Richmond City Council
October 6, 2026

Printed 03/26/2026
PlanetBids
1650
City of Richmond
NICHOLL PARK TENNIS COURTS RENOVATION, bidding on 04/23/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/26/2026
PlanetBids
1651
City of Richmond
NICHOLL PARK TENNIS COURTS RENOVATION, bidding on 04/23/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/26/2026
PlanetBids
1652
City of Richmond
NICHOLL PARK TENNIS COURTS RENOVATION, bidding on 04/23/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/26/2026
PlanetBids
1653
City of Richmond
NICHOLL PARK TENNIS COURTS RENOVATION, bidding on 04/23/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/26/2026
PlanetBids
1654
City of Richmond
NICHOLL PARK TENNIS COURTS RENOVATION, bidding on 04/23/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/26/2026
PlanetBids
1655
City of Richmond
NICHOLL PARK TENNIS COURTS RENOVATION, bidding on 04/23/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/26/2026
PlanetBids
1656
City of Richmond
NICHOLL PARK TENNIS COURTS RENOVATION, bidding on 04/23/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/26/2026
PlanetBids
1657
City of Richmond
NICHOLL PARK TENNIS COURTS RENOVATION, bidding on 04/23/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/26/2026
PlanetBids
1658
City of Richmond
NICHOLL PARK TENNIS COURTS RENOVATION, bidding on 04/23/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/26/2026
PlanetBids
1659
City of Richmond
NICHOLL PARK TENNIS COURTS RENOVATION, bidding on 04/23/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/26/2026
PlanetBids
1660
City of Richmond
NICHOLL PARK TENNIS COURTS RENOVATION, bidding on 04/23/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/26/2026
PlanetBids
1661
City of Richmond
NICHOLL PARK TENNIS COURTS RENOVATION, bidding on 04/23/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/26/2026
PlanetBids
1662
City of Richmond
NICHOLL PARK TENNIS COURTS RENOVATION, bidding on 04/23/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/26/2026
PlanetBids
1663
City of Richmond
NICHOLL PARK TENNIS COURTS RENOVATION, bidding on 04/23/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/26/2026
PlanetBids
1664
City of Richmond
NICHOLL PARK TENNIS COURTS RENOVATION, bidding on 04/23/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/26/2026
PlanetBids
1665
City of Richmond
NICHOLL PARK TENNIS COURTS RENOVATION, bidding on 04/23/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/26/2026
PlanetBids
1666
City of Richmond
NICHOLL PARK TENNIS COURTS RENOVATION, bidding on 04/23/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/26/2026
PlanetBids
1667
City of Richmond
NICHOLL PARK TENNIS COURTS RENOVATION, bidding on 04/23/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/26/2026
PlanetBids
1668
City of Richmond
NICHOLL PARK TENNIS COURTS RENOVATION, bidding on 04/23/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/26/2026
PlanetBids
1669
City of Richmond
NICHOLL PARK TENNIS COURTS RENOVATION, bidding on 04/23/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/26/2026
PlanetBids
1670
City of Richmond
NICHOLL PARK TENNIS COURTS RENOVATION, bidding on 04/23/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/26/2026
PlanetBids
1671
City of Richmond
NICHOLL PARK TENNIS COURTS RENOVATION, bidding on 04/23/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/26/2026
PlanetBids
1672
City of Richmond
NICHOLL PARK TENNIS COURTS RENOVATION, bidding on 04/23/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/26/2026
PlanetBids
1673
City of Richmond
NICHOLL PARK TENNIS COURTS RENOVATION, bidding on 04/23/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/26/2026
PlanetBids
1674
City of Richmond
NICHOLL PARK TENNIS COURTS RENOVATION, bidding on 04/23/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/26/2026
PlanetBids
1675
City of Richmond
NICHOLL PARK TENNIS COURTS RENOVATION, bidding on 04/23/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/26/2026
PlanetBids
1676
City of Richmond
NICHOLL PARK TENNIS COURTS RENOVATION, bidding on 04/23/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/26/2026
PlanetBids
1677
City of Richmond
NICHOLL PARK TENNIS COURTS RENOVATION, bidding on 04/23/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/26/2026
PlanetBids
1678
City of Richmond
NICHOLL PARK TENNIS COURTS RENOVATION, bidding on 04/23/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/26/2026
PlanetBids
1679
City of Richmond
NICHOLL PARK TENNIS COURTS RENOVATION, bidding on 04/23/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/26/2026
PlanetBids
1680
City of Richmond
NICHOLL PARK TENNIS COURTS RENOVATION, bidding on 04/23/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/26/2026
PlanetBids
1681
City of Richmond
NICHOLL PARK TENNIS COURTS RENOVATION, bidding on 04/23/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/26/2026
PlanetBids
1682
City of Richmond
NICHOLL PARK TENNIS COURTS RENOVATION, bidding on 04/23/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/26/2026
PlanetBids
1683
City of Richmond
NICHOLL PARK TENNIS COURTS RENOVATION, bidding on 04/23/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/26/2026
PlanetBids
1684
City of Richmond
NICHOLL PARK TENNIS COURTS RENOVATION, bidding on 04/23/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/26/2026
PlanetBids
1685
City of Richmond
NICHOLL PARK TENNIS COURTS RENOVATION, bidding on 04/23/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/26/2026
PlanetBids
1686
City of Richmond
NICHOLL PARK TENNIS COURTS RENOVATION, bidding on 04/23/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/26/2026
PlanetBids
1687

CITY OF RICHMOND

STANDARD CONTRACT
Department: City Project Manager:

City Project Manager E-mail: City Project Manager Phone No:

Vendor No: Contract No:

Description of Services:

The parties to this STANDARD CONTRACT do mutually agree and promise as follows:

1. Parties. The parties to this Contract are the City of Richmond, a municipal corporation (“the City”), and the following named Contractor:

Contractor Name:

Street Address:

City, State, Zip Code:

Contact Person:

Telephone: Email:

Business License No:
☐ A California corporation, ☐ limited liability corporation ☐ general partnership, ☐ limited partnership, ☐ individual, ☐ non-profit corporation, ☐ individual dba as [specify:] ____________________ ☐ other [specify:] _______________________________

2. Term. The effective date of this Contract is _______________________ and terminates _________________ unless terminated earlier as set forth herein.

3. Payment Limit. City’s total payments to Contractor under this Contract shall not exceed $______________ (“Contract Payment Limit”) unless a Contract Amendment has been approved by the City Council or City Manager. If this amount includes a contingency, Contractor acknowledges that any use of such contingency shall be for work beyond the original scope of services and requires prior written authorization by the City. If noted below, Compensation for work done under this Contract, shall not exceed as follows:

FY _________ total compensation shall not exceed $_________________ FY _________ total compensation shall not exceed $_________________ FY _________ total compensation shall not exceed $_________________

4. Contractor’s Obligations. Contractor agrees to perform all work at its own cost and expense, to furnish all labor, tools, equipment, materials, except as otherwise specified, in accordance with the Service Plan set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein.

5. City Obligations. City shall make payments to the Contractor in accordance with the Payment Provisions set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein.

Public Works Darin Fitzpatrick [email protected] (510) 231-3044 Nicholl Park Tennis Courts Renovation
First Serve Productions Inc. Chanel Johnson (925) 202-5228 [email protected] October 6, 2026 October 6, 2029 37,300.00 1688

6. Authorized Representatives and Notices. This Contract is subject to the Authorized Representatives and Notices Provisions (Exhibit C), attached hereto and incorporated herein.

7. General Conditions. This Contract is subject to the General Conditions (Exhibit D), which are attached hereto and incorporated herein.

8. Special Conditions. This Contract is subject to the Special Conditions (Exhibit E) (if any), which are attached hereto and incorporated herein.

9. Insurance Provisions. This Contract is subject to the Insurance Provisions (Exhibit F), which are attached hereto and incorporated herein.

10. Sanctuary City Compliance Statement. This Contract is subject to the Sanctuary City Compliance Statement (Exhibit G), which is attached hereto and incorporated herein.

11. Signatures. These signatures attest the parties' agreement hereto:

CITY OF RICHMOND,
a municipal corporation [BUSINESS NAME]
(* The Corporation Chairperson of the Board, President, or Vice President should sign below)
By: _________________________ By: ___________________________ Title: ________________________ Title: __________________________ Date Signed: _________________ Date Signed: ___________________ I hereby certify that this Contract (* The Corporation Chief Financial Officer or Assistant has been approved by City Council Treasurer, or Secretary or Assistant Secretary should or the City Manager. sign below)
By: _________________________ By: ___________________________ City Clerk Title: __________________________
Date Signed: ____________________
Approved as to form:
(NOTE: Pursuant to California Corporations Code Section By: _________________________ 313, if Contractor is a corporation or nonprofit organization, City Attorney this Contract (1) must be signed by (a) the Chairperson of the Board, President, or Vice-President and (b) the
Chief Financial Officer or Assistant Treasurer, or
Secretary or Assistant Secretary)
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:

Service Plan Exhibit A
Payment Provisions Exhibit B
Authorized Representatives and Notices Exhibit C
General Conditions Exhibit D
Special Conditions Exhibit E
Insurance Provisions Exhibit F
Sanctuary City Compliance Statement Exhibit G
First Serve Productions Inc.
1689
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________

EXHIBIT A

SERVICE PLAN
Contractor shall, to the satisfaction of the Project Manager (set forth in Exhibit B), perform the following services and be compensated as outlined below [or attach service plan if necessary]:

First Serve Productions Inc.

See Below.
1690
1691
1692
1693
1694
1695
1696
1697
1698
1699
1700
1701
1702
1703
1704
1705
1706
1707
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________

EXHIBIT B

PAYMENT PROVISIONS

1. COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR:
a. Provided Contractor is not in default under this Contract, Contractor shall be compensated in the manner set forth herein.
b. All payments made pursuant to this Contract shall be subject to the Contract Payment Limit. The Payment Limit includes expenses (phones, photocopying, meals and travel, etc.). Invoices shall be adequately detailed, based on accurate records, and be in a form reasonably satisfactory to the City. Contractor may be required to provide back-up material upon request. c. All City vendors receiving new contracts shall sign up to receive electronic payments through the City’s Automated Clearinghouse (ACH) payments service/provider.

2. SUBMISSION OF INVOICES:

Contractor shall submit timely invoices by email to
[email protected] and/or to the following address:

Attention: City of Richmond Finance/Account Payable
Project Manager: _______________________
P.O. Box 4046
Richmond, CA 94804

3. All invoices that are submitted by Contractor shall be subject to the approval of the City Project Manager, _______________________, before payments shall be authorized.
a. The City will pay invoice(s) within 45 days after completion of services to the City’s satisfaction. The City shall not pay late fees or interest.
b. All appropriate permits, certificates, and licenses, including a City business license shall be obtained and maintained for the duration of this Contract before any payment is authorized.

4. All insurance coverage required by this Contract shall be provided by the Contractor before this Contract is executed by the City. The insurance coverage required by this Contract shall be maintained by Contractor for the duration of this Contract and must be in place before any payment is authorized.

Darin Fitzpatrick Darin Fitzpatrick First Serve Productions Inc. 1708
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________

EXHIBIT C

AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES AND NOTICES

1. All required written notices shall be delivered: (i) by hand; or (ii) sent by registered, express, or certified mail, with return receipt requested or with delivery confirmation requested from the U.S. postal service; or (iii) sent by overnight or same day courier service at the party’s respective address listed in this Section.

2. Each notice shall be deemed to have been received on the earlier to occur of:
actual delivery or the date on which delivery is refused; or three (3) days after notice is deposited in the U.S. mail or with a courier service in the manner described above (Sundays and City holidays excepted).

3. Either party may, at any time, change its notice address (other than to a post office box address) by giving the other party three (3) days prior written notice of the new address.

4. All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from Contractor to the City shall be addressed to the City at:

City of Richmond
450 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
Email: ________________________________________________

5. All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from the City to Contractor shall be addressed to Contractor at:

Attn:

Email: ________________________________________________ Darin Fitzpatrick [email protected] First Serve Productions Inc. First Serve Productions Inc. [email protected] 1709
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________

EXHIBIT D

GENERAL CONDITIONS

1. INDEPENDENT PARTIES:

Contractor hereby declares that Contractor is engaged as an independent business and Contractor agrees to perform the services as an independent contractor.

The manner and means of conducting the services and tasks are under the control of Contractor except to the extent they are limited by statute, rule or regulation and the express terms of this Contract. No civil service status or other right of employment will be acquired by virtue of Contractor’s services. None of the benefits provided by the City to its employees, including but not limited to unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation plans, vacation and sick leave, are available from the City to Contractor, its employees or agents. Deductions shall not be made for any state or federal taxes, FICA payments, PERS payments, or other purposes normally associated with an employer-employee relationship from any compensation due to Contractor. Payments of the above items, if required, are the responsibility of Contractor.

2. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE:

Contractor and the City agree that time is of the essence regarding the performance of this Contract.

3. STANDARD OF CARE:

Contractor agrees to perform all services hereunder in a manner commensurate with the prevailing standards of like professionals or service Contractors, as applicable, in the San Francisco Bay Area and agrees that all services shall be performed by qualified and experienced personnel who are not employed by the City.

4. IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL ACT (IRCA):

Contractor assumes all responsibility for verifying the identity and employment authorization of all of its employees performing work hereunder, pursuant to all applicable IRCA or other federal, or state rules and regulations. Contractor shall indemnify, defend, and hold the City harmless from and against any loss, damage, liability, costs or expenses arising from any noncompliance of this provision by Contractor.

5. NON-DISCRIMINATION:

Consistent with the City’s policy and state and federal law that harassment and discrimination are unacceptable conduct, Contractor and its employees, contractors, and agents shall not harass or discriminate against any job applicant, City employee, or any other person on the basis of any kind of any statutorily (federal, state or local) protected class, including but not limited to: race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, First Serve Productions Inc.
1710
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
disability (both mental and physical) including HIV and AIDS, medical condition (e.g. cancer), genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, pregnancy, political affiliation, military and veteran status or legitimate union activities. Contractor agrees that any violation of this provision shall constitute a material breach of this Contract.

6. CITY PROPERTY:
a. Each and every report, draft, work product, map, record, applicable plans, drawings, calculation, data, specification, video, graphic, or any other material or document produced, prepared or caused to be prepared by Contractor pursuant to or in connection with this Contract shall be the exclusive property of the City. b. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Contractor shall not be obligated to provide to City proprietary software or data which Contractor has developed or had developed for Contractor's own use; provided, however, that Contractor shall, pursuant to Section 11 below, indemnify, defend and hold the City harmless from and against any discovery or Public Records Act request seeking the disclosure of such proprietary software or data. c. No report, information or other data given to or prepared or assembled by Contractor pursuant to this Contract shall be made available to any individual or organization by Contractor without prior approval of the City Manager or their designee. d. Contractor shall, at such time and in such form as City Manager or their designee may require, furnish reports concerning the status of services and tasks required under this Contract.

7. RECORDS:
a. Contractor shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to the services, tasks, work, documents and data in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of Contractor’s performance under the Contract, as well as maintain books and records related to sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by the City that relate to the performance of the services and tasks under this Contract (collectively the “Records”).
b. All Records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Contractor shall provide free access to the Records to the representatives of the City or its designees during regular business hours upon reasonable prior notice. The City has the right to examine and audit the Records, and to make copies or transcripts therefrom as necessary, and to allow inspection of all proceedings and activities related to this Contract. Such Records, together with supporting documents, shall be kept separate from other documents and records and shall be maintained by Contractor for a period of five (5) years after receipt of final payment.

First Serve Productions Inc.
1711
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
c. If supplemental examination or audit of the Records is necessary due to concerns raised by the City’s preliminary examination or audit of records, and the City’s supplemental examination or audit of the records discloses a failure to adhere to appropriate internal financial controls, or other breach of this Contract or failure to act in good faith, then Contractor shall reimburse the City for all reasonable costs and expenses associated with the supplemental examination or audit.

8. PERMITS AND LICENSES:

Contractor, at its sole expense, shall obtain and maintain during the term of this Contract, all appropriate permits, certificates and licenses, including a City business license, required in connection with the performance of the services and tasks hereunder.

The failure to obtain such permits and licenses shall be a material breach of this Contract and grounds for immediate termination by City; provided, however, that City may waive the business license requirement in writing under unusual or extraordinary circumstances without necessitating any modification of this Contract to reflect such waiver.

9. TERMINATION:
a. Termination Without Default. Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, the City may, in its sole and absolute discretion and without cause, terminate this Contract at any time prior to completion by Contractor of the project or services hereunder immediately upon transmission of written notice to Contractor as provided in Exhibit C “Authorized Representatives and Notices”.
b. Termination in the Event of Default. Should Contractor fail to perform any of its obligations hereunder, within the time and in the manner provided or otherwise violate any of the terms of this Contract, City may immediately terminate this Contract by giving written notice of such termination, stating the reasons for such termination. Contractor shall be compensated as provided in Exhibit B; provided, however, there shall be deducted from such amount the amount of damage, including attorney's fees, expert witness fees and costs, if any, sustained by City by virtue of Contractor's breach of this Contract. Additionally, in the event of such termination, the City may proceed with the work in any reasonable manner it chooses.

10. CONFLICT OF INTEREST:

Contractor acknowledges, represents and warrants that Contractor shall avoid all conflicts of interest (as defined under any federal, state or local statute, rule or regulation, or at common law) with respect to this Contract. Contractor further acknowledges, represents and warrants that no City official or employee has any economic interest, as defined in Title 2, California Code of Regulations §§ 18703.1 through 18703.5, with Contractor that would invalidate this Contract. Contractor acknowledges that in the event that Contractor shall be found by any judicial or administrative body to have any conflict of interest (as defined above) with respect to this Contract, all consideration received under First Serve Productions Inc.
1712
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
this Contract shall be forfeited and returned to City forthwith. This provision shall survive the termination of this Contract for one (1) year.

11. HOLD HARMLESS:
a. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Contractor shall indemnify, defend (with counsel acceptable to the City) and hold harmless the City, its City Council, boards, commissions, officials, employees, agents and volunteers (“Indemnitees”) from and against any and all loss, damages, liability, obligations, claims, suits, judgments, costs and expenses whatsoever, including attorney’s fees and costs of litigation (“Claims”), arising from or in any manner connected to Contractor’s performance of its obligations under this Contract or failure to comply with any of its obligations under this Contract or out of the operations conducted by Contractor even if the City is found to have been negligent. If the Claims filed against Indemnitees allege negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct on the part of Contractor, Contractor shall have no right of reimbursement against Indemnitees for the costs of defense even if negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct is not found on the part of Contractor. Contractor shall not have any obligations to indemnify Indemnitees if the loss or damage is found to have resulted solely from the negligence or the willful misconduct of the City. The defense and indemnification obligations of this Contract are undertaken in addition to, and shall not in any way be limited by, the insurance obligations contained in this Contract. b. This indemnification obligation shall survive this Contract and shall not be limited by any term of any insurance policy required under this Contract; provided however, that if this Contract is for design professional services, this indemnity provision is limited to claims that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the design professional (as defined in California Civil Code section 2782.8).

12. LIMITATIONS UPON SUBCONTRACTING AND ASSIGNMENT:
a. This Contract binds the heirs, successors, assigns and representatives of Contractor. The Contractor shall not enter into subcontracts for any work contemplated under this Contract and shall not assign this Contract, nor any portion hereof or monies due or to become due, without the prior written consent of the City Council or its designee.
b. Contractor shall not assign, sublease, hypothecate, or transfer this Contract, or any interest therein, directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise, without prior written consent of the City Manager. Contractor shall submit a written request for consent to transfer to the City Manager at least thirty (30) days in advance of the desired transfer.

The City Manager or their designee may consent or reject such request in their sole and absolute discretion. Any attempt to do so without said consent shall be null and void, and any assignee, sublessee, hypothecate or transferee shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer. However, claims for First Serve Productions Inc.
1713
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
money against the City under this Contract may be assigned by Contractor to a bank, trust company or other financial institution without prior written consent. c. The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Contractor (if applicable), or of the interest of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member if Contractor is a partnership or jointventure or syndicate, which shall result in a change of control of Contractor, shall be deemed an assignment. For this purpose, control shall mean fifty percent or more of the voting power or twenty-five percent or more of the assets of the corporation, partnership or joint-venture.
d. Only those persons and/or businesses whose names and resumés are attached to this Contract shall be used in the performance of this Contract. However, if after the start of this Contract, Contractor wishes to use sub-contractors, at no additional costs to the City, then Contractor shall submit a written request for consent to add subcontractors including the names of the sub-contractors and the reasons for the request to the City Manager at least five (5) days in advance. The City Manager may consent or reject such requests in their sole and absolute discretion. e. Each sub-contractor shall be required to furnish proof of workers’ compensation insurance and shall also be required to carry general, automobile and professional liability insurance (as applicable) in reasonable conformity to the insurance carried by Contractor.
f. In addition, any tasks or services performed by sub-contractors shall be subject to each provision of this Contract. Contractor shall include the following language in their Contract with any sub-contractor: “Sub-Contractors hired by Contractor agree to be bound to Contractor and the City in the same manner and to the same extent as Contractor is bound to the City.”
g. The requirements in this Section 12 shall not apply to persons who are merely providing materials, supplies, data or information that Contractor then analyzes and incorporates into its work product.

13. SAFETY:
a. Contractor acknowledges that the City is committed to the highest standards of workplace safety. Contractor will be solely and completely responsible for conditions of all vehicles owned or operated by Contractor, including the safety of all persons and property during performance of the services and tasks under this Contract.

Contractor shall assume sole and complete responsibility for the safety of Contractor's employees and any of subcontractor's employees This requirement will apply continuously and not be limited to normal working hours. In addition, Contractor will comply with all safety provisions in conformance with U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Act, any equivalent state law, and all other applicable First Serve Productions Inc.
1714
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
federal, state, county and local laws, ordinances, codes, and any regulations that may be detailed in other parts of the Contract. Where any of these are in conflict, the more stringent requirements will be followed. Contractor’s failure to thoroughly familiarize itself with the aforementioned safety provisions will not relieve it from compliance with the obligations and penalties set forth herein.
b. Contractor will immediately notify the City (in no event less than 24 hours) of any incident of death, serious personal injury or substantial property damage that occurs in connection with the performance of this Contract. Contractor will promptly submit to the City a written report of all incidents that occur in connection with this Contract. This report must include the following information: (i) name and address of injured or deceased person(s); (ii) name and address of Contractor’s employee(s) involved in the incident; (iii) name and address of Contractor’s liability insurance carrier; (iv) a detailed description of the incident; and (v) a police report.
c. Contractor acknowledges that the City shall have the right to impose, at the City’s sole discretion, requirements that it deems are necessary to protect the health and safety of the City employees, residents, and visitors. Contractor agrees to comply with all such requirements, including, but not limited to, mandatory vaccinations, the use of personal protective equipment (e.g. masks), physical distancing, and health screenings.

Contractor also agrees to make available to the City, at the City’s request, records to demonstrate Contractor’s compliance with this Section.

14. INSURANCE:

Insurance requirements are set forth in Exhibit F to this Contract. Contractor shall abide by the insurance requirements set forth in said Exhibit F.

15. COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE LAWS:
a. During the term of this Contract, Contractor shall keep fully informed of all existing and future state and federal laws and all municipal ordinances and regulations of the City of Richmond which affect the manner in which the services or tasks are to be performed by Contractor, as well as all such orders and decrees of bodies or tribunals having any jurisdiction or authority over the same. Contractor shall comply with all applicable laws, state and federal and all ordinances, rules and regulations enacted or issued by the City. Compliance under this provision includes compliance with all provisions of the Richmond Municipal Code ("Municipal Code"), including Chapters 2.50,

2.52, 2.56, and 2.60, if applicable.
b. Contractor acknowledges that under § 2.60.070 of the Municipal Code ("Living Wage Ordinance"), Contractor is required to provide the City with documents and information verifying its compliance with the Living Wage Ordinance. Contractor shall notify each of its affected employees with regards to the wages that are required to be paid pursuant to the Living Wage Ordinance as prescribed in § 2.60.070 of the Municipal Code.

First Serve Productions Inc.
1715
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
c. Contractor shall comply with § 2.28.030 of the Municipal Code, obligating every Contractor or sub-Contractor under an agreement or sub-agreement with the City for public works, goods or services to refrain from discriminatory employment or practices on the basis of race, color, sex, sexual orientation, religious creed, national origin or ancestry of any employee, any applicant for employment or any potential sub-contractor. d. Contractor acknowledges that the City’s Drug Free Workplace Policy, Violence in the Workplace Policy and the Policy Against Workplace Harassment, are available on the City’s website at http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/workplacepolicies.

Contractor agrees to abide by the terms and conditions of said policies.

16. INTEGRATED CONTRACT:

The Recitals and exhibits are a material part of this Contract and are expressly incorporated herein. This Contract represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or nature whatsoever between the parties hereto, and all preliminary negotiations and agreements of whatsoever kind or nature are merged herein. No verbal agreement or implied covenant shall be held to vary the provisions hereof. Any modification of this Contract will be effective only by written execution signed by both the City and Contractor.

17. CONFLICTING PROVISIONS:

In the event of a conflict between these General Conditions and those of any Exhibit or attachment hereto, these General Conditions shall prevail; provided, however, that any Special Condition as set forth in Exhibit E shall prevail over these General Conditions. In the event of a conflict between the terms and conditions of any two or more Exhibits or attachments hereto, those prepared by City shall prevail over those prepared by the Contractor, and the terms and conditions preferred by the City shall prevail over those preferred by the Contractor.

18. FORCE MAJEURE:

Neither party hereto shall be considered in default in the performance of its obligations hereunder to the extent that the performance of such an obligation is prevented or delayed by reason of acts of God, strikes, boycotts, lock-outs, inability to procure materials not related to the price thereof, failure of power, restrictive governmental laws and regulations enacted after the date of this Contract, riots, civil unrest, acts of terrorism, insurrection, war, declaration of a state or national emergency or other reasons of a like nature not within the reasonable control of such party.

19. CONFLICT OF LAW:

This Contract shall be interpreted under, and enforced by the laws of the State of First Serve Productions Inc.
1716
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
California without regard to any choice of law rules which may direct the application of laws of another jurisdiction. The Contract and obligations of the parties are subject to all valid laws, orders, rules, and regulations of the authorities having jurisdiction over this Contract (or the successors of those authorities). Any suits brought pursuant to this Contract shall be filed with the courts of the County of Contra Costa, State of California.

20. CLAIMS:

Any claim by Contractor against City hereunder shall be subject to Government Code §§ 800 et seq. The claims presentation provisions of said Act are hereby modified such that the presentation of all claims hereunder to the City shall be waived if not made within six months after accrual of the cause of action.

21. INTERPRETATION:

This Contract shall be interpreted as if drafted by both parties.

22. WARRANTY:

If any product is be provided to the City as part of this Contract, Contractor warrants as follows: Contractor possesses good title to the product and the right to transfer the product to City; the product shall be delivered to the City free from any security interest or other lien; the product meets any specifications contained herein; the product shall be free from material defects in materials and workmanship under normal use for a period of one (1) year from the date of delivery; and the product shall be fit for its intended purpose(s). Notwithstanding the foregoing, consumable and maintenance items (such as light bulbs and batteries) shall be warranted for a period of one hundred and eighty (180) days from the date of delivery. All repairs during the warranty period shall be promptly performed by Contractor, at Contractor's expense, including shipping.

23. SEVERABILITY:

In the event that any of the provisions or portions or applications thereof of this Contract are held to be unenforceable or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, City and Contractor shall negotiate an equitable adjustment in the provisions of the Contract with a view toward effecting the purpose of this Contract, and the validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions or portions or applications thereof, shall not be affected thereby.

24. AUTHORITY:

City warrants and represents that the signatory hereto (the Mayor of the City of Richmond or the City Manager) is duly authorized to enter into and execute this Contract on behalf of City. The party signing on behalf of Contractor warrants and represents that they are duly authorized to enter into and execute this Contract on behalf of Contractor, First Serve Productions Inc.
1717
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
and shall be personally liable to City if they are not duly authorized to enter into and execute this Contract on behalf of Contractor.

25. WAIVER:

The waiver by City of any breach of any term or provision of this Contract shall not be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach. Inspections or approvals, or statements by any officer, agent or employee of the City relating to the Contractor’s performance, or payment therefore, or any combination of these acts, shall not relieve the Contractor’s obligation to fulfill this Contract as prescribed; nor shall the City be thereby stopped from bringing any action for damages or enforcement arising from any failure to comply with any of the terms and conditions of this Contract.

26. COUNTERPARTS:

This Contract may be executed in any number of counterparts (including by fax, PDF, DocuSign, or other electronic means), each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument.

27. SANCTUARY CITY CONTRACTING ORDINANCE (SCCO):

The Richmond Sanctuary City Contracting Ordinance No. 12-18 prohibits the City from granting and or retaining contracts with any person or entity that provides Data Broker or Extreme Vetting services to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the United States Department of Homeland Security (“ICE”). Contractor must submit the Sanctuary City Compliance Statement, attached hereto as Exhibit G.

First Serve Productions Inc.
1718
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________

EXHIBIT E

SPECIAL CONDITIONS
The General Conditions are hereby amended to include the following modifications and/or provisions (if applicable, otherwise please state “NONE”):

First Serve Productions Inc.

NONE
1719
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________

EXHIBIT F

INSURANCE PROVISIONS
☐ CHECK HERE IF RISK MANAGEMENT HAS APPROVED WAIVING INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS CONTRACT.

1. CERTIFICATES: Before the commencement of the terms of this Contract, and during the entire term of this Contract and any extension or modification thereof, Contractor shall furnish the City’s Risk Manager with certificates showing the type, amount, class of operations covered, effective dates and dates of expiration of insurance coverage in compliance with coverage requirements set forth by the City and incorporated herein.

Such certificates, which do not limit Contractor’s indemnification, shall also contain substantially the following statement:
“Should any of the above insurance covered by this certificate be canceled or coverage reduced before the expiration date thereof, the insurer affording coverage shall provide thirty (30) days’ advance written notice to the City of Richmond.

Attention: Risk Manager.”
Contractor shall maintain in force at all times during the performance of this Contract all appropriate coverage of insurance required by this Contract with an insurance company licensed to offer insurance business in the State of California with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII or Standard & Poor’s Rating (if rated) of at least BBB unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Contractor shall deliver updated insurance certificates to the City at the address set forth in Exhibit C prior to the expiration of the existing insurance certificate for the duration of the term of Contract.

Endorsements naming the City, its City Council, boards, commissions, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers as additional insured shall be submitted with the insurance certificates.

2. COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS: The City’s insurance requirements depend upon the type of service being provided and/or the provider. The City’s insurance requirements will fall into one of the following categories (unless otherwise provided by the City):

Consultants and Contractors – Type 1
Professional Services – Type 2
Environmental Risk/Hazardous Waste Material – Type 3
Lease of City Property – Type 4
Vendors, Suppliers, Small Grant Recipients & Nonprofit Organizations – Type 5 Transportation Providers – Type 6
Professional Services Pyrotechnics – Type 7
Cyber and I.T. Risks – Type 8
First Serve Productions Inc.
1720
___ Exhibit F
___ Section 8
City of Richmond - Insurance Requirements – Type 1:

Consultants and Contractors
Type 1 – Page 1 of 4
Revised: September 2011
In all instances where a CONTRACTOR or its representatives will be conducting business and/or providing services, the City requires the following MINIMUM insurance requirements and limits.

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

CONTRACTOR agrees that in the event of loss due to any of the perils for which it has agreed to provide Commercial General Liability insurance, CONTRACTOR shall look solely to its insurance for recovery. CONTRACTOR hereby grants to CITY, on behalf of any insurer providing Commercial General Liability insurance to either CONTRACTOR or CITY with respect to the services of CONSULTANT herein, a waiver of any right to subrogation which any such insurer of said CONTRACTOR may acquire against the CITY by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance.

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

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

Minimum coverage is detailed below. The policy limits of coverage shall be made available to the full limits of the policy.

The minimum limits stated herein shall not serve to reduce the policy limits of coverage of CONTRACTOR.

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

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

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

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

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

5. Original and Separate Waiver of Subrogation for Workers’ Compensation and Builder’s Risk/ Course of Construction Insurance.

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

7. Contractor’s Pollution Liability (if applicable for Construction Contractors) Required Coverage Minimum Limits
Workers’ Compensation and
Employers’ Liability
Statutory limits as required by the State of California including $1 million Employers’ Liability per accident, per employee for bodily injury or disease.

If CONTRACTOR is self-insured, provide a certificate of Permission to SelfInsure, signed by the California Department of Industrial Relations and SelfInsurance. If contractor is a sole proprietor (has no employees) than contractor must sign “Contractor Release of Liability” found at:
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/index.aspx?nid=61.
1721
___ Exhibit F
___ Section 8
City of Richmond - Insurance Requirements – Type 1:

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

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

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

If the policy includes a general aggregate, either the general aggregate shall apply separately to this project, service or location or the minimum required aggregate limit shall be twice the per occurrence limit ($4 million aggregate limit).

Policy shall be endorsed to name the City of Richmond as an additional insured per the conditions detailed below.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Same limits as General Liability.

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

Additional Insured Endorsement Applicable to General Liability Coverage.

The City of Richmond, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be named as additional insureds for all liability arising out of the operations by or on behalf of the named insured, including but not limited to bodily injury, deaths and property damage or destruction arising in any respect directly or indirectly in the performance of this contract.

ISO form CG 20 10 (11/85) or its equivalent is required. The endorsement must not exclude products and completed operations coverage. If it does, then CG 20 37 (10/01) is also required. 1722
___ Exhibit F
___ Section 8
City of Richmond - Insurance Requirements – Type 1:

Consultants and Contractors
Type 1 – Page 3 of 4
Revised: September 2011
Additional Insured Endorsement
(continued)
SAMPLE Endorsements can be found at
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/index.aspx?nid=61
Primary and Noncontributory The contractor’s insurance coverage must be primary coverage as it pertains to the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. Any insurance or self insurance maintained by the City is wholly separate from the insurance of the contractor and in no way relieves the contractor from its responsibility to provide insurance.

Waiver of Subrogation
Endorsement Form
Contractor’s insurer will provide a Waiver of Subrogation in favor of the City for Workers Compensation and Builder’s Risk/ Course of Construction coverage during the life of this contract.

SAMPLE Endorsements can be found at
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/index.aspx?nid=61
Deductibles and Self-Insured
Retentions
Any deductible or self-insured retention must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retention as respects the City or the CONTRACTOR shall procure a financial guarantee in an amount equal to the deductible or self-insured retention guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claims administration and defense expenses.

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

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

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

1. A Bid bond

2. A Performance Bond

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

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

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

CONTRACTOR agrees to defend and indemnify the City of Richmond for any damage resulting to it from failure of either CONTRACTOR or any subcontractor to take out or maintain the required insurance policies. The fact that insurance is obtained by CONTRACTOR, and/or CONTRACTOR’s subcontractors, will not be deemed to release or diminish the liability of CONTRACTOR, including, without limitation, liability under the indemnity provisions of this contract. Damages recoverable by CITY from CONTRACTOR or any third party will not be limited by the amount of the required insurance coverage.
1723
___ Exhibit F
___ Section 8
City of Richmond - Insurance Requirements – Type 1:

Consultants and Contractors
Type 1 – Page 4 of 4
Revised: September 2011
Verification of Coverage
All original certificates and endorsements shall be received and approved by the City before work may begin. The City of Richmond reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies including endorsements affecting the coverage at any time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consistent with Public Policy
The insuring provisions, insofar as they may be judged to be against public policy shall be void and unenforceable only to the minimum extent necessary so that the remaining terms and provisions herein may be consistent with public policy and thus enforceable.
1724
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
The insurance requirements classification applicable to this Contract shall be attached to this Exhibit F and made a part hereof.

3. FAILURE TO SECURE: If Contractor at any time during the term hereof should fail to secure or maintain the foregoing insurance, the City shall be permitted to obtain such insurance in Contractor’s name or as an agent of Contractor and shall be compensated by Contractor for the costs of the insurance premiums at the maximum rate permitted by law and computed from the date written notice is received that the premiums have not been paid.

4. SUFFICIENCY OF INSURANCE: The insurance limits required by the City are not represented as being sufficient to protect Contractor. Contractor is advised to consult Contractor’s insurance broker to determine adequate coverage for Contractor. The coverage and limits shall be (1) the minimum coverage and limits specified in this Contract; or (2) the broader coverage and maximum limits of the coverage carried by or available to Contractor; whichever is greater.

INSERT INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CLASSIFICATION APPLICABLE TO THIS CONTRACT: (IF NECESSARY, CONFIRM WITH RISK MANAGER)
First Serve Productions Inc.
1725
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________

EXHIBIT G

SANCTUARY CITY COMPLIANCE STATEMENT
The undersigned, (hereafter "Contractor"), has had an opportunity to review the requirements of City of Richmond Ordinance 12-18 (hereafter "Sanctuary City Contracting Ordinance" or “SCCO”).

Contractor understands and agrees that the City may choose with whom it will maintain business relations and may refrain from contracting with any person or entity that provides Data Broker or Extreme Vetting services to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the United States Department of Homeland Security (“ICE”). Contractor understands the meaning of the following terms used in the SCCO:
a. "Data Broker” means either of the following:
i. The collection of information, including personal information about consumers, from a wide variety of sources for the purposes of reselling such information to their customers, which include both private-sector business and government agencies;
ii. The aggregation of data that was collected for another purpose from that for which it is ultimately used.
b. “Extreme Vetting” means data mining, threat modeling, predictive risk analysis, or other similar services."
Contractor understands that it is not eligible to receive or retain a City contract if at the time the Contract is executed, or at any time during the term of the Contract, it provides Data Broker or Extreme Vetting services to ICE.

Contractor further understands and agrees that Contractor's failure to comply with the SCCO shall constitute a material default of the Contract and the City Manager may terminate the Contract and bar Contractor from bidding on future contracts with the City for five (5) years from the effective date of the contract termination.

By executing this statement, Contractor certifies that it complies with the requirements of the SCCO and that if at any time during the term of the Contract it ceases to comply, Contractor will promptly notify the City Manager in writing. Any person or entity who knowingly or willingly supplies false information in violation of the SCCO shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a $1,000 fine.

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned declares under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Printed Name: Title:

Signed: Date:

Business Entity:

First Serve Productions Inc.
1726
Reso. No. _____

RESOLUTION NO. ______

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND,

CALIFORNIA, AWARDING A CONTRACT TO FIRST SERVE PRODUCTIONS, INC. FOR THE NICHOLL PARK TENNIS COURTS RENOVATION PROJECT IN THE BASE AMOUNT OF $37,300, PLUS A 25 PERCENT CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY OF $9,325, FOR A TOTAL AUTHORIZED AMOUNT NOT-TOEXCEED $46,625 WHEREAS, the City of Richmond owns and maintains Nicholl Park, including two existing tennis courts located at 3230 Macdonald Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the existing tennis courts require rehabilitation to address surface cracking, uneven areas, and deterioration of the existing court surfaces; and WHEREAS, the Nicholl Park Tennis Courts Renovation Project includes court preparation, crack repair, pond leveling, resurfacing, restriping, and other miscellaneous improvements identified in the project plans and specifications; and WHEREAS, on March 25, 2026, the City advertised the Nicholl Park Tennis Courts Renovation Project for competitive bidding through the City's electronic procurement system, with 299 vendors notified of the solicitation; and
WHEREAS, a mandatory pre-bid meeting was held on April 7, 2026, the deadline for bidder questions was April 13, 2026, and bids closed on April 23, 2026, at 5:00 p.m.; and WHEREAS, the City received one bid from First Serve Productions, Inc. in the amount of Thirty-Seven Thousand Three Hundred Dollars ($37,300); and WHEREAS, City staff reviewed the bid and determined First Serve Productions, Inc. to be the lowest responsive and responsible bidder for the Nicholl Park Tennis Courts Renovation Project; and
WHEREAS, due to the nature of rehabilitation work on existing tennis court surfaces, unforeseen conditions may be encountered during construction, including additional cracking, leveling requirements, surface deterioration, or other conditions that may not be fully apparent until preparation work begins; and
WHEREAS, City staff recommends establishing a twenty-five percent (25%) construction contingency in the amount of Nine Thousand Three Hundred Twenty-Five Dollars ($9,325) to address unforeseen conditions or additional work necessary for successful completion of the project; and
WHEREAS, the base construction contract of Thirty-Seven Thousand Three Hundred Dollars ($37,300), together with the Nine Thousand Three Hundred Twenty-Five Dollar ($9,325) construction contingency, results in a total authorized amount not-to-exceed Forty-Six Thousand Six Hundred Twenty-Five Dollars ($46,625); and
WHEREAS, funding for the project is available in the Public Works Department Parks Division budget (01233631-400537).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richmond that a contract with First Serve Productions, Inc. for the Nicholl Park Tennis Courts Renovation Project is hereby awarded in the base amount of Thirty-Seven Thousand Three Hundred Dollars ($37,300), plus a twenty-five percent (25%) construction contingency in the amount of Nine Thousand Three Hundred Twenty-Five Dollars ($9,325), for a total authorized amount not-toexceed Forty-Six Thousand Six Hundred Twenty-Five Dollars ($46,625).

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager or designee is authorized to execute the contract and related documents necessary to complete the project and to authorize use of the construction contingency as necessary for unforeseen conditions or additional work directly related to completion of the project.
1727
Reso. No. _____

******************
I certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting thereof held on October 6, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:

CLERK OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
(SEAL)
Approved:

Mayor
Approved as to form:

City Attorney
1728

October 6, 2026
DocID #79639v1
Public Works
DATE: October 6, 2026
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM: Hillal Hamdan, P.E., Senior Civil Engineer
Daniel Chavarria, P.E., Director of Public Works / City Engineer
Subject: Freeway Maintenance Agreement Amendment No. 1 with California Department of Transportation at the
intersection of McBryde Avenue and State Route 80
("Caltrans")
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Funding is available in the approved Fiscal Year 2026- 2027 Public Works budget for any maintenance costs
arising from this amendment (Account String:
10234431-400645-01A05). No additional appropriation is
required.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None.

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

The City is advancing the McBryde Safe Routes to Park
project at the McBryde Avenue/State Route 80
interchange. Because portions of the bicycle and
pedestrian improvements are located within the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) right of way, the City and Caltrans must amend the existing Freeway
Maintenance Agreement to establish the City’s ongoing
maintenance responsibilities for the new facilities
following construction.

AGENDA
REPORT
1729

October 6, 2026
DocID #79639v1
RECOMMENDED ACTION: ADOPT a resolution to APPROVE the first amendment to the Freeway Maintenance Agreement with the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to add the
McBryde Avenue/State Route 80 intersection and
establish maintenance responsibilities for new bicycle
path, lane, and cycle track improvements, and
AUTHORIZE the city manager, or their designee, to
execute the amendment – Public Works Department
(Hillal Hamdan 510-621-1612/Daniel Chavarria 510-620-
5478).

DISCUSSION:

Background
The City of Richmond is advancing the “McBryde Safe Routes to Park” project at the McBryde Avenue/State Route 80 interchange. The project includes new pedestrian crosswalks, bicycle lane markings, signing, and striping intended to improve access and safety in the area (Attachment 1). Because portions of the project are located within the State Route 80 right of way, the City and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) share jurisdictional and maintenance responsibilities for affected public facilities. These responsibilities are governed by the original Freeway Maintenance Agreement executed by the City and Caltrans on August 14, 1957 (Attachment 2).

Because these improvements include bicycle and pedestrian facilities constructed as a permitted encroachment within Caltrans' right of way, the City and Caltrans must amend the existing Agreement (Caltrans Agreement No. 04-CC-80-PM Var) to formalize the City's ongoing maintenance responsibility for the new facilities, consistent with standard practice for infrastructure that is turned over to the City for maintenance following construction.

Shared-maintenance agreements of this nature are standard throughout California and are intended to ensure consistency, fairness, and equitable distribution of maintenance obligations between agencies. This framework establishes clear responsibilities for infrastructure elements such as bicycle facilities, signing, striping, and other improvements that serve both State and local roadway users.

The proposed Amendment No. 1 makes two changes to the Agreement (Attachment 3).

First, it amends Exhibit A to add the City street intersection at McBryde Avenue and State Route 80 (PM 3.79) in Contra Costa County, identified as “Location 1,” as shown on new Exhibit A-1. Exhibit A-1 supersedes and replaces any prior depiction of the McBryde Avenue intersection within Exhibit A. Second, it adds a new Article 7, Bicycle Paths, Lanes, and Cycle Tracks, which provides that for bicycle paths, lanes, and cycle tracks constructed as permitted encroachments within Caltrans' right of way, the City is solely responsible for all permitted improvements — including delineation, drainage facilities, slope, and structural adequacy — and shall maintain, at its own expense, a safe facility for bicycle travel along the entire length of the path, lane, or cycle track, 1730

October 6, 2026
DocID #79639v1
including sweeping and debris removal, and all signing, striping, and pavement markings required for the direction and operation of the nonmotorized facility.

By adopting the resolution, the City Council authorizes the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 1, thereby formalizing the City's maintenance obligations for the new bicycle facilities at the McBryde Avenue/State Route 80 intersection. This action is consistent with the City's long-standing obligation under the 1957 Freeway Maintenance Agreement to maintain the public right of way within its jurisdiction and ensures that the City continues to contribute its fair share toward the maintenance of roadway infrastructure at the State highway intersections covered by the Agreement.

City staff recommend that the City Council adopt the resolution to approve first amendment and authorize the City Manager to execute the amendment with Caltrans (Attachment 4).

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Location Map
Attachment 2 – Existing Freeway Maintenance Agreement
Attachment 3 – Freeway Maintenance Agreement Amendment No. 1 (including Exhibit A-1)
Attachment 4 – Resolution
1731
Caltrans Bridge
1732
1733
1734
1735
1736
1737
1738
1739
1740
AMENDMENT No. 1 04-CC-80-PM Var
AMENDMENT No. 1

TO FREEWAY MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT OF

STATE HIGHWAYS IN THE CITY OF RICHMOND
This AMENDMENT Number 1 to the Freeway Maintenance Agreement, hereafter referred to as “AMENDMENT No. 1”, is effective on __________________________, and is entered into by and between the State of California, acting by and through the Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as “STATE”, and the City of Richmond, hereinafter referred to as “CITY”. CITY and STATE together are hereafter referred to as “PARTIES”.

WITNESSETH:

A. WHEREAS, a Freeway Maintenance Agreement of State Highway 80 in the City of Richmond, hereinafter referred to as “AGREEMENT”, was executed by CITY and STATE on August 14, 1957; and
B. WHEREAS, AGREEMENT by its terms provides that it may be modified or amended at any time upon mutual consent of the PARTIES; and
C. WHEREAS, an Encroachment Permit was executed between CITY and STATE for improvements to State Route 80 and related adjustments at the intersection of McBryde Avenue within CITY’s jurisdictional limits; and
D. WHEREAS, a specific location on any State highway is described by its county, route, and postmile ("PM") designation; and
E. WHEREAS, the PARTIES hereto now desire to amend AGREEMENT as provided herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, the PARTIES agree to amend AGREEMENT as follows:

1. Exhibit A of the AGREEMENT is amended to add the CITY street intersection at McBryde Avenue and State Route 80 (PM 3.79) in Contra Costa County, identified as “Location 1,” as shown on Exhibit A-1 attached hereto. Exhibit A-1 supersedes and replaces any prior depiction of the McBryde Avenue intersection within Exhibit A and is incorporated into the AGREEMENT for all purposes.
1741
AMENDMENT No. 1 04-CC-80-PM Var

2. A new Article 7 is hereby added and made a part of AGREEMENT to read as follows:
"7. BICYCLE PATHS, LANES, AND CYCLE TRACKS. For bicycle paths, lanes, and cycle tracks constructed as permitted encroachments within STATE’s right of way, CITY is solely responsible for all permitted improvements, including but not limited to delineation, drainage facilities, slope, and structural adequacy. CITY shall maintain, at CITY’s expense, a safe facility for bicycle travel along the entire length of the path, lane, or cycle track, including sweeping and debris removal when necessary, and all signing, striping, and pavement markings required for the direction and operation of the nonmotorized facility."

3. The changes to the AGREEMENT made by this AMENDMENT No. 1 are hereby included in and made a part of the AGREEMENT and shall remain in full force and effect until amended or terminated by mutual consent.

4. In all other respects, AGREEMENT remains unchanged and in full force and effect. 1742
AMENDMENT No. 1 04-CC-80-PM Var
PARTIES are empowered by Streets and Highways Code section 114 and 130 to enter into this Amendment and have delegated to the undersigned the authority to execute this Amendment on behalf of the respective agencies and covenants to have followed all the necessary legal requirements to validly execute this Amendment.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, PARTIES hereto have set their hands and seals the day and year first above written.

CITY OF RICHMOND STATE OF CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Initiated and Approved:

By:

NAME
City Manager
By:

LEAH BUDU,
Deputy District Director
Maintenance Division, District 04
ATTEST:

By: ____
NAME
City Clerk
AS TO FORM AND PROCEDURE:

By: ____
NAME
City Attorney
1743
CITY OF RICHMOND, CA CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BKF ENGINEERS 1646 N. CALIFORNIA BLVD. SUITE 400 WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596 (925) 940-2200 www.bkf.com
COPYRIGHT © BKF ENGINEERS 2026 MCBRYDE SAFE ROUTES TO PARK scale 1" = 20'
20 0 20
feet
40 1744
Reso. No. XX-26

DocID #65875v1
RESOLUTION NO. __-__

RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE FREEWAY MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT (FMA)

WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS) AT THE INTERSECTION OF MCBRYDE AVENUE AND STATE ROUTE 80
WHEREAS, the City of Richmond ("City") and the California Department of Transportation ("Caltrans") are parties to a Freeway Maintenance Agreement ("FMA"), originally executed August 14, 1957, establishing maintenance responsibilities for facilities located at the intersection of City streets and State highway facilities; and WHEREAS the City is implementing pedestrian and bicycle improvements at the McBryde Avenue and State Route 80 intersection (PM 3.79) as part of the McBryde Safe Routes to Park project, constructed as a permitted encroachment within Caltrans' right of way; and WHEREAS the proposed amendment to the FMA (“Amendment No. 1”) adds the McBryde Avenue/State Route 80 intersection to Exhibit A of the FMA, identified as “Location 1,” as depicted on new Exhibit A-1, which supersedes and replaces any prior depiction of the McBryde Avenue intersection; and
WHEREAS, Amendment No. 1 adds a new Article 7 to the FMA identifying the City as solely responsible for the operation, maintenance, repair, and replacement of bicycle paths, bicycle lanes, and cycle tracks constructed as permitted encroachments within Caltrans' right of way at the project area, including delineation, drainage facilities, slope, structural adequacy, sweeping and debris removal, and all signing, striping, and pavement markings; and WHEREAS the City Council finds that approving Amendment No. 1 to the FMA is necessary to clearly establish maintenance responsibilities between the City and Caltrans and to facilitate completion of the McBryde Safe Routes to Park project improvements.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richmond, as follows:

Section 1. The City Council finds the above recitals are true and correct and have served, together with the Agenda Report, as the basis for the findings and actions set forth in this resolution.

Section 2. The City Council hereby approves Amendment No. 1 to the Freeway Maintenance Agreement with Caltrans for the McBryde Avenue/State Route 80 intersection.

Section 3. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager, or their designee, to execute Amendment No. 1 to the Freeway Maintenance Agreement with Caltrans for the McBryde Avenue/State Route 80 intersection, thereby establishing maintenance responsibilities for the bicycle facilities constructed at that location.

Section 4. The City Clerk is designated as the custodian of the documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based. These records are maintained at the Office of the City Clerk, Richmond City Hall, 450 Civic Center Plaza, Richmond, CA 94804.

Section 5. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage. *********************
I certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting thereof held October 6, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:
1745
Reso. No. XX-26

DocID #65875v1

CLERK OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
(SEAL)
Approved:

Mayor
Approved as to form:

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

City of Richmond }
1746

October 6, 2026
Police Department
DATE: October 6, 2026
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM: Timothy Simmons, Chief of Police
Subject: Contract Amendment with Axon Enterprise and Contract with Assure MSP, Inc. for Law Enforcement and City
Facility Video Technology, Surveillance, and Support
Services
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The estimated first year expenditure of up to $1,000,000 is included in the approved Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Police Department budget, and future years will be budgeted
appropriately. The recommended dual vendor approach
provides a cost benefit compared with continuing the
current configuration or purchasing similar technologies through separate standalone procurements.

Based on updated analysis from the Police Department,
transitioning the ALPR, CCTV, and drone systems from
Flock Safety to Axon is expected to reduce annual costs by approximately $200,000, which results in an estimated savings of about $1,000,000 over five years. The Axon
package also increases available drone capacity by
moving from a single leased drone to six purchased
drones, which adds operational value beyond annual cost comparisons. These efficiencies result from Axon’s
bundled pricing, integration with existing City technology, and the avoidance of duplicated software, installation, and maintenance costs associated with multiple
independent procurements. (Account String:
01191021-400209)
AGENDA
REPORT
1747

October 6, 2026

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

October 18, 2016
December 22, 2020
December 17, 2024
March 3, 2026

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

The proposed contracts support two distinct video
technology needs. The amendment with Axon Enterprise
will provide additional funding for the City-wide
automated license plate reader system and continued
maintenance and support of law enforcement technology
and equipment currently in use. The contract with Assure MSP, Inc. will provide Verkada closed-circuit television cameras, related infrastructure, installation, maintenance, and technical support at various City facilities.

Using two vendors allows the City to separately manage
law enforcement technology and general City facility
security systems. This approach helps ensure that law
enforcement data is accessible only to authorized law
enforcement personnel while allowing the City to retain ownership and control of its data.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: APPROVE a contract amendment with Axon Enterprise to continue servicing body-worn cameras, taser devices, interview room equipment, and virtual reality training
equipment, and to add license plate reader and
surveillance equipment, increasing the contract amount
by $3,500,000, for a total amount not to exceed
$12,000,000, for the term of October 1, 2026, through
September 30, 2029, with two one-year extension
options through September 30, 2031; APPROVE a
contract with Assure MSP, Inc. for Verkada closed-circuit television camera equipment and related services at
various City facilities, in an amount not to exceed
$500,000, for the term of October 1, 2026, through
September 30, 2029; AUTHORIZE the City Attorney’s
Office to negotiate and finalize the contracts; and
AUTHORIZE the city manager, or their designee, to
execute the contracts – Police Department (Chief
Timothy Simmons 510-621-1802). This item was
continued from the September 15, and September 22,
2026, meetings.

DISCUSSION:

The City of Richmond initially entered into an agreement with Flock Safety in February 2023 to purchase and deploy 30 Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) cameras. 1748

October 6, 2026
Since that initial agreement, the City has amended the contract on four occasions to expand the use of Flock Safety technology in support of public safety operations and security at City-owned facilities and infrastructure.

In November 2023, the City Council approved the first amendment to the Flock Safety agreement, authorizing the purchase and deployment of additional ALPR and closedcircuit television (CCTV) cameras. This amendment significantly expanded the City's initial ALPR program and added CCTV technology to the City's public safety camera network.

In April 2024, the City Council approved the second amendment to the Flock Safety agreement to further expand the system through the installation of additional CCTV and ALPR cameras at the Port of Richmond. This expansion was intended to enhance security and situational awareness at the Port and surrounding City infrastructure.

In January 2025, the City Council approved the third amendment to the Flock Safety agreement. This amendment further expanded the City's existing Flock Safety program to include Drone as a First Responder (DFR) technology, as well as additional camera systems to support the security and monitoring of City infrastructure and facilities.

As a result of these successive amendments, what began in 2023 as a deployment of 30 ALPR cameras evolved into a broader technology program consisting of ALPR cameras, CCTV cameras, facility and infrastructure security cameras, and DFR technology.

On March 3, 2026, staff presented a proposed amendment to the City's existing agreement with Flock Safety to extend the applicable contract terms through December 31, 2026. The City Council approved the amendment on March 17, 2026. The purpose of the extension was to allow the City to satisfy existing contractual payment obligations while providing staff with sufficient time to conduct a competitive Request for Proposals (RFP) process and evaluate whether Flock Safety continued to represent the best technological, operational, and financial solution for the City of Richmond.

The contract amendment extending the agreement through December 31, 2026, was executed on May 5, 2026.

The decision to conduct a competitive procurement provided the City with an opportunity to comprehensively evaluate the current marketplace, compare available technologies, assess system performance and reliability, evaluate data management and privacy safeguards, consider interoperability with existing City technology, and determine whether alternative solutions could provide improved capabilities and value to the City.

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS AND VENDOR EVALUATION
On February 26, 2026, City staff completed an RFP for Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR), closed-circuit television (CCTV), and related public safety technology solutions. The RFP was posted on February 27, 2026, with a closing date of March 27, 1749

October 6, 2026
2026. A total of 830 vendors were notified of the solicitation, and an addendum was posted on March 1, 2026.

The City received proposals from six vendors:
 Assure MSP
 Axon Enterprise
 Flock Safety
 IREX
 Motorola Solutions
 Net Electric
Following an initial review of the six proposals, staff shortlisted Assure MSP, Axon Enterprise, and Flock Safety for additional evaluation.

Vendors Not Advanced for Further Evaluation
IREX was not advanced because its proposal lacked sufficient technical specifications for the equipment. Additionally, the proposed cost was approximately $1 million, and the proposal did not include a drone solution.

Motorola Solutions was not advanced primarily due to cost. Its proposal was approximately $3.5 million over five years, with individual drones costing approximately $500,000 each. As part of the City's due diligence, staff also conducted a reference check with a neighboring law enforcement agency, which reported that it was transitioning away from Motorola Solutions.

Net Electric was not advanced because the proposal lacked references, installation services, an integrated software solution, or a drone solution. Additionally, the proposed equipment consisted primarily of commercially available, off-the-shelf items rather than an integrated public safety technology platform.

EVALUATION COMMITTEE
A ten-member evaluation committee representing multiple City departments, including the Richmond Police Department (RPD), and operational perspectives participated in the review process:
 Police Chief Timothy Simmons
 Police Captain Elizabeth Bashan
 Police Sergeant Enrik Melgoza
 Police Sergeant Sarita Ellison
 Police Systems Administrator Luan Trinh
 Police Officer Michael Pagaling
 Interim Chief Assistant City Attorney Kimberly Chin
 Port Director Charles Gerard
 Assistant Deputy Director of Public Works Darin Fitzpatrick  Building Trades Worker (Abatement Team Leader) Fernando Chavez 1750

October 6, 2026
The multidisciplinary composition of the committee was intended to ensure consideration of law enforcement operations, technology, legal compliance, city infrastructure, public works, City facilities, and citywide implementation requirements.

AXON ENTERPRISE
Axon Enterprise was shortlisted because it proposed a comprehensive, turnkey law enforcement solution that would integrate with technology already utilized by the Richmond Police Department (RPD). Under the proposed model, the City would own the deployed equipment and retain ownership and control of the equipment and its data.

The information would be maintained within the City's existing Axon Evidence.com environment, which currently houses all electronic digital evidence.

Axon partners with Skydio Co. for its drone technology and provides an integrated ecosystem encompassing ALPR, CCTV, digital evidence, drones, and other public safety technologies.

The evaluation committee met with Axon representatives on May 11, 2026. Among the advantages identified by the committee were:
 Seamless interoperability with RPD's existing Axon hardware and software infrastructure;
 Integration with the City's existing Evidence.com digital evidence environment;  Bundled pricing opportunities associated with the City's existing Axon relationship;
 Solar-powered equipment options, reducing the need for hardwired electrical installations and associated Public Works workload;
 Integration with Skydio's drone technology;
 Centralized management of law enforcement digital evidence and technology;  A public-facing transparency portal like the transparency functionality currently available through Flock Safety; and
 An internal Axon Ethics Commission that serves in an advisory capacity regarding technology and related ethical considerations.

City staff's evaluation also considered the platform's ability to support applicable California statutory requirements concerning auditing, immigration-related restrictions, and ALPR data management.

Prior to the issuance of the RFP, members of the City's technology team and Crime Analyst Assistant Sofia Ayala met with the Sacramento Police Department, an existing Axon ALPR/CCTV customer. Sacramento Police Department personnel provided favorable feedback regarding their experience with Axon's technology, data security, and customer support.

A primary implementation consideration associated with transitioning to Axon is the initial staff workload required to manage a large-scale technology deployment. This work would include site assessments, encroachment permit review, equipment staging 1751

October 6, 2026
and configuration, installation coordination, system configuration, and employee training.

FLOCK SAFETY
Flock Safety was shortlisted because it is the City's current provider and because the City has already deployed a substantial Flock ALPR and CCTV infrastructure throughout Richmond and at certain City facilities, including the Port of Richmond, Corporation Yard, and portions of the City Hall parking areas.

The evaluation committee met with Flock Safety representatives on May 13, 2026. The committee identified several advantages associated with continuing with Flock Safety:
 Minimal staff resources required to maintain the existing infrastructure compared with a complete system transition;
 Existing Flock drone infrastructure;
 Robust ALPR functionality, including advanced search capabilities;  Ability to facilitate authorized information sharing with other law enforcement agencies;
 Existing employee familiarity with the Flock platform;  Solar-powered mobile trailers that can be rapidly deployed to temporary locations; and
 Functionality is designed to support applicable California ALPR and datamanagement requirements.

The committee also identified several concerns based on the City's experience with the existing system. These included:
 Reliability concerns involving certain CCTV equipment;  Extended delays associated with equipment repairs and replacements;  Difficulty obtaining firm repair or replacement timelines;  Concerns regarding billing practices, including requirements for payment when portions of the contracted equipment had not yet been installed;  Cameras that remained incorrectly positioned following the initial deployment and had not been corrected;
 A camera at the Corporation Yard that, at the time of the evaluation, had reportedly been awaiting repair for approximately eight months; and  Concerning whether certain equipment and software functionality consistently performed as represented, including questions involving the Network Lookup feature.

Although the committee recognized that Flock Safety has continued to improve its platform, staff determined that concerns about reliability, transparency, system performance, and public confidence warranted consideration in the City's overall evaluation.
1752

October 6, 2026

ASSURE MSP / VERKADA
Assure MSP is a managed service provider and authorized installer of Verkada camera equipment. Assure MSP is based in Pleasanton, California, and Verkada is based in San Mateo, California.

The evaluation committee met with representatives from Assure MSP and Verkada on May 7, 2026. The committee found Verkada's camera platform to be robust and userfriendly, particularly for general City facility security applications.

However, the committee determined that the proposed Verkada solution was not the preferred platform for RPD's law enforcement ALPR/CCTV environment. Among the considerations were limitations identified during the evaluation concerning law enforcement auditing requirements, the absence of an integrated drone solution, and the absence of a comparable public-facing transparency portal. Additionally, the vendor's reference described the City of San Mateo's use of the technology in a nonlaw-enforcement capacity.

As with Axon, the implementation of Verkada equipment would require City coordination, including site reviews, permitting, equipment staging, configuration, installation, and training.

On May 27, 2026, Technology Supervisor Eric Tam visited Verkada's headquarters to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the company and its technology.

Following the visit, staff concluded that although Verkada was not the preferred solution for RPD's law enforcement technology needs, the platform was well suited for security applications at City-owned facilities.

Verkada manufactures a variety of camera types and technologies suitable for indoor and facility-based applications, whereas the proposed Axon CCTV cameras are primarily fixed-lens cameras designed for outdoor public safety applications. This distinction provides an opportunity for the City to select technology based upon the operational purpose and environment in which it will be deployed.

FINAL EVALUATION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION
On June 16, 2026, the evaluation committee reconvened to formally discuss and rate the three shortlisted vendors. To ensure compliance with City purchasing procedures, Finance Department Senior Buyer Ofelia Alvarez attended the meeting and provided guidance regarding the vendor evaluation and rating process.

Based on the competitive procurement process, vendor presentations, reference checks, operational considerations, technology capabilities, legal and policy considerations, implementation requirements, and committee scoring, staff recommends a dual-vendor approach:

1. Axon Enterprise for RPD's law enforcement technology environment, including ALPR, CCTV, drone, and associated public safety technology; and 1753

October 6, 2026

2. Assure MSP/Verkada for security camera systems at non-law-enforcement City facilities, including locations such as Shields-Reid Park, the Civic Center campus, Corporation Yard, and Port of Richmond.

This approach creates an intentional separation between the City's general facilitysecurity camera network and RPD's law enforcement technology environment. Non-lawenforcement City personnel using the Verkada platform would not have access to RPD's Axon Evidence.com environment or law-enforcement information.

RPD staff believes this separation provides an appropriate balance between operational effectiveness, information security, access control, and the differing technology needs of law enforcement and general City facilities.

AXON PROPOSED TECHNOLOGY
The proposed Axon law enforcement package includes:
 110 solar-powered ALPR cameras;
 60 solar-powered dual fixed-lens cameras;
 24 spare cameras;
 6 Skydio X10 drones with docks;
 3 Skydio X10 patrol drones;
 2 R10 indoor drones;
 Axon Dedrone radar and detection capabilities; and
 Auror Retail Crime Hub.

RPD currently maintains an existing agreement with Axon for several public safety products and services, including body-worn cameras, TASER energy weapons, virtualreality training, and digital evidence storage. The proposed amendment would expand the City's Axon environment to include the additional law enforcement technologies described above.

ALPR Data Security and Interagency Sharing
An important consideration in RPD staff's evaluation is the City's ability to maintain control over its ALPR information and determine when, how, and with whom that information is shared.

Like Flock Safety, Axon's ALPR technology has the technical capability to facilitate information sharing between law enforcement agencies. However, once implemented, Axon’s ALPR environment would remain closed to outside agencies unless RPD affirmatively establishes an authorized sharing relationship or conducts a search in response to an authorized request.

Current RPD policy prohibits open or unrestricted sharing of the Department's ALPR data. The law in the State of California prohibits ALPR data from being shared with any agency outside of the state. Accordingly, implementation of Axon would not provide other jurisdictions with automatic access to Richmond's ALPR database. 1754

October 6, 2026
Under RPD's intended operating model, an outside law enforcement agency investigating a qualifying criminal offense would be required to submit an appropriate written request to RPD. An authorized RPD team member would then evaluate the request and, when consistent with law, policy, and authorized law enforcement purposes, conduct the requested search.

This approach allows RPD to retain control over its ALPR information while still providing a mechanism to assist legitimate criminal investigations. The transition to Axon would therefore not result in unrestricted regional database access or provide outside jurisdictions with open access to Richmond's ALPR information.

AXON COST COMPARISON
The proposed Axon ALPR, CCTV, drone, software, and installation package is estimated at approximately $700,000 annually, or approximately $3.5 million over five years.

For comparison, the city currently pays approximately $1 million annually to Flock Safety for a system that includes:
 110 solar-powered ALPR cameras;
 60 CCTV cameras consisting of a combination of solar, hardwired, fixed, and pan-tilt-zoom cameras; and
 One drone.

Based on current estimates, transitioning the City's law enforcement ALPR/CCTV and drone environment from Flock Safety to Axon is projected to reduce annual expenditures by approximately $300,000, representing potential savings of approximately $1.5 million over five years, while substantially increasing the City's drone capabilities and further integrating RPD's public safety technology environment.

CITY FACILITY CAMERA SYSTEM
RPD staff also recommend entering into an agreement with Assure MSP for the installation, maintenance, and support of Verkada security camera equipment at appropriate City facilities.

Potential locations include Shields-Reid Park, the Corporation Yard, the Port of Richmond, the Civic Center campus, and other City-owned facilities where security camera technology is appropriate.

Assure MSP will perform a site survey and design a robust CCTV system with Verkada equipment to meet the unique facility requirements. Afterwards, Verkada will perform the installation, configuration, maintenance, and support of the system.

Verkada provides a range of facility-security capabilities, including advanced analytics and the ability to activate alerts, sirens, or public-address notifications based upon defined conditions such as motion detection, location, or time parameters. Under the 1755

October 6, 2026
proposed arrangement, Assure MSP would provide installation services as well as ongoing maintenance and repair support.

ASSURE MSP, INC. COST COMPARISON
Assure’s Verkada system will utilize CCTV cameras that are both fixed and Pan Tilt Zoom (PTZ) – no Verkada ALPR cameras will be utilized. For coverage at facilities like Shields Reid Park, the estimated 6 cameras and PA system, installation, wiring, and annual maintenance and support is roughly $33,000 for city-owned equipment. Since the new contract obligation will replace Flock’s current infrastructure, City departments utilizing Flock’s system will be able to convert their unspent budgeted balance to support the initial setup of Assure’s cameras. City departments included in the initial rollout will be Shields-Reid Park, the Port, Corporation Yard, and Civic Center Campus.

CONCLUSION
Following a competitive RFP process and multidisciplinary evaluation, RPD staff determined that no single platform provided the optimal solution for both law enforcement operations and general City facility security.

RPD staff therefore recommend utilizing Axon Enterprise for RPD's law-enforcement ALPR, CCTV, drone, and related technology needs, and Assure MSP/Verkada for City facility security cameras.

The recommended approach is intended to improve system reliability and interoperability, strengthen City control over law enforcement data, maintain strict limitations on external access to RPD ALPR information, separate law enforcement information from general City facility-security systems, expand the City's technological capabilities, and reduce the City's estimated law enforcement technology costs by approximately $300,000 annually compared with the existing Flock Safety solution.

Staff requests that the City Council authorize the City Manager to sign:
(1) a contract and/or contract amendment with Axon Enterprise to continue servicing Body Worn Cameras (BWC), Tasers, Interview Room Equipment, VR Training, and to add license plate reader and surveillance equipment in the amount of $3,500,000, for a total contract amount not to exceed $12,000,000 with an expiration of September 30, 2031 that will be finalized by the City Attorney’s Office; and
(2) a three-year contract with Assure MSP Inc. for Verkada’s CCTV solution to be utilized at various City facilities in an amount not to exceed $500,000 for the term October 1, 2026, to September 30, 2029, that will be finalized by the City Attorney’s Office.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – RFP
Attachment 2 – Addendum No 1
1756

October 6, 2026
Attachment 3 – Bid summary
1757
Request for Proposal
Video Surveillance Technologies
Release Date:

February 27, 2026
Deadline for Submittal:

March 27, 2026, 5:00PM

INTRODUCTION
The City of Richmond’s Police Department is currently soliciting proposals for video surveillance technology, specifically Automated License Plate Reader Technology (ALPR) and Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV).

This request for proposal (RFP) describes the project, the required scope of services, the consultant selection process, and the minimum information that must be included in the proposal. Failure to submit information in accordance with the RFP requirements and procedures may be cause for disqualification. The anticipated term of this contract will be for a period of a minimum of three (3) years and an option to renew for additional time and additional services by means of a mutual agreement of both parties.

Vendors are required to read and understand all information contained within this entire Proposal package. By responding to this RFP, the vendor agrees to read and understand these documents.

ABOUT THE CITY
The City of Richmond is a Charter City located in Contra Costa County, part of the San Francisco Bay Area, with a population of approximately 115,353 residents. Richmond is one of the region’s most diverse communities with 45.5 percent of residents identify as Hispanic or Latino, 16.4 percent identify as Black or African American alone, 21.2 percent identify as White alone (not Hispanic or Latino), and 13.8 percent identify as Asian alone.1 Richmond boasts a multi-modal transit hub that includes BART, Amtrak, and AC Transit, along with marinas, shopping centers, recreational and cultural amenities, and 32 miles of shoreline, making it one of California’s most desirable up-and-coming communities.

Richmond operates under a council-administrator form of government, with a Mayor and six council districts represented by elected Councilmembers. The City employs approximately 850 full-time equivalent and part-time employees. The City of Richmond provides a full range of municipal services including police and fire protection; construction and maintenance of highways, streets and infrastructure; library services; storm water and municipal sewer systems; operation of a wastewater treatment facility; and the administration of recreational activities and cultural events. Additionally, the City operates the Richmond Memorial Convention Center and the Port of Richmond, supporting economic development and regional connectivity.

Community Profile1
 Median Household Income: ~$95,000
 Foreign-born Residents: ~34.5%
 Languages: Approximately 54% of residents speak a language other than English at home  Housing: Median home value ~$668,000; owner-occupied housing ~55%  Transportation: Average commute time ~34 minutes; strong public transit access

1 Quick facts Richmond city, California. U.S. Census Bureau. Based on 2024 estimates. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/richmondcitycalifornia 1759

PROJECT BACKGROUND / DESCRIPTION
The City of Richmond Police Department currently uses Flock Safety ALPR and CCTV technology, and as part of its standard procurement process, is soliciting proposals from qualified professionals to determine if Flock Safety is still the best solution for the City of Richmond.

Currently the City of Richmond leases about 110 stationary Flock ALPR cameras, and about 65 stationary CCTV cameras consist of about 20 solar powered fixed cameras, and 45 pan, tilt, zoom (PTZ) cameras.

Minimum Requirements:

The respondent will be required to provide:
 110 ALPR cameras
 65 CCTV cameras
 Software:
o Complies with all federal, state (SB-274), and local regulations and ordinances.
o Agency controlled and agency owned data.
o Maximum 30-day retention period for ALPR and CCTV data (auto-delete after 30 days).
 Installation of equipment (respondent will not be required to tap into power on City owned light poles).
 Maintenance and support for all equipment and systems for the duration of the contract.
 Submitting the necessary encroachment permits and related documents to the City of Richmond (permit fees may apply).

Preferred:
 Integration with Axon FUSUS Real Time Crime Center software.  Proposed Software can be integrated with other video surveillance technologies, such as drones.
 PTZ cameras preferred over fixed cameras.
 Solar powered ALPR equipment.
 Solar powered fixed CCTV camera.
 Solar powered PTZ CCTV camera.
 Flash Cam style (with audio messaging, flashing strobe, etc) Optional:
 Portable ALPR equipment (such as in car devices, or portable trailer)  Portable CCTV equipment (such as in car devices, or portable trailer)  Law enforcement drone equipment (indoor and/or outdoor) Optional Drone Technology (Separate Line Item & Evaluation Category) The City is requesting optional pricing and technical information for Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) for law enforcement use. Drone equipment shall be evaluated independently from the 1760

ALPR and CCTV base proposal.

Submission of drone equipment is optional and shall not impact eligibility for award of the base ALPR/CCTV contract. The City reserves the right to award drone equipment to a different vendor, decline to award drone equipment, or conduct a separate procurement at a later date.

A. Minimum Drone Requirements (If Proposed)
- FAA-compliant UAS platform
- Remote ID compliance
- Secure encrypted communications
- CJIS-compliant data transmission (if evidentiary)
- Secure storage of recorded video
- Ability to disable public cloud sharing
- Chain-of-custody controls
- Public Records Act export capability
B. Drone Capabilities (Describe in Detail)
- Indoor and/or outdoor deployment
- Flight time and battery life
- Wind resistance rating
- Night and/or thermal capability (if applicable)
- Obstacle avoidance
- Launch time
- Live-streaming capability
- Integration with Real Time Crime Center software
C. Separate Evaluation Category – Optional Drone Technology (Up to 10 Points) Regulatory Compliance – 3 Points
Operational Capability – 3 Points
Security & Data Protection – 2 Points
Integration & Scalability – 2 Points
Drone equipment will be evaluated independently from the base ALPR/CCTV proposal.

Any deployment of drone technology shall be subject to approval under applicable City surveillance ordinances and policy adoption requirements prior to operational use.

D. Separate Drone Cost Proposal Format
One-Time Costs:
- Drone platform
- Controllers
- Docking stations (if applicable)
- Software license
- Training
- Implementation
Recurring Costs (Years 1–5):
- Subscription
- Maintenance
- Support
- Escalation percentage disclosure required
1761

Vendors may have access to confidential and sensitive data files and may be subject to a Department of Justice and Criminal History background check. Failure to pass the background check shall exclude any employees of the vendor from access to confidential and sensitive files. All employees of vendors who will participate at the level described above in the project will be required to provide a valid issued driver’s license or equivalent photo identification before they will be permitted to begin work on the project.

Respondent software solutions should be web based and Software as a Service (SaaS) in full compliance with California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS) CJIS requirements. (Please see www.oag.ca.gov for latest updates)

TECHNICAL ARCHITECTURE, CYBERSECURITY & SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS A. System Architecture:
 Cloud-hosted or hybrid deployment model
 U.S.-based data centers only
 Minimum 99% system uptime SLA
Redundancy and failover capability
B. Cybersecurity Requirements:
 CJIS compliant
 Encryption in transit (TLS 1.2+)
 Encryption at rest (AES-256 or equivalent)
 Role-based access controls
 Multi-factor authentication
 12-month audit log retention minimum
 Breach notification within 72 hours
 SOC 2 Type II report or equivalent
 Documented incident response plan
C. Integration Requirements:
 API availability and documentation
 Compatibility with Axon FUSUS (if applicable)
 Ability to integrate with City-approved systems

PROPOSAL FORMAT GUIDELINES
The proposal should be concise, well organized, and demonstrate the proposer’s qualifications and experience applicable to the Project.

Each proposal will adhere to the following order and content of sections. Proposal should be straightforward, concise and provide “layman” explanations of technical terms that are used. Emphasis should be concentrated on conforming to the RFP instructions, responding to the RFP requirements, and on providing a complete and clear description 1762

of the offer. Proposals, which appear unrealistic in terms of technical commitments, lack of technical competence or are indicative of failure to comprehend the complexity and risk of this contract, may be rejected. The following proposal sections are to be included in the Vendor’s response:

A. Vendor Cover Letter
A cover letter should summarize key elements of the proposal and shall:
 Confirm that all elements of this RFP have been reviewed and understood.  Include a statement of intent to perform the services as outlined.  Stipulate that the proposal price will be valid for the duration of the contract.  Identify a single person for contact during the RFP review process; and  Cover letter shall be signed by an authorized official of the company.

B. Background and Project Summary Section
Proposer must have the qualifications and skills necessary to perform the services described in this RFP in a competent and professional manner without the advice or direction from the Police Department. The Respondent warrants that all services and solutions provided meets or exceeds the CJIS Requirements.

C. Scope of Services
Proposer solution must have the ability to provide all of the following services and equipment in Minimum Requirements section
D. Cost Information
Mandatory Pricing Worksheet Template (Excel)
Proposers shall complete and submit the City-provided Pricing Worksheet Template in Excel format. The worksheet includes the following mandatory tabs:

Tab 1 – Instructions
Overview and completion requirements.

Tab 2 – One-Time Costs
Hardware, installation, permitting, training, and project management. Extended cost formulas are pre-programmed. Total One-Time Cost auto-calculates.

Tab 3 – Recurring Costs (Years 1–5)
Annual subscription, hosting, maintenance, and support. Proposer must disclose annual escalation percentage.

Tab 4 – Cost Per Camera
Unit cost per ALPR, CCTV Fixed, and CCTV PTZ camera.

Tab 5 – Cost Per Site
Installed cost for new site and relocated equipment site.

Tab 6 – Three-Year Summary
Auto-summary of total One-Time and Years 1–3 recurring costs.

Tab 7 – Five-Year Total Cost of Ownership (TCO)
Auto-summary of total One-Time and Years 1–5 recurring costs. The Five-Year TCO will be used as the primary cost evaluation metric.

E. Contractor Assignment of Sub-Contract
The resulting contract shall not be assigned, transferred, or sublet, in whole or in 1763

part, without the prior written approval of the Police Department. If Offerors intend to subcontract any portion of the resulting contract, they must describe their process for selecting such subcontractor(s) and the quality control measures that the Offeror will employ to ensure that any subcontractor complies with the provisions of Offeror’s contract with the Department.

F. Exceptions to this Request for Proposals
The proposer shall state whether it takes exception(s) to this RFP, including but not limited to the City of Richmond’s Standard Services Agreement – RFP (Attachment B). If the proposer does take exception(s) to any portion of the RFP or contract, the specific portion to which exception(s) is taken must be identified by section number and explained. Requests for changes or additions to sections of City of Richmond’s Standard Services Agreement must be shown by requesting deletion of specific words and/or by providing new requested contract language.

Requests for complete replacement of the City of Richmond’s Standard Services Agreement for another contract will not be granted. Failure to make exceptions to the RFP or Standard Services Agreement within the proposal will be deemed a waiver of any objection. Exceptions will be considered during the proposal evaluation process.

G. Statement of Impartiality and Disclosure
This proposal shall include a statement declaring that the proposer’s and subconsultants are not currently, and will not, during the performance of these services, participate in any other similar work involving a third-party with interests currently in conflict or likely to conflict with City of Richmond’s interests.

Additionally, proposer is required to disclose any pending or active investigations or litigation that may affect the reputation or ability of the proposer to carry out the Project.

H. Sanctuary City Contracting and Investment Ordinance 12-18NS_2018, and Resolution 86-21 (Disclosure Statement of Limited Liability Companies Form.

The City of Richmond’s Sanctuary Contracting Ordinance certification requires the City to refrain from doing business with vendors who provide Data Broker or Extreme Vetting services to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the United States Department of Homeland Security (“ICE”). In addition, City of Richmond Resolution 86-21 requires disclosure of beneficial and responsible owners of Limited Liabilities Corporation (LLC).

I. IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS
Proposer must submit:
 Detailed project schedule
 Deployment phases
 Permitting timeline
 Risk mitigation plan
 Staffing plan
 Estimated time to full operational deployment
1764

PROCESS FOR SUBMITTING PROPOSALS
Questions Concerning Request for Proposals
Please do not contact staff directly regarding this Proposal which will not be answered.

All questions will be answered promptly and must be submitted via the electronic BidsOnline system on the Q&A tab no later than March 13, 2026, 5:00pm PST. If the City finds it necessary to issue an addendum, prospective Offerors will receive e-mail notification of addendum. It is the proposer’s responsibility to periodically check the BidsOnline website www.ci.richmond.ca.us/ bids for any possible Addenda to the RFP that may have been posted.

Any party submitting a proposal shall not contact or lobby any City Council member, City officials, employee (except those specified for contact) or agent regarding the RFP. Any party attempting to influence or circumvent the RFP, bid submittal, and review process may have their proposal rejected for violating this provision of the RFP.

Interested parties may download copies of the above-mentioned proposal by visiting the City's web site, and to download RFP, new vendors will be required to register. Once the vendor downloads any documents relative to a solicitation, that vendor's name will appear on the Prospective Bidders list for that project and will receive any addenda or notifications relating to the RFP.

Submission of Proposals
Please submit your proposal via the City of Richmond's BidsOnline system. Proposals submitted by facsimile or e-mail are not acceptable and will not be considered.

The proposal and any required certifications shall be signed by an individual or individuals authorized to execute legal documents on behalf of the proposer.

Proposer is responsible for submitting its entire package with all required submittal documents and any modifications or revisions, to reach the City of Richmond’s office as designated in the RFP by the time specified below. Any proposal, modification, or revision received by the City of Richmond after the exact time specified for receipt of proposals is “late” and will not be considered.

The proposal must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time, on March 27, 2026.

The City of Richmond reserves the right to waive inconsequential irregularities. 1765

GENERAL GUIDELINES
This RFP does not commit the City of Richmond to award a contract, to defray any costs incurred in the preparation of a proposal pursuant to this RFP, or to procure or contract for work. The City of Richmond may reject a proposal without providing the reason(s) underlying the declination. A failure to award a contract to the proposer with the lowest cost proposal shall not constitute a valid cause of action against the City of Richmond.

The City shall not be responsible for work done, even in good faith, prior to final approval of the proposed contract. The City may investigate the qualifications of any respondent under consideration, require confirmation of information furnished by the respondent, and require additional evidence or qualifications to perform the Services described in this RFP.

The City reserves the right to:

1. Reject any or all proposals.

2. Issue subsequent Requests for Proposal.

3. Postpone opening for its own convenience.

4. Remedy technical errors in the Request for Proposal process.

5. Negotiate with any, all, or none of the Respondents.

6. Solicit best and final offers from all or some of the Respondents.

7. Select one or more Respondents.

8. Accept other than the lowest proposed fees.

9. Waive informalities and irregularities in proposals.

Public Records
All proposals submitted in response to this RFP will become the property of the City of Richmond and public records and, as such, may be subject to public review. Documents protected by law from public disclosure will not be disclosed by the City of Richmond if clearly marked with the word "confidential" on each applicable page. Trade secrets may be marked as confidential only to the extent they meet the requirements of California Government Code section 6254.7. Only information claimed to be a trade secret at the time of submittal to the City of Richmond and marked as "confidential" will be treated as a trade secret.

Insurance Requirements
The City of Richmond requires consultants doing business with it to obtain insurance, as shown in Attachment A. The required insurance certificates must comply with all requirements of the standards as shown and must be provided within fifteen (15) days of issuance of the Notice of Intent to Award and prior to the commencement of any work on the Project.

Business Licenses
The successful Contractor and all subcontractors used in the work will be required to hold or to obtain a City of Richmond business license for which the fee will not be waived.

Compliance with City Ordinances
The contractor and all subcontractors shall comply with the City of Richmond Nondiscrimination Clauses in City Contracts Ordinance (Richmond Municipal Code (RMC) Chapter 2.28), Business Opportunity Ordinance (RMC Chapter 2.50), Local 1766

Employment Program Ordinance (RMC Chapter 2.56), Living Wage Ordinance (RMC Chapter 2.60) and Ordinance Banning the Requirement to Provide Information of Prior Criminal Convictions on all Employment Applications (“Ban the Box”) (RMC Chapter

2.65), which are incorporated into the Contract Documents by this reference.

Collusion
By submitting a proposal, each respondent represents and warrants that its proposal is genuine and not false or collusive or made in the interest of, or on behalf of any person not named therein; that the respondent has not directly or indirectly induced or solicited any other person to submit a false proposal, or any other person to refrain from submitting a proposal; and that the respondent has not, in any manner, sought collusion to secure any improper advantage over any other person submitting a proposal.

Withdrawal of Proposals
A respondent may withdraw their proposal before the expiration of the time for submission of proposals by delivering to the Finance Department a written request for withdrawal signed by, or on behalf of, the respondent.

Ownership of Documents
All reports, studies, information, data, statistics, forms, designs, plans, procedures, systems, and any other materials produced for the Project shall be the sole and exclusive property of the City. No such materials or properties produced in whole or in part for the Project shall be subject to private use, copyrights, or patent rights by Respondent in the United States or in any other country without the express written consent of the City. The City shall have unrestricted authority to publish, disclose (except as may be limited by the provisions of the Public Records Act), distribute, and otherwise use, copyright, or patent, in whole or in part, any such reports, studies, data, statistics, forms or other materials or properties produced for this project.

PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCESS
All proposals shall be reviewed to verify that the Respondent has met the minimum requirements. Proposals that have not complied with requirements do not meet minimum content and quality standards or take unacceptable exceptions to the General Terms and Conditions of the Service Agreement, which will be eliminated from further consideration.

Proposals will be reviewed and evaluated by an evaluation committee comprised of City of Richmond personnel.

The City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals, or to make no award. The City also reserves the right to require modifications follow‐up with requests for additional information, including, but not limited to, follow‐up interviews. The City may request Best and Final offers based upon improved understanding of the offers or changed scope of service. The City will negotiate with that vendor to determine final pricing and contract form. Because this proposal is negotiable, all pricing data will remain confidential until after award is made, and there will be no public opening and reading of Proposals. Overall responsiveness to the RFP is an important factor in the evaluation process.

Vendors that meet the minimum qualifications may be invited to a “Phase II” meeting/demonstration for the evaluation committee for further clarification and consideration. The criteria upon which the evaluation of the proposals will be based include, but are not limited to, the following:
1767

Vendor Qualifications and Experience – Up to 15 Points
The Proposer shall demonstrate sufficient experience, organizational capacity, and financial stability to successfully deliver, implement, and support the proposed solution.

Evaluation under this criterion will consider the Proposer’s demonstrated history of successfully providing similar products and/or services to organizations of comparable size, scope, and operational complexity.

The Proposer’s response shall include, at a minimum, the following:

1. Organizational Background
 Legal name of the firm and years in business
 Corporate structure (public, private, subsidiary, etc.)  Location of headquarters and primary offices
 Description of core business and area (s) of specialization

2. Relevant Experience
 Experience working with similar agencies, industries, or public sector entities (if applicable)
 Demonstrated expertise in delivering solutions of similar size and complexity  Outcomes achieved and measurable results (if available)  References (preferably three within a 100-mile radius)

3. Key Personnel
 Identification of key project staff and their roles
 Qualifications, certifications, and years of relevant experience  Resumes of proposed project leads and subject matter experts Scope of Work, Methodology and Proposal – Up to 10 Points This category will evaluate the respondent’s ability to take upon itself the responsibilities set forth in the Scope of Services and produce the required outcome in a timely manner.

Consideration will be given of the overall quality of the proposal, including a demonstrated understanding of the purpose, scope, and objective of the services to be performed. It is the intention of the City of Richmond to award a contract to the Respondent who furnishes satisfactory evidence that the Respondent has the requisite experience and ability to enable the Respondent to execute the work successfully and properly, and to complete services in a timely manner. To determine the degree of responsibility to be credited to the Respondent, the City of Richmond will weigh the evidence that the Respondent has performed other contracts of like nature, magnitude and comparable difficulty and comparable rates of progress.

Usability and User Experience – Up to 25 Points
The proposed solution should be intuitive, efficient, and accessible user experience that minimizes training time and supports high-volume operational environments. The system should enable users to perform core functions accurately and efficiently with minimal complexity.
1768

Evaluation of Usability & User Experience will include, but is not limited to, the following:
 Overall intuitiveness and logical workflow design
 Ease of navigation and task completion
 Screen layout clarity and information hierarchy
 Customization of dashboards, views, and user preferences  Reduction of unnecessary clicks or redundant data entry  Accessibility compliance (e.g., WCAG 2.1 AA standards)  Mobile responsiveness (if applicable)
 Context-sensitive help and tooltips
 Reporting and data visualization usability
 Demonstrated ease of use during product demonstration Cost Proposal – Up to 30 Points
Vendors are encouraged to submit multiple cost proposals to include optional services and equipment.

The Proposer shall submit a complete and itemized Cost Proposal covering all costs necessary to provide the goods and/or services described in this RFP. Pricing should be clear, detailed, and presented in a manner that allows for comprehensive evaluation.

All costs associated with delivery, implementation, training, documentation, project management, travel, taxes (if applicable), and ongoing support shall be included unless otherwise specified.

Proposer shall indicate the period for which pricing shall remain firm, any annual escalation rates, conditions under which pricing may change, and renewal of pricing methodology.

Failure to provide a complete and transparent cost proposal may result in disqualification.

One-Time Costs: Software licensing fees, hardware costs (if applicable), implementation and configuration, data migration services, training, project management, travel and related expenses, etc.

Recurring Costs: Annual or monthly subscription fees, user or site license fees, maintenance and support, hosting or cloud service fee, upgrade, ongoing licenses, etc.

Option Costs: Optional modules or enhancements, additional training, extended warranties, professional services beyond the base scope, etc.

City may elect to conduct negotiations with the highest ranked proposal respondents for purposes of resolving minor differences and information, clarifying necessary details and responsibilities, emphasizing important issues and points, or receiving assurances from respondents.

Selection may be made without further discussion, negotiations, or Offeror’s presentations; therefore, Offeror shall offer the most favorable terms in response to this RFP. Offeror must demonstrate an understanding of the scope of service to be provided and the ability to accomplish the tasks set forth. Offeror should include information that will enable the City to determine the Offeror’s overall qualifications.

The City reserves the right to request additional information or clarification on any matter included in the proposal response, to enable the City to arrive at the final award decision. 1769

Technical Architecture & Security – 20 Points
The Proposer must demonstrate that the proposed solution meets the City’s operational, cybersecurity, data protection, and regulatory compliance requirements. Evaluation under this category will assess the robustness, security posture, reliability, and scalability of the proposed system.

A. System Architecture & Infrastructure (Up to 6 Points) - Deployment model (cloud, hybrid, on-premise)
- U.S.-based data center locations
- Redundancy and failover capabilities
- Disaster recovery procedures (RTO/RPO)
- Minimum 99% uptime SLA
- Scalability for future expansion
- Network and performance standards
- System architecture diagram required
B. Cybersecurity Controls & Risk Management (Up to 6 Points) - CJIS Security Policy compliance
- Encryption in transit (TLS 1.2+)
- Encryption at rest (AES-256 or equivalent)
- Role-based access control (RBAC)
- Multi-factor authentication (MFA)
- 12-month audit log retention minimum
- Documented incident response plan
- Breach notification within 72 hours
- SOC 2 Type II or equivalent certification
- Penetration testing and vulnerability management practices C. Data Protection & Compliance (Up to 4 Points)
- Compliance with California Civil Code §1798.90.5
- CLETS and CJIS compliance
- SB-34 / SB-741 (if applicable)
- City ownership of all data
- No resale or secondary use of data
- Automatic 30-day data deletion
- Public Records Act export capability
- Data portability upon termination
- Written data destruction certification
D. Integration & Interoperability (Up to 4 Points)
- Documented APIs
- Compatibility with Axon FUSUS (if applicable)
- Integration with City-approved systems
- Future interoperability readiness
Evaluation will consider technical soundness, cybersecurity maturity, regulatory compliance, scalability, and completeness of documentation. The City reserves the right to request additional technical clarification prior to final scoring.
1770

Interviews and Final Selection
The City of Richmond will evaluate written proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria set forth in this RFP. Following completion of the written proposal evaluation, the City will rank the proposals and reserves the right to invite the highest ranked proposers to participate in oral interviews and/or presentations.

After completion of interviews, the City will re-evaluate and re-rank proposers based on interview performance, demonstrated understanding of the scope of work, qualifications, and overall ability to meet the City’s needs. Interview results may confirm or change the initial rankings based on written proposals.

The proposer ranked highest after completion of the interview process will be recommended for award, subject to successful contract negotiations, verification of proposer responsibility, and approval by the City as required. Participation in interviews does not guarantee selection or award of a contract.

The City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals, to waive informalities, and to take any action deemed to be in the best interest of the City.

Pre-Award Negotiations
After the proposals are opened, but prior to award, the City may elect to conduct negotiations with the highest ranked respondent for purposes of:
 Resolving minor differences and information
 Clarifying necessary details and responsibilities
 Emphasizing important issues and points
 Receiving assurances from respondents
 Cost/budget clarifications
If the City cannot successfully negotiate a contract with the highest ranked respondent, the City may begin negotiations with the second highest ranked respondent.

Award
When the Review Panel has completed its work, Police Department personnel will then work with the Respondent to complete the administrative paperwork.

Attachments
A. Insurance Requirements
B. Standard Contract
C. Sanctuary City Compliance Statement
D. Sanctuary City Contracting Ordinance No. 12-18
E. Limited Liability Corporation (LLC) Resolution No. 86-21 F. Limited Liability Corporation Form
- END -
1771
1701 REGATTA BLVD, RICHMOND, CA 94804
www.ci.richmond.ca.us

POLICE DEPARTMENT
ADDENDUM NO. 1
March 9, 2026

VIDEO SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY
This Addendum shall be considered as a part of the RFP documents though it has been issued at the same time and shall be incorporated integrally therewith.

The revised RFP includes an additional request on page 5, under Preferred section to include additional proposed equipment.

Flash Cam Style (with audio messaging, flashing strobe, etc.) _________________________________________________________________ ERIC TAM DATE: 03-09-2026

TECHNOLOGY SUPERVISOR

RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT
1772
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1773
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1774
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1775
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1776
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1777
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1778
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1779
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1780
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1781
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1782
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1783
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1784
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1785
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1786
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1787
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1788
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1789
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1790
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1791
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1792
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1793
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1794
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1795
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1796
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1797
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1798
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1799
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1800
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1801
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1802
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1803
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1804
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1805
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1806
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1807
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1808
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1809
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1810
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1811
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1812
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1813
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1814
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1815
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1816
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1817
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1818
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1819
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1820
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1821
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1822
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1823
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1824
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1825
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1826
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1827
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1828
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1829
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1830
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1831
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1832
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1833
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1834
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1835
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1836
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1837
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1838
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1839
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1840
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1841
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1842
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1843
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1844
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1845
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1846
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1847
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1848
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1849
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1850
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1851
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1852
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1853
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1854
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1855
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1856
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1857
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1858
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1859
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1860
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1861
City of Richmond
Video Surveillance Technologies, bidding on 03/27/2026 5:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 02/27/2026
PlanetBids
1862
Video Technology
Equipment
Richmond Police Department
1863

RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Recommended Action
• AUTHORIZE the City Manager to sign a contract and/or contract amendment with Axon Enterprise to continue servicing Body Worn Cameras (BWC), Tasers, Interview Room Equipment, VR Training, and to add license plate reader, closed circuit television (CCTV), and drone as a first responder (DFR)equipment in the amount of $3,500,000, for a total contract amount not to exceed $12,000,000 with an expiration of September 30, 2031, that will be finalized by the City Attorney’s Office.

AND
• AUTHORIZE the City Manager to sign a three-year contract with Assure MSP, Inc. for Verkada’s CCTV solution to be utilized at various City facilities in an amount not to exceed $500,000 for the term October 1, 2026, to September 30, 2029, that will be finalized by the City Attorney’s Office. 1864

RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT
ALPR/CCTV/DFR Administrative Record
• February 2023, City Council approved an agreement with Flock to lease and deploy 30 Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) cameras.
• November 2023, the City Council approved the First Amendment to the Flock Safety agreement, authorizing the lease and deployment of additional ALPR and closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras. • April 2024, the City Council approved the Second Amendment to the Flock Safety agreement to further expand the system by installing additional CCTV and ALPR cameras at the Port of Richmond • January 2025, the City Council approved the Third Amendment to the Flock Safety agreement. This amendment further expanded the City's existing Flock Safety program to include Drone as a First Responder (DFR) technology, as well as additional camera systems intended to support the security and monitoring of City infrastructure and facilities.
• February 2026, staff requested an additional amendment to the existing agreement with Flock Safety to extend the applicable contract terms through December 31, 2026. The purpose of the extension was to allow the City to satisfy existing contractual payment obligations while providing staff with sufficient time to conduct a competitive Request for Proposals (RFP) process and evaluate whether Flock Safety continued to represent the best technological, operational, and financial solution for the City of Richmond. 1865

RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Request For Proposals (RFP)
• February 26, 2026, staff completed an RFP for Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR), closed-circuit television (CCTV), and related public safety technology solutions. The RFP was posted on February 27, 2026, with a closing date of March 27, 2026. A total of 830 vendors were notified of the solicitation, and an addendum was posted on March 1, 2026.
• Evaluation Committee: A ten-member city evaluation committee representing multiple City departments and operational perspectives participated in the review process. (Police, City Attorney’s Office, Port, Public Works, Abatement)
1866

RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT
RFP Continued
• The city received proposals from six vendors:

1. Assure MSP (Selected for city infrastructure needs)

2. Axon Enterprise (Selected for law enforcement needs)

3. Flock Safety (camera reliability & repair & public trust)

4. IREX (did not meet the full needs of the RFP)

5. Motorola Solutions (associated cost and reference checks)

6. Net Electric (did not meet the full needs of the RFP) 1867

RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Axon Enterprise
Video Surveillance Technology 02
Proposed public safety technology
platform
• Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR)
• Closed Circuit Television Camera (CCTV)
• Drone As A First Responder (DFR)
ALPR / Fixed CCTV Camera
Drone as First Responder
1868

RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Axon Outpost
• An Axon Outpost is a fixed, rugged, and solar-powered outdoor camera that combines automated license plate recognition (ALPR), vehicle attribute recognition, and real-time CCTV live video into a single unit.
1869

RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT
AXON Outpost ALPR: Camera Function
Video Surveillance Technology 03
• Captures vehicle detections from fixed or mobile cameras, including plate images, vehicle context images, basic vehicle attributes, time, and location. (Does not capture people) • Compares vehicle plates against agency-approved hotlists, such as the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) or agency-created lists.
• Supports authorized investigative searches on the platform using known information such as a plate, partial plate, or vehicle description.
• Provides authorized law enforcement personnel with a review of prior detections of a specific plate within the agency retention period in support of a legitimate investigation. • Tracks individual access, searches, and activity where enabled, and configuration changes with user, action, time, and stated reason.
• Requires a specific offense category to conduct ALPR searches, requiring users to enter an authorized purpose before results are returned.
1870

RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT
AXON Outpost ALPR: What the system does NOT do
Video Surveillance Technology 04
• Does not use facial recognition or perform live registered-owner lookups. • Does not place agency ALPR data into a national or pooled database. • Does not share agency ALPR data automatically or by default. • Does not allow agencies that receive shared data to re-share it. • Does not provide federal agencies automatic, standing, or built-in access to agency ALPR data. • Does not automate enforcement. Every alert requires human review before action. • Does not allow Axon to pool, resell, or disclose agency ALPR data except where legally required. • Does not continuously monitor individuals or maintain a real-time location feed on any person. 1871

RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Data Sharing
Video Surveillance Technology 05
• Data Sharing is off by default. If Richmond shares ALPR data, it is explicit, invite-only, publicly visible in the transparency portal, and to the agency. • Sharing does not copy agency ALPR data into a shared repository, transfer ownership of it, or connect it to a national pool.
• Visibility changes only when the agency makes it change. 1872

RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Whom do we share with?
Video Surveillance Technology 06
• The Richmond Police Department will not openly share
its ALPR and CCTV data.
1873

RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Axon Data Access
Video Surveillance Technology 07
• Axon has no standing access to agency ALPR data.

Access occurs only when an agency initiates a specific
support request. When that happens, access is
temporary, limited to the stated purpose, logged, and
auditable by the agency.
1874

RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT
What does Richmond use ALPR for?
Video Surveillance Technology 08
• The Richmond Police Department uses license plate
reader data to investigate crimes, including but not
limited to homicide, assaults, missing persons, property crimes, and other authorized criminal investigations.

Vehicle used in a crime
+ =
ALPR Camera Vehicle identification and arrest
1875

RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT
How long is ALPR data kept for?
Video Surveillance Technology 09
• ALPR data is automatically purged after 30 days. If license plate data is used as evidence, the specific license plate data is kept indefinitely with the case file in
Evidence.com.
1876

RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Public-Facing Transparency Portal
Video Surveillance Technology 11
• Axon’s public-facing transparency portal discloses RPD’s data retention policies and available aggregate ALPR program information. It publishes only aggregate information, with no plate numbers, images, individual records, or camera locations. If an agency has sharing enabled, the portal can also disclose the partner agencies with whom data is shared. 1877

RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT
ALPR Prohibitions?
Video Surveillance Technology 12
• Richmond Police Department does not use license plate reader data for nonlegitimate law enforcement purposes, personal or unauthorized tracking, immigration enforcement, medical tracking, such as abortion-related tracking, or religious tracking. All allegations of misuse will be investigated by the Office of Professional Accountability.
• RPD policy section 433 ALPR regulations.
1878

RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Sensitive Locations
Video Surveillance Technology 13
• License Plate Reader and fixed cameras will not be
installed near churches, medical clinics, schools, or
other sensitive locations.
1879

RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Will Richmond’s Data Be Part Of A National Database?
Video Surveillance Technology 15
• No!
• Data stays within the City of Richmond unless Richmond chooses to share it. There is no automatic cross-agency access, and the system does not place agency ALPR data into a national or pooled database. Visibility does not expand unless the agency takes deliberate action to add an outside entity.
1880

RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Audits
Video Surveillance Technology 18
• For auditing and transparency purposes, when sharing is enabled, access to shared ALPR data is logged and reviewable. The audit record includes recipient activity against and changes to sharing relationships over time, so the agency can review who had access during a specific period.
****Richmond PD does not share ALPR data***
• For auditing and transparency purposes, the system logs and records are shared with the Community Police Review Commission.
1881

RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Can federal agencies access the data?
Video Surveillance Technology 21
• There is no automatic, standing, or built-in federal access to agency ALPR data through the Axon platform. The City of Richmond owns and controls the data; a lawful request is directed to the agency and its legal counsel for handling. If Axon receives such a request, it will direct it to the owning agency, which is the data owner. 1882
1883

RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Axon Compliance
Video Surveillance Technology 29
trust.axon.com
Compliance certifications
are maintained in Axon
Trust Center.
1884

RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Compliant
Video Surveillance Technology 31
• Axon Cloud Services (ACS) is designed and operated to ensure compliance with the FBI CJIS Security Policy (CJISSECPOL).
1885

RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Axon Data Encryption
Video Surveillance Technology 30
• Evidence data is encrypted in transit and while at rest in storage. Axon maintains mature, audited encryption key management procedures.
• Data Encryption in Transit: FIPS 140-2 validated, Certificate #4642; TLS 1.2 implementation with 256-bit connection; RSA 3072-bit key exchange; Perfect Forward Secrecy. • Evidence Data Encryption at Rest: CJIS compliant, AES 256-bit encryption. 1886

RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Drone As a First Responder (DFR)
1887

RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT
DFR Continued….
• DFR provides officers with real-time aerial information before they arrive on scene, improving situational awareness and response planning.
• Enhances officer, firefighter, and community safety by identifying weapons, hazards, escape routes, fire conditions, and other potential threats expeditiously.
• Reduced the need for officers to engage in prolonged vehicle or foot pursuits by tracking suspects from the air.
1888

RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT
DFR Continued….
• Strengthens police accountability by providing objective aerial overwatch and recorded documentation of rapidly evolving incidents, major events, and critical responses. • Assists firefighting operations by providing aerial views of fire spread, access points, evacuation needs, hot spots, and risks to nearby structures. • 6 DFR docks, which will increase coverage throughout the city, including the Hilltop and Carriage Hills areas. Exploring the placement of docks at existing city locations, such as fire stations.
1889

RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT
AXON Unique Features
• Ownership of the equipment VS. leasing the equipment. • Designed as a “closed” system, and sharing requires explicit action. • Solar-powered and does not require hard wiring, allowing for cameras to be easily moved and relocated.
• Integrates all CCTV video feeds into a single view.
• Six drones as first responder nests for citywide coverage VS. only one. 1890

RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Assure/Verkada
+
1891

RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Assure MSP & Verkada
• Assure MSP is a Northern California-based technology integrator specializing in video surveillance, access control, and intelligent monitoring systems. • Headquartered in Pleasanton, Assure MSP has an operational footprint in Bay Area counties such as Contra Costa County, Alameda County, San Mateo County, and Santa Clara County. • Assure MSP is a premier system integrator for the Verkada CCTV platform. • Camera solutions specifically designed for non-law enforcement purposes. 1892

RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Assure MSP & Verkada Continued
• Design a Verkada CCTV solution based on a specific city facility’s needs.
• City Hall
• Libraries
• Vehicle Maintenance and Sign Shop
• Port
• Etc….
1893

RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Assure MSP & Verkada Continued
• Installation, maintenance, repairs, and extended warranty service on all Verkada cameras installed at a city facility. 1894

RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Types of Verkada Cameras
1895

RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Cost Analysis
AXON
• Replacement and continuation of City’s law enforcement ALPR/CCTV program • Ownership of equipment
• No city cost for replacement due to vandalism or accidental damage • Five (5) drones and six (6) docking stations for wider emergency reach • 240 camera views
• Bundling will save over $500,000 and the City will receive $1,780,000 of additional equipment
• The first payment will be made in FY28
• The additional annual cost before tax is $876,313 with the final year expenditure being $1,829,003 which covers the City through FY31
1896

RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Cost Analysis
ASSURE MSP INC.
• Replacement and continuation of City infrastructure ALPR/CCTV program • Vendor specializes in interior camera systems
• Small footprint, utilizes City’s low-voltage data cabling for power and data transmission • Ownership of equipment
• Camera’s range in price from $1031.14 to $1977.14
• Additional costs include set up and mounting hardware • Analyze current CCTV coverage to determine ideal locations • Approval will allow up to $500,000 over three-years
• Shields Reid Park, Civic Center, Port, Library, BTA Community Center, etc. • Estimate for Shield Reid Park is $33,737.22
• Annual license $945.14 per camera
1897

RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT
QUESTIONS?
1898

October 6, 2026
Public Works
DATE: October 6, 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
1899

October 6, 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). This item was continued from the September 22, 2026, meeting.

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 1900

October 6, 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.
1901

October 6, 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 1902

October 6, 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
1903

October 6, 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 1904

October 6, 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 1905

October 6, 2026
Attachment 4 – Blue Curb Fee Considerations
1906
For the best experience, open this PDF portfolio in

Acrobat X or Adobe Reader X, or later.

Get Adobe Reader Now!
1907
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 1908
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
1909
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.
1910
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 1911
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:
1912
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.
1913
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. 1914
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 1915
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 1916
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
1917
Technical Appendix
On- Street Accessible Parking Policy
Program Walkthrough
On- Street Accessible Parking Policy | 1918
|
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
1919
|
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 1920
|
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 1921
|
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 1922
|
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 1923
|
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 1924
|
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. 1925
|
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 1926
|
Field Review Tools
Standard Checklist Measurement Guidance Prescribed Notetaking Step
On- Street Accessible Parking Policy 1927
|
Example D
Closest possible space:

On- Street Accessible Parking Policy
Real World
Example
Developing
Personal Resource
Center
1928
|
ADA- compliant curb ramp
near potential space:

On- Street Accessible Parking Policy
Real World
Example
1929
|
Real World
Example
One of several existing
spaces in the vicinity:

On- Street Accessible Parking Policy 1930
|
No feasible spaces are
identified because multiple
power poles obstruct corner
access
Are there options?
On- Street Accessible Parking Policy
Real World
Example
1931
|
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
1932
|
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 1933
|
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
1934
|
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 1935
|
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 1936
|
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 1937
|
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 1938
|
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 1939
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 1940
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
1941
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
1942
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
1943

October 6, 2026
City Council
DATE: October 6, 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
1944

October 6, 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).

This item was continued from the September 22,
2026, meeting.

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. 1945

October 6, 2026
The proposed development represents a potentially significant opportunity to create new housing in Richmond, including housing intended to serve veterans, while also 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 1946

October 6, 2026
moderate-income households. Meeting these goals will require the City to support and 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
1947
Veterans Mixed Use
Affordable Housing
Community

1. 2. Project Summary & Budget

3. Presented by: Veterans Housing Program (VRP) & Eagle Environmental Construction & Development (EEC+D)
1948
About VRP
501(c)(3) nonprofit based
in Richmond
Serves homeless, formerly
incarcerated, and
transitioning veterans
Provides housing, benefits
assistance, and education
support
1949
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
1950
Programs &
Services
• Housing assistance
• Food and clothing programs
• Education and job training
• Health and wellness initiatives
• Community engagement activities
1951
Need for Veteran Housing
• High rates of veteran homelessness
• Mental health and PTSD challenges
• Physical disabilities requiring accessible housing
• Employment and income instability
1952
Community
Impact
• Reduces homelessness
• Improves public health
• Strengthens families
• Creates economic
opportunities
1953
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
1954
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 1955
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 1956
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
1957
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)
1958
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
1959
Metrics for Evaluation and Monitoring
• Resolution of environmental issues
• Job creation
• Completion of stabilization process
1960
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
1961
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.
1962
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!!
1963

October 6, 2026
Public Works
DATE: October 6, 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
1964

October 6, 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. 1965

October 6, 2026

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

RECEIVE a presentation on the findings and recommendations of the draft Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer (KBSS) Feasibility Study; PROVIDE questions, comments, and recommendations for staff consideration; and DIRECT staff to continue
community outreach and return to the City Council after community comments have been gathered with a final report and recommendations for Council consideration and direction 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 1966

October 6, 2026
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 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 1967

October 6, 2026
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.

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
1968

KELLER BEACH SANITARY SEWER

FEASIBILITY STUDY
DRAFT
August 13, 2026
City of Richmond
BKF Project No. C20250596-10
Prepared by
Adam Brown, PE
1969
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 1970
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 1971
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 1972
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 1973
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 1974
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 1975
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
1976
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. 1977
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. 1978
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 1979
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.
1980
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
1981
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
1982
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
1983
9/17/2026
4 Background
Approx 340 lots (290 connections) Assessment District 680 Objectives
7 8
1984
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
1985
9/17/2026
6 Existing Conditions
Existing Conditions
11 12
1986
9/17/2026
7 Existing Conditions
Existing Conditions
2021 2026
13 14
1987
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
1988
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
1989
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
1990
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
1991
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
1992
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
1993
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
1994
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
1995
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
1996
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
1997
9/17/2026
18 Alternative C2: Trenchless Open-Cut
Alternatives
Approx Cost: $19.5M
Scoring Summary
35 36
1998
9/17/2026
19 Scoring Summary
Recommendation
37 38
1999
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
2000
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
2001
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
2002