Richmond City Council
October 20, 2026

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
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
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
9/17/2026
4 Background
Approx 340 lots (290 connections) Assessment District 680 Objectives
7 8
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
9/17/2026
6 Existing Conditions
Existing Conditions
11 12
9/17/2026
7 Existing Conditions
Existing Conditions
2021 2026
13 14
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
9/17/2026
18 Alternative C2: Trenchless Open-Cut
Alternatives
Approx Cost: $19.5M
Scoring Summary
35 36
9/17/2026
19 Scoring Summary
Recommendation
37 38
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
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
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