PLEASE NOTE: HYBRID MEETING FORMAT

- OPEN SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
- REGULAR MEETING OF THE RICHMOND CITY COUNCIL

Tuesday, May 05, 2026 at 3:30 P.m. - 11:30 P.m.

Community Services Building

440 Civic Center Plaza

Richmond, CA 94804

Members:

• Eduardo Martinez, Mayor at Large
• Jamelia Brown, Councilmember District 1
• Cesar Zepeda, Councilmember District 2
• Doria Robinson, Vice Mayor, District 3
• Soheila Bana, Councilmember District 4
• Sue Wilson, Councilmember District 5
• Claudia Jimenez, Councilmember District 6

NOTICE:   MASKS ARE STRONGLY ENCOURAGED!!

 

***REGISTER TO VOTE HERE!!***

https://registertovote.ca.gov/

The last day to register to vote for the June 2, 2026, Primary Election is May 18, 2026

The last day to register to vote for the November 3, 2026, General Election is October 19, 2026

Link to City Council Agendas/Packets
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/4157/City-ofRichmond-Council-Meetings

 

Register to receive notification of new agendas, etc.
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/list.aspx

 

 

HOW TO WATCH THE MEETING FROM HOME:

1. KCRT – Comcast Channel 28 or AT&T Uverse Channel 99
2. Livestream online at http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/3178/KCRT-Live

 

HOW TO SUBMIT PUBLIC COMMENTS:

 

In Person: Anyone who desires to address the City Council during Open Forum, must complete and file a pink speaker’s card with the City Clerk prior to the City Council’s consideration of the item.  Online speakers: must raise their hand when instructed by the clerk. Once the City Clerk has announced the item and given a count of the number of total speakers, no person shall be permitted to speak on the item other than those persons who have submitted their names to the City Clerk or those that have their hand raised.  

The amount of time allotted to individual speakers shall be determined based on the total number of persons requesting to speak during this item. The time allocation for each speaker will be as follows: 15 or fewer speakers, a maximum of 2 minutes; 16 to 24 speakers, a maximum of 1 and one-half minutes; and 25 or more speakers, a maximum of 1 minute.

NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS LISTED ON THE AGENDA: Each speaker will be allowed up to TWO minutes to address the Council.  PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: Speakers are allowed up to THREE (3) minutes to address the Council.

 

Via Zoom: Anyone who desires to address the City Council on items appearing on the agenda, including Open Forum, must raise their hand once public comment is open.  The public speakers attending in person will be called first, followed by Zoom participants (when appropriate).  Only those public speakers that have their hand raised at the appropriate time will be recognized.

 

Open Session and City Council: Please click the link below to join the webinar:

https://zoom.us/j/99312205643?pwd=MDdqNnRmS2k4ZkRTOWhlUldQOUF1Zz09

 

Passcode: ccmeeting

 

By iPhone one-tap:  US: [phone],,99312205643#  or [phone],,99312205643# 

By Telephone:   Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):  US: [phone] or [phone] or [phone] or [phone] or [phone] or [phone] 

 

Webinar ID: 993 1220 5643

 

International numbers available: https://zoom.us/u/aehrwCgISx

 

To comment by video conference: click on the Participants button at the bottom of your screen and select the “Raise Your Hand” button to request to speak when Public Comment is being asked for. When called upon, press the unmute button. After the allotted time, you will then be re-muted.  **

 

To comment by phone: you will be prompted to “Raise Your Hand” by pressing “*9” to request to speak when Public Comment is asked for. When called upon, you will be asked to unmuted by pressing *6.  After the allotted time, you will then be re-muted. Instructions of how to raise your hand by phone are available at: 

https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/201362663 -Joining-a-meeting-by-phone. **

 

**The mayor will announce the agenda item number and open public comment when appropriate. 

 

Via mail: received by 1:00 p.m. the day of the meeting, sent to 450 Civic Center Plaza, 3rd Floor, Office of the Clerk, Richmond, CA 94804.

 

Via eComments: eComments are available once an agenda is published. Locate the meeting in "upcoming meetings" and click the comment bubble icon. Click on the item you wish to comment on. eComments can be submitted when the agenda is published and until the conclusion of public comments for the agenda item. Email your comment to  should you have difficulty submitting an eComment during a meeting.

 

Via email: to by 1:00 p.m. the day of the meeting.

Emails MUST contain in the subject line 1) public comments – Open Session prior to Closed Session; 2) public comments – Open Forum; or 3) public comments agenda item #__ [include the agenda item number]. 

 

Properly labeled public comments will be considered a public record, put into the official meeting record, available after the meeting as supplemental materials, and will be posted as an attachment to the meeting minutes when the minutes are posted: http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/Archive.aspx?AMID=31

 

The City cannot guarantee that its network and/or the site will be uninterrupted. To ensure that the City Council receives your comments, you are strongly encouraged to submit your comments in writing in advance of the meeting.

 

Procedures for Removing Items from the Consent Calendar: Members of the public who request to remove an item from the consent calendar must first discuss the item with a staff member by phone or a back-and-forth email discussion, and state the name of the staff member when requesting removal of the item from the consent calendar (by 2 p.m. the day of the meeting).  The procedures for discussion do not apply to items sponsored by the mayor or councilmembers.

 

Any member of the City Council who would like to remove an item from the consent calendar must notify the appropriate staff person and the City Clerk’s Office prior to the meeting. Although members of the City Council are encouraged to ask questions and share concerns with staff ahead of the meeting, they are not required to do so.

 

The Clerk’s Office must be informed of any requests to remove items from the Consent Calendar. Items removed from the Consent Calendar shall be placed at the end of the agenda for consideration.

 

CONDUCT AT MEETINGS:  Richmond City Council meetings are limited public forums during which the City strives to provide an open, safe atmosphere and promote robust public debate. Members of the public, however, must comply with state law, as well as the City’s laws and procedures and may not actually disrupt the orderly conduct of these meetings. The public, for example, may not shout or use amplifying devices, must submit comment cards and speak during their allotted time, may not create a physical disturbance, may not speak on matters unrelated to issues within the jurisdiction of the City Council or the agenda item at hand, and may not cause immediate threats to public safety.

 

Click here for City Harassment Policy

 

Accessibility for Individuals with Disabilities:  Upon request, the City will provide for written agenda materials in appropriate alternative formats, or disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services and sign language interpreters, to enable individuals with disabilities to participate in and provide comments at/related to public meetings. Please submit a request, including your name, phone number and/or email address, and a description of the modification, accommodation, auxiliary aid, service or alternative format requested at least two days before the meeting.  Requests should be emailed to or submitted by phone at 510-620-6513, ext. 9, or 510-620-6509.  Requests made by mail to City Clerk’s Office, City Council meeting, 450 Civic Center Plaza, Richmond, CA 94804 must be received at least two days before the meeting. Requests will be granted whenever possible and resolved in favor of accessibility.

 

Unless otherwise noted in an agenda description, all actions taken by the Council include a determination that CEQA does not apply (i.e., the action is not a project and therefore exempt from CEQA).

 

Disclaimer:  The City Clerk's Office translates agendas to enhance public access.  Translated agendas are provided as a courtesy and do not constitute legal notice of the meeting or items to be discussed.  In case of discrepancy, the English agenda will prevail.

 

 

 

---

A.

OPEN SESSION TO HEAR PUBLIC COMMENT BEFORE CLOSED SESSION

3:30 p.m.

B.

ROLL CALL

C.

CLOSED SESSION

C.1

LIABILITY CLAIMS (Government Code Section 54956.9)

• Claimant: Jose Salala
  Agency Against: City of Richmond

C.2

PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (Government Code Section 54957)

• Title: City Clerk
• Title: City Manager

C.3

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION (paragraph (1) of Subdivision [d] of Government Code Section 54956.9)

• City of Richmond et al. v. Chevron Corp. et al., No. CIVMSC18-00055 (Contra Costa County, CA), In re Fuel Industry Climate Cases, JCCP No. 5310 (S.F. Superior Ct.)

C.4

CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Government Code Section 54957.6)

• Agency Representatives: Sharrone Taylor, Jack Hughes, and Lisa Charbonneau

Employee organizations:

1. SEIU Local 1021 Full Time Unit and Part Time Unit
2. IFPTE Local 21 Mid-Level Management Unit and Executive Management Units
3. Richmond Police Officers Association RPOA
4. Richmond Police Management Association RPMA
5. IAFF Local 188
6. Richmond Fire Management Association RFMA

C.5

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION (Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) or (3) of Subdivision (d) [as applicable] of Government Code Section 54956.9)

• Two Cases 

C.6

PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT/EMPLOYMENT (Government Code Section 54957.6)

• Title: City Manager

D.

PUBLIC COMMENT BEFORE CLOSED SESSION (limited to items on the Closed Session agenda only)

E.

ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION

________________________________________________________

F.

REGULAR MEETING OF THE RICHMOND CITY COUNCIL

6:00 p.m.

G.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

H.

ROLL CALL

I.

STATEMENT OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST

J.

AGENDA REVIEW

K.

REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY OF FINAL DECISIONS MADE DURING CLOSED SESSION

L.

REPORT FROM THE CITY MANAGER (public comment allowed under Open Forum)

L.1

NEW EMPLOYEE REPORT - 1st Tuesday

M.

OPEN FORUM FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

(public comment on items that remain on the Consent Calendar or items not on the agenda - limited to 2 minutes unless otherwise specified - Back and forth dialogue with the Council is prohibited)

N.

CITY COUNCIL CONSENT CALENDAR

(All items placed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and noncontroversial. These items will be enacted upon together with a motion and second, without discussion, of any member of the City Council, and each item shall be deemed to have received the action recommended.)

N.1

City Attorney's Office

N.1.a

Legal Services Agreement with Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC for General Litigation and Municipal Advice

• APPROVE a legal services agreement with Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC, for general litigation and municipal advice in an amount not to exceed $100,000, for a term of May 5, 2026, through December 31, 2027 – City Attorney’s Office (Kimberly Chin 510-620-6709/Shannon Moore 510-620-6509).

N.1.b

Legal Services Agreement with Bennett, Gelini and Gelini, APC (BGG) for Representation and Liability Claim

• APPROVE a new legal services agreement with Bennett, Gelini and Gelini, APC, for litigation representation and liability claims in an amount not to exceed $500,000 with a term of May 5, 2026, through June 30, 2028 – City Attorney’s Office (Kimberly Chin 510-620-6709/Shannon Moore 510-620-6505).

N.1.c

Legal Service Agreement Amendment No. 5 with Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP (Burke) for Municipal Litigation Matters

• APPROVE a fifth amendment to the Legal Services Agreement with Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP, in the amount of $150,000 for a total contract amount not to exceed $400,000, and extend the term to December 31, 2027, to continue representing the City in municipal law matters, including personnel matters and litigation – City Attorney’s Office (Kimberly Chin 510-620-6709/Shannon Moore 510-620-6509).

N.1.d

Establishing a Commitment to Caste Equity and the Prevention of Caste-Based Discrimination

ADOPT an ordinance (second reading) amending sections 3.58.010, 3.58.020, and 3.58.060 of the Richmond Municipal Code to add caste as a protected category within the jurisdiction of the City’s Human Rights and Human Relations Commission – City Attorney’s Office (Shannon Moore 510-620-6505/Dallae Chin 510-620-5517/Brandi Robinson 510-620-5518).

N.2

Finance Department

N.2.a

Investment and Cash Balance Report, Monthly Overtime Reports, Documentary Transfer Tax Report, and Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) and Pension Report for the month of March 2026.

• RECEIVE the City’s Investment and Cash Balance Report, Monthly Overtime Reports, Documentary Transfer Tax Report, and Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) and Pension Report for the month of March 2026 – Finance Department (Emily Combs 510-620-6740).

N.2.b

Appropriate Funding for Sister Cities Commission Partner City Delegations

• APPROPRIATE $69,000 in General Fund to the Sister Cities Commission to support delegation activities with Zhoushan, China; Regla, Cuba; and Sebastia, Palestine; AUTHORIZE the city manager, with approval as to form by the City Attorney’s Office, to enter into agreement(s) with qualified third-party administrator(s) and take all necessary actions to administer appropriated funds in support of eligible costs associated with the Richmond–Zhoushan Sister City program; and AUTHORIZE city staff to develop and implement a scholarship program, in collaboration with the Zhoushan Sister City Commission, to support travel costs – Finance Department (Emily Combs/Nickie Mastay/Shasa Curl 510-620-6740).

N.3

Fire Department

N.3.a

Purchase of Portable and Mobile Radios from Motorola Solutions, Inc.

• APPROVE a standing purchase order with Motorola Solutions, Inc. to purchase portable and mobile radios in an amount not to exceed $1,500,000 for a term ending May 6, 2029, with the possibility of two one-year extension options in a not to exceed $250,000 – Fire Department (Chief Aaron Osorio 510-307-8021/Chief Rico Rincon 510-307-8041/Den Mark Marcelo 510-307-8038).

N.4

Mayor's Office

N.4.a

Proclamation Recognizing May 2026 as Mental Health Awareness Month

• PROCLAMATION recognizing May 2026 as Mental Health Awareness Month in the City of Richmond - Mayor's Office (Mayor Eduardo Martinez 510-620-6503).

N.4.b

Appointment of Courtney Sanders to the ECIA Transportation Board

• APPOINT Courtney Sanders to a vacant seat on the ECIA Transportation Board with a term that expires on July 25, 2029 – Mayor’s Office (Mayor Eduardo Martinez 510-620-6503).

N.5

Police Department

N.5.a

Contract with Enterprise Holdings Incorporated for Rental Car Services

• AUTHORIZE and APPROVE a three-year contract with Enterprise Holdings Incorporated for the Richmond Police Department to rent unmarked police vehicles for an amount not to exceed $540,000 for the period of May 6, 2026, through May 5, 2029, with two one-year, mutually agreed upon annual extensions for an additional total of $360,000 — Police Department (Chief Timothy Simmons 510-621-1802).

N.5.b

Monthly Crime Report for February 2026

• RECEIVE the monthly Crime Report from the Richmond Police Department for February 2026 – Police Department (Chief Timothy Simmons 510-621-1802).

N.5.c

March 2026 Crime Report

• RECEIVE the monthly Crime Report from the Richmond Police Department for March 2026 – Police Department (Chief Timothy Simmons 510-621-1802).

N.5.d

Agreement with Contra Costa County Animal Services Department for Ongoing Animal Control Services

• APPROVE and AUTHORIZE a contract with Contra Costa County Animal Services Department in an amount not to exceed $7,200,000 for the continuation of Animal Control Services for Fiscal Year 2026–2027, with an additional three-year term for Fiscal Years 2027–2028, 2028–2029, and 2029–2030, for a total contract term of July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2030 – Police Department (Chief Timothy Simmons 510-621-1802).

N.5.e

Contract with T Jung Investigations and Steve Blanc Investigations for Pre-Employment Background Investigators

• APPROVE contracts with T Jung Investigations and, separately, Steve Blanc Investigations, to provide background investigations for Police Department applicants on an as-needed basis, in an amount not to exceed $90,000 per vendor over a three-year contract term of April 15, 2026, to April 15, 2029, with two one-year extension options – Police Department (Chief Timothy Simmons 510-621-1802).

N.5.f

Contract with Public Safety Family Counseling Group for Mental Health Counseling and Consultant Services

• APPROVE a sole-source contract with Public Safety Family Counseling Group, Inc. for mental health counseling and consultant services in an amount not to exceed $525,000, for a three-year term from July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2029, with two optional one-year extensions, for an annual amount not to exceed $175,000 – Police Department (Chief Timothy Simmons 510-621-1802/Captain Matthew Stonebraker 510-621-1204).

N.5.g

Agreement with Contra Costa County District Attorney's Office to Continue the Community-based Prosecution Program

• APPROVE a five-year agreement with the Contra Costa County District Attorney's Office for the dedicated services of a deputy district attorney who would be specifically assigned as Richmond's Community-based Prosecutor, in an amount not to exceed $300,000, for the term commencing July 1, 2026, and ending June 30, 2029 - Police Department (Chief Timothy Simmons 510-621-1802).

N.6

Public Works

N.6.a

Contract with Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers for the Ferry Point Pump Station Project

• APPROVE a sole-source contract with Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers for $29,690.43 for a term ending on January 1, 2028, for completed construction-related engineering services and APPROPRIATE $45,000 from the Wastewater Enterprise Fund for the Ferry Point Pump Station Project final expenditures – Public Works Department (Darcie DeLashmutt 510-672-3944/Tawfic Halaby 510-620-5482/Daniel Chavarria 510-620-5478).

O.

BUDGET SESSION

O.1

Draft Fiscal Year (FY) 2026-27 Annual Operating Budget and FY 2026-31 Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan

• ACKNOWLEDGE receipt of the draft Fiscal Year 2026-27 Annual Operating Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-31 Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan; REVIEW the budget adoption schedule; and RECEIVE an update on departmental operations, with discussions upon completion of all departmental presentations – City Manager’s Office/Finance Department (Shasa Curl/Emily Combs/Mubeen Qader 510-412-2077).

P.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

P.1

Appeal of Planning Commission Conditional Approval of Marina Point Residential Project

• HOLD a public hearing to consider two appeals of the Planning Commission’s conditional approval of the Marina Point Residential Project (PLN23-117) and ADOPT a resolution Modifying the Conditions in response to the appeals and otherwise affirming the Planning Commission’s conditional approval - Community Development Department (Lina Velasco/Avery Stark 510-620-6714).

Q.

NEW BUSINESS

Q.1

Opposition to Proposed CO2 Waste Dumping Projects & CO2 Pipelines in Richmond, Contra Costa, and Solano Counties

[email protected]

I oppose any carbon sequestration and storage and supporting infrastructure for the reasons others have written. Carbon sequestration has thus far largely been used to a support further fossil fuel extraction. After decades of work, CC&S has never made financial sense. As others have said, it's dangerous and risky.

Susan Wehrle

I am in favor of OPPOSING the Montezuma Carbon Sequestration project coming to Richmond. Carbon dumping includes the RISKS of CO2 leaks, serious health problems and wildfires. We can not afford to expose our people here in Richmond to these serious problems. Already, we have very high numbers of people with Asthma here in Richmond. We need to avoid any new dangers, and the Montezuma project sounds unhealthy, dangerous! Please pass the resolution from City Councilwoman Jiminez that OPPOSES this CO2 Waste Dumping project.

Kathleen McAfee

As a Richmond resident and Professor Emerita of Environmental Policy, I am strongly opposed to the proposed Motezuma CO₂ pipeline project. The proposed 40–45 mile network would transport millions of tons of carbon dioxide from Bay Area refineries through local communities and waterways to injection sites beneath the Suisun Marsh. This project would be paid for in part by us taxpayers through Section 45Q tax credit subsidies. It poses significant risks to Richmond and nearby residents and sensitive ecosystems. This infrastructure would enable continued pollution from refineries and is proceeding despite the loss of federal safety rules that have been set aside by Donald Trump. I urge you to consider the environmental and public safety impacts of this project and take action to protect our communities and the Suisun Marsh. Dr. Kathleen McAfee

Biofuelwatch

My name is Gary Hughes, I work with the organization Biofuelwatch, we are an international civil society climate justice organization, working globally but also here in California. Our organization is a member of the Communities Against Carbon Transport and Injection (CACTI) Coalition, and we stand behind the public work being done by the coalition to raise alarm about the carbon dumping project proposed in the Montezuma hills, and the accompanying CO2 pipeline and transport infrastructure. We are in support of the Richmond City Council taking action to approve the resolution on the Opposition to Proposed CO2 Waste Dumping. Considering the particular emphasis that state climate authorities are putting on extending the life of high emitting industry while relying on speculative technologies to respond to climate change, this resolution is another demonstration of the climate justice leadership exhibited consistently by the Richmond City Council. Thank you for taking this important step to raise a red flag in regards the risks and threats associated with an emerging 'carbon management' industry in the Bay Area, across the state, and far beyond. Sincerely, Gary Hughes, Co-Director / Americas Program Coordinator, Biofuelwatch https://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/

Steve Ongerth

The Montezuma CCS project is greenwashing, will only make the climate crisis worse, and won't create meaningful employment. Please vote "yes" on Councilmember Jimenez' measure. Thank you!

Alice Green

It is vitally important that the Montezuma Co2 Pipeline NOT be built for the health and well being of Richmond residents and surrounding people. Please adopt the alternative proposal.

Karen Perkins

Please pass the Resolution to safeguard the health of the Richmond Community and adjoining communities. Carbon Capture and Storage is a false solution to emissions pollution. Its costs to the environment negate the tiny amount of carbon it may "store", which leaks from underground anyway. An expensive and unhealthy false solution.

Ayako Nagano

No one needs a CO2 Pipeline. It’s not helpful and it’s potentially dangerous. Thank you for opposing this pipeline.

Janet Johnson

CO2 has unique physical properties that make transporting it via pipeline extremely dangerous in the event of a rupture. Historically, CO2 pipelines have transported relatively dry and pure CO2. However, the expansion into different sources of CO2 has the potential to lead to higher water content and more impurities introduced into pipelines. In addition, CO2 mixed with water can form carbonic acid, which is extremely corrosive to the internal surface of the pipe. Current federal regulations on CO2 pipelines are insufficient. Please vote yes to oppose the proposed Montezuma carbon dumping project. Thank you!

Cynthia Greenleaf

I strongly support the measure opposing the Montezuma Carbon Capture and Sequestration Project. This Carbon Capture projects would shift the burden of environmental pollution onto the most vulnerable populations in our community while decimating our shoreline ecosystem. I note that all of the comments here are in support of this opposition, even those listed as "against" (people are not understanding the proposal to oppose).

Genie Stowers

Please approve this resolution and do not participate in this project in any way. As a Richmond resident, I support this resolution, which opposes the Proposed CO2 Waste Dumping Projects and Pipelines in our community. While this might sound like a great idea-- a simple way to get rid of CO2, in fact, this technology has shown itself to be ineffective. In fact, it could prove dangerous to our communities. We do not want to be guinea pigs for this unproven technology-- either the pipelines or the injection wells and carbon dumps. Please support this resolution and oppose this project or any other projects like it.

David Wemmer

I urge you to adopt the resolution against the proposed Montezuma Carbon Sequestration Hub's CO2 pipeline waste dumping projects and CO2 pipelines in Richmond, Contra Costa, and Solano Counties. This would endanger the citizens of Richmond and neighboring communities, and it's been shown to be an ineffective climate solution.

Lucinda Young

I strongly oppose the proposed CO2 waste dumping project and strongly support the proposed resolution of Council Member Jimenez. This project would pose a multitude of serious health & safety threats to humans, wildlife & the environment. These CCS projects require the construction of miles of dangerous pipelines to transport carbon from refineries, power plants and other big polluters to underground sites where the CO2 is injected, in this case a recently restored Solano wetlands. CO2 leaks have been disastrous leading to asphyxiation, seizures, loss of consciousness, & potentially death. Carbon capture has consistently proven to be unsafe, ineffective, & economically unsound. Supporting this resolution and opposing this project is the right thing for Richmond. This project would only extend the environmental injustice that the Richmond community has suffered for too long.

Richard Freeman

A proposed FORTY-FIVE mile long CO2 pipeline which traverses seismic faults is practically inviting disaster - which the public sector ultimately will be obliged to pay for, most if not all costs. Our country is already suffering from environmental malfeasance at the highest levels. Please do not replicate it in Richmond and the Bay Area. Thank you.

Sunflower Alliance

Carbon dumping projects have been proposed across the Bay Area and California. These CCS (carbon capture and sequestration) projects—including the Montezuma proposal under discussion tonight—require the construction of miles of dangerous CO2 pipelines in order to transport the “captured” carbon from refineries, power plants and other big polluters to underground injection sites, in this case a recently restored Solano County wetlands. To reach that wetlands, the proposed 45-mile long pipeline would start here in Richmond and run under the waters of the Carquinez Strait. What exactly could go wrong? CO2 leaks can—and have been—disastrous. They can lead to asphyxiation, seizures, loss of consciousness, and, potentially, to death. Transporting CO2 in pipelines and injecting it underground is a big and dangerous gamble. And a very false solution to the climate crisis. Despite decades of development and billions of dollars of investment, carbon capture has consistently proven to be unsafe, ineffective, economically unsound, and hugely energy-intensive, despite its stated purpose. The Montezuma project proposed for the Bay Area will only extend environmental injustice while failing to significantly reduce carbon emissions (and toxics) from polluting facilities like Chevron. CCS advocates minimize or outright dismiss the risks involved, arguing that the urgency of global CO2 reduction trumps any other concerns. However, a study published a year ago by a team at Stanford University led by Professor Mark Z Jacobson, senior fellow at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, casts doubt on the effectiveness and overall benefit of current carbon capture techniques. (See https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.4c10686?ref=pdf) The research shows that instead of mitigating climate change, these methods could actually increase air pollution, and they demonstrate minimal efficacy in atmospheric carbon reduction. The study concludes that renewable energy sources present a superior economic and environmental alternative. Jacobson and his team also point to the potential for carbon capture to generate more environmental damage than it prevents. “Even if you have 100 percent capture from the capture equipment, it is still worse, from a social cost perspective . . . because carbon capture never reduces air pollution and always has a capture equipment cost.” Wind replacing fossil fuels, for one example, “always reduces air pollution and never has a capture equipment cost,” Jacobson states. Proponents see CCS as the perfect “having your cake and eating it, too” solution—extending the life of fossil fuel facilities while reducing atmospheric carbon. But the actual track record for CCS puts a lie to this claim. CCS in general is a boondoggle, and the Montezuma proposal poses a very serious threat to the health and safety of our Bay Area communities and environment. Thank you, Richmond City Council, for leading the resistance to this disastrous project.

Susanna Marshland

The Montezuma project proposes CCS (Carbon Capture & Storage) which is not an effective way of addressing carbon emissions. Building these pipelines will be more destructive of the environment than it is worth. There are better, most cost effective, and less impactful ways to spend money on reducing carbon.

Lara Clayman

Please pass the Oppose Montezuma resolution. Storing CO2 underground is dangerous and a false climate solution.

Sheila Tarbet

I strongly support the measure opposing the Montezuma CCS project. It would pose a threat to Richmond and other communities along the Carquinez Strait up to Suisun City. It would threaten the ecologically sensitive and important wetlands near the injection site. And the technology proposed has not been proven to be effective. Supporting this measure and opposing this project is the right thing for Richmond and other communities.

Valerie Ventre-Hutton

We urge the Richmond City Council to adopt the resolution to oppose proposed CO2 waste dumping projects and CO2 pipelines in Richmond, Contra Costa and Solano Counties. This is a critical step in protecting the health and safety of Richmond and surrounding communities. There are documented safety concerns with CO2 transport by pipeline. These safety concerns, involving CO2 leaks, are amplified if the pipeline is in the vicinity of water, and long segments of the pipeline for the proposed Montezuma project would be submerged in water. In addition, the technology is extremely expensive, and not economically viable without taxpayer subsidies. According to an Oxford University study (University of Oxford, Smith School, 12/4/23): “ Relying on mass deployment of CCS to reduce emissions would actually facilitate high ongoing use of fossil fuels and cost society around a trillion dollars extra each year, and these estimated costs are “almost certainly” an underestimate.” The report also found that the “costs of CCS have not declined “at all” in the last 40 years, suggesting they are very unlikely to fall sufficiently in the time required to cut emissions and limit warming to 1.5C. This is in contrast to renewables, where the cost of solar has fallen 90% and wind 70% in the last 15 years, and the cost of batteries used for energy storage has fallen by 80% in the last decade. Renewable costs are expected to continue to decline as production ramps up further.” Every dollar spent on CCS is one less dollar spent on health, safety and known environmental solutions.

Dr. Carole Leadem

I oppose CO2 dumping because carbon capture has consistently proven to be unsafe, ineffective, economically unsound, and hugely energy-intensive

Helen Toy

Please pass motion Q.5. It's not only important for Richmond but for all the surrounding communities. Thank you.

Diane Dulmage

The Montezuma Carbon Capture and Sequestration Project is not safe or environmentally smart.

Rebecca Eliscu

Carbon capture has consistently proven to be unsafe, ineffective, economically unsound, and hugely energy-intensive, despite its stated purpose. The Montezuma project proposed for the Bay Area will only extend environmental injustice while doing nothing to significantly reduce carbon emissions from polluting facilities. As a member of this community, I STRONGLY urge council members to support the OPPOSITION to the proposed CO2 "sequestration" project.

David F. Gassman

The Montezuma project proposed for the Bay Area will only extend environmental injustice while failing to significantly reduce carbon emissions from polluting facilities.

Karen Rusiniak

I am in opposition to the Montezuma CO2 Hub Project as it shifts risks to local communities while benefiting polluters. A rupture on the pipeline could present an asphyxiation hazard that endangers not only the local population but also first responders. We are in a seismically active area that increases the possibility that the containment of highly pressurized CO2 buried deep underground could fail especially since the risks are not fully understood. In addition, the project will require disruption of fragile wetlands. Lastly, this is just another greenwashing scheme to allow polluters to continue fossil fuel operations instead of transiting to clean energy. Richmond should not allow this risky, unproven carbon waste disposal system that benefits polluters and puts the population at risk. Please vote "No".

RECEIVE a presentation on proposed Montezuma CO₂ Hub, a carbon waste dumping project, that would require a massive build out of pipelines through Richmond, risking the health and safety of Richmond residents and ADOPT a resolution that opposes the proposed Montezuma Carbon Sequestration Hub's CO2 pipeline waste dumping projects and CO2 pipelines in Richmond, Contra Costa, and Solano Counties - Councilmember Claudia Jimenez (510-620-6565). This item was continued from the April 28, 2026, meeting.

Q.2

Introduce Ordinance Amending Sidewalk Vendor Regulations (RMC Chapter 7.42)

INTRODUCE an ordinance (first reading) amending Chapter 7.42 of the Richmond Municipal Code (Sidewalk Vendor Ordinance) to update administrative procedures, waiver provisions, and enforcement mechanisms - Public Works Department (Andy Cho 620-6547/Robert Armijo 620-5477). This item was continued from the April 28, 2026, meeting.

Q.3

Contract Amendment No. 3 with Charleston Mobility for Electric Bikeshare Operations

Resident

FORMAL GRIEVANCE POLICY AND LEGAL ISSUES: BIKE SHARE PROGRAM COSTS Taxpayers object continued authorization, funding, and operational maintenance of the City of Richmond’s e-bike share program (‘the Program”). The Program is inefficient allocation of public resources which should prioritize the highly successful Richmond Ride program instead. Funding O.4.c is not in alignment with legally required municipal priorities. It is over reliant on subsidies that are not structurally stable. The Program raises substantial concerns of administrative reasonableness, fiscal prudence, and public trust obligations to prioritize public safety and responsible municipal governance under California law. II. FISCAL IRRATIONALITY AND SUBSIDY DEPENDENCY Grant cycles for bike share and Richmond ride are ending! No other grant funding, climate-related subsidies, and third-party allocations are available. You fail to inform the public that those grants consare ending. You fail to understand current public finance constraints requiring conservative spending cuts. It is irresponsible to divert general revenue to fund this underperforming RPA pet project. RPA council again fails to understand fiduciary obligations since the bike share operational break-even thresholds is negative and requires continuous public underwriting without any demonstrable long-term solvency. Taxpayers disapprove any continuation of it absent a credible path to financial self-sufficiency. And demand focus on basic municipal fiduciary obligations. III. MISALIGNMENT WITH CORE PUBLIC SAFETY AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIORITIES Council fails to understand that ALL budgeting is bound by implied duties of rational prioritization, particularly where competing obligations include: Emergency response infrastructure modernization (deferred 10 yrs already) Fire department operational capacity improvements Public safety facility adequacy, including law enforcement infrastructure (new police head quarter current lease 1.5mil annually) The allocation of capital and administrative bandwidth towards bike share —while core emergency systems remain delayed or underdeveloped—raise substantial questions of arbitrary and capricious prioritization for the sole benefit of closely aligned non profits organizations (common administrative law). The council again demonstrates egregious ignorance because essential services remain underfunded and deferred while rationalizing a construed misapplication of scarce municipal resources. IV. STRUCTURAL DESIGN DEFICIENCIES AND FUNCTIONAL INEFFICIENCY Bike share stations impose constraints that limit real-world transport: Mandatory return-to-station requirement, no trip flexibility Spatial rigidity prevent seamless one-way travel integration Station density limitations produce predictable service gaps Geographic concentration and inequitable access distribution The program always failed to achieve “critical mass adoption,” a threshold necessary for network viability. It functions as a constrained pilot program, not a general-purpose mobility infrastructure without scalable municipal transport substitution. V. FAILURE OF DEMONSTRATED MODE SHIFT EVIDENCE There is no justification for public subsidy in a measurable reduction in private automobile dependence. And absent significant data underscore insignificant shifts to congestion reduction. A continued subsidy lacks evidence supporting city funding over $300k for one month only. It is a sparsely used recreational service, not a “transformative transportation intervention”. Public expenditure without demonstrable behavioral impact raises concerns under standards of rational basis review in policy justification, even at the municipal governance level. VI. RELIANCE ON PRIVATE CONTRACTORS The Program, run by a large number ofcontracted third-party operators, an unprecedented secondary layer of governance dependency: Service continuity is contingent upon contract renewal cycles Performance metrics subject to vendor compliance variability Operational control externalized from municipal oversight This structure creates an illusion of accountability, while complicating public-sector responsibility and increased systemic vulnerability to vendor attrition or contract renegotiation failure. VII. EQUITY CLAIMS AND GEOGRAPHIC DISPARITY Equity is asserted as a programmatic justification while current deployment patterns indicate spatial concentration of service availability. This produces unequal community benefit distribution of neighborhoods’ enhanced access; excluding others. VIII. CONCLUSION In sum, the Program, as currently implemented, has cumulative legal-policy defects: Structural fiscal dependency without clear path to solvency Misalignment with higher-order municipal infrastructure priorities since the grant cycle already ended Design constraints limiting function.

APPROVE a third contract amendment with Charleston Mobility in an amount not to exceed $390,000 for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $3,540,341, to support the continued operation of the citywide electric bikeshare program till the end of the fiscal year to allow time to determine the future of the program during the Fiscal Year 2026-27 budget process; and APPROPRIATE $390,000 from the Environmental and Community Investment Agreement (ECIA) Transportation budget to cover the cost of the contract amendment – Public Works Department/Community Services Department (Gabino Arredondo 510-620-6606/LaShonda White 510-620-6828).​ This item was continued from the April 28, 2026, meeting.

R.

REPORTS OF OFFICERS: REFERRALS TO STAFF, AND GENERAL REPORTS (INCLUDING AB 1234 REPORTS)(limited to two minutes per Councilmember)

S.

ADJOURNMENT