Richmond City Council
September 22, 2026

September 22, 2026
City Manager's Office
DATE: September 22, 2026
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM: Shasa Curl, City Attorney
SUBJECT: City Manager Accomplishments, Major Milestones, and Organizational Progress
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no direct fiscal impact associated with receiving this presentation.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None.

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

The City Manager has prepared a presentation
summarizing key accomplishments and major milestones
from her tenure as City Manager from 2021 through
2026, as well as significant initiatives and projects
advanced during her broader service to the City. The
presentation also serves as a transition resource for the incoming City Manager by documenting organizational
progress, major investments, and ongoing work.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: RECEIVE a presentation from City Manager Shasa Curl regarding key accomplishments, major milestones, and
organizational progress during her service to the City of Richmond – City Manager’s Office (Shasa Curl 510-620-
6512).

DISCUSSION:

This presentation provides both a retrospective on City Manager Shasa Curl’s service to the City and a transition resource for the incoming City Manager. It is organized in two parts: key accomplishments during her tenure as City Manager from 2021 through AGENDA
REPORT
620

September 22, 2026
2026, followed by significant milestones from her broader service to the City from 2004 through 2021.

The 2021 through 2026 section highlights progress in fiscal health, organizational capacity, community investment, infrastructure, housing, and public safety. During this period, the City was removed from the California State Auditor’s high-risk list, adopted balanced budgets for four consecutive years, increased its required reserve from 15 percent to 21 percent, and received credit rating upgrades from Moody’s to A3 and S&P Global Ratings to AA-. The City also added a net 92 positions, supported 132 employee promotions, reduced Fire Department management vacancies from 28.3 percent to 3.3 percent, and secured approximately $330 million through more than 150 multi-year grants, including a $35 million Transformative Climate Communities grant.

Major capital and community investments include renovations of Shields-Reid, Boorman, and Wendell parks; the reopening of the Booker T. Anderson Community Center; and the $34.2 million modernization of the Main Library, which is currently underway. Housing and community safety accomplishments include the creation of 48 permanent supportive housing units at Civic Center Apartments through the Homekey program, completion of Nevin Plaza Phase I, a decline in the point-in-time homelessness count from 487 individuals in 2023 to 257 in 2026, the lowest number of homicides recorded in decades in 2025, and a 17 percent decrease in reported crime that same year.

The second section highlights earlier milestones from City Manager Curl’s service to the City, including the 2019 launch of ferry service at the Richmond Ferry Terminal; establishment of the Richmond Rent Program and Richmond Promise, which now serves more than 4,600 scholars; implementation of the Richmond Housing Authority recovery strategy and the $75 million rehabilitation of Hacienda Heights; adoption of the 2014 Health in All Policies Strategy and Ordinance; development of partnerships with the University of California, Berkeley and Y-PLAN; expansion of City-wide Dumpster Days; redevelopment of the Civic Center campus; and adoption of the 2016 Climate Action Plan.

Taken together, the presentation documents significant organizational, financial, and community progress while identifying major investments, programs, and initiatives that will continue into the next City Manager’s tenure. It also provides context for ongoing work, including approximately $330 million in grant-funded investments supporting programs, services, and infrastructure throughout Richmond.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Presentation
621
City Manager
Retrospective
Shasa Curl, City Manager
September 15, 2026
1 DRAFT
622
2 THANK YOU!
MOVING RICHMOND FORWARD 9/16/2026 4:19 PM
623
Key Accomplishments, 2021 - 2026
3 • Removed Richmond from the State
Auditor's high-risk list; adopted balanced
budget for four years running
• Earned credit-rating upgrades: Moody's to
A3, S&P to AA-
• Grew the workforce: net +92 positions, 132
promotions; Fire management vacancies

28.3% to 3.3%
• Secured ~$330M across 150+ multi-year
grants
• Rebuilt public spaces: Shields-Reid,
Boorman, Wendell, and Booker T.

Anderson Community Center; $34.2M
Main Library underway
• Created 48 permanent supportive homes
through Project Homekey and renewed
the 138-unit Nevin Plaza senior
community; Homelessness point-in-time
count reduced from 487 (2023) to 257
(2026);
• Recorded the lowest number of
homicides in decades; launched the
ROCK crisis response team
• Awarded a $35M Transformative Climate
Communities grant to launch Richmond
Rising
624
What we did:

The result:

The challenge:

Removed from High-Risk Designation
In 2022, the State Auditor designated Richmond “high risk” due to anticipated deficits, high pension debt, and mismanagement of the Richmond Housing Authority. The Auditor also found that projected deficits threatened to critically deplete the City’s general fund reserves.

Strengthened reserves: Increased the required reserve from 15% to 21% Addressed projected deficits: Controlled costs and increased revenues, including through Measure U and improved tax compliance.

Addressed retirement obligations: The Auditor found the City had “fully addressed” this risk, including through pension prefunding.

Reduced debt risk: Avoided taking on additional long-term debt. The Auditor found the City's overall debt burden was partially addressed.

Since FY 2021-22, annual general fund revenues have exceeded expenditures, and the Auditor concluded it was no longer concerned about Richmond's ability to maintain balanced spending, removing the City from the High-Risk Designation. 4
625
What we did:

The result:

The challenge:

Building Workforce Capacity
In 2022, Richmond faced major leadership transitions and more than 100 funded but vacant City positions.

Net increase of 92 FTEs since FY 2020-21 and 132 promotions.

Annual turnover reduced from 13% in 2024 to 11% in 2025.

Fire management vacancies dropped from 28.3% to 3.3%.

Supported the Fire Chief in conducting four Fire Academies and advocating for additional positions beyond the existing allotment to prepare for projected vacancies.

Strengthened police recruitment and staffing, with RPD hiring 21 sworn personnel and 13 professional staff in FY 24-25.

Filled key leadership, including the Police and Fire Chiefs, and operational roles across the organization. Added training opportunities, formal onboarding programs, and wellness and appreciation events for staff. 5 626
What we did:

The result:

The challenge:

Grant Funding Growth
Richmond’s infrastructure, public safety, and community service needs exceed what the General Fund could fund
alone.

Expanded the City’s ability to pursue outside funding,
coordinated grant applications across departments, and
built stronger systems to track awards, manage compliance, and move funded projects forward.
150+ multi-year grants totaling nearly $330 million, helping Richmond advance parks, trails, housing, climate resilience, public safety, youth services, small business support, and infrastructure projects.
$146,020,548
$182,054,445
Capital Grants
Operational
Grants
Grant Awards: Total of $328,074,993
As of June 2026
6 627
What we did:

The result:

The challenge:

Improvements to Built Environment
Many public spaces and community facilities needed major repair, modernization, or reopening after years of deferred investment, aging building systems, pandemic disruption, and heavy community demand.

Advanced park, trail, library, and community center projects from planning and funding into construction, completion, or reopening. Expanded waterfront and trail access.

These projects restore neighborhood anchors and create safer, more welcoming places for recreation, learning, youth
programming, public meetings, emergency support, walking, biking, and community gatherings.
7 628
The result:

What we did:

Shields-Reid Park Improvements
Transformed Shields-Reid with an $8
million renovation funded through a
California state grant.

Construction of a new children’s play area,
bike pump track, stage and performance
area, fitness zone, public art, habitat
garden, and lighting throughout the park.
8 629
The result:

What we did:

Boorman Park Renovation
A $15.3 million renovation of Boorman Park funded
through grants from CalTrans and the State Park
Program.

A transformed park with expanded recreation and
community gathering spaces. The renovation
included a multi-use trail with fitness stations, a
skating element, athletic field, basketball court,
fitness zone, children’s play areas and a community
gathering space.
9 630
The result:

What we did:

Wendell Park Renovation
Invested $2 million in ARPA funds to renovate
Wendell Park, including its natural-grass multi-use
field, softball facilities and irrigation system, fencing and ball-stop netting, play areas, seating, picnic
space, and a new restroom.

A comprehensive renewal of the 2.2-acre
neighborhood park, creating safer, more functional
athletic fields and modern amenities for children
and families. Expands quality neighborhood space
for youth soccer, softball, recreation, and family
gatherings, helping address Richmond’s
longstanding shortage of athletic fields.

Completion targeted for fall 2026.
10 631
The result:

What we are doing:

Library Renovation Project
Advancing a $34.2 million modernization of Richmond’s
historic Main Library. Construction began in April 2026, with reopening planned for November 2027.

The renovation project preserves a Richmond landmark
while creating a modern center for learning and
connection. The renovation will result in a fully electric library with seismic and fire upgrades, modern building systems, study rooms, teen and local-history spaces, and flexible community rooms.
11 632
The result:

What we did
Booker T. Anderson Community
Center Restoration
Rebuilt the community center after extensive fire, smoke, and water damage. The City replaced structural
components, restored interior spaces, and upgraded HVAC, plumbing, electrical, fire-safety, lighting, and security systems.

Despite construction setbacks and staff turnover, the City brought the project back on track and reopened the
restored center in June 2024 after a nearly four-year
closure.
12 633
What we did
The result:

The challenge
Housing & Homelessness Progress
Richmond faces high housing needs, aging public housing assets, visible encampments, and a large share of unhoused residents who lost housing within the city.

Advanced Metrowalk at Richmond Station, a 150-unit transit-oriented affordable development at Richmond BART, Civic Center Apts (Homekey), and the Nevin Plaza Phase I. Point-in-time count reduced from 487 in 2023 to 257 in 2026.

Advanced major Richmond Housing Authority recovery and
redevelopment work, including Hacienda Heights, Nevin Plaza, and Nystrom Village (2 million dollars in ARPA funds for pre-development).

Secured major state homelessness grants, including Encampment Resolution Funding and Homekey, while funding rental assistance and emergency sheltering services.
13 Metrowalk at Richmond Station: view from Nevin Ave and 19th St.

Nevin Plaza Phase II: view from 25th St.
634
What we did
Community Impact:

The challenge
Civic Center Apartments (Homekey)
Richmond needs more housing options for people
experiencing homelessness, including residents who need on-site supportive services to sustain residency.

Created 48 permanent supportive units plus one manager’s unit. Ribbon Cutting celebration planned for October 2026.

Secured a $14.5 million Homekey 3.0 award for Civic Center Apartments. Partnered with 425 Civic Center LP, comprised of Novin Development and Trinity Center Walnut Creek, to acquire and rehabilitate the former Motel 6 at 425 24th Street. Advanced the project as a permanent supportive
housing community with on-site management and resident
services.
14 635
What we did:

The result:

The challenge
Nevin Plaza – Phase I
Nevin Plaza needed major rehabilitation, stronger operations, relocation planning, and a long-term path to preserve affordable housing for seniors and residents with disabilities.

Phase I substantially rehabilitated the existing seven-story senior housing community.

Partnered with EAH Housing and the Richmond Housing
Authority to rehabilitate the existing Nevin Plaza tower.

Completed Phase I with upgraded units, common areas, resident services space, and outdoor amenities. The City allocated 1.75 million in ARPA funds and 1.75 million in lieu fees for the project. Advanced Phase II for a new affordable housing building on the adjacent vacant lot.
15 636
What we did:

The result:

The challenge
Investing in Local Businesses
Coming out of the pandemic, Richmond's small businesses and entrepreneurs needed affordable space, licensing help, and access to capital.

The Lot currently supports 24 food active vendors, 4 non-food vendors (~4 on the waitlist); distributed $350,000 in smallbusiness grants through the Renaissance partnership.

Launched The Lot: Downtown Richmond Food Court, supporting local food businesses with licensing help; partnered with the Renaissance Entrepreneurship Center to provide technical assistance and grants to small businesses.
16 637
What we did:

The result:

The challenge
Public Safety Progress
17 In 2025, Richmond recorded the lowest number of homicides in decades and a 17% decrease in crime.

Expanded community safety through the Office of Neighborhood Safety and launch of the ROCK program. Invested Reimagining Public Safety funds in youth employment, neighborhood safety, crisis response, and unhoused interventions.

Strengthened Police and Fire Department recruitment, and improved emergency response capacity by replacing critical fire apparatus.

Public safety was a top community concern, with gun violence, police staffing pressure, fire vacancies, and demand for non-police responses to lower-level crisis calls.
638
What we did:

The result:

Transformative Climate Communities (TCC)
Secured a $35 million TCC implementation grant from the California Strategic Growth Council. Built the Richmond Rising partnership with community organizations and local partners. Hired two full-time staff, executed agreements with six grant partners.
18 Advanced projects for complete streets, the Richmond Wellness Trail, e-bikes, solar and energy upgrades, urban greening, water reuse, food access, and workforce
development.
639
What we did:

The result:

The challenge
Health in All Policies 10 year Report
Health is shaped by where people live, work, learn, and play, and individual and community health is influenced by more than just individual choices.

Embedded health and equity in decisions citywide. Sustained the Health Equity Partnership, incorporated health into the ongoing work of every department, published health data on Transparent Richmond, and published the 2025 ten-year report.
19 Of the 21 data indicators tracked in the HiAP, a majority of the measures trended in a direction suggesting progress towards reducing drivers of health inequities. Uninsured Richmond adults fell from 22.9% (2013) to 13% (2022), residents rating their neighborhood a good or excellent place to live rose from 53% (2013) to 65% (2023), and 2,736 residential solar panels have been installed, reaching the City’s goal five years early. 640
A Strong Foundation for What’s Next
20 • Stabilized the foundation: Balanced
budgets, off the state high-risk list,
stronger reserves and credit
• Strengthened City Staff Team: Hired and
developed key leadership positions and
supported staff citywide.
• Reinvested in the community: Renovated
parks, began construction on a landmark
library, advanced hundreds of new
affordable and supportive housing units,
and recorded the lowest number of
homicides in decades.
• Set up the next chapter: Built a stable,
well staffed, and financially sound city,
with $330 million in grants already at work
for the next City Manager to build on.
641
21 Milestones
between
2004-2021
642
The Result:

The Challenge:

Richmond Ferry Launch
22 Shasa Curl helped advance the City’s work with WETA, CCTA, MTC, and other partners, culminating in the January 2019 opening of the $20 million Richmond Ferry Terminal and launch of ferry service to San Francisco. The project expanded transportation choices, provided an alternative to congested freeways, and reconnected Richmond’s
waterfront with its ferry heritage.

After decades of advocacy for permanent ferry service,
Richmond needed to turn that vision into reality by
coordinating a complex, multi-agency effort to fund, build, and establish a new regional transportation connection. 643
The Result:

The Challenge:

Richmond Rent Program Launch
23 Following voter approval of the Rent Ordinance, the City had only a few months to build and launch a complex new rent program—an entirely new function for the
organization.

Shasa Curl led the City team responsible for rapidly
developing and launching the Richmond Rent Program,
creating the staffing, systems, procedures, and
administrative structure needed to implement the new
ordinance. This included establishing the Rent Board,
developing customer service protocols, and conducting
workshops and outreach to help tenants and landlords
understand the new program, requirements, and
protections.
644
The Result:

The Challenge:

Richmond Promise Launch
24 ECIA funding created an opportunity to invest in
Richmond youth, but the City had to build a new
scholarship and college-success program from the ground up, drawing on Promise models and best practices
nationwide.

Shasa Curl led the City team that developed and launched Richmond Promise, working with the City Council and
community education stakeholders to establish the
program framework, operations, partnerships, and
outreach. Richmond Promise has become a lasting
investment in Richmond youth, serving 4,600+ scholars
with scholarships and college-success support. Shasa
continued supporting the program through service on its Board.
645
The Challenge:

Richmond Housing Authority (RHA)
25 Following years of operational, financial, and propertycondition challenges, RHA entered a formal recovery agreement with HUD (PHARS Agreement) and needed a
sustainable strategy to preserve and improve Richmond’s public housing.

The Result:

Under Shasa Curl’s leadership, RHA advanced a
comprehensive asset repositioning strategy, partnering with experienced affordable housing developers while retaining public ownership and long-term oversight of its land. Major properties have been rehabilitated or repositioned, while others continue moving toward redevelopment and
conversion. These efforts, along with the successful transfer of the Section 8 program to the Housing Authority of Contra Costa County, have positioned RHA for a more sustainable future and the long-term preservation and rehabilitation of affordable housing in Richmond. 646
The Result:

The Challenge:

Hacienda Heights
26 The 150-unit Hacienda public housing property was declared uninhabitable in 2014, requiring the relocation of residents and a long-term solution to preserve the property as affordable housing.

The City and Richmond Housing Authority advanced a new path for the property, partnering with Mercy Housing California and CHDC to preserve its affordability and enable a comprehensive redevelopment. Following an approximately $75 million
rehabilitation, Hacienda reopened in 2023 as Hacienda
Heights—150 affordable homes for seniors, including housing for formerly homeless and medically frail residents.
647
The Result:

The Challenge:

Health in All Policies Strategy & Ordinance
27 Richmond faces significant health inequities shaped by where people live, work, learn, and play. The City needed an approach to integrate health and equity into program development across all City departments, while responding to and building upon the work of community-based organizations advancing health outcomes through The California Endowment’s Building Healthy Communities initiative.

Shasa Curl helped lead a community-driven, cross-departmental effort resulting in Richmond’s Health in All Policies Strategy and Ordinance, unanimously adopted in 2014. HiAP institutionalized health, equity, and sustainability in City decision-making and helped position Richmond for successful grant funding to advance built-environment improvements in state-designated disadvantaged communities. The framework continues to guide City policies, programs, and partnerships more than a decade later. 648
The Challenge:

The Result:

UC Berkeley Partnership
28 Strengthen and expand the City–UC Berkeley partnership, creating a more collaborative approach to solving
Richmond challenges. Relationships with City & Regional Planning, Public Health, and the Chancellor’s Office
supported work with Community Development, Economic
Development, ONS, and the City Manager’s Office,
bringing research, expertise, and university resources to City and community priorities.

Despite UC Berkeley’s proximity to Richmond, research
involving the community did not always engage City
staff and residents in framing challenges and
developing solutions, contributing to frustration with
being studied rather than engaged as partners.
649
The Result:

The Challenge
Y-Plan Partnership
29 Richmond sought to break down the silos between city planning, K–12 education, and higher education, creating opportunities for young people to help address real
community and planning challenges.

Continued to build and expand Richmond’s 10+ year YPLAN partnership with UC Berkeley, WCCUSD, Richmond youth, and community partners, bringing more City
projects into the program and creating additional
opportunities for youth to help shape Richmond’s future.

The partnership continues to strengthen youth voice in
City planning and decision-making while building students’ civic, college, and career skills.
650
The Result:

The Challenge
Annual Neighborhood Dumpster Days
30 In 2021, Richmond faced growing community concern
about neighborhood conditions, blight, and illegal
dumping. At the time, Dumpster Days were generally held only once every two years, and not all neighborhoods
could participate.

Expanded the Dumpster Days opportunity to all 34
Richmond neighborhoods, providing at least one free
disposal event annually and additional events in higherneed areas. Through partnerships with neighborhood councils, Republic Services, and Sims Metal, the program continues to support cleaner neighborhoods and
community pride.
651
What we did:

The result:

Civic Center Redevelopment
31 Implemented the Civic Center Master Plan, beginning in 2006–07. Phase 1 renovated City Hall and the former
Hall of Justice, restored Civic Center Plaza, and provided seismic and interior improvements to the Memorial
Auditorium/Art Center. The former Hall of Justice was
converted for community services.

The project returned City administrative functions to a revitalized Civic Center campus, while preserving and
upgrading major public assets. The renovated City Hall
and former Hall of Justice were designed to meet LEED
Silver standards, and the project created improved civic open space while establishing a foundation for continued investment in the Civic Center area.
652
The Challenge:

Climate Action Plan Adoption
32 Richmond needed a roadmap to implement the sustainability, greenhouse gas reduction, and climate resilience goals of its General Plan 2030, including addressing growing risks from sea-level rise, flooding, extreme heat, wildfire, and worsening air quality, particularly in historically burdened communities.

The Result:

Richmond adopted its first Climate Action Plan in 2016, developed with community-based organizations, residents, and cross-sector partners through a health-equity and
climate-justice lens. The plan established specific actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and prepare for climate impacts and continues to guide City investments in clean energy, transportation, resilient infrastructure, public health, and community preparedness.
653
33 Thank You
654

September 22, 2026
Public Works
DATE: September 22, 2026
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM: Janney Lockman, AICP, Associate Transportation
Planner
Daniel Chavarria, PE, Director of Public Works / City
Engineer
SUBJECT: On-Street Accessible Parking Program Update
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The update on the On-Street Accessible Parking Program does not require an immediate appropriation or expenditure of funds.

Future program implementation would require additional Public Works staff time for application intake, engineering review, field verification, system tracking, applicant notifications, appeals, renewals, removal review, annual reporting, and coordination with Operations and capital improvement programs. Based on the City’s recent average of approximately 21 requests per year, City staff estimates that routine program administration would require approximately 56 to 221 City staff hours annually, or approximately 7.5 to 29.5 staff workdays, excluding the onetime staff effort required to establish the online application and tracking system.

The City’s current practice for approved blue curb spaces generally includes blue curb paint and accessible parking signage. Where additional improvements are needed to make a location fully compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG), capital costs may vary significantly by location.

Based on 2026 City-wide Concrete Program cost information, blue curb paint and signage are estimated to cost approximately $3,500 per location. Additional curb ramp, sidewalk, or roadway grading improvements would increase the total cost at a given AGENDA
REPORT
655

September 22, 2026
location. These improvements may be completed through the City-wide Concrete Program, paving program, ADA Transition Plan implementation, or other capital improvement projects as funding becomes available.

If the On-Street Accessible Parking Program were to include an application fee or appeal fee, City staff would return to the City Council separately for consideration following the required notice and public hearing

PREVIOUS
COUNCIL ACTION:

April 1, 2025

STATEMENT OF
THE ISSUE:

The City of Richmond currently addresses requests for on-street accessible parking spaces, also known as “Blue Curb” parking spaces, through existing Public Works practices; however, the City does not have a comprehensive, standardized program governing how requests are evaluated, approved, installed, tracked, renewed, or removed. To improve consistency,
transparency, and administration of these requests, Public Works staff, with assistance from Fehr & Peers, developed a comprehensive On-Street Accessible Parking Program that establishes standardized eligibility, site selection, design, notification, appeal, tracking, and reporting procedures.

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

RECEIVE an update on the draft On-Street Accessible Parking Program, and REVIEW, COMMENT, and PROVIDE
DIRECTION to staff regarding the proposed policy, potential application and appeal fees, staff time, and capital program considerations – Public Works Department (Janney Lockman 510-307-8097/Daniel Chavarria 510-620-5478).

DISCUSSION:

The City of Richmond currently responds to requests for on-street accessible parking spaces intended to improve access for people with disabilities to residences and other properties. Depending on site conditions, these spaces may involve blue curb painting and signage, as well as supporting accessibility improvements such as curb ramps, sidewalk improvements, and other path-of-travel modifications. Under Richmond Municipal Code Section 14.48.020, the Public Works Director is authorized to place blue curb markings, which “indicate parking limited exclusively to vehicles of handicapped persons.” While the City has addressed these requests through existing Public Works practices, it has not had a comprehensive written policy establishing consistent application procedures, evaluation criteria, design standards, applicant notifications, appeals, renewals, maintenance, removal, tracking, and reporting. The City also lacks standardized design criteria for determining what accessibility improvements may be 656

September 22, 2026
needed at a particular location to support compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.

In November 2024, Public Works staff issued a request for proposals to the City’s oncall traffic engineering firms to assist in developing standards and a formal process for requests for on-street accessible parking. Fehr & Peers was selected based on its experience developing similar policies for comparable cities and its staff expertise in the ADA and Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG). On April 1, 2025, the City Council adopted a resolution allocating $120,000 from the Measure J Fund to support the development of on-street accessible parking standards and a formal review process.

Since that time, Fehr & Peers has worked with Public Works, Engineering, and Operations staff to review existing conditions, evaluate best practices from peer agencies, and develop a revised application and evaluation framework. This work included a memorandum on existing conditions, a literature review of best practices, and a proposed Application Process Framework establishing a workflow – submission, review, decision and notification, implementation, appeals, closeout, and renewal, maintenance, and removal – along with a block-perimeter evaluation approach for identifying the most feasible and accessible parking space on a given block (Attachment 1). Building on that framework, Fehr & Peers prepared a Draft On-Street Accessible Parking Program (Program) for City consideration (Attachment 2). The policy elements and program details are also described in the attached Technical Appendix (Attachment 3).

ANALYSIS:

The proposed Program establishes a clear, consistent, and equitable process for requesting, evaluating, and installing on-street accessible parking spaces within the public right-of-way, consistent with California Vehicle Code Sections 22511.7 and 22511.8, the ADA, and PROWAG. Key elements of the proposed Program include:
 Block-Perimeter Evaluation. Rather than evaluating only the specific location requested, City staff will evaluate the full block perimeter surrounding a request to identify the location that provides the greatest accessibility benefit. The installed space may not always be directly in front of the applicant’s address and will not be reserved exclusively for the applicant but will be sited to best serve people with disabilities in that area.
 Application Workflow. Applications may be submitted through the City’s online portal, Intuitive Municipal Solutions (iMS), with hard-copy submission available for community members who are unable to submit electronically. Application steps include: Submission, Review, Decision and Notification, Implementation, Appeals (if applicable), Closeout, Renewal, Maintenance, and Removal. All steps can be tracked in the City’s centralized online portal. Defined follow-up timelines are incorporated to support timely responses.
657

September 22, 2026
 Design Standards. The Program establishes design standards for on-street accessible parking spaces, including space dimensions, access aisles where applicable, blue curb paint, signage, clearance from obstructions, and an accessible path of travel to the adjacent sidewalk. Where full compliance cannot be achieved due to existing physical constraints, the Engineering Division will document the constraint and, where feasible, identify an alternative location within the block perimeter that meets applicable standards. In some locations, City staff may provide blue curb and signage in the short term with the expectation that full ADA compliance will be completed through the implementation of the ADA Transition Plan or other capital improvement projects.
 Applicant Fee. The Program preserves the City Council’s discretion to consider whether to establish an application fee. If directed, City staff will return with a proposed fee resolution following required notice and public hearing. The fee analysis identifies potential fee scenarios, including $50–$69 for application intake only and $69–$90 for application plus brief field verification, and notes that many peer cities do not charge fees for on-street accessible parking requests (Attachment 4). Any recommended fee would also apply for Appeal requests.  Appeals. Applicants whose requests are denied may submit a written appeal within 60 calendar days. The appeal review may consider updated infrastructure, changed curbside conditions, and an expanded study area of up to two additional blocks beyond the original block perimeter.
 Removal. The Program establishes a defined process, including resident notice and a 14-day appeal period, for removing a space when the demonstrated need no longer exists. Existing blue-curb parking spaces will be evaluated over time as requests arise or as other work occurs in the public right-of-way.  Relationship to the ADA Transition Plan. The Program is designed to work in tandem with the City’s ADA Transition Plan. A blue curb request can itself identify needed infrastructure upgrades in locations where an accessible path of travel is currently lacking. Locations where blue curb paint and signage are installed can be prioritized for curb ramp and sidewalk improvements as funding is available. Over time, this Program creates a self-reinforcing cycle in which the Program helps advance the City’s broader ADA Transition Plan goals, in addition to the on-street accessible parking benefit itself.
 Administration, Data Tracking, and Reporting. Responsibilities are clearly divided among the Public Works Engineering Division (review and determinations), and the Public Works Operations Division (implementation, and closeout), with support from the IT Department for adding the application to iMS, and appeals reviewed by the City Engineer. The Public Works Department will include information on Program activity, including applications received, approval/denial rates, processing times, and appeal outcomes, to support transparency and accountability, as part of an annual 658

September 22, 2026
public report. The annual report will also include renewed and withdrawn applications and a map or database of active on-street accessible parking spaces City-wide.

Consistent with the goals identified in the April 2025 staff report, adoption of this Program proactively positions the City to meet current ADA and PROWAG standards and to adapt more readily to future changes in on-street accessibility parking requirements, while giving residents, and particularly people with disabilities and their families, a clear and predictable process for requesting on-street accessible parking.

Staff Time and Capital Program Considerations
While Public Works staff currently and historically have reviewed requests for on-street accessible parking spaces and installed new spaces with blue paint and signage, the updated Program codifies a number of new elements including renewal, notification to nearby properties if a space is proposed for removal, and appeals to decisions made that will result in additional workload for existing City staff. Depending on the degree of accessibility upgrades needed for an on-street accessible parking space to comply with the ADA and PROWAG, additional improvements beyond typical practice of painting blue curb and signage may be necessary over the long term to make a space truly accessible. Accessibility improvements would need to be completed through other City programs, like the Citywide Concrete Program and the implementation of the ADA Transition Plan.

Between 2019-2025, Public Works has received an average of 21 requests for on-street accessible parking spaces per year. On average, 60 percent of these applications were approved in the years when this data was readily available, 2019-2022. These numbers are not expected to change significantly with this new program and are used to develop the assumptions below. Program administration is expected to take 56 – 221 hours of staff time per year (approximately 7.5 to 29.5 days) across the Public Works Engineering Division staff.

Planning-level estimates were developed to illustrate the approximate City staff time associated with individual program tasks and different types of applications (Tables 1 and 2). Not every request will require every task. For example, all requests require intake and initial review, while only denied requests may result in appeals, and only approved spaces will require renewal or potential removal review in later years. The estimates exclude one-time City staff time needed to configure the online application, iMS tracking, and public-facing program materials.

Table 1: City Staff Time Estimates – Engineering Division & City Engineer Program Activity Estimated
Staff Time
Applies To Planning Assumption
Application intake and
completeness review

0.5 – 1 hour
per request
All applications
received
Approximately 21 requests
per year based on recent
historical average
Technical review and
field verification
3 – 6 hours per
eligible request
Requests that pass
initial screening
Includes desk review, field
measurements, checklist
659

September 22, 2026
Program Activity Estimated
Staff Time
Applies To Planning Assumption
completion, recommended
location, and Operations
work order
Appeal review 2 – 4 hours per
appeal
Denied requests that
are appealed
Includes review of original
application, field checklist,
and additional coordination
as needed
Renewal review 2 – 3 hours per
renewal
Approved spaces
beginning two years
after installation
Begins in program year 2;
actual volume depends on
number of approved spaces
Removal review, notice,
and work order
1 – 3 hours per
removal review
Spaces proposed for
removal
2 per year
Annual program
reporting
4 – 8 hours per
year
Annual program
reporting
Includes application
outcomes, processing times,
appeals, renewals,
removals, and active-space
map/database
Capital project
coordination/construction
management
5 – 7 hours per
location
Only locations requiring
additional ADA-related
capital improvements
Excludes design and
construction labor; applies
only when improvements are
advanced through other
programs
Table 2: Annual City Staff Time Estimates
Annual Workload
Scenario
Assumption Estimated Annual
Staff Time
(Hours/Days)
Base Program
administration
21 requests; intake for all; technical/field
review for eligible requests; annual
reporting
56 – 111 hours/7.5 – 15
days
With appeals and
removals
Base administration plus assumed
appeals and 2 removal requests
58 – 119* hours/8 – 16 days
Program with renewals Base administration, appeals, 2 removal requests, and renewals
84 – 158** hours/11 – 21
days
With capital coordination All tasks above, plus coordination for locations requiring ADA-related capital
improvements
124 – 221 hours/16.5 – 29.5
days
*Appeal workload will depend on the number of denials appealed and is estimated at 2-4 hours per appeal.
**Assumes all spaces approved in Program Year 1 will be renewed in 2 years. For example, if a space is approved in 2026, it is assumed that the same space will be renewed in 2028.

Planning-level capital cost estimates were developed to illustrate the types of improvements that may be associated with a new on-street accessible parking space (Table 3). Blue curb paint and on-street accessible parking signage are the only improvements anticipated for every approved space. Other improvements, such as curb 660

September 22, 2026
ramps, sidewalk repair, or roadway grading, will depend on site conditions and may be completed later through the City-wide Concrete Program, paving program, ADA Transition Plan implementation, or another capital improvement project. These estimates are not intended to represent an immediate commitment to complete all potential improvements at every location.

Table 3: Capital Cost Estimates Per New On-Street Accessible Parking Space Capital Cost Scenario Scope Estimated Cost Per
Location
Basic implementation Blue curb paint and onstreet accessible parking signage only
$3,500
Moderate accessibility
improvement
Blue curb paint/signage
plus curb ramp and/or
sidewalk repair
Approximately $22,350-
$38,550
Major accessibility
improvement
Blue curb paint/signage
plus curb ramp, sidewalk
repair, and roadway
grading
Up to $238,550
Source: Estimates are based on the 2026 Citywide Concrete Program Costs CONCLUSION:

The proposed On-Street Accessible Parking Program provides the City with a standardized, transparent, legally consistent framework for evaluating and installing blue curb spaces, replacing the existing process with documented criteria, defined departmental roles, and clear applicant communication at each step. City staff will return to the City Council for policy adoption and, if directed by the City Council, separate consideration of any application fee, appeal fee, fee waiver criteria, or fee reduction criteria following required notice and public hearing.

SYNERGISTIC POLICIES:

The On-Street Accessible Parking Program supports implementation of the City’s ADA Transition Plan by identifying locations where on-street accessible parking requests may also indicate a need for curb ramp, sidewalk, or path-of-travel improvements. The Policy is also designed to be coordinated with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan, Local Roadway Safety Plan, Curb Ramp Upgrade Program, Development Review, roadway and complete streets projects, and major maintenance projects when those efforts affect curbside conditions or on-street accessible parking needs.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Background Documents
Attachment 2 – On-Street Accessible Parking Program Policy Attachment 3 – On-Street Parking Program Technical Appendix 661

September 22, 2026
Attachment 4 – Blue Curb Fee Considerations
662
For the best experience, open this PDF portfolio in

Acrobat X or Adobe Reader X, or later.

Get Adobe Reader Now!
663
DocID #77310v2
DRAFT On-Street Accessible Parking
Program Policy
Contents
Policy Statement .............................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

DRAFT On-Street Accessible Parking Program Policy .............................................................. 1 Purpose and Intent....................................................................................................................................................2 Scope ....................................................................................................................................................................2 Authority ......................................................................................................................................................................2 Definitions ...................................................................................................................................................................2 Background and Policy Context ...........................................................................................................................3 Relationship to Other City Plans and Programs........................................................................................3 Program Overview ....................................................................................................................................................4 Application and Workflow Process.......................................................................................................................4 Step 1. Submission .............................................................................................................................................4 Step 2. Review ....................................................................................................................................................5 Step 3. Decision and Notification.................................................................................................................. 7 Step 4. Implementation.................................................................................................................................... 7 Step 5. Appeals Process .................................................................................................................................. 7 Step 6. Closeout.................................................................................................................................................8 Applicant Fee..............................................................................................................................................................9 Eligibility and Site Selection Criteria.............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Applicant Eligibility...................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Site Selection ................................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.

Design Standards ................................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.

Use, Enforcement, and Maintenance............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Use ................................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Enforcement.................................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Maintenance and Removal ........................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.

Administration, Data Tracking, and Reporting.................................................................................................10 Departmental Responsibilities ......................................................................................................................10 Data Tracking.....................................................................................................................................................10 Public Reporting................................................................................................................................................10 664
City of Richmond Draft On-Street Accessible Parking Program Policy | 2 DocID #77310v2
Purpose and Intent
The City of Richmond is committed to providing equitable, consistent, and ADA-compliant access to on-street parking for people with disabilities. This policy establishes a standardized, transparent process for evaluating and implementing on-street accessible parking spaces (commonly known as "blue curb" spaces) within the City's public right-of-way, consistent with the applicable City of Richmond General Plan and the City's ADA Transition Plan, and establishes clear roles for all responsible departments and a formal application workflow from submission through appeals.

Scope
This policy applies to all requests for on-street accessible parking spaces within the City of Richmond public right-of-way. It does not apply to off-street parking facilities, parking within private developments, or parking within state or federal right-of-way.

Authority
This policy is adopted pursuant to California Vehicle Code Section 22511.7, 1 which authorizes a local
authority, by ordinance or resolution, to designate on-street parking spaces for the exclusive use of vehicles displaying a valid Disabled Parking Credential or disability license plate, and Section 22511.8, 2 which establishes the process by which local agencies respond to individual requests for such designations. Nothing in this policy shall be construed to limit the City's authority under applicable federal or state law, including the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and United States Access Board's Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG). 3 Definitions
Definitions are as follows for key elements of this policy:
 Access Aisle means the marked area adjacent to an accessible parking space that provides sufficient clearance for a person using a wheelchair, scooter, or other mobility device to enter or exit a vehicle. Access aisle dimensions shall conform to applicable ADA and PROWAG standards.
 Applicant means any individual who submits an application requesting an on-street accessible parking space under this program. Submission of an application does not create an entitlement to installation of a space at any particular location.  Block Face means one side of a city block, bounded by two consecutive intersections along a single street.
 Block Perimeter means the four continuous block faces of a city block that a pedestrian can traverse without needing to cross a street. The block perimeter is the unit of evaluation used

1 Cal. Veh. Code § 22511.7 (West 2024),
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&sectionNum=22511.7 2 Cal. Veh. Code § 22511.8 (West 2024),
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&sectionNum=22511.8 3 USDOT Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) (2011), R306.2: Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) | FHWA
665
City of Richmond Draft On-Street Accessible Parking Program Policy | 3 DocID #77310v2
by the City to identify the most appropriate and feasible location for an accessible parking space in response to a given request.
 Blue Curb Space — informal term for an On-Street Accessible Parking Space; the two terms are used interchangeably in this policy and in public-facing materials.  Curb Ramp means an ADA-compliant sloped transition element connecting a sidewalk or pedestrian pathway to the roadway surface, providing a continuous accessible path of travel between an on-street parking space and the adjacent pedestrian network.  Denial means a formal determination by the City that a request does not meet the criteria for installation of an on-street accessible parking space at any location within the evaluated block perimeter. A denial triggers the applicant's right to appeal.  Disabled Parking Credential means a valid California DMV-issued parking placard or license plate issued to a person with a disability, as defined under California Vehicle Code Section 22511.5 et seq.
 IMS (Infrastructure Management System) means the City's centralized tracking system used to log, manage, and report on requests submitted under this program, from initial submission through closeout. References in this policy to the "tracking system" or "centralized tracking system" mean the IMS.
 On-Street Accessible Parking Space means a designated parking space located within the public right-of-way that is marked with blue curb paint and appropriate signage, reserved for the use of individuals displaying a valid Disabled Parking Credential. Such spaces are not exclusively reserved for any individual applicant.
 Path of Travel means the continuous, unobstructed accessible route connecting an on-street accessible parking space to the sidewalk and adjacent destinations, consistent with ADA and PROWAG requirements.
 Program means the City of Richmond On-Street Accessible Parking Program established by this policy.
 PROWAG means the United States Access Board's Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines, which establish accessibility standards applicable to pedestrian facilities in the public right-of-way, including on-street parking.

Background and Policy Context
This policy establishes a structured program that evaluates accessibility needs at the block-perimeter level, applies documented criteria to all requests, and supports ongoing coordination across City departments.

Relationship to Other City Plans and Programs
This policy shall be implemented in coordination with the following existing City plans and programs:
 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan: Any updates or changes to the ADA Transition Plan shall be reviewed for consistency with this policy.  Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan (BPAP): Corridor projects that modify roadway conditions relevant to accessible parking requests shall be communicated to Engineering staff administering this program.
666
City of Richmond Draft On-Street Accessible Parking Program Policy | 4 DocID #77310v2
 Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP): Recommendations affecting on-street parking supply shall be considered in the context of accessible parking siting decisions.  Curb Ramp Upgrade Program: Staff coordinating curb ramp installations shall consult with Engineering to identify any related accessible parking implications.  Development Review: The City will proactively evaluate the need for accessible parking in conjunction with new development, roadway and complete streets projects and major maintenance projects, consistent with ADA and PROWAG standards.

Program Overview
The City of Richmond Public Works Department administers the On-Street Accessible Parking Program. The program is request-initiated: the Applicant applies by identifying a location where an on-street accessible parking space is needed. Each request triggers an evaluation of the full block perimeter to identify the most appropriate and feasible location, which may or may not be in the exact location requested.

The program applies a documented, objective evaluation framework to all requests. Decisions are informed by block-level context, long-term accessibility needs, and citywide curbside conditions.

The location and number of accessible parking spaces will balance accessibility needs with broader curbside demands, including general parking, loading, safety improvements, and multimodal uses.

Use
On-street accessible parking spaces installed under this program are available to any member of the public holding a valid California Disabled Parking Credential. Spaces are not exclusively reserved for the Applicant or any individual and may not be treated as private parking. The City shall communicate this clearly to applicants at the time of notification.

Enforcement
Accessible parking spaces installed under this program shall be enforced in accordance with Richmond Municipal Code Chapter 14.464 and applicable provisions of the California Vehicle Code.

Application and Workflow Process
The program follows a seven-step workflow. All phases are tracked in the City's centralized request tracking system called Infrastructure Management System (IMS). Each step has a designated responsible department, as described below.

Step 1. Submission & Applicant Eligibility
To be eligible to submit an application, an individual must:

4 City of Richmond Code of Ordinances, 14.46 – City Parking Regulations, https://library.municode.com/ca/richmond/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=ARTXIVTR_CH14.46CIPARE 667
City of Richmond Draft On-Street Accessible Parking Program Policy | 5 DocID #77310v2

1. Demonstrate a lack of accessible off-street parking at or immediately adjacent to residence or primary destination.

2. Be a City of Richmond resident or regularly use the requested location as a primary destination.

Submission of an application does not guarantee installation of a space at the requested location.

Eligible applicants will have their request evaluated under the criteria described in the Application and Workflow Process.

Requests for on-street accessible parking shall be submitted through the City's online submission portal. Walk-in or mailed submissions will be directed to the portal by City staff. Hard copies will be available for community members who are unable to submit electronically. Upon submission:

1. The request is automatically logged into the centralized IMS tracking system. Engineering Division staff logs hard copy requests into the IMS.

2. The Engineering Division receives an automated notification.

3. The Applicant receives an acknowledgment of receipt with an estimated review timeline of 14 days.

No application fee shall be collected unless and until the City Council adopts a separate fee resolution following required notice and public hearing. If an application fee is later adopted, any fee requirement shall be administered in accordance with that resolution. Required documentation at submission includes:
 Requested parking location (address or nearest intersection).  Applicant's residence address, if different from the requested location.  Government-issued photo identification.
 Valid Disabled Parking Credential (placard or license plate) issued by the California DMV.

Temporary placards are not eligible.
 Description of functional accessibility need (e.g., mobility device used, required space type).

This information is used solely to determine the appropriate parking configuration and is not used to determine disability status.
 Contact information (email required for notifications).  Signature of property owner if the applicant is a renter.  [IF A FEE IS ADOPTED BY SEPARATE CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION: Proof of payment of the adopted application fee, unless waived or reduced pursuant to adopted fee waiver or reduction criteria.]
Step 2. Review & Site Selection
The Engineering Division of Public Works is responsible for evaluating each request using a standardized evaluation framework. Only complete submissions will be evaluated.

Evaluation criteria include, but are not limited to:
668
City of Richmond Draft On-Street Accessible Parking Program Policy | 6 DocID #77310v2

1. Availability of ADA-compliant curb ramps and access aisles at the requested location.

2. Lack of off-street accessible parking (e.g. driveway, garage, shared parking lot) available to the Applicant.

3. Existing on-street accessible parking on the block face.

4. Proximity to special-use destinations (hospitals, clinics, community facilities).

5. Existing curbside obstructions (fire hydrants, utility poles, planters, driveways).

6. Whether the required access aisle would encroach into the vehicular travel lane, if applicable.

7. Consistency with applicable ADA and PROWAG dimensional standards.

The review proceeds in three stages:

1. Initial In-Office Review. The Engineering Division reviews the request using a standardized site assessment checklist, virtual street review (i.e., referencing Google StreetView or similar), GIS data, and other available sources. The evaluation considers the full block perimeter and documents preliminary findings in the IMS tracking system.

2. Field Verification. One staff member will visit the site to measure curb ramps for ADA compliance and confirm that the candidate space meets required dimensions and is free of obstructions. A standard field checklist and assessment form will be used to facilitate a consistent approach to field verification (refer to Attachment A – Field Checklist and Attachment B – Site Assessment Example). Field findings are documented in the tracking system.

3. Determination. The Engineering Division summarizes the draft determination and shares it with the Operations Division to discuss before finalizing.

Site Selection
Site selection is guided by the block-perimeter evaluation approach. The City will identify the location within the block perimeter that best satisfies ADA requirements, physical feasibility, and overall accessibility benefit. This location may not be directly in front of the Applicant's residence.

Decisions are not made on a first-come, first-served basis. Instead, the City applies standardized, objective criteria consistently across all requests to ensure equitable and ADA-compliant outcomes.

Design Standards
All on-street accessible parking spaces installed under this program shall conform to current ADA Standards for Accessible Design and PROWAG requirements to the maximum extent feasible given existing roadway and curbside conditions. Design elements include:

1. Minimum space dimensions per ADA/PROWAG standards, including required access aisle width, if applicable.

2. Confirmed ADA-compliant curb ramp(s) providing a continuous accessible path of travel from the parking space to the adjacent sidewalk.

3. Blue curb paint marking and approved accessible parking signage per California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) standards.

4. Clearance from fire hydrants, driveways, intersections, and other obstructions per applicable standards.
669
City of Richmond Draft On-Street Accessible Parking Program Policy | 7 DocID #77310v2
Where full ADA compliance cannot be achieved due to existing physical constraints, the Engineering Division shall document the constraint and, where feasible, identify an alternative location within the block perimeter that meets standards.

Step 3. Decision and Notification
Upon completing the review, the Engineering Division makes a final determination for approval or denial and updates the tracking system accordingly:
 Approval: The request is transferred to the Operations Division through the IMS tracking system. The Applicant is notified of preliminary approval with a description of the final determination and transfer of the application to the Operations Division.. If the request for onstreet accessible parking is approved, staff will draft and mail a letter to all residents on the block to inform them of the installation.
 Denial: The Applicant is notified in writing with the specific reason(s) for denial and information regarding the appeals process, which involves City Engineer review. No appeal fee shall be collected unless and until the City Council adopts a separate fee resolution authorizing an appeal fee following required notice and public hearing.

For approved requests, the Engineering Division shall follow up with the Operations Division within 30 days of transfer if the tracking system has not been updated to confirm scheduling.

Step 4. Implementation
Upon receiving an approved request, the Engineering Division generates a work order to the Operations Division. The Operations Division will provide scheduling details for field installation and update the work order in the tracking system. The Applicant is notified of the potential installation date.

Possible outcomes of the implementation phase include:
 Completed: Installation is carried out as scheduled according to the City's standard detail (see Attachment C – On-Street Detail); the work order is marked "Complete" and the IMS tracking system is updated.
 Delayed: If field review and potential implementation is delayed due to staff availability, inclement weather or other issue, the Applicant is notified with a revised schedule.  Denied Due to Field Constraints: If unforeseen field conditions prevent installation (e.g., utility conflicts, substandard pavement, sidewalk obstructions), the constraint is documented in the IMS tracking system, the evaluation checklist is updated for future reference, and the Applicant is notified. The request may be eligible for appeal with details shown below.

Step 5. Appeals Process
An Applicant whose application was denied may submit a written appeal within 60 calendar days of the denial notice. No appeal fee shall be required unless and until the City Council adopts a separate fee resolution authorizing an appeal fee following required notice and public hearing. The appeal must state the reason(s) the Applicant believes the denial should be reconsidered. Appeals will reopen the request in the IMS tracking system for re-evaluation. 670
City of Richmond Draft On-Street Accessible Parking Program Policy | 8 DocID #77310v2
The City Engineer will review the appeal considering the appeal request and the following factors:
 Recently installed curb ramp or sidewalk infrastructure that may not have been reflected in the original review.
 An expanded study area of up to two additional blocks beyond the original block perimeter.  Updated on-street parking restrictions or curbside conditions in the vicinity.

Following re-evaluation, the City Engineer will issue a written decision either upholding or overruling the denial. A decision overruling the denial will return the application to Step 4. Implementation. A final decision upholding the denial closes the application. The Applicant is notified of the final decision in writing, including the reason for the decision. The decision is final and not appealable.

Step 6. Closeout
Once implementation is complete and the eligible appeals timeline has run its course or an appeal has been closed, the Operations Division updates the tracking system with the final status and the Applicant receives a final notification confirming completion and providing relevant information about the installed space. The request is then closed in the system for two years when renewal is required.

Step 7. Renewal, Maintenance and Removal
Renewal
This section applies to on-street accessible parking spaces installed following adoption of this policy.

Existing on-street accessible parking spaces installed before adoption of this policy will be reevaluated over time.

Renewal of the need for the on-street accessible parking space is required every two years, which corresponds with the permanent placard for people with a long-term or permanent disability that limits mobility. This placard is generally valid for two years and is automatically renewed by the DMV for most holders. The applicant will be sent a notification requiring them to respond for renewal. For applicants who do not respond, the Engineering Division will contact the applicant to confirm the continued need for the on-street accessible parking space. If the on-street accessible parking space is no longer needed then the Operations Division will remove the blue curb and associated sign.

Maintenance and Removal
The City shall maintain installed accessible parking spaces, including markings and signage, as part of routine right-of-way maintenance. The need for each space is subject to periodic review. A space may be removed or relocated under the following circumstances:

1. The space no longer meets ADA standards due to changes in adjacent infrastructure.

2. The space conflicts with an approved capital project, safety improvement, or other Cityinitiated right-of-way change.

3. Field conditions have changed such that the space is no longer feasible or beneficial.

4. The demonstrated need that supported approval no longer exists (e.g., the original Applicant no longer resides at or regularly uses the location), and removal has been requested by an 671
City of Richmond Draft On-Street Accessible Parking Program Policy | 9 DocID #77310v2
adjacent resident in writing using a form to be published on the program webpage. In this instance, the original Applicant is contacted to determine if the space is still being used.

Prior to removal, notification will be sent to all residents on the block perimeter of the on-street accessible parking space and posted at the space itself. A 14-day appeal period for the determination will follow. If determined to be active or currently being used by others, the party that initiated the request for removal will be notified and the accessible parking space will remain in place. If determined to not be in use, the application will be approved and curb markings will be removed. The outcome of this process will be updated in the centralized tracking system.

In case of emergency utility work, roadway reconstruction, or some other identified public safety need, immediate removal or relocation of the space may occur without complete notification process.

Applicant Fee
The City may consider establishing a fee in the future to partially offset administrative costs associated with processing on-street accessible parking applications, including staff review time, field verification, and system tracking. No fee shall apply unless and until adopted by separate City Council resolution following required notice and public hearing.

Any such fee shall be established only by separate resolution of the City Council following notice and public hearing consistent with California Government Code Section 66016. 5 If the City Council adopts a fee by separate resolution, the following principles shall guide fee administration:

1. The fee, if established, shall be due at the time specified in that resolution and shall be nonrefundable, except where the City initiates a denial prior to completing any site review or as otherwise provided in the adopted fee resolution.

2. IF AUTHORIZED BY THE FEE RESOLUTION: The Director of Public Works shall establish criteria and procedures for fee waivers or reductions for qualifying applicants, which shall be published on the program webpage.

3. Any adopted fee amount shall be reviewed periodically and adjusted as needed to reflect actual program costs, subject to City Council approval.

While many peer cities do not charge for on-street accessible parking requests, the City may evaluate whether a fee is appropriate to offset a portion of staff time, field verification, system tracking, and implementation costs. Any proposed fee amount, fee waiver or reduction process, and effective date shall be presented to the City Council for separate consideration and shall not take effect unless adopted by City Council resolution following required notice and public hearing.

5 Cal. Gov't Code § 66016 (West 2024),
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=66016 672
City of Richmond Draft On-Street Accessible Parking Program Policy | 10 DocID #77310v2
Administration, Data Tracking, and Reporting
Departmental Responsibilities
Program administration is shared across the IT Department and two divisions of the Public Works Department:
 IT Department: Manages the online submission portal and centralized IMS tracking system; ensures system capacity for application logging, work order tracking, and status updates.  Engineering Division of the Public Works Department: Conducts all site reviews and makes approval/denial determinations; maintains the standardized evaluation checklist and coordinates with other City programs, as required.
 Operations Division of the Public Works Department: Discusses draft determinations and appeals; executes approved installations; closes out completed or denied requests in the tracking system.
 City Engineer: Manages the appeals process.

Data Tracking
All requests shall be logged and tracked in the City's centralized IMS system from submission through closeout or final denial and for the renewal/maintenance/removal phase. The tracking system shall capture, at minimum: submission date, applicant contact information, requested location, review findings, decision and date, installation date (if applicable), and final status.

Records containing personally identifying information shall be retained and managed in accordance with the City's records retention schedule and applicable privacy requirements.

Public Reporting
The City will publicly document and report on program activity to support accountability and transparency. An annual program report shall be published with other Public Works reporting, and include, at minimum:

1. Total applications received, approved, denied, renewed and withdrawn.

2. Average processing time from submission to decision and from approval to installation.

3. Number of appeals filed and outcomes.

4. A map or database of all active on-street accessible parking spaces citywide.

The annual report shall be made available on the City's program webpage and provided to the City Council.

Attachment A. Field Checklist
Attachment B. Site Assessment Example
Attachment C. On-Street Detail
673
Technical Appendix
On- Street Accessible Parking Policy
Program Walkthrough
On- Street Accessible Parking Policy | 674
|
Time
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
Step 6
Step 7
After
Ongoing
How a Request Moves Through the City
2 Improvements
addressed via ADA
Transition Plan
Not Appealed
Appealed – Overturned
Appeal Window Appeal Process
Application
Review
Decision/Notification
Implementation
Appealed – Not Overturned
Future
Improvements
On- Street Accessible Parking Policy
Closeout
Maintenance*
Administration & Reporting
675
|
Lead Department Step - by- Step
Team // Step
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ongoing Ongoing
Application Review Decision &
Notification Imp. Appeals
Process Closeout
Renewal,
Maintenance,
Removal
Program
Reporting,
Updates, etc.

IMS
Maintenance
PW Transportation
Planning
PW Engineering L L L L L L L
PW Operations L*
IT L
ADA Coordinator L
L = Lead / Owner
* = Maintenance Only
On- Street Accessible Parking Policy 676
|
Principles That Shape the Program
Centers dignity and access
Ensures safe, dignified street
access for people with
disabilities
Treats on-street accessible
parking as a core City
responsibility, not a case - bycase favor
Shared City ownership
Assigns clear roles across
City departments
Gives every step an
accountable owner, from
request through
maintenance
Public spaces, not private
Keeps designated spaces
open to anyone with a valid
CA disabled placard or plate
Does not reserve a space for
the applicant alone
On- Street Accessible Parking Policy 677
|
What should Applicants expect?
Key elements to highlight
• The policy applies to residential and
commercial areas
• Availability of off-street parking
(exempts a location)
• If a space is installed, it is NOT private;
anyone with a valid disabled - parking
credential may use it
• Field constraints may place the space
somewhere other than the preferred spot
• Application does not guarantee
installation
• State this upfront in the policy and
repeat it in public FAQs and
application
• Give staff an internal FAQ for
recurring questions and/or issues
On- Street Accessible Parking Policy 678
|
What do Applicants need to provide?
Required Applicant Documentation
• Requested parking location
• Applicant's residence address
• Government- issued photo identification
• Valid Disabled Person Parking Credential
(placard or license plate) issued by the
California DMV
• Description of functional accessibility
need
• Contact information
• Fee
Step
On- Street Accessible Parking Policy 679
|
Should the City collect application fees?
Yes
• A fee can deter some
users from submitting
numerous less- thansincere applications
• A fee can help cover
program expenses and
staff time
No
• Charging for a disability
accommodation may
raise equity questions
• Requiring applicants
submit a parking
credential may sufficiently
deter less- than-sincere
applications
Peer City Precedent
• Most Bay Area cities
charge nothing (Berkeley,
SF, Oakland, Emeryville,
Pacifica)
• Existing fees vary:
• San Mateo: $20 5
application
• Artesia: $99 + $4 0 /yr
• Albany: $356 install
On- Street Accessible Parking Policy 680
|
Recommended Fee
On- Street Accessible Parking Policy
Scenario Service Scope Recommended
Range Benchmark Basis Equity Consideration
Application
Intake Only
Administrative
review of
application; no
field visit; eligibility
check only
$50 – $69*
Consistent with
low end of City’s
existing fees
Most accessible
option;
recommended if
equity is a priority
Application &
Brief Field
Verification
Administrative
review plus one
site visit to confirm
eligibility and
space suitability
$69 – $90
Upper end aligns
with Residential
Rental Inspection
Program fee for
single - address site
visits
Moderate;
comparable to fee
for effort requiring
a site visit
*$69 is also the recommended amount for an appeal application. 681
|
How is the application reviewed?
In- Office ‘Desktop’ Review
• Standard checklist
• Virtual reference (e.g., Google
StreetView or similar)
• Additional City data (e.g., GIS map,
application database, etc.)
Field Verification
• 1 staff member visits site
• Uses form to confirm candidate site
meets requirements
• Dimensions
• Free of debris
Step
On- Street Accessible Parking Policy 682
|
Field Review Tools
Standard Checklist Measurement Guidance Prescribed Notetaking Step
On- Street Accessible Parking Policy 683
|
Example D
Closest possible space:

On- Street Accessible Parking Policy
Real World
Example
Developing
Personal Resource
Center
684
|
ADA- compliant curb ramp
near potential space:

On- Street Accessible Parking Policy
Real World
Example
685
|
Real World
Example
One of several existing
spaces in the vicinity:

On- Street Accessible Parking Policy 686
|
No feasible spaces are
identified because multiple
power poles obstruct corner
access
Are there options?
On- Street Accessible Parking Policy
Real World
Example
687
|
When a Fully Accessible Space is Not Feasible
Document Conditions
• Fully accessible space
not feasible here without
a new curb ramp or other
infrastructure
• Paint and signage alone
designate the space but
don’t make it accessible
Align Action with Need
• Application specifies the
applicant’s accessibility
needs that the space
must meet
• Paint- and- signage- only
may be appropriate for
some cases, not others
• Not recommended
where applicant
requires a wheelchairaccessible connection
from the parking space
to the sidewalk
On- Street Accessible Parking Policy
Follow Through
• If the space is designated
before improvements are
built to make the space
fully accessible, the City
should document a
workflow to track
improvements to the
location through the ADA
Transition Plan or another
formal process
688
|
Operations conducts further fieldwork and
proceeds to implementation, as appropriate:

Feasible - Completed
Feasible - Delayed
Denied Due to Field Constraints
How does implementation proceed?
Preliminary Determination
Engineering issues decision based on field
review:

Approved
Denied
Final Determination & Implementation
Step +
Eligible for appeal
On- Street Accessible Parking Policy 689
|
Design to be incorporated
into City’s Standard details
for consistent application of
on-street accessible
parking spaces
On- Street Accessible Parking Policy
Implementation
Facilitated by
Standard Detail
690
|
How does one appeal a denial?
Requirements
• Applicant may submit written appeal
within the allotted timeframe
• City Engineer considers
• Recently installed curb ramp or sidewalk
infrastructure
• Expanded study area of up to two
additional blocks beyond the original
block perimeter
• Updated on-street parking restrictions
or curbside conditions
Step
On- Street Accessible Parking Policy 691
|
Continues to Implementation
Closed, no further administrative
recourse
Operations issues final decision:

Overturned (i.e., Approved)
Upheld (i.e., Denied)
What are the outcomes of an appeal?
Appeal Determination
Step
On- Street Accessible Parking Policy 692
|
How does the process conclude?
Document findings and outcomes
• Operations updates tracking system
• Final status
• Request is closed
• Applicant receives final notification
Step
Reporting of program activity
anticipated annually:

1. Basic application inventory stats

2. Average processing time

3. Appeals filed and outcomes

4. Map or database of all active on -
street accessible parking spaces
citywide
On- Street Accessible Parking Policy 693
|
What ongoing management is required?
Maintenance, Renewal & Removal
• Biannual renewal required, aligned with
DMV placard cycle
• Maintenance occurs via existing ROW
maintenance process
• City staff may identify a space for
removal
• New applicant may request removal Notice/Appeal Period:
• Neighbors within 50 0 feet are notified
• Notice is posted at existing space
On- Street Accessible Parking Policy 694
|
What is the relationship to ADA Transition Plan?
ADA Improvement Hand - off
• Requests identify priority locations where
accessible parking demand exists
• Program inventory feeds into the ADA
Transition Plan
• If a requested location lacks a compliant
curb ramp or accessible route, that gap
gets flagged as a barrier to remediate
• Note: This relationship between parking
and the need for curb ramps is not yet
included in the draft plan.

On- Street Accessible Parking Policy 695
Scenario Service Scope Recommended
Range Benchmark Basis Equity Consideration
Application Intake Only
Administrative review of
application; no field visit; eligibility
check only
$50 – $69*
Consistent with
$69 zoning
clearance cluster
(~15–30 min staff
time)
Most accessible option;
recommended if equity is a priority
Application + Brief Field
Verification
Administrative review plus one
site visit to confirm eligibility and
space suitability
$69 – $90
Upper end reflects
RRIP re-inspection
fee ($90) for singleaddress site visits
Moderate; comparable to standard
residential permit review
*The recommended fee for an appeal is also $69.

Internal Analysis | March 2026
City of Richmond — Recommended Fee Scenarios for Accessible Parking Application 696
Fee Name FY 2025/26 Fee Prev. Fee Dept / Section Fee Type Why Comparable Notes Residential Fence
(4 ft or less —
Front)
$69 $67 Planning Flat (F)
Simple residential zoning
clearance; minimal staff
review
~30 min staff time
at $280/hr rate
Business License
– Zoning
Clearance / Home
$69 $67 Planning Flat (F) One-step administrative
review and issuance
Same $69 cluster
as fence/sign
Sign – Change of
Copy $69 $67 Planning Flat (F)
Minor change to public-facing
infrastructure; admin-only
review
No field
component
required
Oversized/Overw
eight Load Permit $16 $16 Engineering /
Transportation Flat (F)
Single-trip permit; ~3 business
day processing; no field
inspection
Likely floor for
admin-only
permits
RRIP ReInspection Fee
(Rental Units)
$90 $87 Building
Regulations Flat (F) Single field visit to one residential address Closest to a fieldverification
scenario
Off-Site Plan / File
Retrieval $65 $63 Planning Flat (F) Pure administrative time; no field component
Lower bound
reference
Residential Rental
Unit Registration
Fee
$106 $102 Building
Regulations Flat (F)
Administrative registration per
address; just above $100
threshold
Slightly over
target range
Planning Division
Hourly Rate / Plan
Check Review
$280/hr $270/hr Planning Hourly
Basis for calculating cost of
~15–30 min administrative
review
Use for full cost
recovery calc
Admin / Clerical
(Building) $192/hr $187/hr Building
Regulations Hourly Lower hourly rate if clerical intake only Engineering rate
not published in
reviewed pages
FOR REFERENCE — STAFF HOURLY RATES
City of Richmond — Accessible Parking Application Fee: Comparable Fees (FY 2025/26) Analysis: March 2026 Source: City of Richmond Master Fee Schedule, Adopted June 2025. Available at ci.richmond.ca.us/2503/Master-Fee-Schedule NEARBY — SLIGHTLY ABOVE $100 THRESHOLD
BEST COMPARABLES — UNDER $100 FLAT FEE
697
Neighboring
City
Fee associated
with blue curb
parking space
requests?
Fee Amount
(if any) Fee Type (if any) Notes
Lafayette Not stated City has a traffic calming request program, not explicitly related to blue curb request.

San Leandro Not stated City has a traffic calming request program, not explicitly related to blue curb request.

Artesia Yes $99 + $40
annually
Installation + annual
maintenance Fee only applicable if request is granted.

Albany Yes $356 Installation/repainting If approved, residents need to pay for cost of blue curb, sign, and logo per City Master Fee Schedule.

San Mateo Yes $205 Application/review fee
One-time application fee of $205
Berkeley No Also offers free parking at city-owned garages ($15 application fee) San Francisco No Non-refundable fees apply to white/green/driveway red requests, not blue zones.

Emeryville No
Oakland No
Pacifica No
Some cities don’t charge an application fee but may:

Require proof of disability (DMV placard)
Install only if criteria met
Prioritize based on need / location constraints
Most cities do NOT charge fees for ADA/blue curb requests Fees are more common for:

Red/white/loading zones
Metered parking changes
698
Source Source2
Parking | City of Lafayette, CA
Transportation | San Leandro, CA
24---ATTACH
Request for Blue Curb https://www.albanyca.gov/files/content/city/v/8/departments/finance/master-fee-schedule/fy26-masterfee-schedule.pdf https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/DocumentCenter/Vie
w/89621/Application---Residential-On-StreetAccessible-Parking-Spaces https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/R
equest-for-Blue-Zone-Parking-Form.pdf
Color Curb Application https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Monthly%20Parking%20Application%20For%20Disable d%20-%20All%20Garages.pdf
ada-blue-disabled-parking-zoneapplication_201908221707184862.pdf https://www.oaklandca.gov/files/assets/city/v/1/transp
ortation/documents/parking-amp-vehicles/accessibleparking/residential-disabled-parking-zone-applicationform.pdf https://www.cityofpacifica.org/home/showpublisheddo
cument/15173/638709084400570000
699

September 22, 2026
City Council
DATE: September 22, 2026
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM: Vice Mayor Doria Robinson
Subject: Presentation on the Proposed Veterans Housing Project at 338 Carlson Boulevard
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no direct fiscal impact associated with receiving this presentation.

Any future request for City financial assistance,
affordable housing funds, grants, loans, bonds, fee
reductions, infrastructure commitments, or other public resources would return to the appropriate City body for consideration and approval.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
● June 23, 2026 - Contract Amendment No. 2 with Just
Cities, LLC for completion of the Housing Equity
Roadmap as specified in the Housing Element
● June 16, 2026 - Joint session between City Council
and Richmond Housing Authority to propose budget
for fiscal year 2026-2027, and Cost Allocation Plan
Approvals
● May 26, 2026 - General Plan and Zoning Text
Amendments Related to 6th Cycle Housing Element
Program Implementation
● Jan 24, 2023 - 6th Cycle Housing Element adopted
● Jan 9, 2023 - 6th Cycle Housing Element
implemented (2023-2031)
● May 2015 - Housing Element adopted, covered the
5th Cycle planning period (2015-2023)
AGENDA
REPORT
700

September 22, 2026

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

Richmond's Housing Element establishes an important
commitment to increasing housing production and
expanding the availability of housing affordable to
residents across income levels. Meeting those goals will require the City to actively understand and evaluate
significant housing proposals and identify opportunities to support projects that can help address Richmond's
housing needs.

The proposed Veterans Housing Project at 338 Carlson
Boulevard could add 268 new homes while creating
housing opportunities for veterans and incorporating
commercial, workforce-development, and communityserving uses in South Richmond.

A public presentation will allow the City Council and
Richmond community to better understand the project's
affordability, veteran-serving components, financing,
community benefits, current status, and development
timeline, as well as how the project could contribute
toward implementation of the City's Housing Element and Richmond's broader affordable housing goals.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: RECEIVE a presentation from the Veterans Resource Program (VRP) regarding the proposed Veterans
Housing Project at 338 Carlson Boulevard in South
Richmond, including the project's proposed housing,
affordability, veteran eligibility and services, commercial and workforce-development components, community
benefits, financing, community engagement, entitlement
and permitting status, and anticipated development
timeline - Vice Mayor Doria Robinson (510-620-6568).

DISCUSSION:

The Veterans Resource Program (VRP), in partnership with Eagle Environmental Construction Development (EECD), is proposing a significant mixed-use housing development on an approximately 2.3-acre property at 338 Carlson Boulevard in South Richmond.

VRP acquired the Carlson Boulevard property in 2018. The site is located near public transportation, freeway access, commercial businesses, and other community amenities. The project team describes the site as zoned for commercial mixed-use development, allowing for both residential and commercial uses.

The proposed development represents a potentially significant opportunity to create new housing in Richmond, including housing intended to serve veterans, while also 701

September 22, 2026
bringing new commercial activity, workforce-development opportunities, and community-serving uses to South Richmond.

The project is being spearheaded by the Veterans Resource Program, a Richmondbased nonprofit organization founded in 2011. VRP's stated mission includes providing veterans with housing and a continuum of services and resources tailored to their individual needs.

PROPOSED PROJECT
Based on currently available information, the proposed development is anticipated to include:
● 226 residential apartments, including:
● 162 one-bedroom units of approximately 500 square feet; ● 36 two-bedroom units of approximately 700 square feet; and ● 18 three-bedroom units of approximately 1,000 square feet. ● 10 studio units
● Three four-story residential buildings constructed over a concrete podium. ● Approximately 40,000 square feet of commercial and retail space. ● Approximately 200 parking spaces.
● An entrepreneurial training and job-development component intended to provide economic and workforce opportunities for veterans.
● Community-serving and mixed-use elements intended to create a development that combines housing with economic opportunity, employment, and access to services.

RICHMOND HOUSING ELEMENT AND NEED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING The City of Richmond's adopted Housing Element establishes the City's framework for meeting the housing needs of Richmond residents and accommodating the City's share of regional housing needs. A central objective of the Housing Element is to facilitate the production and preservation of housing at a range of affordability levels, with particular attention to the needs of lower-income households and populations that face barriers to obtaining stable housing.

Like communities throughout the Bay Area, Richmond continues to face significant housing affordability challenges. Rising housing costs place pressure on working families, seniors, veterans, people with disabilities, and residents with low and moderate incomes. Increasing the supply of affordable housing is therefore critical to maintaining Richmond as a diverse and inclusive community and preventing the displacement of existing residents.

Richmond's Housing Element identifies the need for substantial new housing production during the current planning period, including housing affordable to very-low-, low-, and moderate-income households. Meeting these goals will require the City to support and 702

September 22, 2026
facilitate housing development at a variety of scales and to identify opportunities to transform appropriately located and underutilized properties into housing.

The proposed development at 338 Carlson Boulevard could contribute toward these broader housing goals by adding 268 new residential units on a mixed-use site with access to transportation and existing community amenities.

The project's focus on veterans is also significant. Veterans can face unique challenges in securing and maintaining stable housing, particularly veterans living on fixed or limited incomes, veterans with disabilities, and veterans experiencing or at risk of homelessness. Developing affordable housing connected to supportive services, employment opportunities, and community resources can help address these needs while advancing Richmond's broader housing objectives.

A presentation will allow the City Council to better understand the project's proposed affordability structure and determine how the development could contribute toward the City's Housing Element goals and affordable housing needs.

Receiving a presentation from the Veterans Resource Program (VRP) regarding the proposed Veterans Housing Project at 338 Carlson Boulevard in South Richmond, including the project's proposed housing, affordability, veteran eligibility and services, commercial and workforce-development components, community benefits, financing, community engagement, entitlement and permitting status, and anticipated development timeline; will allow the Council to better understand the project's proposed affordability structure and determine how the development could contribute toward the City's Housing Element goals and affordable housing needs.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 — Veterans Housing Project Presentation
703
Veterans Mixed Use
Affordable Housing
Community

1. 2. Project Summary & Budget

3. Presented by: Veterans Housing Program (VRP) & Eagle Environmental Construction & Development (EEC+D)
704
About VRP
501(c)(3) nonprofit based
in Richmond
Serves homeless, formerly
incarcerated, and
transitioning veterans
Provides housing, benefits
assistance, and education
support
705
Founded in 2011
inspired by a
Korean War veteran
2015: Met with City
Manager Bill
Lindsey to discuss
veterans housing
Vision for Carlson
site and 'aged out'
campus concept
City leaders and
stakeholders
engaged
Initial setback: land
not owned by city
and contamination
issues
Dec 14, 2018: VRP
successfully
acquired the
Carlson site
706
Programs &
Services
• Housing assistance
• Food and clothing programs
• Education and job training
• Health and wellness initiatives
• Community engagement activities
707
Need for Veteran Housing
• High rates of veteran homelessness
• Mental health and PTSD challenges
• Physical disabilities requiring accessible housing
• Employment and income instability
708
Community
Impact
• Reduces homelessness
• Improves public health
• Strengthens families
• Creates economic
opportunities
709
Project Overview
• Project Title:
• Veterans Mixed Use Affordable Housing
Community
• Location:
• 338 Carlson Blvd., Richmond, CA 94804
• Description:
• 254-unit Veterans Luxury Residential
Community
• Supportive services for veterans
• Integration into community activities
• Zoned for commercial mixed-use
• Promotes affordable and Veteran
housing goals
710
Project
Development
Team

1. Eagle Environmental Construction & Development (EEC+D)

1. Ronald Batiste Lead, 25 Years General Engineering, Construction & Development Experience, CSLB #114853

2. Kodama Diseno, Architects & Planners

1. Steve Kodama Lead Architect,

2. Over 40 Years in business

3. Central States Capital Markets

4. Rob Crotty, Senior Vice President

5. Lead Project Finance Director 711
Project
Justification
Remediation Efforts:
• Lead and contaminant removal to non-detect
levels
• Health and safety focus for veterans
• Features:
• Smart technology: Internet connectivity,
lighting, security
• Sustainable construction with LEED-certified
materials
• Compute, battery storage and Cross connect
technology in parking dec
• Additional Services:
• Entrepreneurial Training and Job Center
• Partnerships with industry and local colleges 712
Project Objectives
Complete project within 18 months
Remediate lead contaminated site in alignment with EPA residential standard Maintain budget with 5% contingency
Achieve 50% Local Small Business Enterprise participation Achieve 50% Minority Business Participation
Achieve 10% Veteran Business Participation
713
Five Phases
of Work -
Phase One &
Two:

Phase One:

Complete SB 35 Entitlement Process
Create and complete Construction Documents
Community and agency outreach
Phase Two:

Soil remediation to residential / non-detect levels
Infrastructure development (shoring, underground
utilities)
714
Five Phases of Work - Phase Three,
Four & Five:

Phase Three: Construction of concrete podiums and
seven story mixed-use buildings
Phase Four: General construction and Solar Power
Technology integration attachments
Phase Five: Interior build-out and unit installation and stabilization
715
Metrics for Evaluation and Monitoring
• Resolution of environmental issues
• Job creation
• Completion of stabilization process
716
Budget Overview
• Total Cost: $157,970,493
• Soft Costs: $15,897,143
• Hard Costs: $118,163,100
• Tangible Assets: Land, Architecture & Engineering, Horizontal remediation oversite and Completed Phase I and Phase II reports, Entitlement plans completed and submitted
717
Project
Summary
•This project will be the premier Veterans Mixed Use
Housing Facility in Northern California.
•Project incorporates all levels of supportive and
assisted living housing for all family sizes.
• Our development team needs agency and
community support to fulfill this wonderful dream
housing facility for the Veterans Community.
718
Conclusion
Honoring those who served
Building a future of stability and dignity
Please contact Veterans Resource Program,
Rhonda Harris for any questions;
[email protected], 510-233-9313,
Thank You!!
719

September 22, 2026
City Council
DATE: September 22, 2026
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM: Councilmember Claudia Jimenez (Sponsor)
Councilmember Sue Wilson (co-sponsor)
Vice Mayor Doria Robinson (co-sponsor)
Subject: Presentation from Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and conducting data analysis regarding the effectiveness of LPR technology
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact for receiving this itme.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None.

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

The City Council needs objective, data-driven information to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of license plate readers (LPRs) as a public safety tool. A presentation
from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) would
provide Council with an important perspective on the
impacts of these systems, and an objective statistical
analysis of local crime statistics would fairly evalute the effectiveness of LPR technology in reducing and solving crime in Richmond.

Providing Council with this information will help ensure that future decisions regarding the use, expansion, or
oversight of LPR technology are informed by measurable
outcomes, available evidence, and a clear understanding of both public safety benefits and community impacts.

AGENDA
REPORT
720

September 22, 2026
RECOMMENDED ACTION: DIRECT staff to: 1) coordinate a presentation by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) at a future City
Council meeting regarding the effectiveness, limitations, and impacts of license plate reader (LPR) technology, as well as to 2) bring objective statistical analysis of
Richmond data regarding the effectiveness of LPRs in
reducing crime, recovering stolen vehicles, supporting
criminal investigations, and making arrests that lead to conviction, as well as information regarding data
retention and information sharing for any LPR systems
under consideration - Councilmember Claudia Jimenez
(510-620-6593)/Councilmember Sue Wilson (510-609-
2111)/Vice Mayor Doria Robinson (510-672-1387).

DISCUSSION:

License plate readers (LPRs) have become an increasingly common public safety tool used by law enforcement agencies to identify vehicles associated with criminal investigations and to assist in locating stolen vehicles. As the City considers the continued use, expansion, or oversight of this technology, it is important that the City Council have objective information about whether LPRs are achieving their intended public safety outcomes and whether any benefits outweigh the risk of misuse of these technologies now or in the future.

To make a good decision, the Council needs a presentation from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which has already provided the El Cerrito City Council with its evidence-based perspective on LPR technology.

In addition, the city should conduct a statistical analysis using our own recent data to demonstrate whether and to what extent LPRs contribute to reducing crime, recovering stolen vehicles, supporting criminal investigations, and increasing arrests that lead to conviction here in Richmond.

This information is important because the Council is responsible for making policy and budget decisions concerning public safety resources and technology. Council should have access to 1) multiple perspectives on security and privacy risks and 2) objective measurable data about the effectiveness of this technology. Council should not rely solely on the anecdotal examples of individual cases, selective non-representative statistics, and generalized claims regarding the effectiveness of LPRs being offered by the companies trying to sell systems to the city.
721

September 22, 2026
The goal of this presentation is not to predetermine the Council's position on LPRs, but to provide Council with additional information necessary to fully and fairly evaluate the technology and make informed decisions regarding its future use in the City.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

None.
722

September 22, 2026
Public Works
DATE: September 22, 2026
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM: Daniel Chavarria, PE, Director of Public Works
Hillal Hamdan, PE, Senior Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer (KBSS) Feasibility Study – Presentation of Findings and Alternatives Analysis, and Direction on Recommended Interim and Long-Term
Improvements
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The recommended action to receive this presentation and provide direction on the recommended alternatives does not require an immediate appropriation or expenditure of funds.

The draft KBSS Feasibility Study (BKF Engineers, August 2026) identifies planning-level construction and environmental compliance cost estimates for each alternative, in 2026 dollars, as detailed in Attachment 1.

No funding source is identified or requested at this time; staff will return to Council with a specific funding and appropriation recommendation as part of future design and construction phase approvals.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
• January 18, 2022: City Council adopted Resolution No. 08- 22 accepting the findings of the KBSS CCTV Review and
Assessment Report (NCE-Coastland) and adopted Urgency
Ordinance No. 01-22 N.S., establishing the City’s first temporary moratorium on new sanitary sewer connections
to the KBSS Interceptor.
• March 1, 2022, through April 4, 2023: City Council
extended and renewed the moratorium through a series of urgency ordinances (Ordinance Nos. 05-22 N.S., 02-23
AGENDA
REPORT
723

September 22, 2026
N.S., and 03-23 N.S.), maintaining the moratorium through February 16, 2025.
• February 18, 2025: City Council adopted Urgency
Ordinance No. 06-25 N.S., re-establishing a 45-day
moratorium on new sanitary sewer connections to the
KBSS Interceptor.
• April 1, 2025: City Council adopted an Interim Ordinance extending Urgency Ordinance No. 06-25 N.S. for 22
months and 15 days (through February 16, 2027),
continuing the moratorium on new sanitary sewer
connections within the Point Richmond neighborhood
served by the KBSS Interceptor pending development of
interim and long-term solutions.
• The City executed a contract with BKF Engineers, effective August 19, 2025, to prepare the KBSS Feasibility Study.

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

The Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer (KBSS) Interceptor is a Cityowned gravity sewer main, constructed in 1959, that conveys wastewater from approximately 340 lots (290 connections) in the Point Richmond neighborhood along the Keller Beach
shoreline to the Keller Beach Pump Station (KBPS). The
pipeline is a concrete-encased cast iron main, approximately one mile long and 8 to 12 inches in diameter, constructed within the beach and intertidal zone. A 2021 CCTV inspection found the pipe in poor structural condition, with only 70 percent of the line successfully inspected due to sags, water levels, and access constraints; a follow-up 2026 inspection confirmed that visible conditions remain consistent with the 2021 findings.

Because the pipeline is located within the shoreline and subject to wave action, erosion, corrosion, and future sea level rise (tidal elevations at the site are projected to rise 3.6 to 6.5 feet over the next 50 to 75 years), it presents a high
consequence of failure, with the potential for substantial regulatory fines under the federal Clean Water Act, the California Porter-Cologne Act, the State Water Resources Control Board’s Sanitary Sewer Systems Waste Discharge
Requirements, and the City’s NPDES permit if a spill or overflow occurs. The City retained BKF Engineers to prepare a feasibility study evaluating interim and long-term alternatives to bring the KBSS system into compliance and reduce this risk. 724

September 22, 2026

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

RECEIVE a presentation on the findings and recommendations of the draft KBSS Feasibility Study; PROVIDE direction to staff to proceed with implementation of the recommended interim and long-term improvements; and return to Council with a final report and recommended action in November/December 2026 - Public Works Department (Hillal Hamdan 510-621-
1612/Daniel Chavarria 510-620-5478).

DISCUSSION:

Background
The Point Richmond neighborhood along the Keller Beach shoreline was subdivided between 1902 and 1912. Sewer lines built between 1909 and 1916 originally discharged directly to San Francisco Bay. The Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer (KBSS) Interceptor was constructed in 1959 to intercept those flows and convey them to the Keller Beach Pump Station (KBPS) instead of discharging to the Bay. The KBSS Interceptor is approximately one mile long, 8 to 12 inches in diameter, and is a concrete-encased cast iron pipe located within the beach and intertidal zone, serving approximately 340 lots (290 connections) along Ocean Avenue, Western Drive, and the surrounding shoreline streets. Photographs taken during recent site visits show sections of exposed and undermined pipe along the shoreline, as well as slope failure and erosion near the top of the bank in the Western Drive/Crest Avenue area.

A closed circuity television (CCTV) inspection performed in 2021 found the pipe in poor structural condition, and staff brought a report on the inspection findings to City Council in January 2022. Of the interceptor’s approximately 5,392 linear feet (per as-built drawings), only 3,842 feet (70%) were successfully inspected in 2021; 379 feet (8%) were incompletely inspected and 1,171 feet (22%) were not inspected at all, due to sags, high water levels, tuberculation, and limited access (crews were required to pull cable and hose through private property to reach shoreline manholes). A follow-up inspection effort in early 2026 (temporary bypass pumps were installed on January 29, 2026, and remained in place through at least the week of February 23, 2026) found that visible pipe conditions are consistent with the 2021 findings. Because the condition of the pipe has likely only worsened since 2021, and because further inspection is costly, time consuming, and constrained by the same access and tidal limitations, staff and BKF concluded that additional comprehensive inspection is not warranted at this time.

In response to the January 2022 report and continuing concerns about the condition of the KBSS Interceptor, the City Council adopted an Interim Ordinance on April 1, 2025 extending Urgency Ordinance No. 06-25 N.S. for 22 months and 15 days (through February 10, 2027), continuing the moratorium on new sanitary sewer connections within the affected Point Richmond service area, and directed staff to (1) evaluate and communicate interim measures, and (2) evaluate removing, replacing, or relocating the pipeline. The City executed a contract with BKF Engineers, effective August 19, 2025, to prepare the KBSS Feasibility Study addressing Council’s direction. Staff and BKF, together with the outreach consultant Kearns & West, also conducted public outreach 725

September 22, 2026
on the project, including seven meetings (two in person) and dozens of individual calls and emails with affected residents, along with coordinated site visits.

Alternatives Evaluated
BKF developed and evaluated seven alternatives across three groups, summarized below.
 Group A – Flow Diversion. A1 (Gravity Flow, interim, ~$0.8M), A2 (Pumped Flow, interim, ~$3.3M), and A3 (Pumped Flow, final, ~$18.1M) divert wastewater from a portion of the service area away from the existing KBSS pipe using new gravity or pumped connections, reducing the volume conveyed by the aging interceptor.

Diversion alternatives require no environmental permits and can be implemented the fastest, but the interim diversion options alone do not meet the City’s legal and regulatory objectives because the KBSS pipe would remain active and in poor condition; two of the three Group A alternatives also require new pumping.  Group B – Beach Alternatives. B1 (Rehabilitate the existing pipe in place, ~$17.4M, using cured-in-place pipe (CIPP), HDPE slip lining, or Fold-and-Form PVC slip lining) and B2 (Construct a new pipe on the existing beach alignment by open-cut, ~$20.9M) limit impacts to private property, require no private pumps or new municipal pump stations, and are likely less expensive than the roadway alternatives. Beach construction is challenging to permit, is limited to low-tide work windows, requires dewatering and temporary damming, and remains susceptible to future erosion, corrosion, and sea level rise; rehabilitation may not fully address existing pipe “bellies,” and both approaches will likely still require excavation and rebuilding of the pipe’s concrete encasement.  Group C – Roadway Alternatives. C1 (Traditional open-cut relocation to the roadway with new municipal pump stations, ~$19.9M) and C2 (Trenchless relocation to the roadway with fewer pump stations, ~$18.7M) eliminate impacts from waves, erosion, and corrosion; allow inspection and maintenance with standard equipment; and may eliminate the need for the existing Keller Beach Pump Station. However, both require private pumps at nearly all oceanfront homes, with pump feasibility requiring lot-by-lot review, the highest impact to private property (side yards, driveways, back yards), permanent easement acquisitions, and are likely the most expensive and most disruptive alternatives to the community.

Next Steps
The draft KBSS Feasibility Study was released for public review on September 15, 2026, beginning a 30-day public comment period that will run through October 15, 2026 (Attachment 1). BKF, City staff, and Kearns & West will hold additional meetings and outreach during the comment period and will prepare written responses to comments received. The report will be finalized by October 30, 2026, and staff anticipate returning to the City Council with the final Feasibility Study and a recommended course of action in November/December 2026.
726

September 22, 2026
CONCLUSION:

City staff will return to Council with a final Feasibility Study, responses to public comments, and a recommended course of action in November or December 2026.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Draft Executive summary for Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer (KBSS) Feasibility Study, BKF Engineers
Attachment 2 – City Council Presentation: Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer Feasibility Study
727

KELLER BEACH SANITARY SEWER

FEASIBILITY STUDY
DRAFT
August 13, 2026
City of Richmond
BKF Project No. C20250596-10
Prepared by
Adam Brown, PE
728
City of Richmond - KBSS Feasibility Study August 13, 2026 BKF Engineers i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................................................... 1

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................ 5

2. Existing Conditions................................................................................................................................................................... 7

2.1 Hydraulic Overview................................................................................................................................................... 7

2.2 As-Built Plan Information ....................................................................................................................................... 8

2.3 Site Visit Observations...........................................................................................................................................14

2.4 Discussions with Residents ..................................................................................................................................20

3. Document Review...................................................................................................................................................................21

4. Pipeline Condition Assessment Information ................................................................................................................22

4.1 Summary of Industry Standards ........................................................................................................................22

4.2 2021 Inspection Summary....................................................................................................................................22

4.3 2026 Inspection Summary....................................................................................................................................25

4.4 Leak Detection Investigation...............................................................................................................................25

5. Survey and Elevation Data...................................................................................................................................................27

6. Project Objectives ...................................................................................................................................................................28

7. Definition of Alternatives .....................................................................................................................................................30

7.1 Interim Alternatives.................................................................................................................................................30

7.2 Group A: Flow Diversion Alternatives ..............................................................................................................30

7.3 Group B: Beach Alternatives ................................................................................................................................35

7.4 Group C: Roadway Alternatives..........................................................................................................................39

7.5 Alternative Definition Summary.........................................................................................................................42

8. Pumping Considerations......................................................................................................................................................43

8.1 Municipal Pumping.................................................................................................................................................43

8.2 Private Pumping.......................................................................................................................................................46

8.3 Keller Beach Pump Station...................................................................................................................................49

9. KBSS Rehabilitation Considerations.................................................................................................................................52

9.1 Cured-In-Place Pipe (CIPP)...................................................................................................................................52

9.2 Sliplining and Swagelining (close fit sliplinling)...........................................................................................52

9.3 Fold and Form PVC lining.....................................................................................................................................53

9.4 Spray-In-Place Liner (SIPL) ...................................................................................................................................53

9.5 Pipe Bursting .............................................................................................................................................................53 729
City of Richmond - KBSS Feasibility Study August 13, 2026 BKF Engineers ii

9.6 Flexible Fabric Reinforced Pipe (FFRP).............................................................................................................54

9.7 Spiral-Wound Lining...............................................................................................................................................54

9.8 Rehabilitation Summary........................................................................................................................................54

10. Geotechnical considerations ............................................................................................................................................55

10.1 General Geologic Setting......................................................................................................................................55

10.2 Groundwater and Tidal Effects ...........................................................................................................................55

10.3 Landslide Considerations......................................................................................................................................56

10.4 Bedrock and Excavation Conditions .................................................................................................................56

10.5 Trenchless Construction Considerations ........................................................................................................56

10.6 Corrosivity and Long‑Term Exposure ..............................................................................................................57

10.7 Comparative Geotechnical Implications for Alternatives .........................................................................57

10.8 Geotechnical Consideration Summary ............................................................................................................57

11. Environmental Regulatory and Permitting Considerations ..................................................................................59

11.1 Agency Engagement..............................................................................................................................................59

11.2 Resource Areas and Constraints ........................................................................................................................59

11.3 Aquatic Resources...................................................................................................................................................59

11.4 Upland and Developed Areas .............................................................................................................................60

11.5 Special‑Status Species and Sensitive Biological Resources.....................................................................60

11.6 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................60

11.7 Comparative Regulatory Assessment of Alternatives................................................................................60

11.8 Planning-Level Cost Comparison ......................................................................................................................61

11.9 Planning-Level Schedule Comparison.............................................................................................................61

12. Erosion and Sea Level Rise Considerations ................................................................................................................62

12.1 Document Review....................................................................................................................................................62

12.2 Coastal Process Analysis .......................................................................................................................................62

12.3 Sea Level Rise............................................................................................................................................................62

12.4 Causes of Erosion ....................................................................................................................................................62

12.5 Conclusions and Recommendations................................................................................................................63

13. Community Engagement...................................................................................................................................................64

13.1 Meetings, Workshops, and Presentations......................................................................................................64

14. Costs..........................................................................................................................................................................................68

14.1 Overall Cost Comparison......................................................................................................................................68 730
City of Richmond - KBSS Feasibility Study August 13, 2026 BKF Engineers iii

14.2 Contingencies and Budgeting ............................................................................................................................70

14.3 Operations and Maintenance Considerations..............................................................................................70

15. Criteria Development..........................................................................................................................................................72

15.1 Meets Legal Requirements ..................................................................................................................................72

15.2 Constructability ........................................................................................................................................................72

15.3 Environmental Compliance and Permitting...................................................................................................72

15.4 Construction Costs..................................................................................................................................................73

15.5 Operation & Maintenance ...................................................................................................................................73

15.6 Social & Community Impacts .............................................................................................................................73

15.7 Risk & Resilience......................................................................................................................................................73

15.8 Right-of-Way.............................................................................................................................................................73

16. Weighting and Scoring ......................................................................................................................................................74

17. Evaluation................................................................................................................................................................................75

17.1 General Scoring Overview....................................................................................................................................75

17.2 Alternatives A1 & A2..............................................................................................................................................75

17.3 Alternative A3............................................................................................................................................................76

17.4 Alternatives B1 & B2...............................................................................................................................................76

17.5 Alternatives C1 & C2 ..............................................................................................................................................76

18. Results & Recommendation.............................................................................................................................................77

18.1 Alternative A1 Implementation..........................................................................................................................77

18.2 Preferred Alternative ..............................................................................................................................................77

18.3 Construction Contract Procurement................................................................................................................78 731
City of Richmond - KBSS Feasibility Study August 13, 2026 BKF Engineers iv

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1: Existing Point Richmond Sewer System......................................................................................................... 6 Figure 2-1: Typical Trench Section.......................................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 2-2: Retaining Wall Section........................................................................................................................................10 Figure 2-3: Type "A" manhole used for MH Q-1 and Q-25 and standard “cleanout”.......................................11 Figure 2-4: Type D “Watertight” Manhole (all manholes except Q-1 and Q-25)................................................12 Figure 2-5: 1986 Retaining Wall Rehab (Plan 10-E-1897)............................................................................................13 Figure 2-6: 1986 Manhole Rehab (Plan 10-E-1897) .......................................................................................................13 Figure 2-7: Junction structure at the tip of Cypress Pt..................................................................................................14 Figure 2-8: Manhole at north end of Keller Beach..........................................................................................................14 Figure 2-9: Exposed pipes confirm concrete encasement...........................................................................................15 Figure 2-10: Exposed pipeline near cleanout....................................................................................................................15 Figure 2-11: Existing sewer lateral connects to pipe within “wall”............................................................................15 Figure 2-12: Pipe within “wall”................................................................................................................................................15 Figure 2-13: Looking north on Ocean Avenue towards Marine St...........................................................................16 Figure 2-14: Looking to Ocean Ave from Grandview Ct...............................................................................................16 Figure 2-15: Looking to Grandview Ct from Ocean Ave...............................................................................................16 Figure 2-16: No beach access exists from Clarence Dr.................................................................................................17 Figure 2-17: No beach access exists from Marine St.....................................................................................................17 Figure 2-18: Looking south along rip rap...........................................................................................................................18 Figure 2-19: Looking north along rip rap...........................................................................................................................18 Figure 2-20: Looking north along the encased pipeline...............................................................................................18 Figure 2-21: Last exposed cleanout along the pipe .......................................................................................................18 Figure 2-22: Exposed lateral with concrete support.......................................................................................................19 Figure 2-23: Half exposed, half buried lateral...................................................................................................................19 Figure 2-24: Looking south toward the dead-end..........................................................................................................19 Figure 2-25: Looking up the footpath towards Cypress Point Road........................................................................19 Figure 4-1: 2021 Pipeline Condition Assessment Summary........................................................................................24 Figure 7-1: Alternative A1.........................................................................................................................................................32 Figure 7-2: Alternative A2.........................................................................................................................................................33 Figure 7-3: Alternative A3.........................................................................................................................................................34 Figure 7-4: Alternative B1.........................................................................................................................................................37 732
City of Richmond - KBSS Feasibility Study August 13, 2026 BKF Engineers v
Figure 7-5: Alternative B2.........................................................................................................................................................38 Figure 7-6: Alternative C1.........................................................................................................................................................40 Figure 7-7: Alternative C2.........................................................................................................................................................41 Figure 8-1: Example Pump Station at Marine St. and Ocean Ave.............................................................................44 Figure 8-2: Example Pump Station at 320 Western Dr..................................................................................................44 Figure 8-3: Sewer "Push" Camera..........................................................................................................................................45 Figure 8-4: Sewer Inspection "Crawler"...............................................................................................................................45 733
City of Richmond - KBSS Feasibility Study August 13, 2026 BKF Engineers vi

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1: KBSS Parcel Summary............................................................................................................................................. 7 Table 2-2: Sewer Generation Rates......................................................................................................................................... 7 Table 2-3: Total KBSS Flow Estimations ................................................................................................................................ 8 Table 2-4: Sewer Slope Comparison ....................................................................................................................................12 Table 6-1: Regulations Governing Project Objectives ...................................................................................................28 Table 7-1: Summary of Alternatives .....................................................................................................................................30 Table 7-2: Alternative Definition Summary........................................................................................................................42 Table 9-1: Rehabilitation Method Summary .....................................................................................................................54 Table 10-1: Geotechnical Consideration Summary ........................................................................................................58 Table 11-1: Order-of-Magnitude CEQA and Regulatory Compliance Budgetary Ranges...............................61 Table 11-2: Order-of-Magnitude Environmental Review and Permitting Durations.........................................61 Table 13-1: Public Meeting Summary..................................................................................................................................64 Table 13-2: Summary of Community Interests and Concerns....................................................................................65 Table 14-1: Overall Project Cost Comparison...................................................................................................................68 Table 14-2: O&M Cost Assumption Summary .................................................................................................................71 Table 16-1: Summary of Criteria Weights and Scoring.................................................................................................74 Table 16-2: Scoring Descriptions...........................................................................................................................................74 Table 17-1: Weighted Scoring Summary............................................................................................................................75 734
City of Richmond - KBSS Feasibility Study August 13, 2026 BKF Engineers vii

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Flow Generation Calculations
Appendix B: RFI#1 Technical Memo
Appendix C: Coastland Report
Appendix D: 2026 Inspection Results Narrative
Appendix E: Topographic Survey and Elevation Data
Appendix F: Force Main Sizing
Appendix G: Excerpt from City Standards
Appendix H: Geotechnical Feasibility Study
Appendix I: Environmental Memorandum
Appendix J: Coastal Erosion Analysis
Appendix K: Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Costs
Appendix L: Scoring Summary
735
City of Richmond August 13, 2026
BKF Engineers 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer (KBSS) is a critical piece of infrastructure serving approximately 290 homes in the Point Richmond area. Constructed in 1959 along the shoreline, the pipeline intercepts older sewer outfalls and conveys wastewater to the Keller Beach Pump Station (KBPS) for transport to the broader City wastewater collection and treatment system.

Over time, the system has become increasingly difficult to maintain due to its age, coastal exposure, and limited accessibility. In response to regulatory requirements, documented deterioration, and community concerns, the City initiated this feasibility study to identify a long-term solution that balances reliability, environmental protection, cost, and public impact.

This study evaluates multiple alternatives and recommends a path forward that meets legal requirements while accounting for the unique technical and community constraints of this project.

Existing Conditions and Key Issues
The KBSS is located directly within a dynamic coastal environment, where it is exposed to tides, wave action, and long-term erosion. Field observations and prior inspections confirm that portions of the pipeline are exposed, difficult to access, and in declining condition.

The system also presents ongoing regulatory challenges. Current requirements expect sewer systems to be routinely inspected and maintained; due to limited access and hydraulic constraints, reliably meeting requirements at the KBSS in its current configuration is difficult, placing the City at risk of noncompliance.

Future conditions further complicate the situation. Sea level rise is projected to increase water levels along the shoreline by approximately 3.6 to 6.5 feet over the next 50 to 75 years, which will make both maintenance and long-term operation more difficult.

In addition to these technical challenges, the project is highly sensitive from a community perspective.

Residents have expressed concerns about environmental impacts, construction disruption, and potential changes affecting private property and shoreline access.

Alternatives Considered
To address these challenges, the study evaluated three primary categories of alternatives: flow diversion options, shoreline (beach) improvements, and inland (roadway) relocation. These alternatives differ significantly in cost, complexity, environmental impact, and community implications. 736
City of Richmond - KBSS Feasibility Study August 13, 2026 BKF Engineers 2
Alternative Group Description Key Advantages Key Challenges A – Flow Diversion Redirect wastewater
away from the
existing pipeline
(partial or full
diversion)
Lower cost; faster
implementation; can
reduce risk in the near
term
Does not fully resolve
long-term regulatory
requirements unless
fully implemented with
extensive residentialbased pumping
B – Beach Rehabilitate or
replace the pipeline
in its current
shoreline location
Maintains gravity
system; aligns more
closely with community
preferences; avoids
major neighborhood
disruption
Most complex
environmental
permitting; construction
in tidal zone; continued
exposure to coastal
conditions
C – Roadway Relocate pipeline
inland into public
streets
Improves long-term
access for maintenance;
removes infrastructure
from shoreline hazards
Requires pump stations
and private property
impacts; significant
construction disruption;
higher public concern
A total of seven alternatives were evaluated within these categories, including both interim solutions and full long-term approaches.

Cost and Implementation Considerations
All viable long-term solutions represent major capital investments with broadly comparable total costs once construction, environmental compliance, and contingencies are considered.

Alternative Estimated Cost (Millions)
A1 – Interim Diversion $0.8
A2 – Interim Pumped Diversion $3.3
A3 – Full Pumped Diversion $18.1
B1 – Rehabilitate on Beach $17.4
B2 – Replace on Beach $20.9
C1 – Relocate to Roadways $19.9
C2 – Relocate to Roadways Using Trenchless $18.7
While shoreline rehabilitation and inland relocation have similar total costs, the drivers behind those costs differ. Shoreline alternatives are heavily influenced by environmental compliance and specialized construction methods, while roadway alternatives are driven by pumping infrastructure, street reconstruction, and impacts to private property.

All alternatives involve tradeoffs, and none clearly outperform the others across all criteria. 737
City of Richmond - KBSS Feasibility Study August 13, 2026 BKF Engineers 3
Key Tradeoffs
The decision facing the City is not simply technical; it requires balancing regulatory compliance, cost, environmental impact, and community acceptance.
• Diversion Alternatives: Partial diversion options can reduce risk in the near term but do not, by themselves, provide a compliant long-term solution. Full diversion is feasible but introduces system complexity and long-term operational burdens associated with pumping. • Shoreline (Beach) Alternatives: These options maintain the existing system configuration and minimize disruption to residential streets. However, they require the most complex environmental approvals and continued management of infrastructure in a challenging coastal environment. Continued risk of discharge to receiving waters is also a concern. • Roadway Alternatives: Relocating the system inland improves long-term access and reduces shoreline risks but introduces significant construction disruption, requires multiple pump stations, and would likely require private pumping systems for some homes—an issue that has raised substantial public concern.

Recommended Approach
Based on a comprehensive evaluation of technical feasibility, costs, environmental requirements, and community input, the study recommends a two-part approach. • Proceed with a near-term interim improvement (Alternative A1) which can be implemented relatively quickly and at low cost, reducing flows in the existing pipeline by approximately 16 percent and reducing the total sewage volume that could be spilled into the Bay while a longterm solution is developed. • Concurrently advance a long-term solution that maintains the pipeline along the shoreline, using a combination of rehabilitation and targeted replacement. This hybrid approach (i.e. combining rehabilitation and replacement) builds on the strengths of both beach alternatives (alternatives B1 and B2) and allows flexibility to address site-specific conditions while minimizing impacts to residents and controlling costs.

This approach is recommended for the following reasons:
• Meets regulatory requirements for inspection, maintenance, and system reliability • Avoids widespread disruption to neighborhood streets and private properties • Maintains a gravity-based system, reducing long-term operational complexity • Balances environmental considerations with constructability and cost 738
City of Richmond - KBSS Feasibility Study August 13, 2026 BKF Engineers 4
Next Steps
The City will need to select a preferred alternative, identify funding sources, and initiate preliminary design and environmental review for the preferred approach. This next phase will refine the project scope, improve cost certainty, and support further informed decision-making through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process.

Given the complexity of construction and permitting in this setting, the study also recommends considering alternative project delivery methods, such as Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR), to better manage risk and improve coordination during design and construction.

Conclusion
While all viable solutions involve significant cost and tradeoffs, the recommended approach is to implement near-term flow reduction followed by a shoreline-based rehabilitation and replacement strategy provides the most balanced path forward. This approach would involve designing both the near-term and long-term solutions simultaneously with the understanding it would take longer to implement the long-term solution. Including both near-term and long-term solutions would address regulatory requirements, limit community disruption, and would position the City to manage long-term risk in a complex coastal environment.
739
9/17/2026
1 Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer Feasibility Study
City Council Meeting – September 22, 2026
Recap
• City Council Meeting dated 4/1/25 –Adopted a 22-month moratorium on new SS connections • Steps Taken to Respond to Council’s directives –Contract with BKF executed 9/29/25 –Evaluated and communicated interim measures FIRST –Evaluated removing/replacing/relocating the pipe –Public Outreach via Kearns & West & site visits •Includes 7 meetings (2 in person); dozens of calls/emails 1 2
DRAFT
740
9/17/2026
2 Tonight’s Discussion
• No action requested tonight • Informational presentation to: –Discuss the draft feasibility study –Present the findings and recommendations –Answer questions and take public comments Presentation Outline
Background
Existing Conditions
Alternatives
Recommendation
Next Steps
Objectives
Scoring Summary
3 4
741
9/17/2026
3 Background
Background
• Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer
(KBSS) Interceptor built in 1959
• Inspection in 2021 showed pipe
in poor condition
–Report was brought to Council in
January 2022
5 6
742
9/17/2026
4 Background
Approx 340 lots (290 connections) Assessment District 680 Objectives
7 8
743
9/17/2026
5 Objectives
• Comply with: –Federal Clean Water Act –California Porter-Cologne Act –State Water Resources Control Board’s Sanitary Sewer Systems (SSS) Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) –City’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
Objectives
• Therefore, entire sewer system (incl. KBSS) must: –Not leak or overflow –Be able to be thoroughly cleaned and inspected without obstructions or gaps –Be free of Grade 4 and 5 defects and be able to be repaired/rehabilitated in the future as necessary
• KBSS has existing high consequence of failure –Potentially millions in fines if failure occurs 9 10
744
9/17/2026
6 Existing Conditions
Existing Conditions
11 12
745
9/17/2026
7 Existing Conditions
Existing Conditions
2021 2026
13 14
746
9/17/2026
8 Potential Funding
Potential Funding
• Wastewater Enterprise Funds
• Tentatively awarded $1.7M EPA grant for planning,
environmental compliance, and design phase (may
include this study) –San Francisco Bay Water Quality Improvement Fund (SFBWQIF) –25% City match
15 16
747
9/17/2026
9 Alternatives
Alternatives
Group A: Flow Diversion
Alt A1: Gravity Flow (Interim)
Alt A2: Pumped Flow (Interim)
Alt A3: Pumped Flow (Final)
Group B: Beach Alternatives Alt B1: Rehabilitate Existing Pipe Alt B2: Construct New Pipe
Group C: Roadway Alternatives Alt C1: Open-Cut w/ Pumps Alt C2: Trenchless; Less Pumps
17 18
748
9/17/2026
10 Interim vs Final
Alternatives
Interim Final
Doesn’t meet all legal/reg objectives Meets all objectives May have near-term benefits Likely takes longer to implement Rehabilitate, Relocate, or Flow
Diversion (Groups A, B, and C)
Involves flow diversion (Group A only)
Still relies on KBSS in poor condition
May not complement final alternatives
Group A: Flow Diversion
Alternatives
• Pros: –Reduces the sewage spilled if KBSS failure occurs –Reduces pumping requirements (current and/or future) –No env permits required; can be implemented quickest –Interim options may be compatible with final solution 19 20
749
9/17/2026
11 Group A: Flow Diversion
Alternatives
• Cons: –Interim options don’t meet req’d objectives
• KBSS may still be active
• KBSS would remain in poor condition
• KBSS still costly/challenging to inspect/maintain
–May incur throw-away costs if not compatible with final alt –2 of 3 Group A alternatives require pumping Alternative A1: Gravity Flow (Interim)
Alternatives
Approx Cost: $800k
% of Flow
Diverted
from KBSS
# of
Connections Area A 36 7%
B 36 10%
Total 72 17%
21 22
750
9/17/2026
12 Alternative A2: Pumped Flow (Interim)
Alternatives
Approx Cost: $3.6M
% of Flow
Diverted
from KBSS
# of
Connections Area A 135 33%
B 55 15%
Total 190 48%
Alternative A3: Pumped Flow (Final)
Alternatives
Approx Cost: $18.1M
% of total KBSS Design Flow
(gal/unit/day) Unit Type
195 0.28% Single
Family 105 0.15% MultiFamily
Total Est. ADWF of KBSS = 68,700 gpd
23 24
751
9/17/2026
13 Group B: Beach Alternatives
Alternatives
• Pros: –Limits impacts to private property & homeowners • No need to perform lot-by-lot evaluation for pumps/pipes –No private pumps required –No new municipal pump stations –May be able to mix/match rehab/replacement methods –Likely cheaper than road options Group B: Beach Alternatives
Alternatives
• Cons: –Challenging to permit –Limited work hours due to tides –Requires groundwater dewatering / dams for tides –Remains difficult and expensive to inspect/maintain –Remains susceptible to natural forces (erosion, corrosion) 25 26
752
9/17/2026
14 Alternative B1: Rehabilitate Existing Pipe
Alternatives
Approx Cost: $17.4M
Rehabilitation Considerations
Alternatives
• May not be able to clean pipe thoroughly
• Regulators may not want chemically-cured product • Too much diameter reduction could hinder inspection • Excavation will be required with all options –Once you have permits, whole new pipeline may be better 27 28
753
9/17/2026
15 Rehabilitation Considerations
Alternatives
• Re-building concrete encasement would likely be req’d with all options
• If “bellies” remain, sewer could function, but may not be able to be inspected due to water levels
Alternative B2: Construct New Pipe
Alternatives
Approx Cost: $20.9M
29 30
754
9/17/2026
16 Replacement Considerations
Alternatives
• Requires re-building concrete encasement if not
installed deeper • May not be able to rip through existing rock • Mitigation req’d to avoid large equipment sinking
• Likely slower than rehabilitation
• May not be able to construct parallel pipe –Would trigger bypass needs Group C: Road Alternatives
Alternatives
• Pros: –Eliminates impacts due to waves, erosion, sea water –Inspection / maintenance with standard equipment –May restore the beach to its natural state (if pipe removed) –Likely lesser environmental/permit requirements –May eliminate the existing KBPS 31 32
755
9/17/2026
17 Group C: Road Alternatives
Alternatives
• Cons: –Adds private pumps to nearly all oceanfront homes • May not have adequate room for pumps
• Feasibility of pump installs must be reviewed lot-by-lot • Highest impact to private property (side yards, d/w, back yards) –Likely the most expensive •Asphalt sawcutting/replacement, pumps, specialty trenchless work –Permanent easement acquisitions required –Most disruptive to the community
Alternative C1: Traditional Open-Cut
Alternatives
Approx Cost: $19.9M
33 34
756
9/17/2026
18 Alternative C2: Trenchless Open-Cut
Alternatives
Approx Cost: $19.5M
Scoring Summary
35 36
757
9/17/2026
19 Scoring Summary
Recommendation
37 38
758
9/17/2026
20 Recommendation
• Implement Interim Alternative A1 (approx. $800k) –Relatively inexpensive –Reduces flows to beach by approx. 16% –Reduces burden on KBPS –May allow KBSS dia reduction
–Can be implemented relatively quickly
Recommendation
• Concurrently implement combined B1/B2 Alternative
on beach (approx. $17M-$20M) –Limits need for pumps (public and private) –Limits disruptions to the community –Less uncertainty by maintaining existing system config & ops –Likely less expensive than road option 39 40
759
9/17/2026
21 Next Steps
Next Steps
• Ongoing 30-day public comment period on draft report • Meetings and outreach during 30-day comment period • BKF/City/K&W will respond to comments
• Final report will be brought to Council in Nov/Dec
41 42
760
9/17/2026
22 Next Steps: Timeline
Assuming Council elects to proceed with current recommendations Design
Interim
Alt A1
Develop Project
Description
2027
Construct
Interim Alt A1
Prelim Design
Final Beach Alt Final Design Final Beach Alt Construct Final Beach Alt 2028 2029 2030 2031
CEQA/NEPA Compliance
Estimated cash flow to be provided when final report is brought back to council in Nov/Dec Q&A
43 44
761