UNITED RENTALS (NORTH AMERICA), INC.
EXCEPTIONS TO:
CITY OF RICHMOND, CA
RFP – On-Call Equipment Rental Services
The submission of the attached bid by United Rentals (North America), Inc. (“Contractor”) is subject to the exceptions set forth below.
SECTION; PAGE
NUMBER
EXCEPTION; EXPLANATION
Sample Contract
Exhibit D
Section 11 – Hold Harmless
Once the equipment is delivered, Contractor no longer has any control over the use or misuse of the equipment rented.
This section should be modified to reflect that Contractor’s indemnification, defense and save harmless obligations shall be limited to claims to the extent caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of Contractor during performance of this Agreement.
Contractor is not operating the equipment and has no control over the equipment once it is delivered to the jurisdiction. Contractor’s liability for costs and expenses hereunder shall be limited to those that are reasonable and actual, including reasonable attorney fees. In no event shall Contractor be liable for incidental, special or consequential damages.
Sample Contract
Exhibit D
Section 22 – Warranty
Contractor requests that any references to “warranty” or “guaranty” be modified to reflect that Contractor is not the manufacturer of the equipment rented hereunder. In addition, once the equipment is delivered, Contractor no longer has any control over the use or misuse of the equipment rented.
Accordingly, Contractor requests that all such references be amended to reflect the following:
Contractor warrants that upon delivery the equipment rented hereunder will be in good working condition. If the equipment is not in good working condition upon delivery, Contractor shall promptly repair or replace the equipment at its sole cost and expense. If the equipment requires repair or replacement during the rental period, Contractor will promptly repair or replace the equipment at its sole cost and expense; provided, however, if the repair or replacement is necessary due to the County’s abuse, misuse or neglect, the County will be responsible for the cost of such repair or replacement. EXCEPT
AS SET FORTH HEREIN CONTRACTOR DISCLAIMS ALL OTHER
WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THE RENTAL 447
OF EQUIPMENT.
However, neither Jurisdiction nor Contractor shall be liable for claims due solely to latent defects in materials, supplies, tools and equipment furnished by Contractor which were not or could not have been discovered by careful inspection.
448
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
United Rentals (North America), Inc
449
___ 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.
450
___ 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. 451
___ 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.
452
___ 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.
453
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)
United Rentals (North America), Inc
454
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:
United Rentals (North America), Inc
455
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 Carlos Castro [email protected] (510) 231-3083 Approve a Contract with Cresco Equipment Rentals
NorCal Rental Group LLC DBA: Cresco Equipment Rentals 318 Stealth Ct. Livermore, CA 94551 Edith Covarrubias (925) 337-1368 [email protected] October 20, 2026 October 20, 2029 300,000.00 456
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
NorCal Rental Group LLC DBA: Cresco Equipment Rentals
457
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]:
NorCal Rental Group LLC DBA: Cresco Equipme
See attached below.
458
10. BID SCHEDULE
Complete the pricing table below. Prices shall include normal maintenance. Transportation, fuel, environmental fees, and damage waivers shall be identified separately.
Equipment
Category
Description Daily Weekly Monthly
Mini Excavator 3,000–8,000 lb $300 $875 $1,900
Mid Excavator 12,000–20,000 lb $500 $1,550 $3,600
Large
Excavator
20,000+ lb $700 $2,100 $5,000
Skid Steer Wheeled $300 $875 $1,750
Backhoe Loader Standard $350 $950 $2,000
Wheel Loader 1–3 CY $575 $1,525 $3,300
Smooth Drum
Roller
Compaction $270 $745 $1,875
Padfoot Roller Compaction $470 $1,575 $3,725
Water Truck 2,000–4,000 gal $385 $1,225 $2,475
10-Wheel
Dump Truck
$625 $2,000 $4,500
Flatbed/Stake
Bed
$100 $400 $950
Pickup 1/2 Ton $95 $400 $850
Pickup 3/4 Ton $95 $400 $850
Pickup 1 Ton n/a n/a n/a
Cargo Van n/a n/a n/a
Forklift 5,000 lb $200 $500 $975
Telehandler 6K–10K $380 $1,000 $2,100
Scissor Lift Electric $110 $225 $305
Boom Lift 40 ft $300 $725 $1650
Boom Lift 60 ft $400 $925 $2,200
Air Compressor Portable $170 $375 $650
459
Generator Portable $50 $100 $300
Light Tower LED $110 $275 $495
Wood Chipper Tow Behind $200 $500 $1,200
Stump Grinder Tow Behind $125 $300 $600
Pressure
Washer
Trailer Mounted $150 $350 $700
Concrete Saw Walk Behind $100 $250 $550
Trencher Ride-On $150 $450 $1,400
Street Sweeper Mechanical $315 $825 $1,725
Street Sweeper Vacuum $325 $875 $2,800
Vacuum
Excavator
Hydro Vac $525 $1,650 $3,800
Message Board Portable $175 $575 $1,025
Arrow Board Trailer Mounted $115 $300 $515
9. SEPARATE PRICING
Item Rate
Delivery $95
Pickup $95
Emergency Delivery $0
After-hours Delivery $0
460
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.
Carlos Castro Carlos Castro NorCal Rental Group LLC DBA: Cresco Equipme 461
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: ________________________________________________ Carlos Castro [email protected] Rental Group LLC DBA: Cresco Equipme NorCal Rental Group LLC DBA: Cresco Equipment Rentals 318 Stealth Ct. Livermore, CA 94551 [email protected] 462
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, NorCal Rental Group LLC DBA: Cresco Equipme
463
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.
NorCal Rental Group LLC DBA: Cresco Equipme
464
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 NorCal Rental Group LLC DBA: Cresco Equipme
465
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 NorCal Rental Group LLC DBA: Cresco Equipme
466
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 NorCal Rental Group LLC DBA: Cresco Equipme
467
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.
NorCal Rental Group LLC DBA: Cresco Equipme
468
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 NorCal Rental Group LLC DBA: Cresco Equipme
469
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, NorCal Rental Group LLC DBA: Cresco Equipme
470
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.
NorCal Rental Group LLC DBA: Cresco Equipme
471
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”):
NorCal Rental Group LLC DBA: Cresco Equipment R
NONE.
472
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
NorCal Rental Group LLC DBA: Cresco Equipment R
473
___ 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.
474
___ 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. 475
___ 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.
476
___ 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.
477
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)
NorCal Rental Group LLC DBA: Cresco Equipment R
478
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:
NorCal Rental Group LLC DBA: Cresco Equipment R
479
Reso. No. _____
RESOLUTION NO. ______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONTRACTS WITH HERC RENTALS INC.,
CRESCO EQUIPMENT RENTALS, UNITED RENTALS, AND SUNBELT
RENTALS FOR ON-CALL EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVICES
WHEREAS, the City of Richmond requires access to a broad range of rental equipment to support Public Works and other municipal operations, including scheduled maintenance and construction activities, equipment breakdowns, emergency response activities, seasonal workloads, special projects, and other operational requirements; and WHEREAS, the use of on-call equipment rental services allows the City to supplement City-owned equipment and obtain specialized equipment on an as-needed basis without incurring the capital acquisition, storage, maintenance, depreciation, and replacement costs associated with purchasing and maintaining equipment that may only be required periodically; and WHEREAS, on July 31, 2026, the City issued a Request for Proposals for On-Call Equipment Rental Services seeking qualified firms capable of providing equipment, vehicles, attachments, accessories, transportation, and related rental services on an as-needed basis; and WHEREAS, the solicitation established August 11, 2026, at 3:00 p.m. as the deadline for questions and August 25, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. as the deadline for submission of proposals; and WHEREAS, the solicitation was advertised through the City's electronic procurement system, and a total of 114 vendors were notified of the procurement opportunity; and WHEREAS, the Request for Proposals provided that the City could award contracts to one or multiple vendors and that no minimum quantity of work or expenditure would be guaranteed to any contractor; and
WHEREAS, the Request for Proposals sought access to a broad range of rental equipment, including earthmoving equipment, aerial lifts, material handling equipment, compaction equipment, trucks and trailers, utility vehicles, power generation and compressors, concrete and asphalt equipment, traffic control equipment, landscape and forestry equipment, pumps, and other specialty equipment; and
WHEREAS, following review of the proposals received, City staff determined that awarding contracts to Herc Rentals Inc., Cresco Equipment Rentals, United Rentals, and Sunbelt Rentals will provide the City with a complementary combination of competitive pricing, equipment inventory and availability, service capabilities, emergency response capacity, and operational flexibility; and
WHEREAS, equipment inventory, configurations, pricing, delivery capabilities, and availability vary among rental companies, and no single vendor provides the most advantageous combination of price, availability, delivery time, and operational suitability for every potential City equipment rental requirement; and
WHEREAS, establishing contracts with four qualified vendors will provide the City with broader equipment availability and operational redundancy and will allow City staff to select among the contracted vendors based upon equipment availability, applicable daily, weekly, or monthly rental rates, equipment size and configuration, delivery and pickup costs, required attachments, delivery timeframe, emergency response requirements, and overall cost and operational suitability at the time an individual rental is required; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the multi-vendor award is to establish a competitively procured pool of qualified equipment rental providers and is not intended to guarantee or divide rental expenditures equally among the four contractors; and
WHEREAS, each proposed contract provides for an initial three-year term in an amount not-to-exceed Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000), based upon maximum annual contract authority of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) per vendor; and 480
Reso. No. _____
WHEREAS, the proposed contracts provide the option to extend each contract for two (2) additional one-year terms in an amount not-to-exceed One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) per vendor, per year; and
WHEREAS, if both optional one-year extensions are exercised, the maximum contract authority shall not exceed Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) per vendor over the potential five-year term, for an aggregate maximum authority not-to-exceed Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) for all four contracts; and
WHEREAS, the contracts are on-call, as-needed contracts, no minimum amount of work or expenditure is guaranteed to Herc Rentals Inc., Cresco Equipment Rentals, United Rentals, or Sunbelt Rentals, and actual expenditures will be based upon City operational requirements and available budget appropriations; and
WHEREAS, funding for equipment rental services will be provided through approved departmental operating budgets based upon actual equipment rental needs and available appropriations, with funding for future fiscal years and option years subject to City Council budget appropriations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richmond that contracts with Herc Rentals Inc., Cresco Equipment Rentals, United Rentals, and Sunbelt Rentals for On-Call Equipment Rental Services are hereby approved, each for an initial three-year term in an amount not-to-exceed Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000), based upon maximum annual contract authority of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) per vendor.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby authorizes the option to extend each contract for two (2) additional one-year terms in an amount not-to-exceed One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) per vendor, per year, subject to available budget appropriations.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, if both optional one-year extensions are exercised, the maximum contract authority shall not exceed Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) per vendor, for an aggregate maximum authority not-to-exceed Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) for all four contracts over the potential five-year term.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the contracts are on-call, as-needed contracts and no minimum amount of work or expenditure is guaranteed to Herc Rentals Inc., Cresco Equipment Rentals, United Rentals, or Sunbelt Rentals, and expenditures shall be based upon actual City operational requirements and available budget appropriations.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager or designee is hereby authorized to execute the contracts, exercise the two optional one-year extensions, and execute amendments or related documents necessary to administer the contracts, provided such actions do not exceed the annual or total contract authority approved herein.
******************
***THE CLERK’S OFFICE WILL COMPLETE THE INFORMATION BELOW**** I certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting thereof held on Mmmm dd, yyyy, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
481
Reso. No. _____
CLERK OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
(SEAL)
Approved:
Mayor
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
State of California }
County of Contra Costa : ss.
City of Richmond }
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of Resolution No. _____, finally passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting held on Mmmm dd, yyyy.
_______________________________________
Pamela Christian, Clerk of the City of Richmond
482
October 20, 2026
Department
DATE: October 20, 2026
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM: Mark Scott, Interim City Manager
Nickie Mastay, Deputy City Manager, Internal Services
Emily Combs, Director of Finance
Mubeen Qader, Deputy Director of Finance
Subject: Update on City Financial Reporting and Polluters Pay Settlement Funds Community Engagement Process
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with receiving this informational report.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
September 24, 2024
January 27, 2026
April 28, 2026
September 22, 2026
October 6, 2026
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
At its September 22 and October 6, 2026 meetings, the
City Council requested additional information regarding the City's financial condition, including an independent financial review, and the status of the Polluters Pay
Settlement funds and community engagement process.
This report provides an update on these matters in
response to Council direction.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: RECEIVE an informational report providing an update on the City of Richmond’s financial condition, the status of the independent financial review, the balance of the
Polluters Pay Settlement funds received from Chevron
and maintained in the General Fund pending future
allocation, and the status of the proposed Dalberg
Advisors contract to facilitate community engagement
AGENDA
REPORT
483
October 20, 2026
regarding the framework for expenditure of the settlement funds – Finance Department (Emily Combs 510-620-
6790)
DISCUSSION:
1. City Financial Report
In response to the October 6, 2026 City Council direction, Finance staff compiled the requested financial information and provided it to the City's municipal advisor, NHA, for independent review.
City staff met with NHA on October 13, 2026, to discuss the financial information and its presentation to City Council. Based on NHA's recommendation, staff are presenting a summary of the City's three most recent years of audited financial results, including revenues, expenditures, annual surpluses or deficits, and General Fund reserves. This approach provides a consistent comparison of finalized financial results while additional review of the more detailed financial information continues.
Summary of Audited Financial Results
The following table summarizes the City's audited General Fund financial results for FY 2022-23 through FY 2024-25.
Fiscal Year Revenues
($M)
Expenditures
($M)
Surplus /
(Deficit) ($M)
General Fund
Reserves
FY 2022-23 Audited $226.15M $213.04M $13.11M $55.2M (25%) FY 2023-24 Audited $240.08M $231.43M $8.65M $65.3M (26%) FY 2024-25 Audited $277.66M $278.49M ($0.82M) $62.8M (24%) Reserve percentages are calculated as a percentage of budgeted General Fund appropriations.
The City's audited financial results reflect surpluses in FY 2022-23 and FY 2023-24, followed by a modest deficit in FY 2024-25. Despite fluctuations in annual operating results, the City has maintained General Fund reserves above the City Council-adopted target of 21% of budgeted appropriations throughout the three-year period. At the end of FY 2024-25, General Fund reserves totaled approximately $62.8 million, representing 24% of budgeted appropriations.
484
October 20, 2026
While preliminary FY 2025-26 year-end results were presented to the City Council as part of the September 15, 2026 Quarter 4 (Q4) Financial Report, City staff are continuing to work with the City's independent auditors to complete the FY 2025-26 annual audit and finalize the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR). The audited financial statements, ACFR, and final General Fund year-end results are expected to be presented to the City Council in March 2027. FY 2026-27 was challenged throughout the municipal world by the impacts of worldwide inflation on goods and services and by higher expectations for labor agreements. The City was successful in reaching agreement with most of its labor groups. Labor agreements tend to affect the year of adoption due to unbudgeted costs but they establish a clear budget requirement for future budget allocations. As a result, City staff’s preliminary Q4 projection anticipates a year-end negative operating balance, but the adopted FY 2026- 27 budget was adjusted accordingly to maintain the City’s 21% Reserve target.
Understanding the City’s General Fund Financial Forecast In evaluating the City's overall financial condition, it is important to distinguish historical financial results from projections of future financial conditions. While audited financial statements report actual revenues, expenditures, and reserves, multi-year financial forecasts help the City evaluate potential future trends and the long-term impacts of current budget and policy decisions.
The City prepares multi-year General Fund financial forecasts as part of its financial planning process, consistent with recommended best practices of the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA). These forecasts are based on reasonable assumptions using the best information available at the time, including historical revenue and expenditure trends, economic conditions, personnel costs, pension obligations, and existing financial commitments.
A forecast is not intended to predict a particular outcome. Rather, it illustrates what could occur if current assumptions and trends continue. Projected deficits in future years do not necessarily mean those deficits will occur. Instead, they identify potential financial challenges and provide an opportunity for the City Council to evaluate priorities and consider adjustments through future budget processes.
Forecast assumptions are updated as new information becomes available and do not represent commitments to future expenditures or compensation increases. The forecast is a planning tool, not an adopted budget, and helps the City evaluate the long-term affordability of programs and services while supporting informed financial decisions.
City staff will continue working with NHA to review the additional financial information requested by Council and determine the most appropriate format for presenting that information clearly and consistently.
2. Status of Polluters Pay Settlement Funds
485
October 20, 2026
The City is scheduled to receive $550 million over ten years through the Polluters Pay Settlement with Chevron. The settlement provides for annual payments of $50 million during the first five years and $60 million during the remaining five years.
The City received its first payment in July 2025 (FY 2025-26) and its second payment in July 2026 (FY 2026-27). Each payment totaled $50 million. After the required 3% allocation to the Kids First Fund, the net General Fund proceeds total $48.5 million annually.
Settlement Payments and Estimated Balances Through September 30, 2026 Description FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 Total
Gross settlement payments received $50,000,000 $50,000,000 $100,000,00
0 Less: Kids First allocation (3%) ($1,500,000) ($1,500,000) ($3,000,000) Net settlement proceeds $48,500,000 $48,500,000 $97,000,000 Unaudited interest earnings on settlement
funds $1,850,000 $850,000 $2,700,000
Estimated settlement balance $50,350,000 $49,350,000 $99,700,000 FY 2025–26 figures remain preliminary pending completion of the City's year-end closing process. FY 2026-27 interest earnings reflect amounts earned through September 30, 2026.
FY 2025-26 Preliminary Year-End Position
As of September 30, 2026, the City has received $100 million in gross settlement payments. After the required 3% allocation to the Kids First Fund, net settlement proceeds total $97 million. Including approximately $2.7 million in unaudited interest earnings, the combined estimated settlement balance is $99.7 million.
Of this amount, approximately $50.35 million is attributable to FY 2025-26, and $49.35 million is attributable to FY 2026-27. These amounts remain preliminary, with FY 2025- 26 figures subject to final reconciliation as the City completes its year-end closing process. The settlement funds are being maintained pending the community engagement process and subsequent City Council direction regarding their allocation.
3. Polluters Pay Settlement Community Engagement Process On September 24, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 105-24, expressing its intention to use settlement funds in a manner that supports a resilient and just local economy while reducing dependence on Chevron-related tax revenues.
On January 27, 2026, the City Council directed City staff to engage a consultant to facilitate community input regarding the framework for expenditure of settlement revenues. A Request for Proposals was issued on February 11, 2026. 486
October 20, 2026
On April 28, 2026, the City Council authorized the City Manager and City Attorney to negotiate and execute a contract with Dalberg Advisors to conduct the community engagement process.
Status of Consultant Contract
City staff recently met with Dalberg Advisors and are finalizing the proposed agreement to incorporate City Council feedback provided at the April 28, 2026 meeting. City staff anticipate returning to City Council on November 10, 2026, for consideration of the proposed contract.
As part of the November 10 presentation, Dalberg will present its proposed community engagement plan, including the anticipated timeline, outreach activities, and deliverables. The engagement process will provide opportunities for Richmond residents, businesses, and community organizations to identify priorities for the future use of settlement funds. Decisions regarding the allocation and expenditure of settlement funds will remain with the City Council.
NEXT STEPS
Finance staff will continue working with NHA to complete the independent review of the financial information requested by City Council. Staff will also continue coordinating with the City's independent auditors to finalize the FY 2025-26 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR), with audited financial results expected to be presented to City Council in March 2027.
City staff anticipate returning to City Council on November 10, 2026, for consideration of the proposed agreement with Dalberg Advisors, including a presentation of the community engagement plan and anticipated timeline.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 - Presentation
487
CITY OF RICHMOND
CITY FINANCIAL REPORTING
& POLLUTERS PAY
SETTLEMENT FUNDS
City Council Update | October 20, 2026
Emily Combs | Director of Finance
DRAFT
488
CITY FINANCIAL REPORTING
What this update covers
CITY OF RICHMOND • OCTOBER 20, 2026 02
01 Audited financial results Three years of finalized General Fund results and reserve levels. 02 Financial forecasts How to interpret long-term projections and potential deficits. 03 Settlement funds Payments, interest earnings and estimated balances. 04 Community engagement Dalberg agreement status and upcoming work. 489
CITY FINANCIAL REPORTING
Three years of audited General Fund results
CITY OF RICHMOND • OCTOBER 20, 2026 03
Fiscal year Revenues Expenditures Surplus / (Deficit) GF reserves FY 2022–23 $226.15M $213.04M $13.11M $55.2M (25%)
FY 2023–24 $240.08M $231.43M $8.65M $65.3M (26%)
FY 2024–25 $277.66M $278.49M ($0.82M) $62.8M (24%)
Reserve percentages are based on budgeted General Fund appropriations.
FY 2025–26 audited results expected to be presented with the ACFR in March 2027. 490
CITY FINANCIAL REPORTING
General Fund reserves remained above target
CITY OF RICHMOND • OCTOBER 20, 2026 04
FY 2022–23
25%
$55.2M
FY 2023–24
26%
$65.3M
FY 2024–25
24%
$62.8M
21% COUNCIL-ADOPTED RESERVE TARGET
Despite fluctuations in annual results, reserves exceeded the target in each audited year. 491
CITY FINANCIAL REPORTING
Audited results and forecasts answer different questions CITY OF RICHMOND • OCTOBER 20, 2026 05
AUDITED FINANCIAL RESULTS
What happened?
Finalized revenues, expenditures and
reserves from completed fiscal years.
MULTI-YEAR FORECAST
What might happen?
Reasonable scenarios based on current
assumptions and trends.
492
CITY FINANCIAL REPORTING
How to interpret a projected deficit
CITY OF RICHMOND • OCTOBER 20, 2026 06
MODEL
Projects what could occur if trends and
assumptions continue.
EARLY WARNING
Identifies fiscal pressures before they
materialize.
PLANNING TOOL
Supports Council prioritization and budget
decisions.
NOT A BUDGET
Does not establish future appropriations or
compensation commitments.
493
CITY FINANCIAL REPORTING
Settlement payments received to date
CITY OF RICHMOND • OCTOBER 20, 2026 07
$550M
Scheduled over ten years
$100M
Gross payments received
$3.0M
Kids First allocation
$97.0M
Net settlement proceeds
494
CITY FINANCIAL REPORTING
Estimated settlement balances | September 30, 2026 (unaudited) CITY OF RICHMOND • OCTOBER 20, 2026 08
Description FY 2025–26 FY 2026–27 Total
Gross payments $50,000,000 $50,000,000 $100,000,000
Kids First allocation ($1,500,000) ($1,500,000) ($3,000,000) Net proceeds $48,500,000 $48,500,000 $97,000,000
Unaudited Interest earnings $1,850,000 $850,000 $2,700,000 Unaudited Estimated settlement
balance $50,350,000 $49,350,000 $99,700,000
Unaudited preliminary balances; FY 2026–27 interest earned through September 30, 2026. 495
CITY FINANCIAL REPORTING
Maintaining funds for future Council allocation
CITY OF RICHMOND • OCTOBER 20, 2026 09
$50.35M FY 2025–26 preliminary year-end settlement balance, including interest
$49.35M FY 2026–27 net proceeds plus interest through September $99.70M Combined unaudited estimated balance as of September 30, 2026
Future allocation pending community engagement and City Council direction. 496
CITY FINANCIAL REPORTING
Community engagement | Current status
CITY OF RICHMOND • OCTOBER 20, 2026 10
2024 Council adopts settlement-use principles
JAN 2026 Council directs community engagement
APR 2026 Council authorizes Dalberg negotiations
Nov 10, 2026 Council consideration of Dalberg contract and engagement plan 497
CITY FINANCIAL REPORTING
Next steps
CITY OF RICHMOND • OCTOBER 20, 2026 11
Independent review Continue NHA review of Council-requested financial information.
FY 2025–26 audit Complete the ACFR; audited results expected March 2027.
Settlement reconciliation Finalize settlement balances and interest earnings.
Community engagement Bring proposed Dalberg contract to City Council November 10, with engagement plan and timeline.
498
CITY OF RICHMOND
FINANCIAL REPORTING &
POLLUTERS PAY SETTLEMENT FUNDS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
RECEIVE the informational update.
City Council • October 20, 2026
499
October 20, 2026
Community Development
DATE: October 20, 2026
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM: Lina Velasco, Director of Community Development
Avery Stark, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Extension of Moratorium on Data Centers
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The urgency ordinance extension, if adopted, would be enforced pursuant to routine code enforcement efforts,
impact the approval and issuance of permits and land
use entitlement related to data center. Since no
application is pending the impacts on the General Fund is unknown.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
September 15, 2026
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
On September 15, 2026, the City Council adopted
Urgency Ordinance No. 13-26 N.S., which placed a
temporary 45-day moratorium on the issuance or
approval of permits or land use entitlements for data
centers within the City of Richmond and declared an
urgency thereof pursuant to Government Code Section
65858. City staff recommend that the urgency ordinance
be extended pursuant to Government Code Section
65858(b) for an additional 22 months and 15 days, until September 15, 2028, to provide staff with sufficient time to study and engage the public in the establishment of
reasonable regulations of data centers to protect the
public health, welfare, and safety.
AGENDA
REPORT
500
October 20, 2026
RECOMMENDED ACTION: ADOPT an urgency ordinance, pursuant to Government Code Section 65858, extending the temporary
moratorium on the issuance of any new permit or land
use approval for any data center in the City of Richmond for an additional 22 months and 15 days, until September 15, 2028, which is intended to preserve the status quo
and will not cause a direct physical change in the
environment, nor a reasonably foreseeable indirect
physical change in the environment, and therefore does
not constitute the approval of a project under the
California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and is
exempt from CEQA (Pub. Res. Code § 21065, CEQA
Guidelines §§ 15060(c)(2)(3); 15061(b)(3); 15064(d)(3); 15378(a)) - Community Development Department (Lina
Velasco/Avery Stark 510-620-6714).
DISCUSSION:
On September 15, 2026, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 13-26 N.S., which placed a temporary 45-day moratorium on any new data center in the City of Richmond and declared the urgency of that action under Government Code Section 65858.
The City Council adopted that ordinance following notice and a public hearing and by a four-fifths vote, under its police power, which is confirmed by Article XI, section 7 of the California Constitution and by Article II, section 1, and Article IX, section 10 of the Richmond City Charter. City staff now recommend that the City Council adopt a single ordinance that amends, restates, and supersedes Ordinance No. 13-26 N.S. and extends the moratorium under Government Code Section 65858 for 22 months and 15 days, through September 15, 2028. That period is the longest single extension the statute allows for an interim ordinance adopted after notice and a public hearing, and it keeps the moratorium within the statute's two-year limit. The extension will give staff enough time to study data centers and to engage the public in setting reasonable regulations for them, if the City allows them, to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION:
As noted and presented on September 15, 2026, data centers are emerging as a more prominent land use in cities nationwide, driven by increasing demand for digital infrastructure to support cloud computing, artificial intelligence, and data storage. While these facilities can generate economic benefits, including construction activity, limited employment opportunities, and potential tax revenue, they also present unique land use considerations. Unlike traditional commercial or industrial uses, data centers operate with high infrastructure demands and relatively low on-site employment, raising questions about their long-term value relative to other potential land uses.
A primary concern associated with data center development is the significant demand for electricity, water, and land resources. Data centers require substantial and continuous 501
October 20, 2026
power supply to operate servers and cooling systems, which may strain existing energy infrastructure and conflict with local and regional climate goals. Water usage for cooling, particularly in areas facing drought conditions, further complicates sustainability considerations. Additionally, these facilities often require large building footprints, which can limit opportunities for more community-serving or employment-generating uses.
Beyond resource consumption, data centers may also create compatibility challenges with surrounding land uses. Potential impacts include noise from mechanical equipment, visual scale and design concerns, and limited activation of the public realm. These factors can affect nearby residential neighborhoods, reduce property values, and conflict with broader community priorities for equitable development, economic vitality, and environmental stewardship. Careful planning and policy guidance are therefore needed to keep any future data center development consistent with the City's goals and standards.
Given the evolving nature of this industry and the uncertainty in balancing its potential benefits with long-term costs, a temporary moratorium is desired by the City Council to engage in a public planning process to evaluate whether and under what regulations data centers may be permitted. A temporary moratorium would provide the City with time to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of impacts, review best practices from other jurisdictions, and engage stakeholders, including residents, utility providers, and industry representatives. This process would enable the City to evaluate the desirability of the land use and if desired, develop clear policies and regulations to guide future data center proposals in a manner that aligns with community priorities and resource constraints.
Regional activity confirms that the threat is current and immediate, not speculative. As of September 17, 2026, three nearby cities have approved major data center projects:
Pittsburg approved a project involving the AVAIO-affiliated Pittsburg Data Hub, LLC and AVAIO Digital; Hayward approved a project involving STACK Infrastructure; and Gilroy approved a project involving Amazon Data Services. Bay Area cities are also using land use controls to respond. As of the same date, Oakley, Gilroy, and Richmond have adopted temporary citywide moratoria on new data center development; San Francisco and Oakland have moratorium proposals pending (both cities have since adopted their moratoriums); and Hayward has adopted enhanced review requirements for future projects rather than a moratorium. City staff have not identified any permanent citywide data center prohibition adopted by a Bay Area municipality. These approvals show that data center operators are actively securing sites in comparable Bay Area cities and could seek approval in Richmond during the City's study, while the range of local responses shows that a temporary moratorium is a measured, mainstream approach rather than a permanent ban.
City staff recommend that the City Council adopt a single urgency ordinance that amends, restates, and supersedes Ordinance No. 13-26 N.S. and extends the temporary moratorium for 22 months and 15 days, through September 15, 2028. Consolidating the original ordinance and its extension into one instrument gives the public and future readers a single, clear statement of the moratorium and its findings. The extension will give staff enough time to prepare amendments to the Richmond Municipal Code and to study and 502
October 20, 2026
develop stronger regulations of data centers that adequately protect the public health, safety, and welfare. City staff prepared and posted online the 10-day report that Government Code section 65858 requires at www.richmondca.gov/datacenterstudy. That report describes the measures the City has taken to alleviate the conditions that led to the adoption of the urgency ordinance.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS:
This ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") on two independent grounds. First, it is not a "project." The ordinance continues a temporary moratorium and preserves the status quo; it authorizes no development and will not cause a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. (Pub. Resources Code § 21065; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 15060(c)(2)-(3), 15378.) Second, even if it were a project, it is exempt under the common sense exemption. Based on the whole record—including this staff report, the 10-day report, and the studies and jurisdictional research the City has reviewed—it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment, because a moratorium that prohibits new data centers prevents, rather than causes, physical change. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14 § 15061(b)(3).) Staff will file a notice of exemption with the County Clerk. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14 § 15062.) ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
The City Council could decide not to extend the moratorium at this time and instead direct staff to continue work on possible amendments to City codes while processing new applications. This could cause immediate adverse impacts. For example, data center developers that other cities have blocked could relocate to Richmond during the period the City needs to develop and propose stronger regulations.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – Urgency Ordinance Amending, Restating, and Extending the Data Center Moratorium (supersedes Ordinance No. 13-26 N.S.)
Attachment 2 – Urgency Ordinance No. 13-26 N.S. (superseded) Attachment 3 – 10-Day Report
503
ORDINANCE NO. ___________
AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA, PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858, AMENDING, RESTATING, AND SUPERSEDING URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 13-26 N.S. AND EXTENDING FOR 22 MONTHS AND 15 DAYS THE TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW DATA CENTERS WITHIN THE CITY OF
RICHMOND, PENDING COMPLETION OF A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE
CITY'S GENERAL PLAN, ZONING ORDINANCE, AND RELATED LAND USE
REGULATIONS AND A PUBLIC PLANNING PROCESS TO EVALUATE WHETHER
AND UNDER WHAT REGULATIONS DATA CENTERS MAY BE PERMITTED, AND
DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF
WHEREAS, the increasing demand for data centers associated with the expansion of artificial intelligence and cloud computing has resulted in growing development interest throughout the San Francisco Bay Area, warranting careful evaluation of the potential impacts on local land use, electricity demand, water resources, infrastructure, and community priorities before these facilities are approved; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the increasing interest in data center development may have significant implications for electricity demand, water resources, public infrastructure, land use compatibility, noise, air quality, aesthetics, and other factors affecting the public health, safety, and welfare of Richmond residents that warrant further study before data centers are established within the City; and WHEREAS, the City is evaluating whether its General Plan and Zoning Ordinance adequately regulate data centers as a distinct land use; and WHEREAS, the City's Zoning Ordinance does not contain land use regulations specifically addressing data centers or standards to evaluate and mitigate their potential impacts, including but not limited to energy consumption, water demand, noise, air quality, visual character, neighborhood compatibility, and other effects on surrounding properties and the quality of life of Richmond residents; and WHEREAS, data centers differ from traditional industrial and office uses because they may involve substantial electrical infrastructure, emergency backup generation, battery energy storage systems, cooling infrastructure, utility demands, operational noise, and other characteristics not specifically addressed by existing City regulations; and WHEREAS, a temporary moratorium will provide the City with time to undertake a public planning process to determine whether data centers should be permitted within Richmond and, if so, consider appropriate amendments to the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and other applicable regulations to ensure that future data center 504
development is consistent with the City's planning objectives and community priorities; and
WHEREAS, on September 15, 2026, following notice given under Government Code section 65090 and a public hearing, and by a four-fifths vote, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 13-26 N.S. under Government Code section 65858(b), establishing a 45-day moratorium on new data centers, which will expire on October 30, 2026; and
WHEREAS, at least 10 days before the expiration of Ordinance No. 13-26 N.S., the City issued the written report required by Government Code section 65858(d), describing the measures the City has taken to alleviate the conditions that led to the moratorium, and that report is incorporated in the record; and
WHEREAS, the City Council now amends, restates, and supersedes Ordinance No. 13- 26 N.S. through this single ordinance and, under Government Code section 65858(b), extends the moratorium once for 22 months and 15 days—the longest single extension the statute allows for an interim ordinance adopted after notice and a public hearing—so that the moratorium remains in effect through and including September 15, 2028, unless terminated earlier; and
WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing on this ordinance was given under Government Code section 65090, and the City Council held that hearing before adopting this ordinance; and
WHEREAS, data center development is active and accelerating in the San Francisco Bay Area, and as of September 17, 2026, the Cities of Pittsburg, Hayward, and Gilroy have each approved a major data center project—Pittsburg approving a project involving the AVAIO-affiliated Pittsburg Data Hub, LLC and AVAIO Digital; Hayward approving a project involving STACK Infrastructure; and Gilroy approving a project involving Amazon Data Services—demonstrating that data center approvals in comparable Bay Area cities are current and ongoing, not speculative; and WHEREAS, Bay Area cities are responding to this development pressure through land use controls, and as of September 17, 2026, the Cities of Oakley, Gilroy, and Richmond have adopted temporary citywide moratoria on new data center development, the Cities of San Francisco and Oakland have moratorium proposals pending, and the City of Hayward has adopted enhanced review requirements for future projects rather than a moratorium, while staff has not identified any permanent citywide data center prohibition adopted by a Bay Area municipality; and
WHEREAS, Article XI, section 7 of the California Constitution authorizes the City to make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances not in conflict with general laws; and
505
WHEREAS, the City of Richmond is a charter city, and Article II, section 1, subdivision 6 of the Richmond City Charter empowers the City to exercise the police power, to make all necessary police and sanitary regulations, and to adopt ordinances and prescribe penalties for their violation; and
WHEREAS, Article II, section 1, subdivisions 23 and 24 of the Richmond City Charter grant the City all other needful powers for the efficient administration of the municipal government and direct that this grant of power be liberally construed to secure the wellbeing of the City and its inhabitants; and WHEREAS, Article IX, section 10 of the Richmond City Charter confirms the City's power to make and enforce all laws and regulations in respect to municipal affairs, and land use and zoning within the City are municipal affairs; and WHEREAS, Government Code section 38771 authorizes the City to declare by ordinance what constitutes a nuisance, and the City's authority to abate nuisances through its police power is well established (see Civ. Code §§ 3479, 3480; People ex rel. Gallo v. Acuna (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1090); and
WHEREAS, Government Code sections 36937 and 65858 authorize the City Council to adopt an urgency measure and an interim ordinance that prohibit uses that may conflict with a contemplated general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal when necessary to protect against a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare while the City studies whether and under what regulations to allow data center development; and
WHEREAS, Government Code section 65858, subdivision (c), provides that the City Council may adopt or extend an interim ordinance only if the ordinance contains legislative findings that there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, and that the approval of additional subdivisions, use permits, variances, building permits, or any other applicable entitlement would result in that threat; and
WHEREAS, under Article III, section 7 of the Richmond City Charter and Government Code sections 36937 and 65858, both the adoption and the extension of this urgency ordinance require the affirmative vote of at least four-fifths of the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of Richmond does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: That the above recitals are true and correct and are adopted as the City Council’s findings.
SECTION 2: Purpose and Authority.
506
To protect the health, safety, and welfare of Richmond residents, this ordinance amends, restates, and supersedes Urgency Ordinance No. 13-26 N.S. and continues, in a single ordinance, the temporary moratorium on the issuance of any new permit, license, or other entitlement for any data center in the City of Richmond. The City Council adopts this ordinance under Article XI, section 7 of the California Constitution; Article II, section 1, subdivisions 6, 23, and 24, and Article IX, section 10 of the Richmond City Charter; and Government Code sections 36937 and 65858, subdivision (b), as an urgency measure that prohibits any use that may conflict with a contemplated general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal that the City is studying.
SECTION 3: Findings.
A. Data centers present operational characteristics materially different from traditional office, warehouse, research and development, and industrial uses, including but not limited to significant electrical infrastructure demands, emergency backup generation, battery energy storage systems, specialized cooling infrastructure, operational noise, utility demand, and other land use characteristics requiring careful evaluation.
B. The City Council finds that the City's current zoning regulations do not establish a distinct land use classification or development standards governing the establishment and operation of data centers.
C. The City has initiated a planning effort to evaluate whether amendments to the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, development standards, infrastructure and utility policies, environmental review procedures, and related regulations are appropriate to regulate data centers within Richmond or, alternatively, whether such uses should be prohibited.
D. The City Council finds that there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare. Data center approvals are presently occurring in comparable Bay Area cities, as the recent approvals in Pittsburg, Hayward, and Gilroy show (see findings J and K). The same development pressure reaches Richmond. Absent this moratorium, an operator could file, and the City could process, approve, and vest, an application for a data center under the City's existing regulations, which do not specifically address the operational, environmental, infrastructure, and public-safety characteristics of these uses. The City Council further finds that the approval of additional subdivisions, use permits, variances, building permits, or any other applicable entitlement for a data center during the City's study would result in that threat.
E. Data centers may impose large, concentrated, and continuous electrical loads and may require upgrades to substations, transformers, transmission or distribution facilities, and backup generation systems. The City has not yet completed the technical 507
and policy review necessary to determine whether and under what conditions such demands can be accommodated without adversely affecting grid reliability, infrastructure capacity, emergency operations, or existing utility customers.
F. Data centers may also involve substantial potable or recycled water demand, cooling and wastewater infrastructure, lithium-ion batteries, fuel storage, emergency generators, hazardous materials, and continuous mechanical equipment. The City has not yet adopted data-center-specific standards addressing water efficiency and drought response, fire and hazardous-materials response, noise, air quality, heat, vibration, and compatibility with nearby residential and other sensitive uses.
G. The City Council further finds that it must complete the public planning study described in this ordinance before it can decide whether to permit data centers and, if it allows them, before it can adopt permanent regulations governing where data centers may locate and how they must operate within the City.
H. The City Council finds that data centers may harm property values, neighborhood character, and the quality of life in the City's neighborhoods, and that other, less intensive or more community-serving uses may be more appropriate for the City's limited developable land. These effects on health, safety, welfare, aesthetics, and property values are matters the City may regulate under its police power and under Article II, section 1 of the Richmond City Charter.
I. The City Council finds that the operation of a data center that is established without the study and regulations contemplated by this ordinance may create conditions that are injurious to health, offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of nearby property, and that the City may declare and abate such conditions as a public nuisance under Government Code section 38771 and Civil Code sections 3479 and 3480.
J. Data center development is active and accelerating in the San Francisco Bay Area. As of September 17, 2026, the City has confirmed that the City of Pittsburg has approved a major data center project involving the AVAIO-affiliated Pittsburg Data Hub, LLC and AVAIO Digital; the City of Hayward has approved a major data center project involving STACK Infrastructure; and the City of Gilroy has approved a major data center project involving Amazon Data Services. These recent approvals show that data center approvals in comparable Bay Area cities are current and ongoing, not speculative.
K. Bay Area cities are actively using land use controls to respond to this development pressure. As of September 17, 2026, the Cities of Oakley, Gilroy, and Richmond have adopted temporary citywide moratoria on new data center development; the Cities of San Francisco and Oakland have moratorium proposals pending; and the City of Hayward has adopted enhanced review requirements for future 508
projects rather than a moratorium. The City has not identified any permanent citywide data center prohibition adopted by a Bay Area municipality. This pattern confirms both the regional development pressure and the reasonableness of a temporary moratorium while the City studies the use.
L. The City Council relies on the whole record before it, including the staff report that accompanies this ordinance, the written report issued under Government Code section 65858(d), and the studies and jurisdictional research the City has reviewed— including studies on the water, power, and noise implications of data centers published by the Lawrence Laboratory and the University of California, Berkeley, Center for Law, Energy & the Environment, and research on data center regulations in other jurisdictions.
M. The City Council finds that the requested term is reasonable. Completing the public planning study—including public outreach, consultant-led analysis, a Planning Commission hearing, and two City Council hearings—cannot be accomplished within the initial 45-day period. The full 22-month-and-15-day extension the statute allows is a reasonable period in which to complete that work and adopt permanent regulations.
Considering these findings and all evidence in the record, including the staff report that accompanies this urgency ordinance, the City Council finds that this moratorium is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, safety, and welfare and meets the requirements of Government Code sections 36937 and 65858 and the Richmond City Charter.
Section 4: California Environmental Quality Act.
A. Not a project. This ordinance continues an existing temporary moratorium and preserves the status quo. It authorizes no development and no physical activity. It will not cause a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. This ordinance is therefore not a "project" under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). (Pub. Resources Code, § 21065; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 15060(c),(2)(3);), 15378.) B. Common sense exemption. Even if this ordinance were a project, it is exempt under the common sense exemption. Based on the whole record before the City Council, including the staff report, the report issued under Government Code section 65858(d), and the studies and jurisdictional research described in the findings, the City Council finds that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that this ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment. By maintaining the status quo and temporarily prohibiting new data centers, this ordinance prevents, rather than causes, physical change in the environment. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15061(b)(3).) 509
C. Notice of exemption. The City Clerk, or a designee, must file a notice of exemption for this ordinance with the Contra Costa County Clerk, consistent with these findings. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15062.)
Section 5: Definitions.
In this ordinance, the following definitions apply:
A. "Data center" means a building, dedicated space within a building, or group of structures used to house a large group of networked computer systems for the remote storage, processing, or distribution of large amounts of data for off-site or on-site users.
A data center includes uses commonly described as colocation services, artificialintelligence model training or inference, high-performance computing, blockchain operations, digital-asset mining, and cryptocurrency mining. A data center may also include air handlers, power generators, fuel storage, water cooling and storage facilities, utility substations, back-up batteries, fire-suppression systems, enhanced security features, and other associated utility infrastructure that supports its operations.
B. "Associated data room" or "server room" means an enclosed room, suite, or other accessory space that contains computer servers, data-storage equipment, networkswitching equipment, telecommunications equipment, and related supporting equipment, including cooling, electrical, back-up power, and security systems, that is used solely in conjunction with, and is incidental and subordinate to, a lawfully established primary use on the same lot or site. An associated data room or server room must remain physically and operationally subordinate to that primary use. It may not be used for independent commercial, wholesale, or third-party data processing, storage, or transmission, and it is not a data center, server farm, colocation facility, or other prohibited digital-infrastructure use for purposes of this ordinance.
Section 6: Application.
A. During the term of this ordinance, no person may establish, construct, convert, or expand a data center in any zoning district or on any land within the City of Richmond.
The City must not approve or issue any application for a use permit, variance, building permit, license, certificate of occupancy, subdivision map, parcel map, tentative map, general plan amendment, zone change, specific plan, development agreement, site plan review, grading permit, or other permit or land use entitlement for a data center.
B. This moratorium does not apply to an associated data room or server room, as defined in this ordinance.
C. A person who, as of the effective date of this ordinance, lawfully holds an existing permit, license, or land use entitlement for a data center that is lawfully operating in the City of Richmond may continue to operate under the standards that govern that permit, 510
license, or entitlement under existing law. This ordinance does not limit the City's authority to revoke or suspend any existing license, permit, or entitlement as authorized under existing law.
Section 7: Term of Ordinance.
This ordinance amends, restates, and supersedes Urgency Ordinance No. 13-26 N.S. It extends the moratorium, under Government Code section 65858(b), for a single period of 22 months and 15 days measured from the October 30, 2026 expiration of Ordinance No. 13-26 N.S. The moratorium remains in effect through and including September 15, 2028, and expires at midnight on that date unless the City Council terminates it earlier.
This term is the longest single extension Government Code section 65858 allows for an interim ordinance adopted after notice and a public hearing, and the moratorium will not remain in effect for more than two years in total.
Section 8: No Mandatory Duty of Care.
This ordinance does not impose, and must not be construed to impose, on the City or any of its officers or employees a mandatory duty of care toward persons or property inside or outside the City that would create a basis for civil liability for damages, except as otherwise required by law.
Section 9: Severability.
If a court holds any provision of this ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, invalid, that invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application. To this end, the provisions of this ordinance are severable. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this ordinance regardless of the invalidity of any portion of it, and it intends that the invalid portions be severed and the balance of the ordinance be enforced.
Section 10: Effective Date and Publication.
This ordinance, passed by at least a four-fifths vote of the City Council as required by Article III, section 7 of the Richmond City Charter and Government Code sections 36937 and 65858, is an urgency ordinance for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety. It takes effect and must be enforced immediately upon adoption. The City Clerk must certify the passage of this ordinance and must cause the ordinance, or a summary of it, to be published or posted as required by Government Code section 36933.
-----------------------------------
511
I hereby certify that the foregoing Urgency Ordinance of the City Council of Richmond was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting thereof held October XX, 2026 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTION:
______________________________
Clerk of the City of Richmond
(SEAL)
Approved:
_________________________
Mayor
Approved as to form:
_________________________
City Attorney
512
Ord. No. 13-26 N.S.
URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 13-26 N.S.
AN URGENCY ORDINANCE, PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858, OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA ESTABLISHING A 45-DAY TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW DATA CENTERS WITHIN THE CITY OF RICHMOND PENDING COMPLETION OF A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE CITY’S
GENERAL PLAN, ZONING ORDINANCE, RELATED LAND USE REGULATIONS
AND A PUBLIC PLANNING PROCESS TO EVALUATE WHETHER AND UNDER
WHAT REGULATIONS DATA CENTERS MAY BE PERMITTED, AND DECLARING
THE URGENCY THEREOF
WHEREAS, the increasing demand for data centers associated with the expansion of artificial intelligence and cloud computing has resulted in growing development interest throughout the San Francisco Bay Area, warranting careful evaluation of the potential impacts on local land use, electricity demand, water resources, infrastructure, and community priorities before these facilities are approved; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the increasing interest in data center development may have significant implications for electricity demand, water resources, public infrastructure, land use compatibility, noise, air quality, aesthetics, and other factors affecting the public health, safety, and welfare of Richmond residents that warrant further study before data centers are established within the City; and
WHEREAS, the City is evaluating whether its General Plan and Zoning Ordinance adequately regulate data centers as a distinct land use; and WHEREAS, the City's Zoning Ordinance does not contain land use regulations specifically addressing data centers or standards to evaluate and mitigate their potential impacts, including but not limited to energy consumption, water demand, noise, air quality, visual character, neighborhood compatibility, and other effects on surrounding properties and the quality of life of Richmond residents; and
WHEREAS, data centers differ from traditional industrial and office uses because they may involve substantial electrical infrastructure, emergency backup generation, battery energy storage systems, cooling infrastructure, utility demands, operational noise, and other characteristics not specifically addressed by existing City regulations; and WHEREAS, a temporary moratorium will provide the City with time to undertake a public planning process to determine whether data centers should be permitted within Richmond and, if so, consider appropriate amendments to the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and other applicable regulations to ensure that future data center development is consistent with the City's planning objectives and community priorities; and
WHEREAS, Article XI, section 7 of the California Constitution authorizes the City to enact local land use regulations under its police power, and Government Code sections 36937 and 65858 authorize urgency and interim zoning ordinances when the required findings and voting thresholds are satisfied; and
WHEREAS, Government Code section 65858 authorizes the City Council to adopt an interim urgency ordinance prohibiting uses that may conflict with a contemplated general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal when necessary to protect against a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare while the City studies and evaluates if and under what regulations to allow for data center development.
513
Ord. No. 13-26 N.S.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of Richmond does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: That the above recitals are true and correct and are adopted as the City Council’s findings.
SECTION 2: Purpose and Authority.
In the interest of promoting the health, safety, and welfare of the residents in the City of Richmond, it is the purpose and intent of this ordinance to place a temporary moratorium on the issuance of any new permit, license, or other entitlement for any data center in the City of Richmond. The City Council adopts this ordinance pursuant to Article XI, section 7 of the California Constitution and Government Code sections 36937 and 65858 as an urgency measure prohibiting any use that may conflict with a contemplated general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal that the city is considering or studying.
SECTION 3: Findings.
A. Data centers present operational characteristics materially different from traditional office, warehouse, research and development, and industrial uses, including but not limited to significant electrical infrastructure demands, emergency backup generation, battery energy storage systems, specialized cooling infrastructure, operational noise, utility demand, and other land use characteristics requiring careful evaluation.
B. The City Council finds that the City's current zoning regulations do not establish a distinct land use classification or development standards governing the establishment and operation of data centers.
C. The City has initiated a planning effort to evaluate whether amendments to the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, development standards, infrastructure and utility policies, environmental review procedures, and related regulations are appropriate to regulate data centers within Richmond or, alternatively, whether such uses should be prohibited.
D. The City Council finds that there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare because, absent a temporary moratorium, applications for the establishment, construction, conversion, or expansion of data centers could be submitted, processed, approved, and vested under regulations that do not specifically address the operational, environmental, infrastructure, and public-safety characteristics of such uses. The City Council further finds that approval of additional subdivisions, use permits, variances, building permits, or other applicable entitlements for data center development during the City's study would result in or exacerbate that threat.
E. Data centers may impose large, concentrated, and continuous electrical loads and may require upgrades to substations, transformers, transmission or distribution facilities, and backup generation systems. The City has not yet completed the technical and policy review necessary to determine whether and under what conditions such demands can be accommodated without adversely affecting grid reliability, infrastructure capacity, emergency operations, or existing utility customers.
F. Data centers may also involve substantial potable or recycled water demand, cooling and wastewater infrastructure, lithium-ion batteries, fuel storage, emergency generators, hazardous materials, and continuous mechanical equipment. The City has not yet adopted data-centerspecific standards addressing water efficiency and drought response, fire and hazardousmaterials response, noise, air quality, heat, vibration, and compatibility with nearby residential and other sensitive uses.
G. The City Council further finds that completion of the public planning study described herein is necessary before determining whether to permit data centers and, if allowed, to establish permanent regulations governing the location and operation of data centers within the City.
514
Ord. No. 13-26 N.S.
Considering these findings and all evidence in the record, including, but not limited to, the staff report accompanying this Urgency Ordinance, the City Council finds that this moratorium is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, safety, and welfare and satisfies the requirements of Government Code sections 36937 and 65858.
Section 4: Environmental Review/California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
This ordinance is intended to preserve the status quo, and it will not cause a direct physical change in the environment, nor a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. The enactment of this ordinance, therefore, does not constitute the approval of a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), and it is exempt from CEQA. (Pub. Res. Code §21065, CEQA Guidelines §§15060(c)(2)(3); 15061(b)(3); 15064(d); 1537(a); 15378(a))
Section 5: Definitions.
As used herein the following definition shall apply:
A. “Data center” means a facility, campus, building, structure, or portion thereof used primarily or substantially for the housing, operation, or support of computer servers, server racks, datastorage devices, networking equipment, switching equipment, or similar electronic equipment used for commercial remote data storage, processing, or transmission; cloud computing; colocation services; artificial-intelligence model training or inference; high-performance computing; blockchain operations; digital-asset mining; cryptocurrency mining; or other similar high-intensity computing activities. A data center may include associated cooling equipment, generators, fuel storage, battery energy storage systems, fire-suppression systems, substations, and other utility or security infrastructure supporting the primary use.
B. “Subordinate-use data room” or “server room” means an enclosed room, suite, or other accessory space containing computer servers, data-storage equipment, network-switching equipment, telecommunications equipment, and related supporting equipment that is used solely in conjunction with and is incidental and subordinate to a lawfully established primary use on the same lot or site. Such a room may not be used for independent commercial, wholesale, or thirdparty data processing, storage, or transmission and is not a data center for purposes of this ordinance.
Section 6: Application.
A. During the term of this ordinance, the establishment, construction, conversion, or expansion of any data center shall be prohibited in all zoning districts and lands within the City of Richmond. The City shall not approve or issue any application for a use permit, variance, building permit, license, certificate of occupancy, subdivision map, parcel map, tentative map, general plan amendment, zone change, specific plan, development agreement, site plan review, grading permit, or other permit or land use entitlement for any data center.
B. This moratorium does not apply to a subordinate-use data room or server room, as defined herein.
C. Notwithstanding any other provision of this ordinance, any person who lawfully holds an existing permit, license, and/or land use entitlement for an existing and lawfully operating data center in the City of Richmond as of the effective date of this ordinance may continue to operate under the standards governing such permit, license, and/or entitlement under existing law.
Nothing herein shall limit the authority of the City to revoke or suspend any existing license, permit, and/or entitlement as authorized under existing law.
Section 7: Term of Ordinance.
This ordinance shall be in effect from the date of adoption for a period of forty-five (45) days, unless it is extended pursuant to Government Code section 65858or other applicable law, as approved by the City Council.
515
Ord. No. 13-26 N.S.
Section 8: No Mandatory Duty of Care.
This ordinance is not intended to and shall not be construed or given effect in a manner that imposes upon the City or any officer or employee thereof a mandatory duty of care towards persons and property within or without the City, so as to provide a basis of civil liability for damages, except as otherwise imposed by law.
Section 9: Severability.
If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are severable. This City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance irrespective of the invalidity of any particular portion thereof and intends that the invalid portions should be severed and the balance of the ordinance be enforced.
Section 10: Effective Date and Publication.
This ordinance, passed by at least a four-fifths vote of the City Council, is declared to be an urgency ordinance for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety and shall take effect and be enforced immediately upon adoption pursuant to Government Code sections 36937 and 65858. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and shall cause the ordinance, or a summary thereof, to be published or posted as required by Government Code section 36933.
-----------------------------------
516
Ord. No. 13-26 N.S.
I hereby certify that the foregoing Urgency Ordinance of the City Council of Richmond was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting thereof held September 15, 2026, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Bana, Brown, Jimenez, Wilson, Zepeda, Vice Mayor Robinson, and Mayor Martinez.
NOES: None.
ABSTENTIONS: None.
ABSENT: None.
PAMELA CHRISTIAN
CLERK OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
(SEAL)
Approved:
EDUARDO MARTINEZ
Mayor
Approved as to form:
SHANNON MOORE
Interim City Attorney
State of California }
County of Contra Costa : ss.
City of Richmond }
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of Urgency Ordinance No. 13-26 N.S., passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting held on September 15, 2026.
Pamela Christian, Clerk of the City of Richmond
517
10-DAY REPORT ON THE CITY OF RICHMOND’S 45-DAY
URGENCY MORATORIUM ORDINANCE PLACING A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM
ON THE ISSUANCE OR APPROVAL OF PERMITS AND LAND USE APPLICATIONS
FOR DATA CENTERS WITHIN THE CITY OF RICHMOND PENDING A PUBLIC
PLANNING PROCESS TO EVALUATE WHETHER AND UNDER WHAT
REGULATIONS DATA CENTERS MAY BE PERMITTED, AS REQUIRED BY GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858(d)
BACKGROUND:
On September 15, 2026, under Government Code Sections 65858 and 36937, and following notice and a public hearing, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 13-26 N.S., a 45-day urgency moratorium, by a four-fifths vote. The City Council adopted the moratorium to protect the public health, safety, and welfare by pausing new data centers within the City of Richmond while the City completes a public planning process to evaluate whether and under what regulations data centers may be permitted. Because the City adopted the moratorium after notice and a public hearing, Government Code section 65858(b), allows the City Council to extend it once, after a further noticed hearing, for up to 22 months and 15 days. Under Government Code section 65858(d), at least 10 days before the 45-day ordinance expires, the City must issue a written report describing the measures it has taken to alleviate the conditions that led to the moratorium. This report satisfies that requirement. The 45-day moratorium expires on October 30, 2026.
MEASURES TAKEN TO ALLEVIATE THE CONDITIONS THAT LED TO THE ADOPTION
OF THE URGENCY ORDINANCE
1. Since September 15, 2026, City staff has been developing a community engagement plan to receive input from stakeholders, including neighborhood councils, utilities representatives, business groups, data center operators, labor sources, and residents on the contemplated municipal code amendments. This effort has included compiling a list of stakeholders to engage in the community input process.
2. City staff have been researching existing data center development in other jurisdictions to understand use, scale, key features, operations, and impacts.
3. City staff have started reviewing other city regulations across a variety of cities including Hayward, Santa Clara, Monterey Park, and Loudoun County, Virginia with a range of regulatory environments to determine best practices.
4. City staff has started interviewing utility providers in Richmond, including PG&E and East Bay Municipal Utility District, researchers, and planning staff of other municipalities to study and holistically analyze aspects of a data center in developing policy recommendations.
5. City staff has created a project webpage on the City's website to post information about the project. See: www.richmondca.gov/datacenterstudy
518
6. City staff has analyzed studies regarding the water, power and noise implications of data centers published by the Lawrence National Laboratory as well as the UC Berkeley Center for Law, Energy, and the Environment.
7. Staff prepared and issued a Request for Proposals seeking a consultant to lead the community engagement process and policy development for this work.
These actions reflect the work the City has done during this short period. The conditions that led to the moratorium continue to exist, and the City needs more time to complete its analysis and research, hold a public planning process, develop appropriate regulations based on public input, and protect the public health, safety, and welfare. For these reasons, the City Council should extend the interim urgency ordinance now in effect.
CONTINUED NEED FOR THE MORATORIUM
The City's work to address the underlying need for the moratorium is ongoing. At the Council's direction, staff are studying and will conduct a public planning process to evaluate whether and under what regulations a data center may be permitted, including a possible full prohibition. These contemplated regulatory changes require public outreach, further study, a public hearing before the Planning Commission, and two hearings before the City Council. Staff cannot complete this work within the initial 45-day period, which ends on October 30, 2026. The need for the moratorium therefore remains, and staff recommends that the City Council adopt an ordinance extending the moratorium for 22 months and 15 days—the longest single extension Government Code section 65858, subdivision (b), allows. Unless the City Council extends it, the moratorium will expire on October 30, 2026. Staff intend to return to the City Council with municipal code amendments by Spring 2028.
REGIONAL CONTEXT AND FINDINGS
Recent activity in the San Francisco Bay Area confirms that the need for the moratorium is current and immediate. As of September 17, 2026, three nearby cities have approved major data center projects: the City of Pittsburg approved a project involving the AVAIO-affiliated Pittsburg Data Hub, LLC, and AVAIO Digital; the City of Hayward approved a project involving STACK Infrastructure; and the City of Gilroy approved a project involving Amazon Data Services. These approvals show that data center operators are actively securing sites in comparable Bay Area cities and could seek approval in Richmond during the City's study.
Bay Area cities are also using land use controls to respond to this development pressure. As of September 17, 2026, the Cities of Oakley, Gilroy, and Richmond have adopted temporary citywide moratoria on new data center development; the Cities of San Francisco and Oakland have moratorium proposals pending (both were recently adopted on October 6, 2026); and the City of Hayward has adopted enhanced review requirements for future projects rather than a moratorium.
The City has not identified any permanent citywide data center prohibition adopted by a Bay Area municipality. This range of approaches demonstrates that a temporary moratorium is a recognized and measured tool that jurisdictions may use while evaluating the appropriate regulatory framework for data center uses.
Based on the measures described above and the regional context, the City finds that there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare. The City further finds that 519
approving new data center permits or land use entitlements under the City's existing regulations, which do not adequately address the unique operational, infrastructure, environmental, and publicsafety characteristics and potential impacts of these uses, could contribute to or exacerbate that threat. A temporary moratorium is therefore necessary to allow the City to study these issues and determine whether additional or revised regulations are necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
The extension preserves the status quo and authorizes no development. It will not cause a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. The extension is therefore not a "project" under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and, even if it were, is exempt under the common sense exemption because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility it may have a significant effect on the environment. (Pub. Resources Code § 21065; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14 §§ 15060(c)(2)-(3), 15061(b)(3), 15378.) OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT: Members of the public may comment on the draft extension of the urgency ordinance at the City Council hearing to be held on October 20, 2026. The City must publish notice of that hearing under Government Code §65090. 520
October 20, 2026
Public Works
DATE: October 20, 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
521
October 20, 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, and October 6,
2026, meetings.
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 522
October 20, 2026
standardized design criteria for determining what accessibility improvements may be 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 523
October 20, 2026
tracked in the City’s centralized online portal. Defined follow-up timelines are incorporated to support timely responses.
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 524
October 20, 2026
activity, including applications received, approval/denial rates, processing times, and appeal outcomes, to support transparency and accountability, as part of an annual 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
525
October 20, 2026
Program Activity Estimated
Staff Time
Applies To Planning Assumption
Technical review and
field verification
3 – 6 hours per
eligible request
Requests that pass
initial screening
Includes desk review, field
measurements, checklist
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 526
October 20, 2026
(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 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
527
October 20, 2026
Attachment 2 – On-Street Accessible Parking Program Policy Attachment 3 – On-Street Parking Program Technical Appendix Attachment 4 – Blue Curb Fee Considerations
528
For the best experience, open this PDF portfolio in
Acrobat X or Adobe Reader X, or later.
Get Adobe Reader Now!
529
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................................................................................................................................................10 530
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§ionNum=22511.7 2 Cal. Veh. Code § 22511.8 (West 2024),
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH§ionNum=22511.8 3 USDOT Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) (2011), R306.2: Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) | FHWA
531
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.
532
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 533
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:
534
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.
535
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. 536
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 537
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§ionNum=66016 538
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
539
Technical Appendix
On- Street Accessible Parking Policy
Program Walkthrough
On- Street Accessible Parking Policy | 540
|
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
541
|
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 542
|
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 543
|
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 544
|
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 545
|
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 546
|
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. 547
|
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 548
|
Field Review Tools
Standard Checklist Measurement Guidance Prescribed Notetaking Step
On- Street Accessible Parking Policy 549
|
Example D
Closest possible space:
On- Street Accessible Parking Policy
Real World
Example
Developing
Personal Resource
Center
550
|
ADA- compliant curb ramp
near potential space:
On- Street Accessible Parking Policy
Real World
Example
551
|
Real World
Example
One of several existing
spaces in the vicinity:
On- Street Accessible Parking Policy 552
|
No feasible spaces are
identified because multiple
power poles obstruct corner
access
Are there options?
On- Street Accessible Parking Policy
Real World
Example
553
|
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
554
|
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 555
|
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
556
|
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 557
|
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 558
|
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 559
|
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 560
|
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 561
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 562
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
563
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
564
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
565
October 20, 2026
City Council
DATE: October 20, 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
566
October 20, 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, and October 6, 2026, meetings.
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. 567
October 20, 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 568
October 20, 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
569
Veterans Mixed Use
Affordable Housing
Community
1. 2. Project Summary & Budget
3. Presented by: Veterans Housing Program (VRP) & Eagle Environmental Construction & Development (EEC+D)
570
About VRP
501(c)(3) nonprofit based
in Richmond
Serves homeless, formerly
incarcerated, and
transitioning veterans
Provides housing, benefits
assistance, and education
support
571
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
572
Programs &
Services
• Housing assistance
• Food and clothing programs
• Education and job training
• Health and wellness initiatives
• Community engagement activities
573
Need for Veteran Housing
• High rates of veteran homelessness
• Mental health and PTSD challenges
• Physical disabilities requiring accessible housing
• Employment and income instability
574
Community
Impact
• Reduces homelessness
• Improves public health
• Strengthens families
• Creates economic
opportunities
575
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
576
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 577
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 578
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
579
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)
580
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
581
Metrics for Evaluation and Monitoring
• Resolution of environmental issues
• Job creation
• Completion of stabilization process
582
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
583
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.
584
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!!
585
October 20, 2026
Public Works
DATE: October 20, 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
586
October 20, 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. 587
October 20, 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).
This item was continued from the October 6, 2026,
meeting.
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 588
October 20, 2026
within the affected Point Richmond service area, and directed staff to (1) evaluate and communicate interim measures, and (2) evaluate removing, replacing, or relocating the pipeline. The City executed a contract with BKF Engineers, effective August 19, 2025, to prepare the KBSS Feasibility Study addressing Council’s direction. Staff and BKF, together with the outreach consultant Kearns & West, also conducted public outreach 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 589
October 20, 2026
(Attachment 1). BKF, City staff, and Kearns & West will hold additional meetings and outreach during the comment period and will prepare written responses to comments received. The report will be finalized by October 30, 2026, and staff anticipate returning to the City Council with the final Feasibility Study and a recommended course of action in November/December 2026.
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
590
KELLER BEACH SANITARY SEWER
FEASIBILITY STUDY
DRAFT
August 13, 2026
City of Richmond
BKF Project No. C20250596-10
Prepared by
Adam Brown, PE
591
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 .............................................................................................................................................................53 592
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......................................................................................................................................68 593
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................................................................................................................78 594
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.........................................................................................................................................................37 595
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"...............................................................................................................................45 596
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............................................................................................................................75 597
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
598
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. 599
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. 600
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 601
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.
602
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
603
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
604
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
605
9/17/2026
4 Background
Approx 340 lots (290 connections) Assessment District 680 Objectives
7 8
606
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
607
9/17/2026
6 Existing Conditions
Existing Conditions
11 12
608
9/17/2026
7 Existing Conditions
Existing Conditions
2021 2026
13 14
609
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
610
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
611
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
612
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
613
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
614
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
615
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
616
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
617
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
618
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
619
9/17/2026
18 Alternative C2: Trenchless Open-Cut
Alternatives
Approx Cost: $19.5M
Scoring Summary
35 36
620
9/17/2026
19 Scoring Summary
Recommendation
37 38
621
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
622
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
623
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
624
October 20, 2026
Police Department
DATE: October 20, 2026
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM: Timothy Simmons, Chief of Police
Subject: Contract Amendment No. 1 with Police Strategies, LLC to Provide an Objective Analysis of Automated License
Plate Readers
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The proposed $20,000 expenditure is not currently funded. The appropriation will be added to the Police
Department’s General Fund budget for Fiscal Year 2026–
27 and will require a corresponding reduction or budget adjustment as part of the mid-year financial report
(Account String: 01191021-400201).
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
September 22, 2026
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
The City Council directed staff to return with a scope of work and fiscal impact for an objective statistical analysis of Richmond data regarding the effectiveness of
Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) in reducing
crime, recovering stolen vehicles, supporting criminal
investigations, and making arrests that lead to conviction, as well as information regarding data retention and
information sharing. Police Department staff do not have the capacity to conduct this analysis, but Police
Strategies, LLC is familiar with the Department’s data
and can provide the requested report.
AGENDA
REPORT
625
October 20, 2026
RECOMMENDED ACTION: APPROPRIATE $20,000 to the Police Department’s General Fund budget and APPROVE a contract
amendment with Police Strategies LLC to expand the
scope of work to provide objective statistical analysis of Richmond data regarding the effectiveness of Automated
License Plate Readers in reducing crime, recovering
stolen vehicles, supporting criminal investigations, and making arrests that lead to conviction, as well as
information regarding data retention and information
sharing for license plate reader systems under
consideration, and increase the contract not-to-exceed
amount by $20,000 – Police Department (Chief Timothy
Simmons 510-620-1802). This item was continued
from the October 6, 2026, meeting.
DISCUSSION:
Councilmembers Jimenez, Wilson, and Vice Mayor Robinson asked for a methodological report that links Automated License Plate Readers (ALPR)-related arrests to prosecutorial outcomes, incorporates both Richmond Police Department (RPD) and Contra Costa County District Attorney (DA) datasets, and provides findings appropriate for use in future City Council policy deliberations. Their request did not identify a vendor and Police Department staff do not have the time or resources to gather and review such information. However, Police Strategies LLC is adequately prepared and familiar with the Police Department’s data and can provide the requested report for review. Police Strategies LLC was recently awarded a contract for use-offorce analyses, and the analyses of ALPR data could be provided seamlessly with the current work.
Police Strategies will provide an objective statistical analysis of Richmond Police Department data regarding the effectiveness of License Plate Readers (LPRs) in:
Reducing crime, including categories where Richmond uses ALPR data for investigations such as homicide, assaults, missing persons, and property crimes Recovering stolen vehicles and measuring ALPR-attributed recoveries Supporting criminal investigations, assessing the degree to which LPR alerts, hits, or historical plate data contribute to case solvability and investigative leads Making arrests that lead to conviction, including linkage of RPD arrest records with Contra Costa County District Attorney conviction information, consistent with existing DA agreements documented in internal contract listings Police Strategies will produce a methodological report that links ALPR-related arrests to prosecutorial outcomes, incorporates both RPD and DA datasets, and provides findings appropriate for use in future City Council policy deliberations. 626
October 20, 2026
Police Strategies estimates that such report should be completed within 1-2 weeks and will not exceed $20,000.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – Original Contract
Attachment 2 – Contract Amendment
627
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.
Police Lt. Florencio Rivera [email protected] (510) 620-6661 14782 8129 Processing/analyzing use of force data from the police department and generating reports/searchable interactive dashboard on city website for public to easily review. Police Strategies LLC 13197 Madison Avenue NE Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Bob Scales (206) 915-8683 [email protected] 40061647 Washington Limited Liability Corporation September 16, 2026 September 15, 2029 73,000 628
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
Police Strategies LLC
629
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]:
8129 Police Strategies LLC
Please refer to the price quote for the deliverables, price, and timeline, attached hereto as Exhibit A-1.
630
Police Strategies LLC
13197 Madison Ave NE
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Phone: (206) 9158683
Email: [email protected]
Police Force Analysis System℠ (PFAS)
Richmond Police Department
Price Quote – Option A – Includes 2024 Data
March 13, 2026
Police Strategies has already built the Police Force Analysis System℠ (PFAS) for Richmond PD with data from 2018 to 2023. This proposal would update the existing PFAS system with data from 2024 and 2025 and then provide annual updates.
Deliverables Price Timeline
Two-Year Dashboard Update
1. Coding use of force reports from 2024 & 2025
2. Updated PFAS dashboard file
3. Updated public use of force dashboards
4. Online dashboard training and presentations1
5. Use of Force Summary Report
$28,000
The Agency will provide Police Strategies
with incident reports and officer
statements for all use of force incidents
including data from the IAPro system.
Police Strategies will provide the Agency
with updated PFAS dashboard files and
Use of Force Report within 4 months of
receipt of all the use of force incident
reports and IAPro data from the
reporting period.
Annual Dashboard Updates
1. Coding use of force reports from prior calendar year
2. Updated PFAS dashboard file
3. Updated public use of force dashboards
4. Online dashboard training and presentations
5. Annual Use of Force Summary Report
$15,000
per year
Police Strategies will provide the Agency
with the updated PFAS dashboard files
and Annual Use of Force Report within 4
months of receipt of all use of incident
reports and IAPro data from the prior
calendar year.
1 Onsite training/presentations are available with reimbursement of travel expenses.
EXHIBIT A-1
631
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.
Lt. Florencio Rivera Lt. Florencio Rivera 8129 Police Strategies LLC 632
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: ________________________________________________ Lt. Florencio Rivera [email protected] 8129 Police Strategies LLC Police Strategies LLC 13197 Madison Avenue NE Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 [email protected] Bob Scales 633
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, 8129 Police Strategies LLC
634
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.
8129 Police Strategies LLC
635
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 8129 Police Strategies LLC
636
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 8129 Police Strategies LLC
637
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 8129 Police Strategies LLC
638
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.
8129 Police Strategies LLC
639
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 8129 Police Strategies LLC
640
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, 8129 Police Strategies LLC
641
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. 8129 Police Strategies LLC
642
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”):
8129 Police Strategies LLC
The auto liability requirement noted in Exhibit F is hereby deleted, Police Strategies will not be operating any automobiles on City of Richmond property, and will not be transporting any employees. 643
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
8129 Police Strategies LLC
644
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)
8129 Police Strategies LLC
645
___ Exhibit F
___ Section 8
City of Richmond - Insurance Requirements - Type 2:
Professional Services
Type 2 – Page 1 of 3
Revised: September 2011
In all instances where CONTRACTOR or its representatives will provide professional services (architects, engineers, construction management, counselors, medical professionals, hospitals, clinics, attorneys, consultants, accountants, etc.) to the City of Richmond (City), the City requires the following MINIMUM insurance requirements and limits.
CONTRACTOR shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract, agreement, or other order for work, services or supplies, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder and the results of that work by the CONTRACTOR, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. Maintenance of proper insurance coverage is a material element of the contract. Failure to maintain or renew coverage or to provide evidence of renewal may be treated by the City as a material breach of contract.
CONTRACTOR agrees that in the event of loss due to any of the perils for which it has agreed to provide Commercial General Liability insurance, CONTRACTOR shall look solely to its insurance for recovery.
CONTRACTOR hereby grants to CITY, on behalf of any insurer providing Commercial General Liability insurance to either CONTRACTOR or CITY with respect to the services of CONSULTANT herein, a waiver of any right to subrogation which any such insurer of said CONTRACTOR may acquire against the CITY by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance.
Original, signed certificates and original, separate policy endorsements, naming the City as an additional insured for general liability coverage, as well as a waiver of subrogation for Workers’ Compensation insurance, shall be received and approved by the City before any work may begin. However, failure to do so shall not operate as a waiver of these insurance requirements.
City reserves the right to modify or require additional coverages for specific risk exposures depending on scope of CONTRACTORS work.
Minimum coverage is detailed below. The policy limits of coverage shall be made available to the full limits of the policy. The minimum limits stated herein shall not serve to reduce the policy limits of coverage of CONTRACTOR.
Minimum Scope of Insurance – the following forms shall be provided and coverage shall be at least as broad as the following:
1. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (ISO Occurrence Form CG 0001), and including coverage for bodily and personal injury, property damage, and products and completed operations (if applicable).
2. Insurance Services Office Automobile Liability coverage (ISO Form CA 0001, Code 1, Any Auto).
3. Original and Separate Additional Insured Endorsement for General Liability (ISO Form CG 20 10 11/85 or its equivalent) with primary and non-contributory language.
4. Workers’ Compensation Insurance as required by the State of California including Employer’s Liability coverage.
5. Original and Separate Waiver of Subrogation for Workers’ Compensation insurance.
6. Professional Liability or Errors & Omissions Liability Insurance appropriate to the CONTRACTOR’s profession (if required.)
Required Coverage Minimum Limits
Workers’ Compensation and
Employers’ Liability
Statutory limits as required by the State of California including $1 million Employers’ Liability per accident, per employee for bodily injury or disease.
If CONTRACTOR is self-insured, provide a certificate of Permission to SelfInsure, signed by the California Department of Industrial Relations and SelfInsurance. If contractor is a sole proprietor (has no employees) than contractor must sign “Contractor Release of Liability” found at:
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/index.aspx?nid=61.
General Liability
(primary and excess limits
combined)
$2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If the policy includes a general aggregate, either the general aggregate shall apply separately to this project, service or location or the minimum required aggregate limit shall be twice the per occurrence limit ($4 million aggregate limit).
Policy shall be endorsed to name the City of Richmond as an additional insured per the conditions detailed below.
646
___ Exhibit F
___ Section 8
City of Richmond - Insurance Requirements - Type 2:
Professional Services
Type 2 – Page 2 of 3
Revised: September 2011
Automobile Liability $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage.
PROJECT COST REQUIRED LIMIT
$0 - $1 million $1 million p/o
$1 million - $5 million $2 million p/o
Over $5 million $5 million p/o
Professional Liability or Errors &
Omissions Liability –
Required for all professionals
including architects, engineers,
consultants, construction
management, counselors, medical
professionals, hospitals, clinics,
attorneys and accountants, & other
consultants as may be required by
the City.
Required Policy Conditions
Additional Insured Endorsement Applicable to General Liability coverage.
The City of Richmond, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be named as additional insureds for all liability arising out of the operations by or on behalf of the named insured including bodily injury, deaths and property damage or destruction arising in any respect directly or indirectly in the performance of this contract.
ISO form CG 20 10 (11/85) or its equivalent is required. If the Contractor is supplying their product or providing a service then the endorsement must not exclude products and completed operations coverage. If it does, then CG 20 37 (10/01) is also required.
SAMPLE Endorsements can be found at
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/index.aspx?nid=61.
Primary and Noncontributory The contractor’s insurance coverage must be primary coverage as it pertains to the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. Any insurance or self insurance maintained by the City is wholly separate from the insurance of the contractor and in no way relieves the contractor from its responsibility to provide insurance.
Waiver of Subrogation
Endorsement Form
Contractor’s insurer will provide a Waiver of Subrogation in favor of the City for Workers’ Compensation Insurance during the life of this contract.
SAMPLE Endorsements can be found at
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/index.aspx?nid=61.
Deductibles and Self-Insured
Retentions
Any deductible or self-insured retention must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retention as respects the City or the CONTRACTOR shall procure a financial guarantee in an amount equal to the deductible or self-insured retention guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claims administration and defense expenses.
Contractor is responsible for satisfaction of the deductible and/or self-insured retention for each loss.
A. M. Best Rating A:VII or Better. If the A.M. Best Rating falls below the required rating, CONTRACTOR must replace coverage immediately and provide notice to City.
Umbrella/Excess Liability Policies
If an Umbrella or Excess Liability Policy is used to meet the liability limits, coverage shall be as broad as specified for underlying coverage’s and cover those insured in the underlying policies. 647
___ Exhibit F
___ Section 8
City of Richmond - Insurance Requirements - Type 2:
Professional Services
Type 2 – Page 3 of 3
Revised: September 2011
Claims-Made Policies
If any insurance policy is written on a claims-made form: 1) the retroactive date must be shown, and must be before the date of the contract or the beginning of contract work. 2) Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five (5) years after completion of the contract of work. 3) If coverage is canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a retroactive date prior to the contract effective date, the Contractor must purchase an extended period coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of contract work.
Subcontractors
CONTRACTOR shall include all subcontractors as insured under its policies or shall furnish to the City for review and approval, separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverage for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the requirements stated herein.
CONTRACTOR agrees to defend and indemnify the City of Richmond for any damage resulting to it from failure of either CONTRACTOR or any subcontractor to take out or maintain the required insurance policies. The fact that insurance is obtained by CONTRACTOR, and/or CONTRACTOR’s subcontractors, will not be deemed to release or diminish the liability of CONTRACTOR, including, without limitation, liability under the indemnity provisions of this contract. Damages recoverable by CITY from CONTRACTOR or any third party will not be limited by the amount of the required insurance coverage.
Verification of Coverage
All original certificates and endorsements shall be received and approved by the City before work may begin.
The City of Richmond reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies including endorsements affecting the coverage at any time.
Original insurance certificates and required policy endorsements shall be mailed or delivered to the Designated Project Manager for the City of Richmond.
Insurance certificates and endorsements may be faxed to the Designated Project Manger. 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.
648
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:
8129 Police Strategies LLC
649
DocID #34720v1
CITY OF RICHMOND
CONTRACT AMENDMENT
The parties to this Contract Amendment do mutually agree and promise as follows:
1. Parties. The parties to this Contract Amendment are the City of Richmond, a public body corporate and politic, 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. Purpose. This Contract Amendment is being entered into to amend the following Contract between City and Contractor (list terms in effect on the date of initial Contract approval):
City Council Approval Date/City Manager Execution Date: ____________________________ Effective Date: ___________________; Termination Date: ____________________________ Payment Limit: ___________________.
[check box if applicable] The Contract was previously amended, as described in the amendment history attached to this Contract Amendment, and the terms and conditions of any amendments shall be deemed to be a part of the Contract.
3. Contract Provisions. The parties hereto agree to continue to abide by those terms and conditions of the Contract, including any amendments thereto, which are unaffected by this Contract Amendment, and which shall remain in full force and effect.
Department: City Project Manager:
City Project Manager E-mail: City Project Manager Phone No:
Vendor No: Contract No:
Description of Services:
Amendment No. ___ modifies the (check all that apply):
Term Payment Limit Service Plan
Complete the Amendment History page if this Amendment is the 2nd or subsequent amendment.
POLICE Lt. Florencio Rivera [email protected] 510-620-6661 14782 8129 Provide an Objective Analysis of ALPR Data.
1 Police Strategies LLC 13197 Madison Avenue NE Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Bob Scales 206-915-8683 [email protected] 40061647 Washington Limited Liability Corporation September 15, 2026 9/16/2026 9/15/2029 73,000 650
DocID #34720v1 Modified January 14, 2025
4. Amendment Provisions. This Contract Amendment is subject to the Amendment Provisions attached hereto, which are incorporated herein by reference, and which control over any conflicting provisions of the Contract.
5. City of Richmond Business License Active Status Maintained. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section
7.04.030, the Contractor must maintain its City of Richmond business license for this Contract Amendment to be deemed to be in effect.
6. Insurance Coverage Updated and Maintained. Pursuant to the Contract, the Contractor shall provide the City with updated insurance certificates, and the Contractor shall maintain insurance coverage, for this Contract Amendment to be deemed to be in effect.
7. Authority; Counterparts; Signatures. Each of the signatories hereto represents and warrants that he or she has the authority to execute this Contract Amendment for the Party on whose behalf he or she is executing this Contract Amendment. This Contract Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. The Parties may rely on electronic or scanned signatures as originals. Delivery of an executed signature page of this Contract Amendment by electronic format (including pdf) shall be the same as delivery of an original executed signature page.
CITY OF RICHMOND,
a municipal corporation
By: ________________________________
Title: ______________________________
Date Signed: ________________________
I hereby certify that this Amendment has been
approved by the City Council or executed by the
City Manager.
By: _______________________________
City Clerk
Approved as to form:
By: _______________________________
City Attorney
[CONTRACTOR NAME]
(*If applicable, the Corporation Chairperson of the
Board, President, or Vice-President should sign
below.)
By: ____________________________________
Title: __________________________________
Date Signed: ____________________________
(*If applicable, the Corporation Chief Financial Officer or Assistant Treasurer, or Secretary or Assistant
Secretary should sign below.)
By: ___________________________________
Title: __________________________________
*(NOTE: Pursuant to California Corporations
Code Section 313, if Contractor is a corporation or
nonprofit organization, this Contract (1) should be
signed by the Chairperson of the Board, President
or Vice-President and the Chief Financial Officer
or Assistant Treasurer, or Secretary or Assistant
Secretary; (2) should have both signatures
conform to designated representative groups
pursuant to Corporations Code Section 313.)
Police Strategies LLC
651
DocID #34720v1 Modified January 14, 2025
AMENDMENT PROVISIONS (AMENDMENT HISTORY)
If no prior amendments, skip to next page.
The first Contract Amendment was approved by City Council or executed by the City Manager on ______________________ for one or more of the following provisions (check those that apply):
Increased contract payment limit by $_________________ for a payment limit not to exceed $ _________________
Term Amendment (insert new termination date): ________________________ Service Plan
The second Contract Amendment was approved by City Council or executed by the City Manager on _________________________ for one or more of the following provisions (check those that apply):
Increased contract payment limit by $_________________ for a payment limit not to exceed $ _________________
Term Amendment (insert new termination date): ________________________ Service Plan
The third Contract Amendment was approved by City Council or executed by the City Manager on _______________________ for one or more of the following provisions (check those that apply):
Increased contract payment limit by $_________________ for a payment limit not to exceed $ _________________
Term Amendment (insert new termination date): ________________________ Service Plan
The fourth Contract Amendment was approved by City Council or executed by the City Manager on ________________________ for one or more of the following provisions (check those that apply):
Increased contract payment limit by $_________________ for a payment limit not to exceed $ _________________
Term Amendment (insert new termination date): ________________________ Service Plan
The fifth Contract Amendment was approved by City Council or executed by the City Manager on ________________________ for one or more of the following provisions (check those that apply):
Increased contract payment limit by $_________________ for a payment limit not to exceed $ _________________
Term Amendment (insert new termination date): ________________________ Service Plan
The sixth Contract Amendment was approved by City Council or executed by the City Manager on _______________________ for one or more of the following provisions (check those that apply):
Increased contract payment limit by $_________________ for a payment limit not to exceed $ _________________
Term Amendment (insert new termination date): ________________________ Service Plan
652
DocID #34720v1 Modified January 14, 2025
AMENDMENT PROVISIONS (TERM, PAYMENT LIMIT AND/OR SERVICE PLAN) Check all that apply:
TERM
PAYMENT
LIMIT
SERVICE
PLAN
Paragraph 2 (Term) of the Contract is hereby amended to extend the Contract term. Paragraph 2 of the Contract is amended to read as follows:
"2. Term. The effective date of this Contract is
________________________________________________________ (Insert Contract Effective Date)
and it terminates
________________________________________________________. (Insert new Contract termination date)
unless sooner terminated as provided herein."
Paragraph 3 (Payment Limit) of the Contract is hereby amended to increase the payment limit by $__________________. Paragraph 3 of the Contract is amended to read as follows:
"3. Payment Limit. City's total payments to Contractor under this Contract shall not exceed $_____________________ including expenses."
“The City shall not pay for services that exceed the Contract Payment Limit without the prior written approval of the City Council or executed by the City Manager if the total Contract amount does not exceed $10,000 or without the prior approval of the City Council if the total Contract amount is over $10,000.” The Service Plan (Exhibit A) of the Contract is hereby amended to include the following tasks and/or services:
(Insert description of additional tasks/services. Use additional pages if necessary.) ■ 20,000 93,000 ■
Provide a methodological report that links ALPR related arrests to prosecutorial outcomes, incorporates both RPD and DA datasets, and provides findings appropriate for use in future City Council policy deliberations.
653