency preparedness. A transportation policy that compromises emergency access without adequate analysis, mitigation, and public disclosure is not a responsible publicsafety policy.

6. Speeding, reckless driving, and enforcement accountability. Council intentionally blocks establishing data-driven strategy addressing speeding, reckless driving, red-light violations, illegal turns, failure to yield, dangerous passing that places vulnerable road users at risk. Broad assurances that safety is being addressed are insufficient without verifiable results.

7. Fiscal priorities and responsible allocation of public funds. Council fails to explain why road maintenance, pedestrian infrastructure, and emergency preparedness are not adequately funded or delayed.

Fiscal constraints are not applied consistently, public funds are allocated to lower-priority activities while documented roadway hazards remain unresolved. The council fails to disclose financial, and operational decisions. Public safety must not be subordinated to political convenience.

8. Failure to implement and measure results. A plan is not a safety improvement. Council claims meaningful progress by adopting resolutions or announcing future projects. The council fails to publicly discuss project progress schedules, deadlines, funding sources, grant applications, cost estimates, and measurable performance goals. Public reports inconsistently include collision reductions, fatal and serious-injury trends, speeding data, pedestrian safety standards . Adoption of plans without performance measures or transparent reporting permits claim progress without demonstrating results.

9. Records, public participation, and transparency. Traffic-safety projects, roadway redesigns, engineering reports, collision analyses, environmental reviews, grant applications, cost estimates, and staff recommendations are not discussed in front of the public in a timely manner. Residents demand to evaluate projects affecting their safety, mobility, property access, and emergency services. Council decisions are shielded from meaningful public scrutiny through inadequate notice, unexplained agenda placement, incomplete disclosure, or failure to preserve relevant administrative records.

DEMAND FOR BUDGET ALLOCATION ACCOUNTABILITY
Richmond residents are entitled to ask why general budgets are not prioritizing known traffic hazards. Why the above listed concerns remain unresolved, why safety projects are being delayed, how collision data is being used, and whether public resources are being allocated according to objective safety needs. Council must not invoke fiscal constraints selectively, demand urgency only when politically convenient, or characterize infrastructure failures as unavoidable when corrective measures are reasonably available.

When evidence documents dangerous conditions, unreasonable delay, inadequate maintenance, or failure to follow applicable requirements, the responsible decision-makers may face serious administrative, legal, or financial consequences. The central question: Are council decisions actually reducing preventable traffic deaths and serious injuries, or merely adopting plans and making promises? Public accountability requires budgeting and complete safety improvements, document results, lawful decision-making, and transparent explanations. Instead council agendas prioritize political rhetoric, generalized assurances, or selective fiscal justifications. Richmond cannot claim meaningful progress merely by adopting resolutions or announcing future projects. Council must provide explanations supported by objective evidence, not political rhetoric, generalized assurances, or selective fiscal justifications. Public resources, and actual implementation are currently not bexamined against applicable legal duties and the administrative record. Litigation, claiming negligence, dangerous condition of public property, arbitrary decision-making, or statutory noncompliance are currently easily proven by residents.

From: Elizabeth Rico
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: public comments – Open Forum
Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2026 12:50:57 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

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

Dear City Council Members,
I am writing to encourage you to pass the 45-day moratorium on data centers. We just learned that Chevron has been poisoning our air for years. We don't need another greedy corporation moving into Richmond so that it can poison our water. We deserve clean air and fresh water.

Do the right thing and protect not just the residents in Richmond, but the diverse wildlife and sacred land as well.

From: Jennifer Brass
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: NO DATA CENTERS IN RICHMOND
Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2026 6:22:02 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

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

Dear Richmond City Council,
The residents of the City of Richmond, including myself, have worked tirelessly for decades to elect council members who believe in a government of, by and for The People. A city council who holds true to the values of our participatory democracy and our community where all are welcome and represented; where we all have a voice. After the book about our beloved city, Refinery Town, became known even outside our country, we’ve become a beacon of hope for all who still hold hope for a better future and the healthier planet we’ve been fighting for.

We took our Refinery Town out of the jaws of Chevron and their fellow polluters, the perpetrators who are solely responsible for the “Red Line of Cancer” aka, the Refinery Corridor.

We need to hold true to our values and continue to be an example to the East Bay and the rest of the country, rippling our beyond our borders, and PASS THE 45 DAY DATA CENTER MORATORIUM. It is the least we can do. These data centers aren’t the data centers of our recent past, they are enormous by comparison and steal water and electricity from our communities as well as contaminating the air, water, soil AND create intolerable noise pollution. This is a BIPARTISAN cry.

Thank you for doing the right thing and pass the 45 DAY DATA CENTER MORATORIUM.

Mvto Yakoke Wado,
Jennifer Brass
510-301-1818
AshirA Salon
http://www.ashirasalon.com/
http://www.facebook.com/AshiraSalon
From: Jennifer Lopez
To: City Clerk Dept User
Cc: Mayors Office
Subject: Public Comment: Support the Data Center Moratorium – Protect Our Communities Date: Monday, September 14, 2026 10:12:53 AM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

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

Dear Mayor Martinez and City Council Members,
Hello, my name is Jennifer Lopez and I am a resident of the San Pablo/Pinole area. I am also a proud native of Pittsburg, California. I am writing today to urge the City Council to vote YES on the data center moratorium.

Growing up in Pittsburg and living in the West Contra Costa area, I have seen firsthand how our diverse, working-class communities of color are consistently targeted for heavy, polluting industries. Data centers are not "clean tech." They demand massive amounts of our shared energy and water
resources, and they rely on banks of toxic diesel backup generators that worsen air quality and asthma rates in
neighborhoods that already carry a massive environmental burden.

Because of my work schedule, I am unable to attend tomorrow's meeting in person, but my voice matters. We need a legally binding pause on these projects to fully study their impacts on our grid, our environment, and our health. Please protect the people of Richmond and the broader West Contra Costa community by passing this moratorium.

Thank you for your time and your service to our community.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Lopez
San Pablo, Ca
Sent from my iPhone
From: Karen Kidwell
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: public comments agenda item #P.1
Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2026 10:14:44 AM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

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

The SHORTEST City-Level Data Center Moratorium is 45
days.

The AVERAGE is 6 to 18 months, getting us past the
midterms.

Also, let’s not be the first California city to sign an NDA to negotiate with their promoters.

Cities in other states regret that.

I don’t want to pay a trillionaire’s electric and water bills,
nor do I want to inhale even more toxins as backup
generators burn gas.

Let’s not sacrifice health, money, and land that should house green industry and long-term jobs.

Don’t saddle us with a loud, expensive monstrosity
created by an imported, very specialized crew who will
go away in 3 years to the next project. Besides, Data
Centers will soon be obsolete.

From: Leisa Johnson
Subject:

Date: September 15, 2026 at 12:34PM
To:

Begin forwarded message:

From: Leisa Johnson
Subject: Re: MEDIA ADVISORY: Richmond Could Become Second Bay Area City to Pass Data Center Moratorium
Date: September 15, 2026 at 10:10:19AM PDT
To: Lina Velasco <[email protected]>, Shannon Moore <[email protected]>
Cc: Shasa Curl <[email protected]>, Avery Stark <[email protected]>, Cesar Zepeda <[email protected]>, Jamelia Brown <[email protected]>, Leisa Johnson
Good morning Lina, Shannon and Shasa -
Thank you, Lina, for the detailed response and for correcting the record on the newspaper notice. I very much appreciate it.

I have a few follow-up points, several of which I would like Shannon to weigh in on, given that they involve legal sufficiency rather than planning process.

1. Oakley comparison and "second city” framing
My follow-up email below raised that Oakley's moratorium followed an actual, identifiable local trigger: the Bridgehead Industrial Project, where a developer had proposed data center use on a specific site before withdrawing it under public pressure.

Richmond has no analogous project, site, or applicant anywhere in the record, a fact your response confirms.

Yet the coalition's own media advisory is headlined "Richmond Could Become Second Bay Area City to Pass Data Center Moratorium," explicitly framing this as Richmond following Oakley's example as part of a regional trend, not as a response to a documented local threat.

Lina's response didn't address this comparison. Being second to adopt a moratorium of up to two years is not the same as being routed into urgent action by a genuine local precedent — one is trend-following, the other is what § 65858 is designed for.

Given that confirmed absence of any Richmond-specific inquiry, site, or applicant, can staff explain what distinguishes this ordinance from simply replicating Oakley's outcome?

2. Huntington Park - legal sufficiency of the findings
Relatedly, Lina's response states that § 65858 "does not expressly condition the use of an interim ordinance on the existence of a pending development application," and defers the ultimate sufficiency of the findings to the Council at the public hearing. That doesn't address the case I raised: California Charter Schools Assn. v. City of Huntington Park (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 362, where a nearly identical urgency ordinance was invalidated because the city's findings — which were based on actual inquiries, unlike Richmond's — still weren't enough to establish an imminent threat.

I recognize Shannon has no obligation to provide a member of the public with legal guidance, and this item doesn't appear to be agendized for closed session either. So I am respectfully asking that the City Attorney's Office's position on Huntington Park — and whether it believes the findings as drafted distinguish this case — be addressed with the Council openly, during deliberation on September 15, rather than left unaddressed.

3. Public notice

3. Public notice
Thank you, Lina, for confirming the East Bay Times, not the West County Times, ran the notice, and for the correction. Could you please provide the publication date, along with the affidavit of publication or a scan/photo of the printed notice?

4. Timing
I appreciate the explanation that the July timeline conflicted with the summer recess. But that explanation confirms the delay was driven by the budget calendar and recess scheduling, not by any change in urgency.

It's also not fully consistent with the record: the City called two special meetings during the August recess, which shows that bringing an item forward during that period was entirely feasible when the City chose to prioritize it. If the threat were truly current and immediate, why wasn't this one of them? An urgency ordinance that can wait out a budget cycle, a recess, and two special meetings is difficult to reconcile with "current and immediate."

5. Choice of subsection (b)
I understand the efficiency rationale: one 22-month-15-day extension versus two staged extensions under subsection (a). But subsection (b) is the pathway that requires advance notice and a public hearing before the initial ordinance can even be adopted, while subsection (a) exists specifically so a city can act immediately without that delay.

Choosing the slower, more procedurally involved path to set up a ban that could run for up to two years is hard to reconcile with a situation staff is also calling urgent. It suggests the City is structuring this toward the longest available prohibition, not responding to a threat that needed immediate action in the first place.

6. Advance knowledge of the hearing date
At the Labor Day rally on September 7th, organizers publicly stated they would return to Richmond on September 15th to rally for the data center ban at the City Council meeting, four days before the agenda for that meeting was published on September 11th. CBE's media advisory went out shortly after the agenda posted. That sequence suggests the coalition knew the specific September 15 hearing date before it was public information.

Councilmembers Jimenez and Wilson are also appearing alongside CBE and other long-time RPA partners at a press conference this afternoon, the day of the vote, as part of the same campaign the coalition has been building since June — shortly before ballots go out for the November election, including Claudia's own mayoral race.

I appreciate that staff's own scheduling wasn't coordinated with any outside organization, and I don't doubt that account. But it doesn't resolve how the coalition had this date before the public did.

Did any of you communicate with the Mayor's office, or any Councilmember or their staff, prior to Labor Day, about this item's anticipated placement on the September 15 agenda? I'm trying to understand how the coalition knew about this agenda item well before it was published on September 11th.

Lina, I truly appreciate your engagement on this. I have serious concerns about data centers, and I think those concerns are worth addressing at the state and federal level as well. But I want to make sure the City is going about this process in a manner grounded in legal standing — not RPA political theater timed to precede a mayoral election that's less than two months away.

I look forward to these concerns being addressed, and to Shannon's input on the legal questions raised I look forward to these concerns being addressed, and to Shannon's input on the legal questions raised throughout being addressed publicly with the Council this evening, before any further action is taken.

Thank you.

Warm regards,
Leisa
Ps. I am sharing Reimagine Richmond’s notice that went out yesterday. The City needs to conduct important business, not pander to politic theater for the RPA and Claudia’s mayoral race.

On Sep 14, 2026, at 4:13PM, Lina Velasco <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Leisa,
Thank you for your email and for raising these questions/concerns. I want to first clarify the timing of the September 15 item. From staff’s perspective, the timing was not calculated or coordinated around the November election or the activities of any outside group.

Following the City Council’s April 21 direction, I initially planned to bring the proposed moratorium forward for Council consideration in July, following adoption of the new Fiscal Year City budget. As I began preparing the item, however, I realized that an initial 45-day moratorium adopted during July would expire during the Council’s summer recess, before Council would have an opportunity to consider an extension. By that point, I had missed the timeframe necessary to bring the initial ordinance forward and still have an extension considered before the recess. Because September 15 was the first regular Council meeting following the recess, I scheduled the item for that meeting. If Council adopts the initial moratorium, this schedule provides an opportunity for Council to consider an extension before the initial 45-day period expires.

Regarding your other questions, my responses are below.

1. How does this item qualify as an “urgency” item?
The purpose of the proposed interim moratorium is to preserve the status quo The purpose of the proposed interim moratorium is to preserve the status quo while the City undertakes a planning process to determine whether data centers should be allowed in Richmond and, if so, what regulations should apply to the use. Richmond’s existing zoning regulations do not specifically address data centers as a land use and the infrastructure issues associated with them. The proposed interim ordinance is intended to provide the City time to evaluate those issues before development could become entitled under the existing regulatory framework.

2. If the data center moratorium was truly urgent, why wasn't it brought forward sooner?
The urgency underlying the proposed interim ordinance is separate from the scheduling of the Council item. As noted above, I initially anticipated bringing the item forward in July but had not adequately accounted for how the initial 45-day period would align with the Council’s summer recess and the timing necessary for Council to consider an extension. The September 15 date was therefore based on the Council calendar and the procedural requirements associated with an interim moratorium, rather than a change in the circumstances underlying the proposed ordinance.

3. Given that there is no pending application, what establishes a “current and immediate” threat?
You are correct that there are currently no pending or approved data center applications in Richmond, and the agenda report is intended to be transparent about that fact. The proposed moratorium is not being brought forward in response to a particular project, site, or applicant. Government Code Section 65858 requires the Council, in considering an interim ordinance, to make findings regarding a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare and the effect that approval of additional entitlements would have on that threat. Section 65858 does not expressly condition the use of an interim ordinance on the existence of a pending development application.

Staff and the City Attorney’s Office have considered these requirements in preparing the proposed ordinance and bringing it forward for the Council’s consideration.

The proposed findings are based on the fact that Richmond’s existing zoning regulations do not contain standards specifically designed to address data centers, while these facilities can involve significant electricity and water demand, continuous mechanical noise, backup generation and associated emissions, and substantial demands on utility infrastructure. The concern is that, under the existing regulatory framework, a data center could potentially become entitled without standards specifically developed to address the scale and cumulative effects of these characteristics. The interim ordinance is intended to preserve the status quo while the City evaluates these issues and determines what regulations, if any, are necessary to protect public health, safety, and welfare.

Ultimately, the findings supporting the interim ordinance, including whether the requirements of Government Code Section 65858 are satisfied, are matters that will be before the City Council for consideration as part of the September 15 public hearing.

4. How did the City satisfy the public notice requirement? The reference to the West County Times in the agenda report was a staff error. The public hearing notice was actually published in the East Bay Times.

We appreciate you identifying the incorrect newspaper reference. Because the notice was published in the East Bay Times, the alternative posting procedure you reference was not the procedure relied upon by the City. Staff also thought that since we did have the earlier item for the Council to consider directing staff to prepare a proposed moratorium, providing a notice in the newspaper was more prudent.

5. Why did staff proceed under Section 65858(b)?
Staff elected to provide notice and conduct a public hearing before consideration of the initial ordinance under Government Code Section 65858(b). Under that procedure, if the initial 45-day ordinance is adopted, Council may subsequently consider an extension of up to 22 months and 15 days following the required notice and public hearing. By comparison, Section 65858(a) provides for an initial extension of 10 months and 15 days and a subsequent one-year extension. The subsection (b) procedure provides the City with the ability, if Council determines an extension is warranted, to provide sufficient time to complete the planning process without requiring two separate extension proceedings. Given the number of planning initiatives currently underway and the time necessary for research, public engagement, development of potential regulations, Planning Commission consideration, and Council action, staff believes that approach provides a more practical process.

Any extension would, of course, require a subsequent noticed public hearing and Council action.

Regarding your concerns about the November election and outside organizations:

Staff provided an email update to all Councilmembers on August 27 advising that the proposed moratorium was scheduled to return to the City Council on September 15. In addition, the April 21 Council direction to staff to return with a proposed data center moratorium was approved unanimously (7-0). The original recommendation that Council consider a data center moratorium was also initiated by staff.

Accordingly, staff’s scheduling and preparation of this item have not been associated with any particular political organization or affiliation. Staff is carrying out direction provided by the full City Council. The activities of outside organizations supporting or opposing the proposal are independent of staff’s organizations supporting or opposing the proposal are independent of staff’s work and have not influenced the timing or purpose of bringing the item forward.

I appreciate you raising your concerns directly with us, and I hope my responses provide some reassurance about staff’s role in this process. We take our responsibility to provide objective and professional advice to the City Council seriously.

Best,
Lina
Lina Velasco
She/her/hers
Director of Community Development
[email protected]
Direct: 510-620-6841
City of Richmond
450 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
From: Leisa Johnson
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2026 1:17 AM
To: Shannon Moore <[email protected]>; Lina Velasco <[email protected]>; Shasa Curl <[email protected]> Cc: Avery Stark <[email protected]>; Cesar Zepeda <[email protected]>; Jamelia Brown
<[email protected]>;
Subject: Fwd: MEDIA ADVISORY: Richmond Could Become Second Bay Area City to Pass Data Center Moratorium
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Hi Lina, Shannon and Shasa -
Per the legitimate concern I shared at the end of my first email regarding the data center moratorium and the timing of this item so close to the election, I am forwarding the media advisory that Shiva Mishek sent out this afternoon along with a couple social media posts showing that the RPA/Reimagine Richmond and their partners (CBE, APEN and others) have been working towards this since at least June.

CBE's own Richmond member meeting flyer shows a June 24 listening session on data centers, and the August 22 CBE Richmond Instagram post states that “Richmond is getting ahead of future proposals”.

Most notably, the media advisory Shiva sent out today is headlined:

Most notably, the media advisory Shiva sent out today is headlined:
“Richmond Could Become Second Bay Area City to Pass Data Center Moratorium,” and states that “if approved, Richmond would become the second city in both Contra Costa County and the wider Bay Area to adopt a moratorium on data center development, following Oakley, as communities across the region grapple with the rapid expansion of the industry.”
That framing is telling. Oakley's moratorium followed an actual, identifiable local trigger - the Bridgehead Industrial Project, where a developer hadproposed data center use on a specific 164-acre site before removing it under public pressure.

Richmond has no analogous project, site, or applicant anywhere in the public record associated with this item.

The coalition's own language suggests this is about Richmond following a regional trend and being “second”, not about responding to any current or immediate local threat.

An urgency ordinance has specific requirements.

The record does not appear to reflect a current or immediate threat in Richmond - only a hypothetical one.

The agenda report states there is "no immediate fiscal impact associated with this action as there are currently no pending applications or approved proposals for data centers within the City."
In your proposed draft ordinance, Finding D relies solely on the possibilitythat an application "could be submitted" at some future point - with no inquiry, no site, and no applicant identified anywhere in the record.

In California Charter Schools Assn. v. City of Huntington Park (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 362, that urgency ordinance was invalidated because the city's own findings showed only inquiries about future development, not an actual pending application.

Given that RPA-aligned groups were organizing around this outcome since at least June, and that the coalition's own media advisory frames this as least June, and that the coalition's own media advisory frames this as Richmond becoming the "second" city to pass such a moratorium rather than as a response to any documented local threat, this raises serious questions about whether this urgency ordinance is being used for its intended purpose under § 65858, or timed for reasons unrelated to any actual current threat, particularly given the timing relative to the mayoral election in November and the associated press conference with Claudia & Sue.

Warm regards,
Leisa
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Shiva Mishek <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 4:53 PM
Subject: MEDIA ADVISORY: Richmond Could Become Second
Bay Area City to Pass Data Center Moratorium
To: Luz A. Hernandez they/them <[email protected]>
Hello,
Sharing a media advisory for Tuesday, September 15, as
Richmond considers becoming the second city in the Bay
Area to adopt a moratorium on data center development.

A press conference with Councilmembers Claudia Jimenez and Sue Wilson and Communities for a Better Environment will take place at 1 p.m., ahead of a 5:30 p.m. community rally and 6 p.m.

City Council vote.

Please see the attached advisory for details, also included below.

We’re happy to coordinate interviews with Richmond residents, organizers, and elected officials.

Best,
Shiva
______

MEDIA ADVISORY
September 11, 2026
Press contacts:

Luz Hernandez, 214-957-9242, [email protected]
Shiva Mishek, 818-319-3207, [email protected]
Richmond Residents to Rally for Data Center Moratorium
Ahead of Critical City Council Vote
Environmental justice groups support a 45-day pause on data centers as the City considers impacts on electric grid, air and water quality, and local jobs
RICHMOND, CA — Richmond residents, supported by a coalition led by environmental justice organizations, will rally at Richmond City Hall on Tuesday, September 15, calling on the Richmond City Council to pass a moratorium on data center development. If approved, Richmond would become the second city in both Contra Costa County and the wider Bay Area to adopt a moratorium on data center development, following Oakley, as communities across the region grapple with the rapid expansion of the industry.

WHAT: No Data Centers in Richmond: Rally and City Council mobilization hosted by Communities for a Better Environment (CBE)
WHERE: Richmond City Hall, 440 Civic Center Plaza, Richmond, CA
WHEN: Tuesday, September 15
1 pm: Press conference with Councilmember Claudia Jimenez, Councilmember Sue Wilson, and CBE 5 pm: Dinner and
community gathering, hosted by CBE
5:30 pm: Community Rally with speakers
6:00 pm: City council meeting begins
VISUALS: Dozens of community members holding large colorful banners and art pieces assembled and hand painted by community banners and art pieces assembled and hand painted by community members. Community members and organizational
representatives speaking at rally and giving public comment in City Council chambers.

RALLY SPEAKERS: Will include Richmond residents and
representatives of community and environmental organizations.

You can view the moratorium language here and the agenda report here.

The September 15 vote is the first step in a broader community campaign calling for Richmond to take a precautionary approach to data center development and ultimately establish permanent protections.

Our No Data Centers in Richmond coalition is led by Communities for a Better Environment (CBE) and includes
Asian Pacific Environmental Network (APEN),
Reclaim Our Power,
Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE) Action,
Food & Water Watch, and the
Center for Biological Diversity. For more information, reach out to the listed media contacts, visit @CBERichmond
on Instagram, or RSVP here.
###
Shiva Mishek she/her
NorCal Program Co-Director
Communities for a Better
Environment and CBE Action, a
project of Beyond Impact
340 Marina Way, Richmond CA
94801
www.cbecal.org
Donate to CBE here!
Begin forwarded message:

From: Leisa Johnson
Subject: Questions & legal concerns re: Agenda Item P.1 - Data Center Moratorium Date: September 11, 2026 at 4:05:54PM PDT
To: Shannon Moore <[email protected]>, Lina Velasco <[email protected]>, Shasa Curl <[email protected]> Cc: Avery Stark <[email protected]>, Cesar Zepeda <[email protected]>, Jamelia Brown <[email protected]>, Leisa Johnson Hello Lina, Shannon and Shasa -
I hope life finds you all doing well.

I was reviewing the city council agenda, the Item P.1 agenda report, and the draft urgency ordinance, and have a few questions I'm hoping you can clarify.

A. The Sept 15th, Item P.1 Agenda Report makes no mention of the April 21, 2026, consent calendar item O.4.a and its associated Agenda Report, which sought city council approval to direct the city manager and city attorney to work with Planning staff to develop and bring forward a proposed moratorium on data centers.

That item was nearly five months ago.

Other Richmond urgency ordinances with associated moratoriums -- one early in the COVID-19 pandemic (a once-in-a-hundred-years event) and the more recent smoke shop moratorium — had an obvious public health and safety rationale for urgency.

Questions:

1. Can you please clarify how exactly this item qualifies as an “urgency” item?

2. If this data center moratorium was truly urgent, why wasn't it brought forward sooner? B. The agenda report's own Financial Impact section states: “..there are currently no pending applications or approved proposals for data centers within the City.”
That directly confirms what the public already suspected - there is no known project driving this action.

Government Code § 65858(c) requires written findings that there is a "current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare," and that approval of additional entitlements would result in that threat.

In California Charter Schools Assn. v. City of Huntington Park (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 362, a nearly identical urgency ordinance was invalidated because the city's own findings showed only inquiries about future development, not an actual pending application.

Here, the proposed draft ordinance's Finding D goes even further, relying solely on the possibility that an application "could be submitted" at some future point - with no inquiry, no site, and no applicant identified anywhere in the record.

Question: Given the agenda report's own admission that no application exists, what specific fact establishes a "current and immediate" threat, as opposed to a hypothetical future one? C. The agenda report's Recommended Action explicitly states the ordinance is being adopted "utilizing Government Code Section 65858(b).”
Unlike subsection (a), which allows a city to adopt an initial 45-day urgency ordinance without prior notice or hearing precisely because it's an emergency measure, subsection (b) requires notice pursuant to Government Code § 65090 and a public hearing before the ordinance can be adopted.

The agenda report states: "A public hearing was noticed in the West County Times for this urgency ordinance.”
The Bay Area News Group folded the West County Times in November 2011.

This is where the city appears to be in conflict with itself: if the moratorium was being adopted under § 65858(a), no advance notice would be required at all, and the West County Times issue would be moot.

But the agenda report explicitly invokes subsection (b), which makes notice and a public hearing a mandatory precondition to adoption.

Questions:

1. The only notice the City has pointed to was published in a paper that hasn't existed for 15 years. How did the City satisfy § 65090's requirement of publication in a newspaper of general circulation at least 10 days before the hearing?

2. If the City believed no qualifying newspaper existed, was the hearing instead posted in three public places, as § 65090(a) allows in that circumstance?

3. Can staff also clarify why subsection (b), which requires pre-adoption notice and hearing, was chosen over subsection (a), which would not?
Legitimate concerns exist around data centers' demand for electricity and water as well as land use and environmental concerns. But those concerns alone don't appear to rise to the level of “urgent”.

Moreover, the timing is hard to ignore as this is coming back to the RPA-aligned majority council in the runup to the November 2026 Richmond mayoral election, shortly before ballots are mailed out to voters in early October. That concern is reinforced by the fact that outside groups - the Party for Socialism and Liberation, and the Cuba and Venezuela Solidarity Committee (formerly the National Committee to Free the Cuban Five and ANSWER Coalition) - who partner with the RPA, were in Richmond at a Labor Day rally on Sept 7th and stated they'd be back on Sept 15th to rally for the data center ban at the council meeting. So they clearly knew about this before the agenda was even published.
this before the agenda was even published.

Thank you.

Warm regards,
Leisa
From: Quanah Brightman
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comment Item P.1 - United Native Americans Demand that the Richmond City Council Votes to Ban Data Centers in Richmond California
Date: Monday, September 14, 2026 4:29:24 PM
Importance: High
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

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

We as United Native Americans Demand that the Richmond City Council Votes to Ban Data Centers in Richmond California. Multiple Native American tribes have implemented bans, moratoria, or restrictions on building hyperscale AI and crypto data centers on their sovereign lands. Tribes including the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma, the Seminole Nation, the Fort Peck Tribes, and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians are pushing back to protect local resources.

Several federal and state legislative proposals focus on data centers, primarily targeting their massive energy and water consumption and aiming to shield regular utility ratepayers from cost hikes.

Major Federal Proposals
Ratepayer Protection Act: A high-profile bill moving through the House designed to encourage state utility regulators to make tech companies pay for the incremental grid, transmission, and generation upgrades required by artificial intelligence data centers, rather than passing those costs to everyday consumers.

Data Center Bill of Rights: Introduced by Rep. Ro Khanna, this resolution empowers local communities to regulate or reject data center developments, including proposed bans near residential zones, schools, and hospitals.

Artificial Intelligence Data Center Moratorium Act: Proposed in both the House (by Rep.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) and the Senate (by Sen. Bernie Sanders), this measure seeks a federal halt on new or expanded AI data centers until strict national environmental, wage, and energy standards are established.

No Data Center NDAs Act (H.R. 10118): Introduced by Rep. Tom Barrett to prevent federal agencies from overriding local authority and to ban members of Congress from signing nondisclosure agreements regarding local data center projects.

UNA's Legacy servicing all Indigenous Tribal Nations and Tribal Citizens in California and Globally since being Founded in 1968 in the San Francisco Bay Area.

We hope that the Richmond City Council moves forward to Protecting its residence's safety and Ban Data Centers.

Sincerely,
Quanah Parker Brightman
Executive Director of
United Native Americans
(510) 680-6537
https://unitednativeamericans.weebly.com/
From: Reimagine Richmond
To: City Clerk Dept User; Eduardo Martinez
Subject: Agenda Item P.1: Richmond Says NO to Data Centers Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2026 1:07:25 PM
Attachments: Data Center Letter.pdf
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

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

Dear Mayor and City Council,
We hope this email finds you well.

Reimagine Richmond would like to share our letter regarding Agenda Item P.1, the proposed temporary moratorium on data centers in Richmond.

While we support the proposed moratorium, we urge the City Council to go further and adopt a permanent ban on new data centers in Richmond. Please see the attached letter for our full statement and recommendations.

Thank you for your time and consideration.
--
In Community,
RR Organizing Team
www.reimaginerichmond.org
Click here to follow us on Instagram
P-1: Moratorium on Data Centers
Reimagine Richmond supports a moratorium on data centers in Richmond and demands the City Council go further by adopting a permanent ban. Richmond should not sacrifice land, water, energy, environmental health, or community safety for an industry that offers limited public benefit while creating significant long-term damages.

Data centers are not simply warehouses for technology. They are critical infrastructure for an increasingly data-driven economy, including systems that can enable expanded surveillance, artificial intelligence, and the collection and analysis of information about our communities.

Black and Brown residents have historically experienced disproportionate surveillance and policing, and we must be vigilant about technologies that can deepen those inequities.

Community safety must mean more than expanding the capacity to monitor, track, and criminalize residents. True safety means investing in housing, health, youth, environmental protections, economic opportunity, and community-based crisis response. Richmond should not build technological infrastructure that can strengthen surveillance while communities continue to experience underinvestment in the resources that actually create safety.

A moratorium is an important first step, but Richmond deserves a clear commitment: no new data centers. We call on city leaders to prioritize community well-being over corporate interests and to ensure that Richmond's future is shaped by residents not by an industry whose impacts could fundamentally alter how our communities live, work, and are surveilled.

From: Roger Lin
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comment Agenda Item # P.1
Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2026 10:19:15 PM
Attachments: CBD_CommentP1_DataCenterMoratorium_091526.pdf This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

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

To the City Clerk,
Please see the attached public comment for item P.1 on tonight’s agenda. I was not able to upload this to the eComment portal.

Please let me know if you require any additional information or have any problems with the attachment/adding to the official meeting record for tonight’s Council meeting.

Thank you for the time,
Roger Lin
Senior Attorney
Climate Law Institute
Center for Biological Diversity
2100 Franklin Street, Suite 375
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (510) 844-7100 ext. 363
https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/climate_law_institute/ This e-mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.

Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited by law. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

September 15, 2026
Richmond City Council
Community Services Building
440 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
VIA eCOMMENTS
cc: [email protected]
RE: P.1 Urgency Ordinance Imposing a 45-Day Moratorium on New Data Centers To Mayor Eduardo Martinez, Vice Mayor Doria Robinson, and City Councilmembers Cesar Zepeda, Soheila Bana, Claudia Jiménez, Jamelia Brown, and Sue Wilson, The Center for Biological Diversity supports adoption of the urgency ordinance imposing a 45-day moratorium on new data centers. Adoption of the ordinance is necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of Richmond residents based on local air quality issues alone.1 On April 22, 2026, the Center for Biological Diversity and several other environmental, environmental justice and community-based organizations petitioned the Bay Area Air District to revise its outdated regulations regarding diesel backup generation at data centers (attached as Attachment A). The petition details the public health harms from diesel backup generation, especially when located in areas already disproportionately impacted by pollution. Soon after, the Bay Area Air District determined the need to revise its regulations to match the scale and pace of development of diesel backup generation at data centers, with regulatory proposals due this Fall.

On August 17, 2026, the petitioners sent a follow up letter to the Air District (attached as Attachment B). The letter also details the need to make diesel backup generators’ emissions information public record and conduct an adequate cumulative impacts analysis of subsequent local air quality and health harms from data centers and other pollution sources. In other words, 1 Other public health and environmental harms from data centers warranting the moratorium include, but are not limited to, massive water consumption, rising heats, increased noise, and increased electricity rates, as detailed in the September 14, 2026 Comment Letter on item P.1. from Communities for a Better Environment, the Reclaim Our Power Utility Justice Campaign, the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, 350 Bay Area, ACCE, Oil and Gas Action Network, Food and Water Watch, the Local Clean Energy Alliance, Extinction Rebellion SF Bay Area, Frontline Catalyst, the Center for Biological Diversity and others. neither the public nor the Air District currently have an adequate understanding of the degree of public health harms from the concurrent operation of so many diesel backup generators in conjunction with other nearby pollution sources, let alone in areas already disproportionately impacted by pollution.

Several neighborhoods in Richmond already score above CalEnviroScreen’s 90th percentile for pollution burden and diesel particulate matter exposure. It is wholly within the City’s authority to enact the moratorium and, during its pendency, determine what additional cumulative local air quality impacts could result from the operation of one or more clustered data centers. The Center for Biological Diversity urges the City Council to adopt the Urgency Ordinance Imposing a 45-Day Moratorium on New Data Centers.

Sincerely,
/s/
Roger Lin
Meya Saenz Zagar
Center for Biological Diversity
Climate Law Institute

ATTACHMENT A

April 22, 2026
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
375 Beale Street
Suite 600
San Francisco, CA 94105

VIA EMAIL
[email protected]
[email protected]
cc:
[email protected]
[email protected]
To Air Pollution Control Officer Dr. Fine, Clerk of the Board, and Board of Directors, Pursuant to California Government Code § 11340.6, the undersigned Petitioners submit the attached Petition to address transparency and public health and environmental harms from stationary compression ignition (diesel) engines used at data centers. Petitioners request a response within 30 days.

Colleen Corrigan
San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban
Research Association (SPUR)
Pooja Agarwal
The Climate Center
Shana Lazerow
Communities for a Better Environment
Lorenzo Kristov, Ph.D.

Electric System Policy, Structure,
Market Design
Karina Lopez
Frontline Catalysts
1 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

ALLAI CONSULTING, LLC

MEDIAJUSTICE

WEST OAKLAND ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS PROJECT

ALLIANCE FOR CALIFORNIANS FOR COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT (ACCE)

DREAMING COLLABORATIVE

SILICON VALLEY YOUTH CLIMATE ACTION

CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE FOR COMMUNITY ENERGY
350 BAY AREA

CLEAN COALITION

SIERRA CLUB

YOUNG COMMUNITY DEVELOPERS

FOOD AND WATER WATCH
RECLAIM OUR POWER: UTILITY JUSTICE CAMPAIGN

THE CLIMATE CENTER

LOCAL CLEAN ENERGY ALLIANCE

COMMUNITIES FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT

MARIE HARRISON COMMUNITY FOUNDATION

SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA PLANNING AND URBAN RESEARCH ASSOCIATION

FRONTLINE CATALYSTS

PETITION TO THE BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

TO ADDRESS TRANSPARENCY AND PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL

HARMS FROM STATIONARY COMPRESSION IGNITION (DIESEL) ENGINES USED

AT DATA CENTERS
Pursuant to California Government Code § 11340.6, the Center for Biological Diversity, AllAI Consulting LLC, MediaJustice, West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project, Alliance of Californians For Community Empowerment (ACCE), Dreaming Collaborative, Silicon Valley Youth Climate Action, 350 Bay Area, California Alliance for Community Energy, Young Community Developers, the Clean Coalition, Sierra Club, Food & Water Watch, Reclaim Our Power: Utility Justice Campaign, The Climate Center, and the Local Clean Energy Alliance, Communities for a Better Environment, Marie Harrison Community Foundation, San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR), and Frontline Catalysts submit this petition (“Petition”) to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (“BAAQMD”) to amend its regulations to address a pressing air quality problem in California: the proliferation of stationary compressions ignition (diesel) engines (hereafter “diesel backup generators” or “diesel BUGs”) to power the explosive growth of data centers. While a handful of these generators were once the occasional back-up power supply for some homeowners and emergency facilities like hospitals, in recent years they have become standard equipment for data center projects proliferating across the state, including in the Bay Area, where there can be 20 to 50 diesel backup generators at each data center site.
2 Because data centers insist on operating at the industry standard of “five 9’s” (or

99.999% of the time), and existing regulations too liberally permit using these diesel backup generators, they are causing concrete public health and environmental harms that BAAQMD currently does not but must address. Moreover, under current regulations, operators: determine and self-report the nature of the emergency warranting use; in those instances are not subject to any operational limits; and are not even required to publicly disclose the emissions from or reasons for use of these diesel BUGs.

Accordingly, to protect air quality and promote transparency, BAAQMD should amend its regulations to require operators of data centers to:

1. Publicly report their diesel BUGs emissions information, including daily hours of use and a description of the reasons for operation.

2. Obtain permit authorization for all of the multitude of diesel BUGs used at each data center site as a single source of air pollution.

3. Strictly limit the “emergency” conditions under which diesel BUGs are permitted to operate.

4. Comply with operational limits for diesel BUGs at data centers during times of qualified emergency.

In addition, BAAQMD should develop new standards for back-up generation at data centers that are consistent with state climate and clean energy targets and equity policies. In particular, as discussed below, data centers can achieve their need for uninterrupted power by relying on available battery storage backup alternatives.

As detailed below, these new requirements are necessary to protect public health and the environment, and would be consistent with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) implementation of the federal Clean Air Act (“CAA”), as well as with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), and the federal Endangered Species Act (“ESA”).

BAAQMD has the authority to take the action requested.1 As a public agency of the state, BAAQMD is required to respond to this petition within 30 days. 2 I. Background.

The History of Regulation of Diesel BUGs.

In 1998, the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) identified diesel particulate matter emissions from diesel BUGs as a toxic air contaminant. Subsequently in 2000, CARB adopted the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan to reduce emissions from diesel BUGs in California by the year 2010.
1 Gov Code §11340.6(a)-(c).
2 Gov Code § 11340.7(a).
3 As part of the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan, in February 2004, CARB adopted the Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary Compression Ignition Engines (“ATCM”). 3 The
ATCM was designed to mitigate the impacts of diesel BUGs by reducing diesel particulate matter emissions approximately 90 percent from 2000 levels. Local air districts implement and enforce the ATCM requirements. While aspects of the ATCM have been amended, 4 the
stringency of the standards and those implemented by BAAQMD (including through Regulation 2, Rule 5 and Regulation 9, Rule 8) has remained largely the same since 2004. In general, the regulations are intended to limit the use of these generators to emergency situations, as determined by the operator, and uses necessary for maintenance and testing.

Development of the ATCM required CARB, with the participation of local air pollution control districts, to develop rules based on the “need and appropriate degree of regulation.” 5 To
determine the need for, and appropriate degree of regulation, regulators had to consider “the rate and extent of present and anticipated future emissions and estimated levels of human exposure,”6 the “anticipated sources of [diesel particulate matter],”7 and overall, the “potential adverse health, safety, or environmental effects that may occur as a result of implementation of an [ATCM].”8
The requirements of the ATCM were driven by the analysis of the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan. Development of the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan estimated an emission inventory and risk associated with diesel particulate matter emissions, including estimated statewide potential cancer risk levels.9 At the time of drafting the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan, CARB contemplated regulation of the approximately 11,000 “emergency/standby engines . . . typically used for emergency back-up electric power generation or the emergency pumping of water,” in use in California.10
The Diesel Risk Reduction Plan further projected diesel particulate matter emissions from emergency/standby generators (diesel BUGs, highlighted) up to 2020, estimating a total statewide engine population of 13,200 as shown in the table below. 11 3 Cal. Code of Regulations § 93115.15.
4 The 2007 amendments to the ATCM focused on renumbering and reorganizing, adding citations to statutory authority, adding new exemptions, and emissions standards for certain types of engines used in agricultural contexts, and creating an option for an Alternative Compliance Demonstration (§ 93115.13(f)). The 2011 amendments were similarly limited. Further, the Final Statements of Reasons for each round of amendments also do not suggest intentions to strengthen the ATCM. 5 Cal. Health & Safety Code § 39665(a).
6 Cal. Health & Safety Code § 39665(b)(1).
7 Cal. Health & Safety Code § 39665(b)(3).
8 Cal. Health & Safety Code § 39665(b)(7).
9 CARB, Diesel Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles (October 2000) available at
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/diesel/documents/rrpfinal.pdf. 10 Id. at 8.
11 Id. at 13.
4 Notably, at the time, these estimates purported to take “into account growth in engines due to population and economic growth.”12 And even based on these estimates, which turned out to be far too low, CARB concluded that “diesel particulate matter is a major contributor to potential ambient risk levels and accounts for approximately 70 percent of the ambient air toxics cancer risk.”13
While the ATCM concerns diesel particulate matter pollution, CARB’s Diesel Risk Reduction Plan also noted that “several local air pollution control and air quality management districts have rules that regulate NOx and CO emissions” from diesel BUGs. BAAQMD regulates NOx and CO from diesel BUGs with Regulation 9, Rule 8. However, similar to BAAQMD regulations implementing the ATCM, that regulation was also developed in 2007— prior to the boom of data centers and associated diesel BUGs—and is outdated, contemplating only a handful of diesel BUGs at stationary sources.

Setting a minimum baseline, the ATCM regulatory framework allows data center operators to obtain a permit for each individual diesel BUG.14 This approach precludes the adequate analysis of the cumulative impact of the multitude of diesel BUGs operating concurrently under true emergency scenarios. BAAQMD defines “emergency” as any “event of unforeseeable failure of regular electric power supply,” or “the failure or imminent failure of a . . . source of power, but only for such time as needed to repair or replace the primary . . . source of power,”15 and allows data center operators to determine and subsequently self-report the nature of the emergency. Data center operators are required to maintain those records of their diesel BUG use for 36 months, including reasons for use, onsite and available for review by regulators.16 BAAMQD does not require those records to be made publicly available. 12 Id. at 11.
13 Id. at 16.
14 See Cal. Code of Regulations § 93115.10.
15 BAAQMD Regulation 9, Rule 8-231.
16 Cal. Code of Regulations § 93115.10(f).
5 The Regulations Never Contemplated the Vast Number of Diesel BUGs at Data Centers.

When the existing diesel BUGs regulations were established, California regulators wildly underestimated how many of these polluting generators would be put into use across California, since they were generally for home use or for emergency facilities like hospitals. For example, although the Kaiser Permanente San Jose Medical Center serves more than 200,000 patients and employs 400 physicians and 3,250 support staff, that massive facility only has eight diesel BUGs.17
What regulators missed was the explosive growth of data centers, and their heavy reliance on these polluting pieces of equipment to keep operating at all times. The proliferation of data centers and associated diesel BUGs is projected to keep increasing at an astonishing rate.

In 2025, PG&E reported plans to power a total of 3,500 megawatts for data centers over the next few years, amounting to capital spending between $1.7 billion and $5.6 billion.18 By current industry practices, that means that the Bay Area may expect up to an additional 4,200 to 7,000 megawatts of diesel BUG capacity to meet projected data center development.19 This far exceeds the estimated growth of diesel backup generators projected by the ATCM and BAAQMD’s implementing regulations.

Today, the diesel BUG landscape is continuing to radically change to meet the skyrocketing demands of the data center industry. Currently, it is industry standard for data centers to have power available 99.999% of the time, which amounts to only approximately 5 minutes of downtime per year.20 To meet this standard, data centers often deploy a highercapacity of diesel backup generation compared to the maximum power demand for operations.21 For example, if the maximum demand at a data center is 100MW, it might deploy 120-200MW of diesel backup generation.22 Additionally, today, diesel BUGs are running more frequently than historically projected due to climate change and challenges with grid operations.23 17 Kaiser Permanente Northern California, San Jose, available at https://residencyncal.kaiserpermanente.org/about/locations/san-jose; see also Attachment A, Initial Start Up Date for 8 generators include: 2006, 2006, 2006, 1995, 1986, 1995, 2010, and 1990. 18 Government Technology, San Jose, Calif., Racing to Become Region’s Data Center Capital (December 22, 2025) available at https://www.govtech.com/products/san-jose-calif-racing-to-becomeregions-data-center-capital 19 Id.
20 Inside Climate News, Data Centers’ Use of Diesel Generators for Backup Power Is Commonplace— and Problematic (November 12, 2025) available at https://insideclimatenews.org/news/12112025/datacenter-diesel-generators-noise-pollution/ 21 Better Data Center Project, Diesel Generators at Data Centers: Status, Impacts, and Protective Practices (March 2026) at 7, available at https://betterdatacenterproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Diesel-Generators-at-DataCenters-Status-Impacts-and-Protective-Practices.pdf 22 Hannah Beckler, et al., How Business Insider investigated the true cost of data centers, (June 17, 2025), available at https://www.businessinsider.com/how-calculate-data-center-cost-environmentalimpact-methodology-2025-6 23 See e.g. Bay Area Air Quality Management District Letter to CEC Re: CA3 Data Center-Vantage DEIR Comment Letter, (March 9, 2022) at 2.
6 Moreover, while each data center generally operates numerous diesel BUGs simultaneously for a common purpose, under existing regulations each generator is permitted individually. This of course masks the true extent of operational and cumulative impacts and subsequent public health and environmental harms from these diesel BUG aggregations. Making matters even worse, during self-reported operation during emergency instances (nonmaintenance and non-testing), diesel BUGs at data centers have no operational limits.

Exacerbating this regulatory gap, data centers are often clustered together, further concentrating harmful pollution from diesel BUGs. Yet, they are permitted on an individual basis, rather than as diesel BUG aggregations. This permitting approach not only excludes the pollution from other diesel BUGs at the same data center, but also the pollution of nearby data centers’ diesel BUGs. BAAQMD itself has expressed concern about data center and diesel BUGs clustering and the associated cumulative health impacts and recommended mitigations to respond to the concentration.24 Thus, as discussed below, it is imperative for BAAQMD to implement more stringent protections and emission limits to adequately reflect the changing diesel BUG landscape.

Diesel BUGs at Data Centers Exacerbate Environmental Injustices.

Since the development of ATCM standards in 2000, California has also passed legislation requiring CARB and the local air districts to consider and address the disproportionate impacts of air pollution on low-income communities of color.25 This environmental justice regulatory framework emphasizes the importance of and need for adequate regulation of clustered data centers that exacerbate pollution hotspots in areas already overburdened by pollution.

Data centers are often clustered in areas that already face significant environmental injustices. For example, as illustrated in the map below, in the city of Santa Clara, 73 data centers operate across a nine-square-mile area.26
24 See e.g. Bay Area Air Quality Management District Letter to CEC Re: CA3 Data Center-Vantage DEIR Comment Letter, (March 9, 2022) at 2.
25 See e.g. Assembly Bill 32 (Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006). 26 Santa Clara Data Centers, Data Center Map, available at https://www.datacentermap.com/usa/california/santa-clara/ 7 Taking a more granular look, as illustrated in the map below, the Bracher Neighborhood in Santa Clara includes 11 data centers across a 0.2 square mile area.27 In this cluster, Amazon Data Services deploys 45 diesel backup generators that operated for approximately 394 hours during 2023-2024.28 Additionally, 2403 Walsh Ave deploys 14 diesel backup generators that operated for approximately 241 hours during 2024-2025.29 Data is unavailable for the other nine data centers in the cluster.
27 Id.
28 See Attachment A.
29 Id.
8 The closest of these 11 data centers is located approximately 700 feet away from a residential neighborhood that faces significant pollution and public health harms. The Bracher neighborhood ranks in CalEnviroScreen’s 68th percentile for pollution burden, 79th percentile for diesel particulate matter 2.5, and the community’s racial/ethnic profile includes 38% Asian American, 32% white, 20% Hispanic, and 5% African American.30 The same data center is also approximately 1000 feet away from Bracher Elementary School. That school’s student body includes 40% economically disadvantaged students and 25% English language learners, while the schools’ racial/ethnic breakdown includes 49% Hispanic/Latino, 25.5% Asian or Asian/pacific islander, 11% white, and 4% black or African American.31
30 OEHHA, CalEnviroScreen 4.0, Data from Census Tract 6085505302, (May 1, 2023) available at https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/11d2f52282a54ceebcac7428e6184203/page/CalEnviroScreen4_0 31 U.S. News & World Report, Bracher Elementary, available at https://www.usnews.com/education/k12/california/bracher-elementary-240118#scores 9 This example shows the especially problematic practice of clustering data centers, and associated diesel BUGs, near communities facing environmental injustices. Additionally, even non-clustered data centers with associated diesel BUGs are often located centrally in active neighborhoods that also face environmental justice concerns.

For example, as illustrated in the map below, 200 Paul Avenue LLC, c/o Digital Realty Trust, in Bay View, San Francisco, is permitted to operate several diesel BUGs only 50 feet away from homes on Paul Avenue.32 There are also seven schools, five playgrounds, four places of worship, a public library, and a children’s day care all within a square mile.33 Other pollution sources also border the data center and the Bay View community: the Union Pacific Railroad operates 100 feet away, and Highway 101 crosses about 800 feet from the data center.34 32 Google Earth, Bay View San Francisco, Imagery from the dates:12/14/2015–1/1/2021, available at https://earth.google.com/web/@37.48955326,-122.09791035,-

0.8063465a,109473.9700659d,30y,0h,0t,0r/data=CgRCAggBOgMKATBCAggASg0I____________AR AA
33 Id.
34 Id.
10 The Bay View community ranks in CalEnviroScreens 81st percentile, 68th percentile for pollution burden, 100th percentile for diesel particulate matter, and 96th percentile for asthma.35 Quite simply, data centers are developing and deploying diesel BUGs in the heart of communities that already face the disproportionate impacts of pollution.

Pollution from Diesel BUGs Impose Significant Impacts to Public Health.

Diesel generators emit toxic pollutants such as particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and volatile organic compounds detrimental to public health and the environment.

Diesel exhaust is known to increase lung cancer, cardiovascular disease,36 intensify 35 OEHHA, CalEnviroScreen 4.0, data from census tract 6075023300, (May 1, 2023) available at https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/11d2f52282a54ceebcac7428e6184203/page/CalEnviroScreen4_0 36 Benbrahim-Tallaa, L., et al. 2012. Carcinogenicity of diesel-engine and gasoline-engine exhausts and some nitroarenes. The Lancet Oncology 13, 663–664. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(12)70280-2; see also American Cancer Society, Diesel Exhaust and Cancer Risk (Updated February 26, 2024). 11 asthma symptoms and premature death.37 Additionally, individual pollutants within diesel exhaust, such as particulate matter 2.5, are associated with mortality. In California, particulate matter 2.5-associated deaths ranged from 12,700 to 26,1700, 53% attributable to in-state anthropogenic emissions.38
Although data center clusters are already apparent in the Bay Area, because the state of Virginia has the world’s highest concentration of data centers, developments there help predict the future impacts we can expect for the Bay Area.39 Since 2023, data center developers have deployed an enormous number of diesel backup generators in Virginia to serve the growth in data centers. Recent research shows how all this additional pollution is estimated to have resulted in 14,000 asthma symptom cases and an associated $300 million in health care costs.40 Furthermore, some neighborhoods in Virginia now face higher emissions from diesel backup generators at data centers than they do from a nearby 600MW natural gas plant.41 Data center NOx emissions exposure also exceeds that from the Prince William Co. landfill.42 The health impacts from the diesel backup generators in Northern Virginia has also been felt in surrounding states.43
Health impacts from diesel backup generator operations can also disrupt learning and development for students. Specifically, in California, consistent exposure to particulate matter

2.5 has likely already decreased students’ test scores.44 This exposure impairs students’ development and increases school absences.45 Because school success correlates with future earnings and economic mobility, allowing these diesel BUGs to operate near schools poses a 37 Sydbom, A., et al. 2001. Health effects of diesel exhaust emissions. Eur Respir J 17, 733–746. DOI:

10.1183/09031936.01.17407330; see also Weitekamp, C.A., et al. 2020. A systematic review of the health effects associated with the inhalation of particle-filtered and whole diesel exhaust. Inhal Toxicol 32, 1–13. DOI:10.1080/08958378.2020.1725187
38 Tianyang Wang, et al., Mortality burdens in California due to air pollution attributable to local and nonlocal emissions, (December 2019) available at
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016041201932447X 39 Ryan Murphy and Emily Feng, Why more residents are saying 'No' to AI data centers in their backyard, ( July 17, 2025) available at https://www.npr.org/2025/07/17/nx-s1-5469933/virginia-datacenters-residents-saying-no 40 Yuelin Han, et al., The Unpaid Toll: Quantifying and Addressing the Public Health Impact of Data Centers, (October 2025) at 3 available at https://arxiv.org/pdf/2412.06288 41 Id. at 17.
42 Id. at 9.
43 Id. at 18.
44 Robert W Wassmer and Michael D Turgeoun, Particulates Matter: The Influence of Cumulative Local Air Pollution Exposure on Sixth-Grade Academic Achievement in California, (2024) available at https://edopportunity.org/papers/ParticulatesMatter_Wassmer_Turgeon.pdf#:~:text=What%20do%20the %20findings%20mean?%20California's%20primary,produce%20equitable%20and%20cost%2Deffective %20test%20score%20gains.
45 Id.
12 tremendous threat to the future of California’s students.46 Pollution from Diesel BUGs Impose Significant Impacts to Biodiversity Fossil fuel combustion from diesel BUGs emits toxic nitrogen oxide (NOx) pollutants including nitrous oxide (N2O), nitric acid (HNO3), nitrate (NO3 -
), and ammonia (NH3).47 NOx
air pollution has contributed to a significant increase in nitrogen deposition throughout the United States,48 significantly impacting species and ecosystems.49 The nitrogen deposition from vehicle pollution is scientifically linked to harming federally endangered species of the Bay Area.

The bay checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha bayensis) is a federally endangered species exclusively found across patches of serpentinite soil in the San Francisco Bay Area.50 NOx pollution from vehicles has contributed to the decline and local extirpation of the species.51 An increase in nitrogen deposition has encouraged exotic grasses to replace native forbs, the larval host plant and adult nectar source for the bay checkerspot butterfly.

For example, the population of bay checkerspot butterflies at the Edgewood Natural Preserve in San Mateo County was extirpated due to non-native plants outcompeting the native larval host plant, diminishing 80% of the available habitat.52 The Fish and Wildlife Service's 5- year review for the bay checkerspot butterfly found “nitrogen deposition . . . was responsible for creating soil conditions that allowed the observed grass invasion.”53 The 5-year review 46 Raj Chetty et al. How does your kindergarten classroom affect your earnings? Evidence from Project STAR (November 2011) available at https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/126/4/1593/1923939 and J Lawrence Aber et al. Middle childhood success and economic mobility, Centers on Children and Families at Brookings Institute (2012) available at https://www.brookings.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2016/06/15-education-success-economic-mobility-aber-grannis-owen-sawhill.pdf and Gary E. Chamberlain, Predictive effects of teachers and schools on test scores, college attendance, and earnings (2011) available at https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1315746110 47 Fowler, David et al., The global nitrogen cycle in the twenty-first century, 368 Phil Trans R Soc B 20130164 (2013).
48 Id.
49 Fenn, Mark E., Ecological effects of nitrogen deposition in the Western United States, 53 BioScience 404 (2003); Hernandez, Daniel L. et al., Nitrogen pollution is linked to US listed species declines, 66 BioScience 213 (2016)
50 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bay Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha bayensis) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (2009); Tzankova, Sdravka et al., Can the ESA address the threats of atmospheric nitrogen deposition? Insights from the case of the Bay Checkerspot Butterfly, Harvard Environmental Law Review, Vol. 35 (2011); Hernandez, Daniel L. et al., Nitrogen Pollution is Linked to US Listed Species Declines, 66 BioScience 213 (2016) 51 Weiss, Stuart B., Cars, cows and checkerspot butterflies: nitrogen deposition and management of nutrient-poor grasslands for a threatened species, 13 Conservation Biology 1476 (1999) 52 Fenn, M.E. et al., Nitrogen critical loads and management alternatives for N-impacted ecosystems in California, 91 Journal of Environmental Management 2404 (2010) 53 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bay Checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha bayensis) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (2009) at 13. 13 concluded that the most significant threat to the species is nitrogen deposition, causing habitat modification.54
Similarly, Presidio clarkia (Clarkia franciscana), is a federally endangered flowering plant found exclusively in the serpentine grasslands of the San Francisco Bay Area.55 Nitrogen deposition gives a competitive advantage to non-native species. The Fish and Wildlife Service 5-year-review found nitrogen deposition as a principal threat to the species as “elevated inputs of atmospheric nitrogen deposition from air pollution have further accelerated the encroachment of native shrubs and nonnative shrubs and nonnative grasses and forbs…into Clarkia franciscana habitat.”56
The skyrocketing projection of data centers and diesel BUGs has and will continue to increase NOx emissions across the San Francisco Bay Area, significantly contributing to the decline of the bay checkerspot butterfly and presidio clarkia. Continuing data center business as usual under BAAQMD’s current regulations further threatens the biodiversity of the San Francisco Bay Area.

II. BAAQMD Should Grant the Petition to Protect Public Health and the Environment from Exposure to Air Toxics and Other Pollutants and Bring Diesel BUGs Regulation In Line With the Clean Air Act, California Environmental Quality Act, and the Endangered Species Act.

Before adopting new or amending regulations, the BAAQMD Board must make a finding of “necessity” and “authority.”57 The transparency requirements and permitting refinements sought by the Petition meet these requirements.

A. Granting the Petition is Necessary.
“Necessity” means that a need exists for the regulation, or for its amendment or repeal, as demonstrated by the record of the rulemaking authority.58 As Section I demonstrates, the BAAQMD regulations implementing the ATCM were simply not developed to address the massive increase in diesel BUGs and associated cumulative impacts imposed by the increasing proliferation of data centers in the Bay Area. Given the explosion of these polluting diesel BUGs, it is necessary for BAAQMD to update its regulations pertaining to diesel BUGs at data centers to protect public health and the environment, particularly in environmental justice communities, in four respects: first, by making the emissions and reasons for emissions of diesel BUGs at data centers public record; second, by permitting diesel BUGs at data centers in the aggregate as a single source for a common purpose; third, by revising the definition of 54 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bay checkerspot butterfly, 5-Year Review (2022) at 9, 12, 13, 24. 55 Hernandez, Daniel L. et al., Nitrogen pollution is linked to US listed species declines, 66 BioScience 213 (2016) at Table 3.
56 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Clarkia franciscana (Presidio clarkia) 5-Year Review (2010) at 43; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Clarkia franciscana (Presidio clarkia) 5-Year Review (2024) at 10. 57 Cal. Health & Safety Code § 40727(a).
58 Cal. Health & Safety Code § 40727(b)(1).
14 “emergency” and requiring operational limits during those situations; and fourth, ultimately replacing diesel BUGs with clean zero emission alternatives. Overall, granting the petition is necessary to enable BAAQMD to meet its goal to be “diesel free by 2033.” 59 In regards to transparency, although BAAQMD can request to view diesel BUGs emission records, those records are “retained on-site, either at a central location or at the engine’s location, or at an offsite central location within California.” 60 Moreover, a BAAQMD request to
review records would yield a “monthly summary” that lists hours and reasons for operation.61 A monthly summary that aggregates daily information precludes adequate identification of potential permit violations, and the impact and frequency of peak emissions events, especially in regards to nearby sensitive receptors. It is unlikely that BAAQMD has the staff capacity to inspect the thousands of log entries (one for each diesel BUG at each data center) each month to ensure compliance with even inadequate permitting requirements. Accordingly, it is necessary for BAAQMD to amend its regulations to make these records publicly available to help ensure compliance and allow the public to monitor these pollution emissions.

BAAQMD should similarly address the loophole on data center operators self-defining “emergency,” especially given this current limitation to enforcement. During those emergency situations, current regulations allowing for unfettered operation of diesel BUGs is also inadequate to protect public health and the environment. BAAQMD should therefore tighten and clarify the definition of emergency.

Finally, the current regulatory framework allows data center operators to diminish the overall impact of operating diesel BUGs by “piecemealing” their harms through individual permit applications, even though it is reasonably foreseeable for many, if not all of the generators to operate concurrently under true emergency conditions. Permitting all of the diesel BUGs at a data center in the aggregate will begin to cure this regulatory gap where data center operators may certainly be avoiding major source review.

BAAQMD should ultimately strive to replace diesel BUGs with clean zero emission alternatives, consistent with state climate and clean energy targets and equity policies. And as detailed below, it is also necessary to grant the petition to bring these regulations into closer compliance with the CAA and CEQA. In addition, under the ESA’s consultation provision, BAAQMD must ensure that the activities it regulates do not impair imperiled species or their habitats.62 As noted, the substantial and cumulative pollution from diesel BUGs threatens listed species in California. Accordingly, granting this petition will also help foster BAAQMD’s compliance with the ESA. Absent the relief sought in this Petition, BAAQMD cannot close the gap in regulating diesel BUGs at data centers.
59 See BAAQMD, Diesel Free by 2033, available at https://dieselfree33.baaqmd.gov/. 60 Cal. Code of Regulations, Title 17, §§ 93115.10(f)(2). 61 Cal. Code of Regulations, Title 17, §§ 93115.10(f)(1). 62 See e.g. 16 U.S.C. § 1536.
15 B. BAAQMD Has the Authority to Grant the Petition.
“Authority” means that a provision of law or of a state or federal regulation permits the regional agency to adopt, amend, or repeal the regulation.63 BAAQMD implements the ATCM through its current rules, including Regulation 2, Rule 6. It is well settled that BAAQMD can enact stricter regulations than the ATCM. “Local and regional authorities may establish stricter standards than those set by law or by the state board for nonvehicular sources.”64 Accordingly, BAAQMD plainly has the authority to grant the Petition under state law.

In addition, as detailed below, BAAQMD has the authority to grant the Petition to bring its regulations into closer compliance with the CAA and CEQA. (i) EPA’s Implementation of the Clean Air Act Indicates That Public Disclosure of Emissions Data is Necessary and Appropriate.

The permits to operate diesel BUGs at data centers are part of the data center’s synthetic minor facility operating permit, governed by BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rule 6. Importantly, these synthetic minor facility operating permits must include “quantifiable and practically enforceable permit conditions” in order to ensure that the facility need not undergo Title V major source review under the Clean Air Act.65 Moreover, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting permit conditions must be “sufficient to determine compliance with the emission limits.”66 As noted, under current BAAQMD regulations data center operators or owners maintain diesel BUG emission records in a District-approved log for at least 36 months from the date of entry.
67 Log entries are retained on-site, either at a central location or at the diesel BUG’s location, and must be made immediately available to the District staff upon request. 68 BAAQMD staff have confirmed that because these “log entry” records are kept at the data center or other site, and not at the Air District, they are not public records. 69 This approach is inconsistent with EPA’s interpretation of Clean Air Act requirements.

In particular, EPA has explained that “a requirement to provide records to the state only on request, without any required periodic reporting to the state, is inconsistent with CAA and 63 Cal. Health & Safety Code § 40727(b)(2).
64 Cal. Health & Safety Code § 39002. See also Hardesty v. Sacramento Metro. Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., 202 Cal. App. 4th 404, 409 (2011) (“[CARB] has exclusive responsibility for control of emissions from motor vehicles, while the local and regional districts have primary responsibility for control of air pollution from all sources other than emissions from motor vehicles.”) 65 BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rules 423.2.1. and 423.2.2 (emphasis added). 66 Id., Rule 423.2.3 (emphasis added).
67 BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rule 501.
68 Id.
69 Email response from BAAQMD Public Records Specialist in response to Center for Biological Diversity Inquiry on BAAQMD Public Records Request No. 2025-08-0394 (October 14, 2025). 16 regulatory requirements for enforceability.”
70 EPA reasons that, “to be enforceable, [the rule
requirements] must be legally and practically enforceable,” as also required by BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rule 423.2 for synthetic minor operating permits. “Practically enforceable” requires citizens’ ability to participate in the enforcement of permit conditions, as authorized by CAA section 304.
71 But “if there is no requirement for these
records to be submitted to the [Air District] absent a request, then unless the [Air District] requests the compliance records and then makes them publicly available, no parties other than the state or the EPA under its CAA section 114 authority will have practical access to the basic information necessary to determine compliance by the regulated entities under these rules.” 72 In
other words, in order to impose practically enforceable permit conditions pursuant to the CAA, BAAQMD must make data center diesel BUGs emissions and reasons for emissions public records. That is currently not the case.

On March 11, 2026, in response to a Records Request, the Center for Biological Diversity received what is publicly available regarding diesel BUGs emissions information from BAAQMD, the “Internal Combustion Engine CHIRP Data-public” spreadsheet. The Center isolated the spreadsheet reporting information to data centers, attached as Attachment A. A review of the spreadsheet shows that BAAQMD reports some but not all of the required emissions information. The spreadsheet requires reporting of Total Reported Hours (of operation), Maintenance and Testing Reported Hours, Emergency Reported Hours, and the Reporting Period Start and End Dates. But the spreadsheet does not include information required by either the ATCM or BAAQMD’s Regulation 2, Rule 6 (governing reporting of diesel BUGs emissions reporting) for several reasons, including:
• Several entries are “NULL”73
• There is no consistent reporting period.
• Reporting is aggregated to annual emissions.
• There is no description of the nature of the emergency.

To address this lack of transparency, in addition to making these records public, BAAQMD must ensure adequate reporting by each facility, require reporting of daily emissions information, and include the reasons for operation, including whether for maintenance or testing purposes and in particular, the nature of or a description of the emergency.

To assist in verifying compliance with permit conditions, especially given the multitude of generators at issue, BAAQMD should also consider requiring operators of data centers in 70 See e.g. Air Plan Approval, Conditional Approval, Limited Approval and Limited Disapproval; Colorado; Serious Attainment Plan Elements and Related Revisions for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard for the Denver Metro/ North Front Range Nonattainment Area, 88 Fed. Reg. 29827-29828 (May 2023). 71 Id.
72 Id. (emphasis added).
73 While the Internal Combustion Engine CHIRP Data-public spreadsheet notes that “if an engine has not reported any usage data, columns AQ through AU would display NULL,” the transparency issue renders it impossible to determine whether NULL constitutes zero usage or a failure to report. 17 communities overburdened by diesel particulate matter and other diesel BUG pollution to install a “fence-line monitoring system or other appropriate real-time, on-site monitoring,” especially in coordination with affected school districts.74 This would further benefit BAAQMD’s limited understanding of the cumulative impacts of these generators, especially if they are all operating concurrently.

Finally, petitioners emphasize that there is nothing confidential about the information at issue here concerning the operation of diesel BUGs. While data center owners have tried to assert in other contexts that information about energy usage for training AI models at data centers is somehow proprietary, that argument holds no water. Thus, for example, as the Assembly Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection correctly assessed, “the amount of energy consumed [data centers for AI models] does not necessarily correlate with the quality or innovation of the models themselves,” and is therefore not proprietary.75 That is why, as the Committee explained, companies have disclosed the energy usage for training large language models, “without suffering any apparent loss of competitive advantage,” and why the Committee concluded that “the argument that disclosing energy usage alone constitutes a protectable trade secret appears to lack strong support in practice.”76
(ii) Considering The Cumulative Use and Emissions of All Diesel BUGs at Each Data Center Site Collectively as a Single Source, Rather Than Considering Each Diesel BUG in Isolation is also Necessary and Appropriate To Make BAAQMD Regulations Consistent with the Requirements of the CAA and CEQA.

Under existing BAAQMD regulations, regulators look at each individual diesel BUG and permit it individually, rather than considering the collective emissions and impact of large diesel BUG aggregations that exist at each data center. This approach of course masks the adverse impacts of these aggregations, often sited near environmental justice communities, as previously discussed. Accordingly, in addition to requiring transparency, BAAQMD should amend its permitting approach to consider diesel BUG aggregations as a single source, and thus take into consideration their collective adverse impacts.

This new approach would also bring BAAQMD regulations more in line with the CAA.

The CAA directs BAAQMD to regulate “stationary sources,” defined as “any building, structure, facility, or installation which emits or may emit a regulated New Source Review [NSR] pollutant.” A “building, structure, facility, or installation” includes “all of the pollutant-emitting activities which (1) belong to the same industrial grouping, (2) are located on one or more 74 See e.g. Cal. Health and Safety Code § 42705.5(c) (“any stationary source that emits pollutants in, or that materially affects, the highest priority locations to deploy a fence-line monitoring system or other appropriate real-time, on-site monitoring, taking into account technical capabilities, cost, and the degree to which additional data would materially contribute to an understanding of community risk.”) 75 Assembly Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection, Hearing on AB222 (May 1, 2025) available at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB222# (emphasis added).
76 Id. The Committee similarly rejected arguments that these disclosures could pose any national security risk.
18 contiguous or adjacent properties, and (3) are under the control of the same person (or persons under common control).”77 The courts have determined that EPA should aggregate sources together in air permitting if the aggregation fits within the ordinary meaning of “building, structure, facility or installation.”78
Aggregations of diesel BUGs at a single data center site fall squarely within this definition of a single stationary source. Indeed, permitting each diesel BUG individually is exactly the scenario that EPA has stated the NSR regulations are designed to prevent: “a source . . . carv[ing] up a higher-emitting project into two or more lower-emitting ‘projects’ and avoid[ing] triggering major NSR requirements.”79
Instead, BAAQMD should aggregate multiple diesel BUGs at the same or contiguous data center building or facility together as one source for permitting purposes. Multiple diesel BUGs belong to the same industrial grouping by being the same kind of source, are located on the same contiguous property, and are under the common control of the data center operator.

Furthermore, project aggregation is appropriate in this context under EPA’s current policy definition of a single source, which emphasizes physical proximity and inquires if projects are “substantially related” when determining if different units comprise a single source and if projects should be aggregated.80
Indeed, existing BAAQMD guidance adopts EPA’s policy on aggregating nominally separate projects by considering the following factors in determining whether projects should be considered in the aggregate:
(i) whether the facility submits multiple applications for successive minor projects (below the “major modification” threshold) simultaneously or within a relatively short period of time;
(ii) whether the facility characterizes the successive projects as a single project for purposes of financing the project;
(iii) whether the facility’s projections of consumer demand that the facility will need to meet can only be met by the multiple projects together; (iv) authorized statements by facility representatives regarding plans for operation of the facility;
(v) independent analysis of the economic purpose and viability of the facility; and
77 40 CFR §§ 52.21(b)(5)-(6).
78 Alabama Power Co. v. Costle, 636 F. 2d 323, 397 (D.C. Cir. 1979). 79 See Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR):

Aggregation; Reconsideration, 83 Fed. Reg. 57324, 57325-26 (Nov. 15, 2018). 80 See EPA, Interpreting “Adjacent” for new Source Review and Title V Source Determinations in All Industries Other Than Oil and Gas, Draft for Public Review & Comment, Sept. 4, 2018, at 6, available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-09/documents/draft_adjacent_policy_memo_9_04_2018.pdf; 83 Fed. Reg. 57331.
19 (vi) other relevant factors.81
A review of permit applications for diesel BUGs at data centers shows that this is exactly the situation requiring project aggregation as a single source. Data centers are applying for multiple diesel BUGs as minor sources, not only in quick succession, but concurrently. The data center industry practice of operating at five 9’s further illustrates that consumer demand requires simultaneous use of all of these generators, at least in the event of a true qualified emergency.

The multitude of diesel BUGs are, moreover, certainly part of the same project and would be redundant absent the overall and universal purpose—to serve the data center.

In addition to being in the public interest and maintaining consistency with the CAA, permitting diesel BUGs at data centers as a single source would also be consistent with CEQA requirements. Granting the petition to permit diesel BUGs as a single aggregated (data center) source would be a first step in addressing BAAQMD’s concerns with deficient cumulative impacts analyses, as discussed below in Section II.B.(iv).

For example, in San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City & County of San Francisco, the court held that the city planning commission failed to adequately consider the cumulative impacts of other projects under consideration in conducting its CEQA analysis for four proposed high-rise buildings.82 The court rejected arguments that projects that had not yet been approved were not reasonably foreseeable because their construction was not yet a certainty. The court reasoned that a “common sense” determination that projects which are under review are reasonably foreseeable. It would be “illogical” for the agency to evaluate the direct impacts of one project “but completely ignore the cumulative impacts of that project’s siblings in the same category.”83
It would similarly be illogical for BAAQMD to ignore the fact that applications for the diesel BUGs at data centers are for the exact same type of equipment at the same location submitted by the same owner for the same purpose and at the same time. Instead of permitting each individual diesel BUG separately, BAAQMD should permit all diesel BUGs in the aggregate, with the data center as a single source of air pollution.

A revised permitting scheme should also take into account the “inversion layer” in the Bay Area. BAAQMD’s current cumulative health risks assessments consider the “combined total risk values of each individual source within the 1,000-foot evaluation zone.” 84 The models
81 BAAQMD, Complex Permitting Handbook for BAAQMD New Source Review Permitting 27-28 (Sept. 2016), https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/permits/permitting-manuals/nsr-guidance/complex-nsrpermitting-handbook_sept-2016-pdf.pdf. 82 San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City & County of San Francisco, 151 Cal. App. 3d 61, 67- 68, 74-75 (Ct. App. 1984).
83 Id. at 68, 74; see also Gray v. Cnty. of Madera, 167 Cal. App. 4th 1099, 1127-28 (2008) (“We conclude that any future project where the applicant has devoted significant time and financial resources to prepare for any regulatory review should be considered as probably future projects for the purposes of cumulative impact.”)
84 See e.g. CEC, San Jose Data Center Draft Environmental Impact Report (December 2021) at 87. 20 used for risk assessment assume that any air pollution generated by the facility will begin to dissipate at that 1,000 foot line.85 But the Bay Area is under a near daily inversion layer that “serves as a barrier that prevents pollution from escaping and limits the amount of clean air that reaches the ground.”86 In permitting diesel BUGs in the aggregate at data centers, BAAQMD should also recognize that pollutants don't dissipate at 1,000 feet during a temperature inversion, and take into account other exacerbating factors, such as the increasing frequency of climatechange-induced heatwaves, where pollution poses even more significant impacts on public health and the environment.87
(iii) BAAQMD Has the Authority to Redefine Emergency Conditions for the Operation of Diesel BUGs at Data Centers and Impose Operational Limits During Emergency Conditions.

As a preliminary matter, BAAQMD should ensure that data center operators are not using maintenance and testing practices to actually assist in powering non-emergency operation of a data center. Given the lack of transparency of diesel BUGs emission records, this is a valid concern, especially as permitted testing and maintenance windows seem excessively long.

BAAQMD should also consider further limiting those permitted times to test/maintain diesel BUGs at data centers.

As noted, under existing BAAQMD regulations data centers may operate diesel BUGs during any “emergency,” defined as any “event of unforeseeable failure of regular electric power supply,” or “the failure or imminent failure of a . . . source of power, but only for such time as needed to repair or replace the primary . . . source of power.” 88 BAAQMD regulations further define “unforeseeable” as “not able to be reasonably anticipated and demonstrated by the owner or operator to the satisfaction of the Air Pollution Control Officer to have been beyond the reasonable control of the owner or operator,” and make clear that “the enforcement of a contractual obligation the owner or operator has with a third party or any other party is foreseeable” and therefore does not qualify as an emergency.89 This means that where a data center operator has a contractual obligation to operate at five 9’s, the data center operator should not be permitted to deem any interruption of power supply that affects achievement of five 9’s to be an emergency. Not being able to maintain a contractual obligation or preferred business practice of five 9’s should not amount to an actual failure of power supply, such as a power safety/power shutoff event. 85 Id. at 111.
86 Awair, Why California Cities Rank Highest for Air Pollution, available at https://www.getawair.com/blog/why-california-cities-rank-highest-for-air-pollution 87 See e.g. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, California Energy Commission, et al., California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment, available at https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-11/Statewide_Reports-SUM-CCCA4-2018-013_State wide_Summary_Report_ADA.pdf.
88 BAAQMD Regulation 9, Rule 8-231.
89 BAAQMD Regulation 9, Rule 8-237.
21 Contrary to these regulations, however, currently certain data centers utilize power controls which “automatically switch data center operations to backup power in the event of momentary grid disturbances.”90 Thus, although such grid disturbances are frequently temporary and if the only reason the diesel BUGs are activated is to achieve the five 9s contractual obligation, these diesel BUGs would be operating under foreseeable circumstances.

This practice enables data center operators to game BAAQMD’s rules. BAAQMD should amend its regulations to clarify that momentary grid disturbances are not emergencies allowing diesel BUG usage.

In short, given the significant public health and environmental impacts imposed by the operation of diesel BUGs at data centers, BAAQMD should implement a more protective definition of emergency.
(iv) BAAQMD Has the Authority to Require Clean Alternatives to Diesel BUGs at Data Centers in Line with State Climate, Clean Energy and Equity Targets.

While the ATCM establishes emission standards,91 data center operators can demonstrate compliance with even those outdated standards by installing certain equipment, including a Tier 4 certified Compression Ignition engine or other equipment that emits no more than the 0.015 g/bhp/hr particulate matter standard.92 BAAQMD has further determined Best Available Control Technology (“BACT”) and Best Available Control Technology for Toxics Regulation (“TBACT”) to also be EPA Tier 4 Emission Standards.
93 Complying with these standards
requires a certified, compliant or retrofit Tier 4 engine.94 To put the associated public health and environmental impacts into perspective, however, Tier 4 engines are the same engines used in locomotives.95
90 Better Data Center Project, Diesel Generators at Data Centers (March 2026) available at https://betterdatacenterproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Diesel-Generators-at-Data-CentersStatus-Impacts-and-Protective-Practices.pdf; see also Data Center Dynamics, Virginia narrowly avoided power cuts when 60 data centers dropped off the grid at once (March 2025) available at https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/virginia-narrowly-avoided-power-cuts-when-60-datacenters-dropped-off-the-grid-at-once/ 91 Cal. Code of Regulations, Title 17, §§ 93115.6-93115.9. 92 See e.g. Cal. Code of Regulations, Title 17, § 93115.13(f)(6). 93 See e.g. Best Available Control Technology (BACT) and BACT for Toxics (TBACT) for Small to Medium Sized Standby Diesel Engineshttps (October 2024) available at http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/engineering/workshops/diesel-bact-102124/bact-tbact-webinarpresentation-21oct2024-pdf; Revised BACT Guideline for Diesel Backup Generators > 1000 BHP, Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) (March 17, 2021) available at https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/engineering/backup-diesel-generators/faq_bact_for_large_dieselpdf.pdf?la=en 94 Id.
95 CARB, Locomotive Factsheet, available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/reducing-railemissions-california/locomotive-fact-sheets. 22 BAAQMD has identified that between September 1, 2019 and September 30, 2020, “nearly half of the identified data centers in Santa Clara, San Jose, and Sunnyvale operated backup diesel generators for reasons other than routine testing and maintenance . . . with 40 or more generators operating concurrently at two facilities; and with one facility running diesel generators for approximately 400 hours.”96 In which case, at two facilities, the equivalent of 40 or more stationary locomotives ran at the same time. And in one facility, the equivalent of more than one stationary locomotive ran for 400 hours in areas already overburdened by pollution.

The ATCM and existing BAAQMD regulations never contemplated this scale or cumulative impact of such diesel BUG operation at data centers. BAAQMD should therefore either strengthen BACT and TBACT for diesel BUGs at data centers, or utilize its permitting authority to require clean alternatives. Indeed, CARB’s Diesel Risk Reduction Plan itself explained that:

While the principal focus of this plan is the reduction in emissions of diesel PM, staff are well aware that there are a number of viable alternative technologies, such as . . . electrification that in many cases could be used to accomplish the same results. It is staff’s full intent, as it develops the regulations proposed in this plan, to fully explore and engage in dialogue with interested parties concerning opportunities for using these alternatives to reduce diesel PM emissions. 97 This is also not a novel concept. In one comment to the California Energy Commission (“CEC”) regarding a proposed data center, BAAQMD itself urged the CEC: in an area that has “long been disproportionately impacted by air pollution and is identified as a priority community by the State of California as a Senate Bill 535 disadvantaged community, the Air District is concerned about the potential for any increase in emissions that could result from the Project . . . [and thus] the Air District encourages the CEC to go beyond current regulatory requirements and require the project applicant to adopt the use of cleaner, non-diesel technologies.” 98 In another similar comment letter to the CEC regarding a data center, BAAQMD recommended onsite mitigation measures, including “[i]mplement green infrastructure and fossil fuel alternatives in the development and operation of the Project, such as solar photovoltaic (PV) panels, electric heat pump water heaters, and solar PV back-up generators with battery storage capacity, and commit to pursue carbon-free electricity service if on-site renewables do not meet the full electricity demand.”
99 96 BAAQMD Letter to California Energy Commission Re: CA3 Data Center – Notice of Preparation (September 21, 2021).
97 CARB Diesel Risk Reduction Plan at 2 (emphasis added). 98 BAAQMD Letter to California Energy Commission Re: CA3 Data Center – Notice of Preparation (September 21, 2021).
99 BAAQMD Letter to California Energy Commission Re: STACK Trade Zone Park Draft Environmental Impact Report (March 13, 2023).
23 In a third example, BAAQMD urged the CEC to “incorporate additional alternative technologies such as solar, battery storage and/or fuel cells.”100 BAAQMD has further opposed certain data center industry practices of offsetting emissions: “[t]he Air District does not support the use of Emission Reduction Credits to offset NOx emissions to mitigate CEQA related impacts. Such banked emissions credits may have resulted from past and/or non-local sources, and do not reduce current local impacts.” 101
It is also important in developing new standards that BAAQMD not adopt revised standards that include any fossil fuels or combustion resources. Natural gas or biofuel alternative power supplies, for instance, would still hinder the State’s abilities to meet its climate,102 clean energy,
103 and equity goals.104
Instead, BAAQMD should set the data center back-up generator clean energy standard for California and the nation. Clean, zero emission technologies have proven viable in examples across the United States. “Battery energy storage systems (BESS) can serve as the backup power source and greatly reduce—or in some cases, completely eliminate—the use of diesel generators.”
105 Examples include:
• A BESS with 1,200 MWh capacity came online in 2024 to power a 300 MW Meta data center for up to four hours.106
• xAI deployed 168 Tesla Megapack battery systems (650 MWh) at its Memphis data center.107
100 BAAQMD Letter to California Energy Commission Re: CA3 Backup Generating Facility – Vantage Draft Environmental Impact Report (March 8, 2022).
101 Id. (emphasis added).
102 Cal. Health & Safety Code § 38566 (“the state board shall ensure that statewide greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to at least 40 percent below the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit no later than December 31, 2030.”)
103 See SB 100, The 100 Percent Clean Energy Act of 2018. 104 See e.g. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 38562.5 “when adopting rules and regulations pursuant to this division to achieve emissions reductions beyond the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit and to protect the state’s most impacted and disadvantaged communities, the state board shall . . . prioritize . . . direct emission reductions.”
105 Better Data Center Project, Diesel Generators at Data Centers (March 2026) available at https://betterdatacenterproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Diesel-Generators-at-Data-CentersStatus-Impacts-and-Protective-Practices.pdf. 106 Id., citing https://www.energy-storage.news/arizonas-biggest-battery-storage-system-goes-online-tofeed-meta-data-centre-demand/ 107 Id., citing https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/xai-deploys-168-tesla-megapacks-to-powerits-colossus-supercomputer-in-memphis/ 24 • In a November 2025 announcement, Google unveiled plans for a colocated solar and battery energy storage plant at a data center in Haskell County, Texas.108
• Xcel Energy and Google announced plans to install 30 GWh of Form Energy iron-air batteries, which will supply up to 100 hours of power to a 300 MW data center in Pine Island, MN. Installation is expected to begin in 2028.109
Data centers should not block achievement of the State’s climate, clean energy and equity targets. BAAQMD should therefore require clean, zero emission alternatives to diesel BUGs at data centers.110
108 Id., citing https://datacenters.google/google-commits-to-increasing-energy-abundance-and-reliabilityfor-texans/ 109 Id., citing https://newsroom.xcelenergy.com/news/xcel-energy-to-power-new-google-data-center-inminnesota 110 While this petition only concerns diesel BUGs at data centers, BAAQMD should also consider replacing all diesel BUGs in the District with clean zero emission alternatives. 25 III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, petitioners respectfully request that BAAQMD grant this petition.

Respectfully submitted,
Roger Lin
Meya Saenz Zagar
Howard Crystal
Center for Biological Diversity
Veronica Eady
West Oakland Environmental Indicators
Project
Eric Lerner
Alliance of Californians For
Community Empowerment (ACCE)
Brett Garrett
California Alliance for Community Energy
Ben Schwartz
Clean Coalition
Julia Dowell
Sierra Club
Emi Yoko-Young
Reclaim Our Power: Utility Justice
Campaign
Jessica Guadalupe Tovar
Local Clean Energy Alliance
Arieann Harrison
Marie Harrison Community Foundation, Inc.

Colleen Corrigan
San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban
Research Association (SPUR)
Masheika Allgood
Ellina Yin
AllAI Consulting, LLC
Danny Cendejas
MediaJustice
Ellina Yin
Dreaming Collaborative
Aahaan Jain
Silicon Valley Youth Climate Action
Zoe Jonick
350 Bay Area
Zachary Weisenburger
Young Community Developers
Isabel Penman
Food & Water Watch
Pooja Agarwal
The Climate Center
Shana Lazerow
Communities for a Better Environment
Lorenzo Kristov, Ph.D.

Electric System Policy, Structure,
Market Design
Karina Lopez
Frontline Catalysts
Dated: April 22, 2026

ATTACHMENT B

1 August 17, 2026
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
375 Beale Street, Suite 600
San Francisco, CA 94105

VIA EMAIL
[email protected]
cc:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
To Air Pollution Control Officer Dr. Fine,
Thank you for meeting with the Center for Biological Diversity, AllAI Consulting LLC, and MediaJustice on June 18, 2026 to discuss the Petition to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (“Air District”) to update outdated regulations to provide sufficient public health protections from the threats posed by hundreds of highly polluting diesel backup generators (“diesel BUGs”) at data centers (“Petition”).1 We are pleased that the Air District shares the concerns of our organizations and will initiate a rulemaking (“Diesel Generator Rulemaking”) to address the issues detailed in the Petition (including addressing transparency, improving implementation of the definition of “emergency” and subsequent emission limits during qualified emergencies, an adequate assessment of cumulative impacts, and consideration of clean alternatives), anticipating a regulatory concept paper in Fall, 2026. 2 1 Center for Biological Diversity, AllAI Consulting LLC, MediaJustice, West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project, Alliance of Californians For Community Empowerment (ACCE), Dreaming Collaborative, Silicon Valley Youth Climate Action, 350 Bay Area, California Alliance for Community Energy, Young Community Developers, the Clean Coalition, Sierra Club, Food & Water Watch, Reclaim Our Power: Utility Justice Campaign, The Climate Center, and the Local Clean Energy Alliance, Communities for a Better Environment, Marie Harrison Community Foundation, San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR), and Frontline Catalysts, Petition to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to Address Transparency, Public Health and Environmental Harms from Stationary Compression Ignition (Diesel) Engines Used at Data Centers (April 22, 2026) available at https://biologicaldiversity.org/programs/energy-justice/pdfs/Diesel-generator-data-center-petition04222026.pdf. 2 See also Air District, Mid-Year Review of the 2026-2027 Regulatory Agenda, Stationary Source Committee (June 10, 2026) at slide 11 available at https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/board-ofdirectors/2026/ssc_presentations_061026_oppdf.pdf?rev=dba0c894e0724bedadc408c970628d3f&sc_lang=en. 2 Our organizations offer the following recommendations to help ensure a robust rulemaking while also providing urgently needed protections, especially in disadvantaged communities, while the rulemaking process is underway.

I. The Air District Should Open the Record for the Diesel Generator Rulemaking.

The Air District “shall maintain a file of each regulation which shall be deemed to be the record for that rulemaking proceeding.”3 The record shall include copies of any petitions from interested persons proposing,4 and all data, studies, reports or written comments submitted to the Air District in connection with the adoption or amendment of the regulation.5 Our organizations respectfully request that the Air District, if not already, open the record for the Diesel Generator Rulemaking. The record should include the Petition and any future correspondence to or from the Air District regarding the Diesel Generator Rulemaking or the Petition. An open record for the rulemaking proceeding will also facilitate the public’s opportunity to submit additional data or studies to inform the development of the regulatory concept paper.

II. The Air District Should Address Transparency of Diesel BUG Emissions Information As Soon As Possible.

As detailed in the Petition, under existing regulations, data center operators are required to maintain records of diesel BUG use, and the Air District has the authority to obtain these records on request.6 As an interim measure pending completion of the Diesel Generator Rulemaking, we urge the Air District to fully exercise its authority to send every data center operator a standing monthly request for information regarding diesel BUGs’ emissions and reasons for emissions, and once received, making these records publicly available. Taking this immediate step would be entirely consistent with the existing regulatory framework.

Operating permit requirements for diesel BUGs at data centers must be legally and practically enforceable.7 “Practically enforceable” requires citizens’ ability to participate in the enforcement of permit conditions, as authorized by Clean Air Act (“CAA”) section 304. 8 But “if
there is no requirement for these records to be submitted to the [Air District] absent a request, then unless the [Air District] requests the compliance records and then makes them publicly available, no parties other than the state or the EPA under its CAA section 114 authority will have practical access to the basic information necessary to determine compliance by the 3 Cal. Health & Safety Code § 40728.
4 Cal. Health & Safety Code § 40728(a).
5 Cal. Health & Safety Code § 40728(c).
6 Cal. Code of Regulations, Title 17, §§ 93115.10(f)(2) 7 See Air District Regulation 2, Rule 423.2.
8 See e.g. Air Plan Approval, Conditional Approval, Limited Approval and Limited Disapproval; Colorado; Serious Attainment Plan Elements and Related Revisions for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard for the Denver Metro/ North Front Range Nonattainment Area, 88 Fed. Reg. 29827-29828 (May 2023). 3 regulated entities under these rules.”
9 Therefore, in order to impose practically enforceable permit conditions pursuant to the CAA, the Air District should make data center diesel BUGs emissions and reasons for emissions public records.

Even with a regulatory concept paper expected in the Fall, the Diesel Generator Rulemaking will still take time to develop. There is no need to wait for the completion of the Diesel Generator Rulemaking to bring permit conditions into compliance with the CAA.

Moreover, the burden of disclosure is minimal compared to the several benefits of public disclosure. For instance, pending the Diesel Generator Rulemaking’s revision of the definition of “emergency,” ensuring transparency of diesel BUG emissions information, including reasons for operation, will allow the public to assist the Air District in ensuring that operation is only occurring during real, qualified emergencies—exactly the core purpose of the CAA’s requirement for practically enforceable permit conditions.

III. The Air District Should Conduct Community Engagement to Inform Residents of Public Health Risks and the Diesel Generator Rulemaking As Soon As Possible and Not Delay the Release of the Regulatory Concept Paper.

Our organizations also appreciate the Air District’s commitment to conducting community engagement to inform the Diesel Generator Rulemaking. Early engagement with communities disproportionately impacted by pollution from data centers’ operation of diesel BUGs should directly inform the Air District’s upcoming regulatory concept paper. Such early engagement should not delay the release of the regulatory concept paper, and is furthermore consistent with the Air District’s Strategic Plan:
“Residents are often the first to become aware of air pollution problems or incidents. Their lived observational experience provides information beyond what is available from the limited air quality monitoring systems and stations . . . meaningful participation by community members must help shape and inform the Air District’s decision-making. Partnering with community members to include local experiences and solutions can make a critical difference in demonstrating the significance of the harm and can lead to more effective permitting, compliance, and enforcement. By valuing community voices, expertise, and leadership, the Air District can cultivate innovative, place-based approaches that meet the critical needs of communities on the ground.”10
The Air District’s Rulemaking Process also outlines the importance of early and frequent engagement.11 Evidently, conducting community engagement after release of the draft 9 Id. (emphasis added).
10 Bay Area Air District Public Participation Plan (December 2013) at 17 available at https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/communications-and-outreach/community-outreach/publicengagement/ppp_final_121713.pdf?rev=b23d16332791491f88add2de6a7743d7&sc_lang=en 11 Bay Area Air District, Rule Development available at https://www.baaqmd.gov/en/Rules-andCompliance/Rule-Development 4 regulatory concept paper risks missing opportunities to “shape and inform” concepts that should be based on “local experiences and solutions.”
To meet the Air District’s Strategic Plan and Rulemaking Process, the Air District should conduct this timely engagement with communities living in close proximity to data centers. As a starting point, we provide the below three maps highlighting three clusters of data centers in or close by communities already overburdened by pollution.

First, this map illustrates the alarming public health and environmental justice concerns exacerbated by the clustering of data centers and diesel backup generators in SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities and communities already overburdened by toxic diesel particulate matter in Silicon Valley.
12 Second, this map illustrates a cluster of data centers bordering communities that already score in the 80-100th percentile of CalEnviroScreen for exposure to diesel particulate matter:
12 Silicon Valley census tracts to prioritize engagement include: 6085505202, 6085505001, 6085508704, 6085505006, 6085504322, 6085504602, 6085512032, and 6085512039. 5 Third, this map also illustrates data centers near and within disadvantaged communities.

In each of these communities, residents face the brunt of harms imposed by the outdated regulations for diesel BUGs, and their lived experience is a vital resource to inform and inspire relevant and impactful new rules.
6 We further recommend that the Air District collaborate with community-based organizations that work in or near these areas to conduct immediate educational outreach and provide information to frontline communities about the immediate hazards associated with diesel backup generators, especially during rising extreme heat events. Virginia, the state with the highest concentration of data centers, is witnessing an alarming pattern of data centers switching to diesel backup generators during extreme heat conditions to reduce electricity demand and avoid widespread blackouts.13 Virginia residents and local schools near data centers express serious concern about the increase in pollution during extreme heat events and the overlapping health risks.

Similarly, the Bay Area is already experiencing extreme heat and high fire danger, only projected to continue throughout the summer, and also straining the electricity grid.14 Indeed the Air District has itself recognized, “[b]ackup generators are operating more frequently than previously understood because of climate change induced crises and grid operational challenges.”15 As a precautionary measure, we urge the Air District to conduct educational outreach with community-based organizations to ensure that residents are informed about the immediate threats and necessary safety precautions as the rule development process is underway.

Finally, as requested by Board Chair Hopkins, the Air District should model the worstcase-scenario for pollution from diesel BUGs at data centers.16 For instance, in each of these three clusters, the Air District should have an understanding of the public health and environmental impacts if data centers concurrently operated all of their diesel BUGs. This snapshot of conditions should also inform the Diesel Generator Rulemaking By conducting community engagement to inform regulatory concepts, the Air District would position itself as a national leader, setting a precedent to elevate transparency standards for other regulators nationwide. We reiterate our appreciation for the Air District’s commitment to conduct such outreach to inform the Diesel Generator Rulemaking and look forward to continuing collaboration and offering community engagement support. 13 Ariel Wittenberg and Benjamin Storrow, ‘We are screwed’: People near data centers dread heat wave pollution, (July 1, 2026), available at thttps://www.politico.com/news/2026/07/01/data-center-boomcollides-with-record-heat-testing-power-grid-00983009 14 Ezra David Romero, Bay Area Faces a Weather ‘Quadfecta’: Heat, Fire Risk, Flooding and Powerful Waves. (June 10, 2026) available at https://www.kqed.org/news/12086933/bay-area-faces-a-weatherquadfecta-heat-fire-risk-flooding-and-powerful-waves 15 Air District Letter to CEC Regarding CA3 Backup Generating Facility - Vantage Draft Environmental Impact Report (March 8, 2022).
16 This recommendation aligns with the Strategic Plan Strategy 2.7, Understand Local Air Pollution, to “Use modeling programs to get a more complete picture of local air pollution.” Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2024-2029 Strategic Plan at 50 available at https://mediastrategicplan.baaqmd.gov/~/media/project/headless-microsites/strategic-plan-files/air-district-strategicplan-070224-pdf.pdf?sc_lang=en 7 IV. The Air District Should Strengthen Permit Requirements During the Pendency of the Diesel Generator Rulemaking.

The Petition details the significant public health and environmental impacts of data centers related to outdated rules governing diesel generators. These concerns include impacts to sensitive receptors and the cumulative harms to communities already overburdened by pollution.

While we thank the Air District for initiating the Diesel Generator Rulemaking, we understand that the Rulemaking is a longer term endeavor, which does not excuse the urgent need to address near-term public health and environmental impacts.

Moreover, the scale of that near term harm could be considerable. In San Jose alone, seven data centers are in the permitting process, with applications for associated diesel BUGs to imminently reach the Air District, if not already.17 One of those projects, at 323 Terraine Street in San Jose includes a proposal for a 240,000 square-foot data center in the middle of 345 residential units. This area is already overburdened by diesel particulate matter pollution, scoring at the 83rd percentile on CalEnviroScreen.

Ultimately, the Air District must take corrective action as soon as possible to not derail its Diesel Free by 2033 goal or the Environmental Justice priorities in the Air District’s Strategic Plan.
18 To address this immediate concern, we urge the Air District to invoke its police power to maintain consistency with these Plans, and either establish a moratorium on permitting diesel 17 See City of San Jose, Data Center and Other Large Energy-Use Projects (Updated July 13, 2026) available at https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments-offices/planning-building-codeenforcement/planning-division/data-center-and-other-large-energy-use-projects 18 Air District Strategic Plan, Environmental Justice available at https://strategicplan.baaqmd.gov/about/environmental ; see also Air District Final 2017 Clean Air Plan at 2/25, available at https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-clean-airplan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf (“the cancer risk related to diesel PM, which accounts for most of the cancer risk from TACs, has declined substantially over the past 15–20 years as a result of ARB regulations and Air District programs to reduce emissions from diesel engines . . . [nevertheless] diesel PM still accounts for roughly 60 percent of the total cancer risk related to TACs.”) 8 BUGs at data centers pending completion of the Diesel Generator Rulemaking, or in the alternative, adopt interim and more protective permitting requirements.19 * * *
Our organizations urge the Air District to exercise the full scope of its regulatory authorities—both in the long-term and immediately—to update the outdated rules for diesel BUGs at data centers. We look forward to further collaboration and community engagement to inform the development of both the Diesel Generator Rulemaking and the regulatory concept paper to better protect public health and the environment. Please do not hesitate to reach out to our organizations for any additional information.

Sincerely,
Roger Lin
Meya Saenz Zagar
Howard Crystal
Center for Biological Diversity
Veronica Eady
West Oakland Environmental Indicators
Project
Eric Lerner
Alliance of Californians For
Community Empowerment (ACCE)
Brett Garrett
California Alliance for Community Energy
Jessica Guadalupe Tovar
Local Clean Energy Alliance
Julia Dowell
Sierra Club
Emi Yoko-Young
Reclaim Our Power: Utility Justice
Campaign
Ben Schwartz
Clean Coalition
Masheika Allgood
Ellina Yin
AllAI Consulting, LLC
Danny Cendejas
MediaJustice
Ellina Yin
Dreaming Collaborative
Shana Lazerow
Communities for a Better Environment
Aahaan Jain
Silicon Valley Youth Climate Action
Zoe Jonick
350 Bay Area
Zachary Weisenburger
Young Community Developers
Colleen Corrigan
San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban
Research Association (SPUR)
Arieann Harrison
Marie Harrison Community Foundation, Inc
19 See CEEED v. California Coastal Zone Conservation Com., 43 Cal. App. 3d 306 at 314 (1974) (“Local interim ordinances prohibiting acts which may conflict with the objectives of a contemplated zoning plan have been consistently upheld as valid exercises of the police power.”) From: Wilette Vogel
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: No on Data Center in Richmond
Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2026 9:54:07 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Sent from my iPhone
From: Soheila Bana
To: Clayton Price-Brown; City Clerk Dept User
Cc: Shasa Curl; Nickie Mastay; Timothy Simmons; Soheila Bana; Eric Tam; Matthew Stonebraker Subject: Public Comment Agenda Item Q.1
Date: Sunday, September 13, 2026 9:54:06 AM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

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

Hi Clayton,
Thank you for your email. You can always email your comment to [email protected] with subject line: public comments agenda item #, as I do here.

Dear City Clerk,
Could you confirm receipt of the following public comment? Thank you,
Soheila
On Sat, Sep 12, 2026 at 5:41 PM Clayton Price-Brown <[email protected]> wrote:

Hey welcome back. How can I get these questions on record? Questions for Chief Simmons

1. Ownership and control
“Will the contract state unequivocally that the City of Richmond owns all ALPR records, photographs, video, drone footage, metadata, search histories, alerts, derived information, and audit logs—and that Axon acquires no ownership or independent right to use them?”

2. Axon’s secondary use
“Can Axon use Richmond’s information to train or improve artificial-intelligence systems, develop products, conduct analytics, create aggregated datasets, or support other customers? If not, is that prohibition written into the contract?”

3. Data sharing
“Exactly which outside agencies will be able to search or receive Richmond’s information? Will sharing be disabled by default and require affirmative, case-specific Richmond authorization?”
Axon itself advertises that its Fusus platform can share ALPR information with partner agencies, although it says this sharing is controlled and revocable. That means Richmond’s actual configuration and contract language are crucial. Axon Fusus

4. Federal and immigration access
“Will the contract and policy prohibit access by ICE, CBP, other federal agencies, fusion centers, out-of-state agencies, and private entities unless Richmond approves a lawful, documented request? How will Richmond prevent another agency from redistributing our information?”

5. Search warrants and subpoenas
“Can Axon respond directly to a subpoena, warrant, emergency request, or other government demand for Richmond data? Must Axon notify Richmond before disclosure unless legally prohibited, and will Richmond publish the number and type of such requests?”

6. Retention
“What is the retention period for ordinary ALPR detections, CCTV footage, and DFR recordings that are not connected to a crime? Can the system automatically and permanently delete each category when that period expires, including backups and derived data?”

7. Security architecture
“Where will the information be stored, and will every copy remain in the United States? Is it encrypted both in transit and at rest? Who controls the encryption keys— Richmond, Axon, or the cloud provider?”

8. Independent security verification
“Will Axon provide the city’s cybersecurity staff with current independent audit reports, penetration-test summaries, vulnerability-management records, and evidence of CJIS compliance and relevant SOC 2 and ISO certifications—not merely a sales assurance?”

9. Account security
“Will every user be required to use phishing-resistant multifactor authentication? Are access rights based on job duties, reviewed regularly, and terminated immediately when an employee or contractor leaves?”

10. Audit trails and misuse
“Does the system record every search, live view, download, share, watch-list entry, and administrative change? Who audits those logs, how frequently, and will the council receive regular reports on improper or unexplained searches?”

11. Watch lists and false matches
“Who may place a vehicle on a hot list, what documentation is required, when does an entry expire, and must an officer independently verify an ALPR match before stopping or detaining anyone?”

12. Artificial intelligence and facial recognition
“Which AI capabilities are included now or could Axon enable later—such as vehicle profiling, pattern analysis, object recognition, facial recognition, or automated report generation? Will any new analytic capability require public notice and City Council approval before activation?”

13. Drone safeguards
“Which calls permit a DFR launch? Will drones be prohibited from generalized patrol, protest monitoring, First Amendment activity, tracking people between locations, and looking into homes or enclosed private areas without a warrant or genuine emergency?”

14. Private cameras
“Will Axon Fusus connect Richmond police to privately owned residential, business, school, or community cameras? Can officers view them live, and what consent, auditing, retention, and public-disclosure rules will apply?”

15. Breach responsibility
“How quickly must Axon notify Richmond of a suspected breach—hours, rather than days? Who pays for investigation, notification, credit monitoring, recovery, litigation, and regulatory penalties? Is Axon’s liability meaningfully insured and not contractually capped at an inadequate amount?”

1. Ownership and control
Yes. The Axon agreement provides that RPD retains ownership and control of its data. This includes information maintained within RPD's Axon/evidence.com environment. Axon serves as the technology and storage provider and does not acquire ownership of RPD's records simply because those records are maintained on its platform.

2. Axon's secondary use
RPD does not authorize Axon to independently use Richmond's law-enforcement data for purposes unrelated to providing services to RPD, including training artificial-intelligence systems or developing products for other customers. Where Axon offers optional programs that would permit additional or extended use of agency data, RPD does not intend to opt into those programs.

3. Data sharing
RPD does not provide outside agencies with direct access to Richmond's ALPR data. Sharing is disabled by default and can only be enabled through restricted evidence.com administrative settings accessible to authorized IT administrators.

FUSUS does not currently provide outside agencies access to RPD's system. Although additional sharing functionality may become available, RPD does not intend to enable outsideagency access to Richmond's data.

Any request from another law-enforcement agency for specific information would be evaluated individually and handled in accordance with RPD policy and applicable law.

4. Federal and immigration access
RPD does not provide ICE, CBP, or other federal immigration authorities direct access to Richmond's ALPR system. California law places significant restrictions on the sharing of ALPR information, including restrictions applicable to immigration enforcement.

More broadly, RPD does not provide outside agencies unrestricted access to its ALPR database. Requests for information must be evaluated individually, documented, and approved in accordance with RPD's ALPR policy and applicable California law.

5. Search warrants and subpoenas
Axon is the technology provider for RPD's system; RPD remains the agency responsible for its law-enforcement records. If Axon receives legal process seeking Richmond records, the request would be handled pursuant to the applicable contractual provisions and law, including any requirements governing notice to RPD.

RPD would respond to legal requests directed to the Department in accordance with applicable law.

6. Retention
Routine ALPR detections and CCTV footage available through the system are maintained on a rolling retention period of up to 30 days unless the information has evidentiary value. At the end of the applicable retention period, routine information is automatically deleted.

If CCTV footage has evidentiary value, RPD must download and preserve that footage in evidence.com under an associated case or incident number. It then becomes evidence and is retained according to RPD's applicable evidence-retention requirements.

Drone recordings associated with an investigation or other evidentiary purpose are similarly retained according to applicable policy and evidentiary requirements. Non-evidentiary drone recordings are subject to the Department's retention rules.

7. Security architecture
RPD's cloud-hosted law-enforcement information is maintained in an environment designed to comply with FBI Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) security requirements. Those requirements include controls governing the storage, transmission, access, and protection of criminal-justice information.

Data is encrypted both in transit and at rest. RPD's evidence.com environment is separately secured, and access is limited to authorized users.

8. Independent security verification
RPD will request that Axon provide the City's appropriate IT personnel with available documentation regarding its independent security assessments and certifications, including applicable CJIS compliance documentation, reports, certifications, penetration testing, and vulnerability-management practices. We will confirm with Axon which materials can be provided directly to the City and whether any are subject to confidentiality or security restrictions.

9. Account security
Yes. Access to the system requires multifactor authentication consistent with applicable CJIS security requirements. Authentication is accomplished through approved methods such as Microsoft Authenticator or a Department-issued device.

Access is role-based and limited according to an employee's need and right to know. RPD conducts monthly user-account audits. Accounts are disabled when employees separate from the Department, and inactive accounts are automatically disabled after 90 days.

Repeated unsuccessful login attempts result in the account being locked. An authorized IT administrator must verify the user's identity before restoring access and requiring appropriate credential changes.

10. Audit trails and misuse
Yes. The system maintains audit information regarding user searches, including the reason for the search and associated case or incident number. RPD's Office of Professional Accountability conducts monthly audits, and a redacted copy of the audit is provided to the Community Police Review Commission.

11. Watch lists and false matches
RPD receives applicable hot-list information through established law-enforcement databases such as NCIC. Authorized investigators may also create investigative alerts when supported by a legitimate law-enforcement purpose.

Importantly, an ALPR alert by itself is not sufficient for enforcement action. Officers are required to independently verify the information, such as through Dispatch or the originating law-enforcement database, before taking enforcement action based upon the alert.

12. Artificial intelligence and facial recognition
RPD does not currently use facial-recognition technology or artificial-intelligence analytics in connection with its ALPR, CCTV, or drone programs.

Axon offers separate AI-enabled products and features, including certain body-worn-camera functions, translation capabilities, and assisted report-writing technology. Those products are not currently part of RPD's ALPR, CCTV, or drone deployment.

The availability of a technology from Axon does not mean RPD has activated or authorized its use. Any future technology would first have to be evaluated for compliance with applicable law, City policy, RPD policy, privacy requirements, and any required public or City Council approval process.

13. Drone safeguards
RPD’s Drone as First Responder (DFR) program does not authorize drones to launch on every call for service or to conduct generalized aerial patrol. Under RPD Policy 607, drone deployments must fall within a specifically authorized mission, receive supervisory approval, and be documented. Authorized uses include incidents involving public safety or life preservation, active shooters, barricaded or hostage situations, armed or violent fleeing suspects, search and rescue, hazardous materials, certain felony investigations supported by probable cause, and operations conducted pursuant to a search warrant.

The policy expressly prohibits random surveillance and requires every drone deployment to comply with constitutional protections and individual privacy rights. Drones may not be used to target, harass, intimidate, or discriminate against individuals or groups.

RPD does not use drones to monitor individuals merely because they are participating in a lawful protest, demonstration, or other First Amendment-protected activity. The policy does permit drone deployment during civil unrest when there is a legitimate public-safety or lifepreservation need.

Similarly, drones are not used to indiscriminately track people from one location to another.

Following an individual may occur only when it is part of an authorized and lawful lawenforcement mission, such as apprehending an armed or violent fleeing suspect or conducting a qualifying felony investigation.

Finally, absent a search warrant or exigent circumstances, RPD personnel may not intentionally use a drone to record or transmit images of a home, yard, enclosure, or other location where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Operators are also required to take reasonable precautions to avoid inadvertently capturing those areas.

The purpose of RPD’s DFR program is to enhance public and officer safety while operating within clearly defined legal, constitutional, and privacy protections.

14. Private cameras
FUSUS has the technical capability to integrate privately owned cameras into a real-time crime center environment. RPD has not implemented a program or adopted policies or procedures authorizing routine Department access to privately owned residential, business, school, or community cameras through FUSUS.

Before RPD implements such a program, the Department would need to establish appropriate policies and procedures addressing authorization, consent, access, auditing, retention, privacy, and any applicable public-disclosure or approval requirements.

15. Breach responsibility
The City's agreement with Axon contains contractual provisions governing information security, incident response, and the parties' respective responsibilities. Because this question asks specifically about notification deadlines, financial responsibility, insurance coverage, indemnification, and contractual liability limits, we are confirming those provisions with the City's appropriate legal/contracting staff rather than providing an inaccurate characterization of the agreement.

We can provide Council with the applicable contractual requirements once that review is completed.

16. Contract termination and vendor lock-in
If the City elects to terminate its relationship with Axon, RPD's information remains the City's data. Axon provides mechanisms for exporting agency information so that RPD can preserve its records and transition to another system.

A transition would nevertheless require coordination with the replacement vendor because that provider would need to be capable of importing and maintaining the exported information while preserving required evidentiary integrity and chain-of-custody information.

Captain Matt Stonebraker
Richmond Police Department
1701 Regatta Blvd.

Richmond, CA 94801
Tuesday - Friday 7AM - 5PM
(510) 620 - 1204 Office
(510) 672-4529 - Cell
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication.

From: Soheila Bana <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2026 9:53 AM
To: Clayton Price-Brown <[email protected]>; City Clerk Dept User <[email protected]>
Cc: Shasa Curl <[email protected]>; Nickie Mastay <[email protected]>; Timothy Simmons <[email protected]>; Soheila Bana <[email protected]>; Eric Tam <[email protected]>; Matthew Stonebraker <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment Agenda Item Q.1
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Hi Clayton,
Thank you for your email. You can always email your comment to [email protected] with subject line: public comments agenda item #, as I do here.

Dear City Clerk,
Could you confirm receipt of the following public comment? Thank you,
Soheila
On Sat, Sep 12, 2026 at 5:41 PM Clayton Price-Brown <[email protected]> wrote:

Hey welcome back. How can I get these questions on record? Questions for Chief Simmons

16. Contract termination and vendor lock-in
“If Richmond terminates Axon, can the city export all information, metadata, audit logs, and evidentiary chain-of-custody records in a usable, nonproprietary format without additional fees?”
From: Reem Suleiman
To: City Clerk Dept User; Eduardo Martinez; Claudia Jimenez; Doria Robinson; Soheila Bana; Sue Wilson; Jamelia Brown; Cesar Zepeda
Subject: Public Comment on Agenda Item # Q.1 Contract Amendment with Axon Enterprise and Contract with Assure MSP, Inc. for Law Enforcement and City Facility Video Technology, Surveillance, and Support Services Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2026 1:02:08 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

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

Dear Richmond City Council:

My name is Reem Suleiman, the Senior Campaign Director at Fight For the Future, a civil rights non-profit organization that has led in the national fight against surveillance over the past decade.

I am based in the Bay Area, and have family members who work and live in Richmond, CA.

I'm writing to share my deep concerns with replacing one tool of mass surveillance with another. Like Flock, Axon also has ties to Customs and Border Patrol and puts the Bay Area at risk from federal access. I want to emphasize that any technology with the potential to be used for mass surveillance inevitably is used and abused. For ALPRs in particular, experts have extensively documented the harms of ALPR technology broadly, which applies to Flock, Axon, Motorola, or any other vendor.

I respectfully ask you to reject Axon and other mass surveillance vendors to keep Richmond and the bay area safer. Thank you,
-Reem Suleiman
Senior Campaign Director,
Fight for the future
Portal  Search...  
Meeting Date Agenda Item Name Email Comment Position Status Attachment City Council
9/15/2026 3:30 PM Contract Amendment
with Axon Enterprise
and Contract with
Assure MSP, Inc. for
Law Enforcement and
City Facility Video
Technology,
Surveillance, and
Support Services
Alicia Alexander nomadnoor@gmail
.com
Axon is just a different
company offering the
same so called services
as Flock. Axon has
proven to be just as
problematic with its lack
of security and abuse
by those with access to
the cameras and
databases - numerous
cases of law
enforcement officers
using it to stalk women
and intimate partners.

Axon and Flock have
also been weaponized
against women seeking
shelter from domestic
violence & abortion /
reproductive
healthcare. Axon is also
used in partnership
with ICE/DHS.

Richmond is a
sanctuary city per
Ordinances 29-90, 12-
18, as well as the
update on 3/25/2025 as
such should not
support anything that
enables ICE in our
community. Save the
money and invest in
community based
policing that is proven
to work instead to
supporting violations of
the 4th amendment
and warrantless
surveillance violating
peoples expectation of
privacy even in public
spaces. We don't need a
surveillance state - we
need trust built through
relationships and social
supports that end crime
in our community.

Against Approved -
9/16/26, 11:28 AM richmond.escribemeetings.com/Pages/ReportingPrintFriendly.aspx?reporting-reporttype=PublicComment https://richmond.escribemeetings.com/Pages/ReportingPrintFriendly.aspx?reporting-reporttype=PublicComment 1/8 9/15/2026 3:30 PM Contract Amendment
with Axon Enterprise
and Contract with
Assure MSP, Inc. for
Law Enforcement and
City Facility Video
Technology,
Surveillance, and
Support Services
Ben S. All ALPR systems should
be suspended in the
city of Richmond, this is
a violation of privacy
that is ineffective. And
the data shows it. The
crime rate in the 11
months prior to the
flock suspension,
during 3 month flock
suspension, and after
flock reinstatement are
exactly the same!
Against Approved -
9/15/2026 3:30 PM Urgency Ordinance
Imposing a 45-Day
Moratorium on New
Data Centers
Meagan Travlos Protect Richmond
residents' health now
and forever. No data
centers in Richmond.

For Approved -
9/15/2026 3:30 PM Contract Amendment
with Axon Enterprise
and Contract with
Assure MSP, Inc. for
Law Enforcement and
City Facility Video
Technology,
Surveillance, and
Support Services
Meagan Travlos Big brother surveillance
keeps no one safe. The
amount of money being
used and proposed to
spy on residents is
astounding. ALPRs do
not decrease crime and
can in fact leave our city
open to major security
risks through hacking.

They are overwhelming
used in Black and
Brown communities,
furthering a history of
oppression. I am
against all ALPR
systems in Richmond.

Against Approved -
9/15/2026 3:30 PM Urgency Ordinance
Imposing a 45-Day
Moratorium on New
Data Centers
Deborah Bayer [email protected]
om
I am grateful to the
Richmond staff and
Council for placing this
item on the agenda. A
moratorium on data
centers to allow the
public time to
understand and
participate in the
decision to allow data
centers in our city
seems a no brainer.

Please vote yes.

For Approved -
9/15/2026 3:30 PM Contract Amendment
with Axon Enterprise
and Contract with
Assure MSP, Inc. for
Law Enforcement and
Philip Rosenthal philiprosenthal@g
mail.com
Recently, ALPRS were
used Help solve a
murder of a black man
on our border with El
Cerrito. APLRS cameras
For Approved -
9/16/26, 11:28 AM richmond.escribemeetings.com/Pages/ReportingPrintFriendly.aspx?reporting-reporttype=PublicComment https://richmond.escribemeetings.com/Pages/ReportingPrintFriendly.aspx?reporting-reporttype=PublicComment 2/8 City Facility Video
Technology,
Surveillance, and
Support Services
were also used to help
solve the hit-and-run
murder Latino man on
23rd St. Council
members are
constantly demanding
that the police
department use
passive, non-lethal or
less lethal policing
methods. This is one of
them. I acknowledge
the privacy concerns,
but if that’s the case,
the city should
immediately resend
CCTV cameras on all city
property and staff
should be forced to use
telephones without the
ability to record. There
are thousands of
cameras in Richmond,
but we don’t have or
any detectives to sort
through this. Recently,
in our neighborhood,
two thieves attacked
children in their own
driveway. Police
detectives were
desperately trying to
find video, but the only
video available that
would’ve shown the
escaping car belonged
to a private business
who did not release it.

Everything is imperfect,
including the ALPRS
system. But that doesn’t
mean that the criminals
take priority over the
taxpayers.
9/15/2026 3:30 PM Contract Amendment
with Axon Enterprise
and Contract with
Assure MSP, Inc. for
Law Enforcement and
City Facility Video
Technology,
Surveillance, and
Support Services
cecil calban Nothing is perfect,
including privacy,
concerns surrounding
safety cameras.

Nevertheless, I support
these, and we have
already seen how many
crimes they have
helped solve, including
a recent murder and a
recent hit and run
death. Our police
For Approved -
9/16/26, 11:28 AM richmond.escribemeetings.com/Pages/ReportingPrintFriendly.aspx?reporting-reporttype=PublicComment https://richmond.escribemeetings.com/Pages/ReportingPrintFriendly.aspx?reporting-reporttype=PublicComment 3/8 department is under
staff and under
constant bombardment
by certain council
members and political
groups, claiming to be
grassroots, who are
anti-Police and have
records of being so. Our
police department is
decimated, so we call
the city Council to give
them any help in solving
crimes without
weapons.
9/15/2026 3:30 PM Contract Amendment
with Axon Enterprise
and Contract with
Assure MSP, Inc. for
Law Enforcement and
City Facility Video
Technology,
Surveillance, and
Support Services
Edith Alderette [email protected] I've watched this topic
for years, and until
recently, I was agnostic.

I see both the pros and
cons of the ALPR
systems. Recent events,
particularly the recent
El Cerrito murder and
the hit-and-run
homicide on 23rd St.
where cameras were
key to apprehending
the suspects, have
changed my mind.

ALPRs have saved
numerous people,
apprehending in
minutes suspects in
murders and child
abductions that
otherwise may have
taken hours, days, or
weeks; time that would
allow the criminals to
do even more harm.

The key is these
systems need to be
used RESPONSIBLY, and
I believe RPD will do just
that. I venture to guess
that opponents so dead
set against ALPRs would
be all for them had their
child was abducted,
assaulted, or murdered
and police are unable to
do anything because
they have no leads. The
alternative is a
residential dragnet,
which is even more
For Approved -
9/16/26, 11:28 AM richmond.escribemeetings.com/Pages/ReportingPrintFriendly.aspx?reporting-reporttype=PublicComment https://richmond.escribemeetings.com/Pages/ReportingPrintFriendly.aspx?reporting-reporttype=PublicComment 4/8 invasive. How many
more major crimes in
Richmond must go
unsolved before we can
accept that this is the
best solution available
to us? And it's not as if
these systems are
permanent; if and when
better technology
exists, we can remove
them. These are the
tools we have now, and
we need them. We can't
rail against the
ineffectiveness of the
RPD to prevent and
solve crimes when we
don't give them the
tools they need to do
their jobs. I implore you
to approve Axon and
the ALPRs in Richmond.

If they don't work, we'll
know soon enough and
can remove them, but I
have a feeling that it will
only take a few major
crimes solved quickly to
have opponents change
their minds.
9/15/2026 3:30 PM Urgency Ordinance
Imposing a 45-Day
Moratorium on New
Data Centers
Tim Sbranti tsbranti@ccbtrades
.com
Dear Honorable Mayor
and Councilmembers:

On behalf of the Contra
Costa Building and
Construction Trades
Council and the
thousands of skilled
construction workers
we represent who live
in Richmond and West
County, we neither
support nor oppose the
concept of a short-term
moratorium on data
centers being
contemplated this
evening. However, it is
worth noting that data
centers are going to
continue being built
throughout California
and generating
substantial revenue and
job growth for other
communities....includin
No Position Approved -
9/16/26, 11:28 AM richmond.escribemeetings.com/Pages/ReportingPrintFriendly.aspx?reporting-reporttype=PublicComment https://richmond.escribemeetings.com/Pages/ReportingPrintFriendly.aspx?reporting-reporttype=PublicComment 5/8 g in Contra Costa
County. The question
for cities is how they
want that development
to happen. We support
establishing clear
standards before
projects come forward.

Those standards should
address water use and
cooling technology,
energy and
infrastructure impacts,
ratepayer protections,
environmental
concerns, strong
workforce standards,
and a robust
community benefits
package. Other
jurisdictions are already
working through these
same issues, and Labor
has been actively
engaged in those
conversations. Cities
shouldn’t have to
choose between
economic development,
good jobs, and
protecting their
communities. A
responsible data center
development policy can
accomplish all three
and can be developed
with stakeholder and
community input while
the existing moratorium
is in place. The Building
Trades Council stands
ready to help develop
one. Best Wishes, Tim
Sbranti Executive
Director Contra Costa
Building and
Construction Trades
Council (925) 228-0900
9/15/2026 3:30 PM Contract Amendment
with Axon Enterprise
and Contract with
Assure MSP, Inc. for
Law Enforcement and
City Facility Video
Technology,
Devin W. devinwhittemore@
gmail.com
I'm in support of
continued use of ALPR
technology and
switching to Axon from
Flock. This isn't
theoretical. Just last
month in El Cerrito,
after that city removed
For Approved -
9/16/26, 11:28 AM richmond.escribemeetings.com/Pages/ReportingPrintFriendly.aspx?reporting-reporttype=PublicComment https://richmond.escribemeetings.com/Pages/ReportingPrintFriendly.aspx?reporting-reporttype=PublicComment 6/8 Surveillance, and
Support Services
its own license plate
cameras, police said the
loss of that data slowed
the investigation into
the murder of 21-yearold Jakai Couch. It was
fixed and ALPR cameras
in Richmond that
ultimately helped
identify the suspects'
vehicle and led to two
arrests so far. Here in
Richmond, fixed and
ALPR cameras also
helped identify the
suspect in the fatal hitand-run that killed 81-
year-old Rafael
Gutierrez Delgado last
month. These aren't
abstract benefits. These
cases have suspects in
custody and their
families have timely
answers they might not
have gotten otherwise,
if ever. As with any
surveillance technology,
I support ALPR with
appropriate guardrails
including 30-day
retention limits, regular
audits, clear policies on
who can query the data
and why, and
meaningful oversight
and accountability
when something goes
wrong. I also prefer
Richmond owning the
cameras vs. leasing
them, and having the
data stored with
evidence.com.

Richmond has actually
led the Bay Area on this
front. As far as I'm
aware, we're the only
city in the region
operating a closed ALPR
system, meaning our
data isn't shared out to
other agencies by
default or choice in
California (and
nationally). That's the
9/16/26, 11:28 AM richmond.escribemeetings.com/Pages/ReportingPrintFriendly.aspx?reporting-reporttype=PublicComment https://richmond.escribemeetings.com/Pages/ReportingPrintFriendly.aspx?reporting-reporttype=PublicComment 7/8 best model, so don't
abandon it.
9/16/26, 11:28 AM richmond.escribemeetings.com/Pages/ReportingPrintFriendly.aspx?reporting-reporttype=PublicComment https://richmond.escribemeetings.com/Pages/ReportingPrintFriendly.aspx?reporting-reporttype=PublicComment 8/8

Richmond City CouncilSeptember 15, 2026

Richmond City Council
September 15, 2026