Richmond City Council
May 23, 2023

576
City of Richmond
Cost Recovery Analysis
Commercial Cannabis Regulatory Fees, 2023
Page iv

List of Figures
Figure 1 – Summary of Proposed Fees ............................................................................................ 4 Figure 2 – Application Completeness Review Fee ........................................................................... 5 Figure 3 – Complete Application Review Fee .................................................................................. 6 Figure 4 – Cannabis Business Permit (CBP) Issuance Fee ................................................................ 6 Figure 5 – Cannabis Retail (Storefront & Non-Storefront) Annual Permit Fee ................................ 7 Figure 6 – Cannabis Distribution Annual Permit Fee ....................................................................... 7 Figure 7 – Cannabis Manufacturing Annual Permit Fee .................................................................. 8 Figure 8 – Cannabis Specialty/Cottage Cultivation Annual Permit Fee ........................................... 8 Figure 9 – Cannabis Small Cultivation Annual Permit Fee ............................................................... 9 Figure 10 – Cannabis Medium Cultivation Annual Permit Fee ........................................................ 9 Figure 11 – Cannabis Large Cultivation Annual Permit Fee ........................................................... 10 Figure 12 – Cannabis Nursery Cultivation Annual Permit Fee ....................................................... 10 Figure 13 – Cannabis Processor Cultivation Annual Permit Fee .................................................... 11 Figure 14 – Cannabis Testing Annual Permit Fee .......................................................................... 11 Figure 15 – Cannabis Processor Cultivation Annual Permit Fee .................................................... 12

577
City of Richmond
Cost Recovery Analysis
Commercial Cannabis Regulatory Fees, 2023

Executive Summary
Introduction
In 2010, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 28 -10 adding Chapter 7.102 Medical Marijuana Collectives to the Richmond Municipal Code to regulate the collective cultivation and dispensing of medical marijuana.

In 2011, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 9 -11 establishing fees for application review, approval, and annual regulation required for medical marijuana collectives.

The Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (“MCRSA”) was signed into law in October 2015.

MCRSA was composed of three bills: AB 266 which established a dual-licensing structure requiring a state license and a local license or permit, AB 243 which established a regulatory and licensing structure for cultivation sites under the Department of Food and Agriculture, and SB 643 which established criteria for licensing of medical cannabis businesses, regulated physicians, an d recognized local authority to levy taxes and fees.

On November 8, 2016, the voters of the State of California approved Proposition 64, the "Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act," which decriminalized the adult use of cannabis for non-medical purposes and established a regulatory scheme at the state level.

On November 15, 2016, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 16 -16 adding Article

15.04.610.270 “Medical Marijuana Uses”, establishing regulations to allow for medicinal cannabis business to operate in the City.

On June 27, 2017, Senate Bill 94, the "Medicinal and Adult -Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act" (“MAUCRSA”) repealed and replaced MCRSA. MAUCRSA consolidates the medical MCRSA and adult use (Proposition 64) cannabis statutes.

On November 5, 2019, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 16 -19 amending Article

15.04.610.270 “Marijuana/Cannabis Commercial Uses”, establishing regulations to allow for adult-use cannabis activities and provide consistency with State regulations.

The purpose of this Cannabis Regulatory Fee Study (“Fee Study”) is to reevaluate and update the City’s existing cannabis fee structure and to establish the legal and policy basis for imposing regulatory fees (“fees”) for permitting and annual regulation of co mmercial cannabis businesses in the City. The fees will be used to reimburse the City departments for reasonable direct and indirect costs and contracted services attributable to reviewing and acting upon the applications and verifying and enforcing cannabis business compliance with the City’s Municipal Code. 578
City of Richmond
Cost Recovery Analysis
Commercial Cannabis Regulatory Fees, 2023

Legal Framework
In order to impose such fees, this Fee Study will present findings in order to meet the substantive requirements of Proposition 26, which are as follows:

1. Demonstrate that the levy, charge, or other exaction is not a tax; and

2. The amount is not more than necessary to cover the reasonable cost of the governmental activity; and

3. The manner in which those costs are allocated to a payor bears a fair or reasonable relationship to the payor’s burden on, or benefits received from, the governmental activity.

Additionally, recent case law has provided further clarification of these substantive requirements, which are as follows:
 Costs need not be “finely calibrated to the precise benefit each individual fee payor might derive.”
1  The payor’s burden or benefit from the program is not measured on an individual basis.

Rather, it is measured collectively, considering all fee payors.2  Demonstrating that the amount collected is no more than is necessary to cover the reasonable costs of the program is satisfied by estimating the approximate cost of the activity and demonstrating that this cost is equal to or greater than the fee revenue to be received.
3  Reasonable costs associated with the creation of the regulatory program may be recovered by the regulatory fee.4
Methodology and Approach
To determine the City’s cannabis regulatory fees consistent with these substantive requirements, the cost of permitting and regulating cannabis operations by various City Departments is determined. These costs are then allocated to the payor in a way that demonstrates that the costs bear a fair or reasonable relationship to the payor’s burden on or benefits from the program.

1 Griffith v. City of Santa Cruz (2012)
2 Griffith v. City of Santa Cruz (2012); Newhall City Water District v. Castaic Lake Water Agency (2016) 3 Griffith v. City of Santa Cruz (2012)
4 League of California Cities Propositions 26 and 218 Implementation Guide, May 2017, pp. 70-71 579
City of Richmond
Cost Recovery Analysis
Commercial Cannabis Regulatory Fees, 2023

The City went through a deliberative process to establish a reasonable expenditure plan to use in setting the fees. An interdepartmental working group representing staff from the City , the Fire Department, City Attorney’s Office, and Planning Department worked together to develop and review the proposed fees.

For each of the regulatory fees established by the Fee Study, the City evaluated Article

15.04.610.270 “Mariju ana/Cannabis Commercial Uses” and identified specific City tasks and activities associated with permitting and enforcement of the regulations. Each City department then determined the specific hours and personnel needed by their department to complete their tasks and activities. The estimated labor hours for each activity were then multiplied by each relevant department’s current hourly labor rate for each position completing the task. The hourly labor rates include various salary and benefits, departmental support, supervision, and other administration overhead and similar indirect costs.

The type of costs included in the fees includes labor costs, contracted services, supplies, inter - department charges, and other incidental costs; for example: background checks and follow -up research and analysis on findings, zoning and distance checks, site visits, applicant correspondence, etc. Detailed supporting analysis tables served as the mechanism to determine specific fee rates and estimated hours, as summarized in this Fee Study. These time estimates and levels of effort were then reviewed and evaluated by other City staff and SCI for their reasonableness.

The time estimate remains constant for each application review phase or annual regulation and inspection activity, and the fees are based on each department’s hourly rates as of the date of this fee study.

Summary of General Findings
The following general findings from the Fee Study are presented:

1. The City’s proposed cannabis regulatory fees are not taxes, but regulatory fees in that the fees are proposed to recover costs associated with the Article 15.04.610.270, which created the regulatory framework to permit and regulate commercial cannabis businesses in the City.

2. The City went through a deliberative process to establish reasonable costs for permitting and annual enforcement of the City’s regulations.

3. The fee amounts determined by this Fee Study do not exceed the reasonable cost of permitting and enforcement of the new regulations.

4. The fees bear a fair or reasonable relationship to the payor’s burden on or benefits from the regulatory program.
580
City of Richmond
Cost Recovery Analysis
Commercial Cannabis Regulatory Fees, 2023

Summary of Recommendations
Based on the findings presented in the Fee Study, it is recommended that the City consider adopting the fees shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 – Summary of Proposed Fees

Fee Description Fee 1 Unit
Application Completeness Review $1,019 per application
Conditional Use Permit $12,611 per application
Cannabis Business Permit $4,262 per application
Annual Permit Fee (Retail Storefront) $3,365 per permit annually 2 Annual Permit Fee (Retail Delivery) $3,365 per permit annually 2 Annual Permit Fee (Distribution) $3,365 per permit annually 2 Annual Permit Fee (Manufacturing) $3,587 per permit annually 2 Annual Permit Fee (Specialty/Cottage Cultivation)3
$3,365 per permit annually 2
Annual Permit Fee (Small Cultivation)3
$3,587 per permit annually 2
Annual Permit Fee (Medium Cultivation)3
$3,809 per permit annually 2
Annual Permit Fee (Large Cultivation)3
$4,030 per permit annually 2
Annual Permit Fee (Nursery Cultivation)3
$3,365 per permit annually 2
Annual Permit Fee (Processor Cultivation)3
$3,365 per permit annually 2
Annual Permit Fee (Testing) $3,365 per permit annually 2 Reinspection Fee $1,463 per inspection
Compliance Fee4
Actual Cost per hourly rate
Notes:

In the event of a compliance issue, a compliance fee will be charged based on actual costs incurred by the City, using the fully burdened rates of the staff and consultant time spent to remedy the issue.

Proposed fees are rounded to the nearest dollar.

Each additional permit for the same business at the same location shall be charged 25% of the applicable fee.

The highest activity use fee shall be the first base fee.

The annual permit fee for cultivation businesses is based on the license type issued by the Department of Cannabis Control (DCC), regardless of whether the business is utilizing the maximum canopy space authorized under the State License.
581
City of Richmond
Cost Recovery Analysis
Commercial Cannabis Regulatory Fees, 2023

Commercial Cannabis Business Application Review Fees
This section determines the costs and associated fees to review applications and issue permits for commercial cannabis businesses in the City.

Commerci al Cannabis Business Application Fees
The following fees will be collected at separate phases of the application process:
 Application Completeness Review Fee
 Conditional Use Permit
 Cannabis Business Permit (CBP) Issuance Fee
Application Completeness Review Fee
The proposed Application Completeness Review Fee is $1,019 and is due upon submittal of the application. The application fee recovers the cost to review and process applications for completeness.

Figure 2 – Application Completeness Review Fee

Conditional Use Permit
The proposed Conditional Use Permit fee is $12,611 per eligible application and is due upon submittal of the complete application.

Outside Service
Cannabis
General Tasks/Activities
Director
Senior
Planner
Code Enfor
Manager
Code Enfor
Officer II
Fire
Marshal
ConsultantHours Cost Other Costs Total Cost
Fully Burdened Hourly Rate $288 $154 $173 $144 $250 $300 Application Completeness Review 0.50 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 - 5.50 $1,019 $0 $1,019 Total 0.50 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 - 5.50 $1,019 $0 $1,019
City Administration
Community Development Total Labor
Richmond FD
Fire
582
City of Richmond
Cost Recovery Analysis
Commercial Cannabis Regulatory Fees, 2023

Figure 3 – Complete Application Review Fee

Cannabis Business Permit (CBP) Issuance Fee
The proposed Cannabis Business Permit Issuance Fee is $ 4,262 and is due upon submittal of the application for Cannabis Business Permit. The Cannabis Business Permit Fee recovers the cost associated with verifyin g an applicant has obtained required City permits, paid all City fees, obtained their State License, and conducting a final site inspection to check for building, fire, and local and state compliance prior to operation.

Figure 4 – Cannabis Business Permit (CBP) Issuance Fee

Outside Service
City Attorney Cannabis
General Tasks/Activities
Director
Senior
Planner
Code Enfor
Manager
Code Enfor
Officer II
SR. Bldg
Inspector
Director
Senior Civil
Engineer
Attorney
Chief
Captain
Lieutenant
Sergeant
Deputy Fire
Chief
Battalion
Chief
Fire
Marshal
ConsultantHours Cost Other Costs Total Cost
Fully Burdened Hourly Rate $288 $154 $173 $144 $161 $389 $259 $232 $329 $272 $242 $224 $277 $240 $250 $300 Application Review - 3.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.50 1.50 4.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 29.50 $6,819 $0 $6,819 Background Checks - - - - - - - - - - 1.00 - - - - - 1.00 $242 $0 $242 Fire Safety Compliance - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $0 $0 $0 Facility Inspection - - 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 - - - - - - - - 3.00 12.00 $2,977 $0 $2,977 Staff Report 1.00 3.00 - - - 1.00 1.00 1.00 - - - - - - 1.00 - 8.00 $1,880 $0 $1,880 Public Hearing 1.00 - 1.00 - - - - 1.00 - - - - - - - - 3.00 $693 $0 $693 Total 2.00 6.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 1.50 1.50 2.50 4.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 6.00 53.50 $12,611 $0 $12,611 Community Development Police Fire Total Labor
City Administration Richmond PD Richmond FD
Public Works
Outside Service
Finance Cannabis
General Tasks/Activities
Senior
Planner
Code Enfor
Manager
Code Enfor
Officer II
SR. Bldg
Inspector
Bus License
Specialist
Director
Senior Civil
Engineer
SR. Env
Comp Inspc
Director
Sergeant
Fire
Marshal
ConsultantHours Cost Other Costs Total Cost
Fully Burdened Hourly Rate $154 $173 $144 $161 $82 $389 $259 $259 $270 $224 $250 $300 CBP Issuance 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 - 12.00 $2,537 $0 $2,537 Facility Inspection - CUP Conditions - 1.00 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - - - - 2.00 7.00 $1,725 $0 $1,725 Total 1.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 19.00 $4,262 $0 $4,262 Community Development Police Fire Total Labor
City Administration chmond P chmond F
Public Works
583
City of Richmond
Cost Recovery Analysis
Commercial Cannabis Regulatory Fees, 2023

Commercial Cannabis Business Annual Permit Fees
Cannabis Retail (Storefront & Non- Storefront) Annual Permit Fee Figure 5 shows the determination of the fee for full cost recovery for the annual regulation and inspection fee of a Retail (Storefront & Non -Storefront) Business. One inspection will be performed annually. As shown, the proposed fee is $3,365 annually per permit.

Figure 5 – Cannabis Retail (Storefront & Non-Storefront) Annual Permit Fee

Cannabis Distribution Annual Permit Fee
Figure 6 shows the determination of the fee for full cost recovery for the annual regulation and inspection fee of a Distribution Business. One inspection will be performed annually . As shown, the proposed fee is $3,365 annually per permit.

Figure 6 – Cannabis Distribution Annual Permit Fee

Outside Service
City Attorney Cannabis
General Tasks/Activities
Code Enfor
Manager
Code Enfor
Officer II
Attorney
ConsultantHours Cost Other Costs Total Cost
Fully Burdened Hourly Rate $173 $144 $232 $300
Preparation 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 3.00 $617 $0 $617
Facility Inspection - 1.00 - 2.00 3.00 $744 $0 $744
Oversight and Reporting 2.50 2.50 2.00 2.50 9.50 $2,005 $0 $2,005 Total 3.50 4.50 2.00 5.50 15.50 $3,365 $0 $3,365
City Administration
Community Dev. Total Labor
Outside Service
City Attorney Cannabis
General Tasks/Activities
Code Enfor
Manager
Code Enfor
Officer II
Attorney
ConsultantHours Cost Other Costs Total Cost
Fully Burdened Hourly Rate $173 $144 $232 $300
Preparation 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 3.00 $617 $0 $617
Facility Inspection - 1.00 - 2.00 3.00 $744 $0 $744
Oversight and Reporting 2.50 2.50 2.00 2.50 9.50 $2,005 $0 $2,005 Total 3.50 4.50 2.00 5.50 15.50 $3,365 $0 $3,365
City Administration
Community Dev. Total Labor
584
City of Richmond
Cost Recovery Analysis
Commercial Cannabis Regulatory Fees, 2023

Cannabis Manufacturing Annual Permit Fee
Figure 7 shows the determination of the fee f or full cost recovery for the annual regulation and inspection fee of a Manufacturing Business. One inspection will be performed annually. As shown, the proposed fee is $3,587 annually per permit.

Figure 7 – Cannabis Manufacturing Annual Permit Fee

Cannabis Specialty/Cottage Cultivation Annual Permit Fee Figure 8 shows the determination of the fee for full cost recovery for the annual regulation and inspection fee for a Cultivation Business issued a Cannabis Specialty or Cottage Cultivation License from the Department of Cannabis Control. One inspection will be performed annually. As shown, the proposed fee is $3,365 annually per permit.

Figure 8 – Cannabis Specialty/Cottage Cultivation Annual Permit Fee

Outside Service
City Attorney Cannabis
General Tasks/Activities
Code Enfor
Manager
Code Enfor
Officer II
Attorney
ConsultantHours Cost Other Costs Total Cost
Fully Burdened Hourly Rate $173 $144 $232 $300
Preparation 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 3.00 $617 $0 $617
Facility Inspection - 1.50 - 2.50 4.00 $965 $0 $965
Oversight and Reporting 2.50 2.50 2.00 2.50 9.50 $2,005 $0 $2,005 Total 3.50 5.00 2.00 6.00 16.50 $3,587 $0 $3,587
City Administration
Community Dev. Total Labor
Outside Service
City Attorney Cannabis
General Tasks/Activities
Code Enfor
Manager
Code Enfor
Officer II
Attorney
ConsultantHours Cost Other Costs Total Cost
Fully Burdened Hourly Rate $173 $144 $232 $300
Preparation 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 3.00 $617 $0 $617
Facility Inspection - 1.00 - 2.00 3.00 $744 $0 $744
Oversight and Reporting 2.50 2.50 2.00 2.50 9.50 $2,005 $0 $2,005 Total 3.50 4.50 2.00 5.50 15.50 $3,365 $0 $3,365
City Administration
Community Dev. Total Labor
585
City of Richmond
Cost Recovery Analysis
Commercial Cannabis Regulatory Fees, 2023

Cannabis Small Cultivation Annual Permit Fee
Figure 9 shows the determination of the fee for full cost recovery for the annual regulation and inspection fee for a Cultivation Business issued a Cannabis Small Cultivation License from the Department of Cannabis Control. One inspection will be performed annuall y. As shown, the proposed fee is $3,587 annually per permit.

Figure 9 – Cannabis Small Cultivation Annual Permit Fee

Cannabis Medium Cultivation Annual Permit Fee
Figure 10 shows the determination of the fee for full cost recovery for the annual regulation and inspection fee for a Cultivation Business issued a Cannabis Medium Cultivation License from the Department of Cannabis Control. One inspection will be performed annually . As shown, the proposed fee is $3,809 annually per permit.

Figure 10 – Cannabis Medium Cultivation Annual Permit Fee

Outside Service
City Attorney Cannabis
General Tasks/Activities
Code Enfor
Manager
Code Enfor
Officer II
Attorney
ConsultantHours Cost Other Costs Total Cost
Fully Burdened Hourly Rate $173 $144 $232 $300
Preparation 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 3.00 $617 $0 $617
Facility Inspection - 1.50 - 2.50 4.00 $965 $0 $965
Oversight and Reporting 2.50 2.50 2.00 2.50 9.50 $2,005 $0 $2,005 Total 3.50 5.00 2.00 6.00 16.50 $3,587 $0 $3,587
City Administration
Community Dev. Total Labor
Outside Service
City Attorney Cannabis
General Tasks/Activities
Code Enfor
Manager
Code Enfor
Officer II
Attorney
ConsultantHours Cost Other Costs Total Cost
Fully Burdened Hourly Rate $173 $144 $232 $300
Preparation 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 3.00 $617 $0 $617
Facility Inspection - 2.00 - 3.00 5.00 $1,187 $0 $1,187 Oversight and Reporting 2.50 2.50 2.00 2.50 9.50 $2,005 $0 $2,005 Total 3.50 5.50 2.00 6.50 17.50 $3,809 $0 $3,809
City Administration
Community Dev. Total Labor
586
City of Richmond
Cost Recovery Analysis
Commercial Cannabis Regulatory Fees, 2023

Cannabis Large Cultivation Annual Permit Fee
Figure 11 shows the determination of the fee for full cost recovery for the annual regulation and inspection fee for a Cultivation Business issued a Cannabis Large Cultivation License from the Department of Cannabis Control. One inspection will be performed annuall y. As shown, the proposed fee is $4,030 annually per permit.

Figure 11 – Cannabis Large Cultivation Annual Permit Fee

Cannabis Nursery Cultivation Annual Permit Fee
Figure 12 shows the determination of the fee for full cost recovery for the annual regulation and inspection fee for a Cultivation Business issued a Cannabis Nursery Cultivation License from the Department of Cannabis Control. One inspection will be performed annually . As shown, the proposed fee is $3,365 annually per permit.

Figure 12 – Cannabis Nursery Cultivation Annual Permit Fee

Outside Service
City Attorney Cannabis
General Tasks/Activities
Code Enfor
Manager
Code Enfor
Officer II
Attorney
ConsultantHours Cost Other Costs Total Cost
Fully Burdened Hourly Rate $173 $144 $232 $300
Preparation 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 3.00 $617 $0 $617
Facility Inspection - 2.50 - 3.50 6.00 $1,409 $0 $1,409 Oversight and Reporting 2.50 2.50 2.00 2.50 9.50 $2,005 $0 $2,005 Total 3.50 6.00 2.00 7.00 18.50 $4,030 $0 $4,030
City Administration
Community Dev. Total Labor
Outside Service
City Attorney Cannabis
General Tasks/Activities
Code Enfor
Manager
Code Enfor
Officer II
Attorney
ConsultantHours Cost Other Costs Total Cost
Fully Burdened Hourly Rate $173 $144 $232 $300
Preparation 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 3.00 $617 $0 $617
Facility Inspection - 1.00 - 2.00 3.00 $744 $0 $744
Oversight and Reporting 2.50 2.50 2.00 2.50 9.50 $2,005 $0 $2,005 Total 3.50 4.50 2.00 5.50 15.50 $3,365 $0 $3,365
City Administration
Community Dev. Total Labor
587
City of Richmond
Cost Recovery Analysis
Commercial Cannabis Regulatory Fees, 2023

Cannabis Processor Cultivation Annual Permit Fee
Figure 13 shows the determination of the fee for full cost recovery for the annual regulation and inspection fee for a Cultivation Business issued a Cannabis Processor Cultivation License from the Department of Cannabis Control. One inspection will be performed annually . As shown, the proposed fee is $3,365 annually per permit.

Figure 13 – Cannabis Processor Cultivation Annual Permit Fee

Cannabis Testing Annual Permit Fee
Figure 14 shows the determination of the fee for full cost recovery for the annual regulation and inspection fee of a Testing Business. One inspection will be performed annually . As shown, the proposed fee is $3,365 annually per permit.

Figure 14 – Cannabis Testing Annual Permit Fee

Outside Service
City Attorney Cannabis
General Tasks/Activities
Code Enfor
Manager
Code Enfor
Officer II
Attorney
ConsultantHours Cost Other Costs Total Cost
Fully Burdened Hourly Rate $173 $144 $232 $300
Preparation 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 3.00 $617 $0 $617
Facility Inspection - 1.00 - 2.00 3.00 $744 $0 $744
Oversight and Reporting 2.50 2.50 2.00 2.50 9.50 $2,005 $0 $2,005 Total 3.50 4.50 2.00 5.50 15.50 $3,365 $0 $3,365
City Administration
Community Dev. Total Labor
Outside Service
City Attorney Cannabis
General Tasks/Activities
Code Enfor
Manager
Code Enfor
Officer II
Attorney
ConsultantHours Cost Other Costs Total Cost
Fully Burdened Hourly Rate $173 $144 $232 $300
Preparation 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 3.00 $617 $0 $617
Facility Inspection - 1.00 - 2.00 3.00 $744 $0 $744
Oversight and Reporting 2.50 2.50 2.00 2.50 9.50 $2,005 $0 $2,005 Total 3.50 4.50 2.00 5.50 15.50 $3,365 $0 $3,365
City Administration
Community Dev. Total Labor
588
City of Richmond
Cost Recovery Analysis
Commercial Cannabis Regulatory Fees, 2023

Cannabis Reinspection Fee
Figure 15 shows the determination of the fee for full cost recovery for the cannabis reinspection fee for all cannabis business types. Reinspection will be performed on an as needed basis, when follow-up actions are required following an annual inspection or the City receives a complaint that warrants an inspection. As shown, the proposed fee is $1,463 annually per permit.

Figure 15 – Cannabis Processor Cultivation Annual Permit Fee

Cannabis Compliance Fee
In the event of a compliance issue, a compliance fee will be charged based on actual costs incurred by the City, using the fully burdened rates of the staff and consultant time spent to remedy the issue.

Outside Service
City Attorney Cannabis
General Tasks/Activities
Senior
Planner
Code Enfor
Manager
Code Enfor
Officer II
SR. Bldg
Inspector
Attorney
ConsultantHours Cost Other Costs Total Cost
Fully Burdened Hourly Rate $154 $173 $144 $161 $232 $300 Facility Inspection 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 7.00 $1,463 $0 $1,463 Total 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 7.00 $1,463 $0 $1,463 $1,463Reinspection Fee:

City Administration
Community Development Total Labor
589
City of Richmond
Cost Recovery Analysis
Commercial Cannabis Regulatory Fees, 2023

Other Fees
In addition to the fees outlined in this Fee Study, there are other fees that permit holders will be required to pay. These other fees fall into two categories:
 Fees that apply in relation to cannabis operations as they would to any other permitted business operation or land-use entitlement in the City; and  Fees that may be developed in relation to cannabis operations, but which are outside the scope of this Fee Study.
 In the event the state develops additional sub-license types, city staff may apply the nearest applicable fee based on a similar use determination.

Permit holders will be informed of additional fees in the usual course of applications and communications with the involved City departments.

Generally Applicable Fees
Existing fees that apply to cannabis operations include, for example, business licens e fees and building permit application fees. These fees generally apply to cannabis operations the same as they would to any other permitted business in City. Another example is the Conditional Use Permit Fee or Appeals Fee payable by any applicant other t han an applicant for a cannabis operator permit. For example, if a third party (e.g., any person other than a permit applicant) appeals a decision in relation the cannabis operator permit processes described identified above, that appellant will pay a nominal appeal fee. This amount is consistent with the fee that is generally applied by the Planning Department for third -party appeals in planning processes brought by anyone other than the applicant.
590
City of Richmond
Cost Recovery Analysis
Commercial Cannabis Regulatory Fees, 2023

Review and Update of Fees
This Fee Study has been prepared in the context of an emerging industry and regulatory framework for legalized cannabis in the State of California. It may be appropriate for the City to review and update the fees identified in this Fee Study:
 When the program under Article 15.04.610.270 has been implemented for a period of time sufficient for the City to have had an opportunity to review the actual costs incurred in processing applications and monitoring permits and to have achieved some efficiencies in processing applications and undertaking monitoring and compliance;  If Article 15.04.610.270 is substantially amended such that the time and/or processes involved are substantially changed.
591

TO: WCCTAC Board MEETING DATE: April 28, 2023
FR: Leah Greenblat, Transportation Planning Manager
RE: FY 23-24 Annual STMP Fee Adjustment

REQUESTED ACTION
Information only.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
The 2019 STMP Update became effective on July 1, 2019. The Master Cooperative Agreement, signed by all partner agencies, specifies an automatic annual fee adjustment so that the fees keep up with construction related inflation. The agreement specifies that the fee adjustment is based on the Engineering News Record’s February San Francisco Bay Area Construction Cost Index that covers the prior twelve months. This year that rate was 7.1%. (By comparison, if the January 2023 rate was used, the adjustment would be 8.4%.) WCCTAC staff is in the process of notifying partner agencies of this impending annual fee adjustment, which becomes effective July 1, 2023, so it may be incorporated into their local fee schedules.

Given the on-going state of inflation, this year’s fee increase is on par with last year’s adjustment which was 9.8%. It should be noted that Engineering New Record’s Bay Area Construction Cost Index is a tool commonly used by jurisdictions to make annual fee adjustments. The implementation of a different fee increase would require all six member jurisdictions to amend the Master Cooperative Agreement and related ordinances.

The FY 22-23 and FY 23-24 STMP fees are shown below.

FY 22-23 STMP Fee Rate
6,458$
3,181$
1,744$
4,133$

0.90$

7.82$

6.60$

10.35$
8,727$
STMP Fee per
Square ft.

STMP Fee
per Unit
Other (per AM pk hr trip)
Storage Facility
Industrial
Office
Single Family
Multi Family
Senior Housing
Hotel (per room)
Retail / Service
Type of Fee
3B-1
592

The STMP Quarterly Reporting form for FY 23-24 is included as an attachment. Local agency staff should begin using this version to report STMP fees after July 1, 2023.

ATTACHMENT
A. FY 2023-2024 STMP Quarterly Reporting Form
3B-2
593
Check Appropriate Box:Fiscal Year: _________
Reporting Period:FY Q1FY Q2FY Q3FY Q4
All sections of the report must be completed.July-SeptOct-DecJan-MarApr-June Attach check, payable to WCCTAC, to this report.Fee Submittal Due Date:31-Oct30-Jan30-Apr31-Jul Submit check and completed transmittal report to:

WCCTACJurisdiction's Name:
6333 Potrero Ave., Suite 100
El Cerrito, CA 94530Contact Name:

Contact Email:

No development to report this period. ORNotes:

Insert below the # of Units or # of Sq. Ft. to calculate the amnt. of fee collected.

List each project or project component separately. Add rows as needed. 6,916$ - $
3,407$ - $
1,868$ - $
4,426$ - $

0.97 $ - $

8.38 $ - $

7.07 $ - $

11.09$ - $
9,346$ - $
TOTAL FEES COLLECTED:- $
This should be the amount of your check to WCCTAC.

If a jurisdiction is collecting STMP fees for a development application at a rate different than what is currently in effect, provide on the following page the name and address of each development and which reason applies:

A.The development project is subject to a development agreement executed on _________________; B.The development submitted a vesting tentative map that was approved on ___________________; C.Other (explain legal basis for development not paying current adopted rates; n.b., a development application submitted in a prior year alone is an insufficient explanation) ___________________.

West County Subregional Transportation Mitigation Program (STMP) Developer Fees JURISDICTIONS' QUARTERLY TRANSMITTAL REPORT FORM for FY 2023-24 STMP Fee per
Square ft.

Total # Units
or Sq. Ft.

STMP Fee per
Unit
Other (per AM pk hr trip
Storage Facility
Industrial
Office
Single Family
Multi Family
Senior Housing
Hotel (per room)
Retail / Service
Type of Fee
Jurisdictions are required to submit this completed form to WCCTAC no later than 30 days following the close of each calendar quarter; whether or not there are fees to submit, continuing through the life of the Master Cooperative Agreement.

STMP $
Collected Project AddressDevelopment Name

3B-3
594
During the reporting period, has your agency granted:

1.STMP Fee Credits to any development? Yes No

2.STMP Fee Waivers/Exemptions to any development? Yes No If yes to either of the above, please respond to the questions on the next page.

If STMP Credits were granted, for each development complete the questions below:

1.What is the name and address of the development project receiving the credit?

2.What was the dollar value of the credit?

3.Which of the 20 STMP Projects was the credit used for?

4.What elements of the STMP project were completed with the credited funds? If Waivers/Exemptions of STMP Fees were granted, for each development, complete the questions below:

1.Were all other local fees waived/exempted for the development project? Yes No

2.Briefly explain why the development project's STMP fee was waived/exempted? Revised 6/30/2020
Respond to Different Fee Rates/Credit and Waiver/Exemption Questions here:

3B-4
595

1 RESOLUTION NO. -23

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND ESTABLISHING A MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED BY CITY DEPARTMENTS . THIS

RESOLUTION ESTABLISHES AND ESTABLISHING A FEE SCHEDULE WHICH WILL TO

IMPLEMENT COST RECOVERY, WHICH AND WILL SERVE AS THE BASIS FOR FUTURE FEE ADJUSTMENTS.
________________________________________________________________________

WHEREAS, Section 2.34.040 of the Municipal Code of the City of Richmond provides for the establishment of a Master Fee Schedule for the fees to be charged by the various City departments for City services; and

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richmond desire s to enact a Master Fee Schedule, which updates the fees assessed by the City departments to reflect t he actual cost s associated wi th providing the service s, as supported by the anal ysis prepared by Willdan Financial (incorporated herein by reference); and

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richmond desire s to enact a Master Fee Schedule which that can be utilized as the basis for t he future fee adjustments bas ed on the Employment Cost Index.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Richmond that, in accordance with Section 2.34.040 of the Municipal Code of the City of Richmond , there is hereby established a Master Fee Schedule for the City of Richmond.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Master Fee Schedul e for the City of Richmond which is established by this resolution is attached hereto as Exhibit A and is incorporated herein by this reference.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all fees set forth in the Master Fee Sched ule shall become effective thirty days after the adoption of this resolution.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any fee set forth in the Master Fee Schedule is for any reason found to be unconstitution al or invalid, such a decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining fees contained in the Master Fee Schedule.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted each of the fees individually set forth in th e Master Fee Schedule irrespective of the unconstitutionality or invalidity of any particular or specified fee.

--------------------------
596

2 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 June 6May 16, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:

____________________________________
City Clerk of the City of Richmond
(SEAL)

Approved:

______________________________
Mayor

Approved as to form:

______________________________
City Attorney
597

May 23, 2023

Human Resources

DATE: May 23, 2023
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Nickie Mastay, Deputy City Manager
Sharrone Taylor, Interim Director of Human Resources
Subject:

Appointment of a Retired Annuitant to Perform Critically Needed Special Project Work in the Finance Department
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no new fiscal impact or budget action necessary resulting from the recommended appointment. The
proposed expenditures will be funded by salary savings
in the respective department’s approved FY 2022-2023
budgets – (Finance Department Part-Time Budget
01171115-400006).

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None.

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

City Council approval is requested to appoint retired
annuitant Delmy Cuellar prior to the end of the CalPERS required 180-day waiting period following her retirement.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

APPROVE the appointment of Delmy Cuellar as extra
help/special project retired annuitant for a limited term, special project role not to exceed one year; and ADOPT
the resolution approving the 180-day wait period
exception – Human Resources Department (Nickie
Mastay/Sharrone Taylor 510-620-6602). This item was
continued from the May 16, 2023, meeting.

AGENDA
REPORT
598

May 23, 2023

DISCUSSION:

The City Manager’s Office recently petitioned Human Resources to hire a retired employee to provide extra help/special project finance services work for a limited term not to exceed one (1) year.

Ms. Cuellar retired as the Director of Finance on March 31, 2023, after sixteen years of service to the City. The City is currently recruiting for the Director of Finance vacancy, and the day-to-day operations of this position are being handled by the Deputy City Manager and Deputy Director of Finance until the vacancy is filled. (Ms. Cuellar would not be serving as Interim Director of Finance.)

Ms. Cuellar’s experience and expertise are critically needed for the Finance Department to complete several major ongoing projects, including the Corrective Action Plan required by the State Auditor, the Fiscal Year 2023-2024 budget, and implementation of Trak-It software. Ms. Cuellar will provide management assistance with these special projects, which are all critical to meeting the Finance Department’s obligations.

The requirements for retired annuitant appointments are based on California Public Employee Retirement Law (PERL) and federal tax law for post-retirement services provided by a retired annuitant. These laws allow employment of a retired annuitant in two (2) specific circumstances — (1) to provide "extra help"; or (2) to work in a vacant position on an interim basis during the recruitment process. Extra help appointments include when the retired annuitant is hired to perform work of limited duration, such as elimination of a backlog, special project work, or to perform work exceeding regular staff work. Additional restrictions for extra help appointments include:

 The retired annuitant must provide services of limited duration;  Compensation may be no more than another employee would receive for similar work; and
 The annuitant’s work must not exceed 960 hours in any fiscal year.

CalPERS retired annuitants are generally prohibited from returning to work for a CalPERS employer within 180 days of their retirement. However, Government Code section 7522.56(f) provides for several exceptions from this general rule. One exception is when the employer “certifies the nature of the employment and that the appointment is necessary to fill a critically needed position before 180 days have passed and the appointment has been approved by the governing body of the employer in a public meeting.” Such an appointment must be approved as an item of business not on the consent calendar.

The requested return date for Ms. Cuellar is less than 180 days after her retirement date, and therefore her appointment must fall within one of the exceptions under Government Code section 7522.56(f) in order to comply with CalPERS rules. City staff 599

May 23, 2023
believes that Ms. Cuellar’s appointment meets the critical necessity exception, which requires a City Council resolution. Therefore, City staff is requesting that City Council adopt a resolution certifying the critical need for Ms. Cuellar’s appointment to perform extra help/special project Finance Department work such that she can work for the City as a retired annuitant before 180 days have passed since her retirement.

ANALYSIS:

Ms. Cuellar possesses specialized skills required to perform the extra help/ special project work needed by the Finance Department and will perform the aforementioned services for a limited duration not to exceed one (1) year total. The extra help/ special project work which she will perform is essential to maintaining the basic ongoing Finance Department operations. Specifically, her professional expertise is required for the following special projects: responding to a state audit, implementing new City-wide software that is used for a critical function in Finance (Measure U), providing City financial information and analysis to be used in negotiations with two bargaining groups, beginning implementation of a class and comp study, and initiating budget preparation for the upcoming fiscal year.

In accordance with applicable laws, Ms. Cuellar will be compensated hourly at $95.90 per hour consistent with the Project Manager III position, the position which includes duties most comparable to those specific tasks that will be performed by Ms. Cuellar.

The current hourly compensation range for the position of Project Manager III is $60.24 per hour to $95.90 per hour. She will not receive any other benefits, incentives, compensation in lieu of benefits, or any other forms of compensation in addition to the hourly rate. Her work schedule will be approximately 15-20 hours per week.

Accordingly, City staff believes Ms. Cuellar’s appointment meets both the independent statutory basis for employing a retired annuitant to provide extra help and the statutory exception to the 180-day waiting period for critically needed positions.

RECOMMENDATION:

City Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Adopt the Resolution approving an exception to the 180-day waiting period for Delmy Cuellar; and

2. Approve the employment agreement between the City and Ms. Cuellar, and authorize the City Manager to execute.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – 180-Day Wait Period Resolution for Delmy Cuellar Attachment 2 – Employment Agreement

600
01337.0004/888736.1
RESOLUTION NO. _____

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA, FOR 180-DAY WAIT PERIOD EXCEPTION
G.C. SECTIONS 7522.56 & 21224

WHEREAS, in compliance with Government Code section 7522.56 the City of Richmond City Council must provide CalPERS this certification resolution when hiring a retiree before 180 days has passed since his or her retirement date; and WHEREAS, Delmy Cuellar retired from the City of Richmond in the position of Director of Finance, effective March 31, 2023; and
WHEREAS, Gov. Code section 7522.56 requires that post -retirement employment commence no earlier than 180 days after the retirement date, which is September 28, 2023 (date of 181st day after retirement) without this certification resolution; and WHEREAS, Gov. Code section 7522.56 provides that this exception to the 180-day wait period shall not apply if the retiree accepts any retirement-related incentive; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richmond and Delmy Cuellar certify that she has not and will not receive a Golden Handshake or any other retirement-related incentive; and
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby appoints Delmy Cuellar as an extra help retired annuitant to perform extra help/ special project work for the City of Richmond Finance Department under Government Code section 21224, effective May 22, 2023; and WHEREAS, the entire employment agreement, contract or appointment document between Delmy Cuellar and the City of Richmond has been reviewed by this body and is attached herein; and
WHEREAS, no matters, issues, terms or conditions related to this employment and appointment have been or will be placed on a consent calendar; and WHEREAS, the employment shall be limited to 960 hours per fiscal year for all CalPERS employers; and
WHEREAS, the compensation paid to retirees cannot be less than the minimum nor exceed the maximum monthly base salary paid to other employees performing comparable duties, divided by 173.33 to equal the hourly rate; and WHEREAS, the maximum monthly base salary for the Project Manager III position, which performs the most comparable duties, is $16,622 and the hourly equivalent is $95.90, 601
01337.0004/888736.1
and the minimum base salary for this position is $10,442 and the hourly equivalent is $60.24; and
WHEREAS, the hourly rate paid to Delmy Cuellar will be $95.90; and WHEREAS, Delmy Cuellar will not receive any other benefit, incentive, compensation in lieu of benefit or other form of compensation in addition to this hourly pay rate.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Richmond hereby certifies the nature of the appointment of Delmy Cuellar as described herein and detailed in the attached employment agreement and that this appointment is necessary to perform critically needed extra help/ special project services to support the City of Richmond Finance Department because such appointment is essential to maintaining the basic ongoing department operations and completing specific financial projects including responding to a state audit, implementing new software, and initiating budget preparation for the upcoming fiscal year.

I certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting thereof held May 16, 2023, by the following vote:

-----------
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting thereof held by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:

_____________________________

CLERK OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
(SEAL)

602
01337.0004/888736.1
Approved:

____________________
Mayor

Approved as to form:

____________________
City Attorney

603

01337.0004/888737.1 Page 1 of 6

CITY OF RICHMOND

PART-TIME, LIMITED DURATION EXTRA HELP/SPECIAL PROJECT

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
This PART-TIME, LIMITED DURATION EXTRA HELP /SPECIAL PROJECT EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made by and between the CITY OF RICHMOND (“City”) and DELMY CUELLAR (“Employee”). The City and Employee may be referred to individually as a “Party” or collectively as “the Parties.”

RECITALS
WHEREAS, Government Co de Sections 21224(a) and 7522.56(c) permit retired annuitants under the California Public Employees’ Retirement S ystem (“CalPERS ”) to be employed without reinstatement from retirement upon appointment by a public agency because the retired person has specialized skill needed in performing work of limited duration; and WHEREAS, as a CalPERS retired annuit ant under Government Code Sections 21224(a) and 7522.56(c), Employee possesses extensive professional experience in municipal finance and budgeting and therefore has specialized skills to perform services critically-needed by the City under this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, Employee recently retired from the position of Finance Director for t he City, with a retirement date of less than 180 -days prior to the commencement of employment pursuant to this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Cal. Government Code § 7522.56(f), a retired person shall not be employed as a retir ed annuitant for a period of 180 days following the date of retirement, unless he or she meets one of several exceptions, including that “[t]he employer certifies the nature of the employment and that the appointment is necessary to fil l a critically neede d position before 180 days have passed and the appointment has been approved by the governing body of the employer in a public meeting[;]” and
WHEREAS, concurrent with the approval of this Agree ment, the City Council adopted Resolution No. XX-XX, certify ing the nature of Employee’s employment and that the appointment is necessary to provide critically needed services in t he Finance Department before 180 days have passed since Employee’s retirement; and
WHEREAS, CalPERS requires in order “[t]o secure a 18 0-day wait period exception, the employer must submit the resolution -certification package and a copy of the retiree’s employment agreement or personnel appointment d ocument to CalPERS before the first day of employment[;]” and
604

01337.0004/888737.1 Page 2 of 6
WHEREAS, Employee acknowledges that employment pursuant to this Agreement is at- will and of a limited duration for a definite period of time, as described below; and WHEREAS, the City desires to hire Employee as an at-will, part-time employee in order to provide critically needed special project or a limited duration of time; and WHEREAS, the P arties wish to estab lish the terms and conditions of Employee’s services to the City, as described in this Agreement.

NOW, THEREF ORE, in consideratio n o f the mutual covenants contained herein, City and Employee hereby agree as follows:

AGREEMENT
Section 1: TERM
The term of this Agreement shall commence on May 22, 2023, and shall automatically terminate on May 21, 2024, unless termin ated prior to this date by eit her Party (“Term”).

Accordingly, the Term will in no event exceed the 960 -hour per fiscal year limit under Government Code Section 2122 4(a). Employee acknowledges she is an at -will, limited duration extra-help/special project employee who may be terminated, with or without cause, and with or without notice, at any time by the City Manager. May 22, 2023, shall be Employee’s “Hire Date” for purposes of this Agreement.

Section 2: DUTIES, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND WORK HOURS
A. Employee shall be appointed to perform extra-help/special project work critically needed by the City’s Finance Department to maintain basic operations for a limited duration of time. The special project work will consist of the following tasks:

 Responding to a state audit.
 Implementing new City-wide software that is used for a critical function in the Finance Department (Measure U).
 Providing City financial information and analysis to be used in negotiations with two bargaining groups.
 Beginning implementation of a class and comp study.
 Initiating budget preparation for the upcoming fiscal year.

B. Employee acknowledges that City Hall is open Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., including a standard one hour lunch period . Employee shall work under the direction of the City Manager and Deputy City Manager- Internal Services. Subject to the Term as stated in Section 1 of this Agreement, Employee shall work the number of hours each week as directed and authorized by the Deputy City Manager – Internal Services, anticipated to be 15-20 hours per week, provided that Employee shall not work more than forty (40) hours in a single week.
605

01337.0004/888737.1 Page 3 of 6
C. All data, st udies, reports, and other docu ments prepared and/or reviewed by Employee while per forming her duties during the Term of this Agreement shall be furnishe d to and become the property of th e City, without restriction or limitation on their use. All ideas, memoranda, specificati ons, p lans, procedures, drawings, descriptions, computer progr am data, input recor d data, written information, and other materials e ither cr eated by or provided to Employee in connection with the performance of this Agreem ent shall be h eld confidential by Employee to the extent permitted by applicable law. Such mate rials, without the p rior written consent of the City Manager or designee, shall not be used by Employee for any purpose other than the performance of her duties. Nor shall such materials be disclosed to any person or entity not connected with the performance of services under this Agreement, except as required by law.

Section 3: COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS
A. The City agrees to compensate Employee at the hourly rate of Ninety-Five dollars and ninety cents ($95.90), which is within hourly compensation range for the Project Manager III, the position which includes duties most comparable to those specific tasks that will be performed by Employee under this Agreement . The current hourly compens ation range for the position of Project Manager III is $60.24 per hour to $95.90 per hour.

B. Employee shall not be eligible for any o ther benefits, incentives, compensation in lieu of benefits, or any other forms of compensation in addition to the hourly rate.

Section 4: RESIGNATION/TERMINATION
A. Employee may resign at any ti me; provided, however, Employee shall reasonably provide the City Manager with at least two (2) weeks advance written notice.

B. Employee is an at -will employee and serves at the will and pleasu re of the City Manager and may be terminated at any time, with or without cause, and with or without notice.

C. After Notice o f Resigna tion or Termination, Employee shall cooperate with the City, as requested by the City, to effect a transition of Employee’s responsibilities and duties and to ensure that the City is aware of all matters being handled by Employee.

D. Employee shall not be e ntitled to severance pay and Employee expressly waives any and all rights with respect to severance pay.

Section 5: NOTICES
Notices required to be ser ved pursuant to this Agreement shall be served in person or by first-class U.S. mail addressed as follows:

City
Shasa Curl, City Manager
City of Richmond_______
City Manager’s Office
450 Civic Center Plaza, Ste 300
606

01337.0004/888737.1 Page 4 of 6
Richmond, CA 94804

Employee
Delmy Cuellar
Address on file with the City
Section 6: GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
The general terms and conditions of this Agreement are described as follows:

A. Indemnification. To the extent mandated by the California Government Code, the City shall defend, hold harmless, and indemnify Employee against any tort, professional liability, claim or demand, or other legal action arising out of an alleged act or om ission occurring in the performance of Employee’s services un der this Agreement . This section shall not apply to any intentional tort or crime committed by Employee, to any action outsi de the course and sco pe of Employee’s employment, or any other intenti onal or malicious conduct or gross negligence of Employee.

B. Entire Agreement . The text of this Agreement shall constitute th e entire and exclusive agreement between t he Parties. All pri or oral or written co mmunications, understandings, or agreements betwe en the Parties not set forth her ein shall be superseded in total by this Agreement. No amendment or modification to this Ag reement may be made except by a written agreement signed by the Employee and the City Manager.

C. Assignment. This Agreement is not assignable by either the City or Employee.

D. Severability. In t he event any provi sion of this Agreement is finally held or determined to be illegal or void by a court having jurisdiction over the Parties, the remainder of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect unless the part s found to be illegal or void are wholly inseparable from the remaining portions of this Agreement.

E. Effect of Waiver . The f ailure of either Party to insi st on strict complian ce with any of the terms, covenants, or conditions in this Agreement by the other Party shall not be deemed a waiver of that ter m, covenant, or condition, nor shall any waiver or relinq uishment of any right or power at any one time or times be deemed a waiver or relinquishment of that right or power for all or any other time or times.

F. Governing Law and Jurisdictio n. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with th e laws of the State of Ca lifornia, which are in fu ll force and effect as of the date of execution. Any action to interpret or enforce the terms of this Agreement shall be held exclusively in a state court in Contra Costa County, California. Employee expressly waives any right to remove any such action from Contra Costa County.

G. Effective Date. This Agreement shall not become effective until it has been signed by Employee and approved by the City Manager.
607

01337.0004/888737.1 Page 5 of 6
H. Effect of Agreement on Employee’s CalPERS Retirement Benefits . The City makes n o representation on the impact, if any, th is Agreeme nt shall or may have upon her CalPERS retirement benefits, status, duties , and/or obligations. Employee acknowledges that in entering into this Agreement, she has not relied upon any s uch representations (none of which being in existe nce) in assessing the CalPERS-related impact of her employment. Therefore, Employee releases the City from any and all CalPERS -related claims or liabilities that may arise in connection with her employment pursuant to this Agreement.

I. Employee Certifications. Employee expressly certifies and warrants to the City that she has not received any unemployment insurance payments for retired annuitant work for any public employer within the 12 months prior to her appointment date. Employee certifies that she has reached “Normal Retirement Age ” as defined by CalPERS. Employee certifies that she did not receive a golden handshake or other employer incentive to retire.

J. Compliance With 96 0 Ho urs Per Fis cal Year L imit. Employee further c ertifies and warrants to the City that her anticipated work schedul e of 15-20 hours per week will not cause her to exceed the 960 hours per fi scal year limit pursuant to Go vernment Code Section 21224(a), including work for any other CalPERS employer during the current fiscal year.

K. Conflicts Prohibited. During the term of this A greement, Employee shall not engage in any business or tr ansaction or maintain a financial interest which conflicts, or reasonably might be expected to conflict, with the proper di scharge of Employee’s duties under this Agreement. Employee shall comply with all requirements of law, including but not limited to, Sections 1090, 1125, and 87100 et seq. of the Government Code, and all other simil ar statutory and administrative rules.

L. Independent Legal Advice. The City and Employee represent and warrant to each other that each ha d the opportunity to receive legal advice from independent and separate legal counsel with respect to th e legal effect o f this Agreement, that each has carefull y reviewed this entire Agreement , that each and every term th ereof is understood , and that the terms of this Agreement are contractual and not a mere recital. This Agreement shall not be construed against the Party or its representatives who drafted it or who drafted any portion thereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Richmond has caused this Agr eement to be signed and executed on its behalf by its City Manager, and executed by the Employee.

CITY OF RICHMOND,

Dated: ___________________________ __________________________________ Shasa Curl, City Manager

EMPLOYEE,

In signing this Agreement, Employee understands and agre es that she is an at-will, part- time employee and that her rights to employment wit h the City are governed by the terms and conditions of this Agreement rath er than the ord inances, resolutions, and policies of the C ity of 608

01337.0004/888737.1 Page 6 of 6
Richmond which might otherwise apply to classified or other employees of the City. Employee further acknowledges tha t she was given the opportun ity to consult wi th an attorney prior to signing this Agreement.

Dated: ___________________________ Signed: ___________________________ Delmy Cuellar, Employee
609

May 23, 2023

City Council

DATE: May 23, 2023
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Councilmember Jimenez

Subject:

Resolution in Support of AB617 Community Air
Protection Program
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact of supporting the Community Air Protection Program

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

7/10/2010 Adopted Reso 88-10 opposing Prop 23
10/25/16 Adopted final Climate Action Plan
7/24/2018 Est a goal of becoming a fossil fuel free city 5/24/2022 Adopted Reso 67-22 Reaffirming climate
emergency

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

Richmond is one of the most polluted cities in the state.

The goals of AB 617 Community Air Protection Program
provide a road map to reduce pollution and improve
regulation.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

RECEIVE a presentation from Bay Area Air Quality
Management District Boardmembers Marisol Cantu and
Jeffrey Kilbreth; and ADOPT a resolution in support of
AB617 Community Air Protection Program.

Councilmember Claudia Jimenez (510-620-6565)

AGENDA
REPORT
610

May 23, 2023
DISCUSSION:

In response to AB617 (C. Garcia, Chapter 136, Statutes of 2017), CARB established the Community Air Protection Program (CAPP or Program). The Program’s focus is to reduce exposure in communities most impacted by air pollution. Communities around the State are working together to develop and implement new strategies to measure air pollution and reduce health impacts. The Richmond-North Richmond-San Pablo Community Steering Committee has been working to develop a Community Emissions Reduction Plan with Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD).

It is a well-known fact that Richmond is one of the most polluted communities in the state. Seventy-five per cent of our census tracts are in the top 10% for asthma state- wide. This important legislation provides us with the best opportunity we’ve ever had to reduce pollution significantly and to improve regulation and drive continuous reductions.

The Richmond and San Pablo City Councils have roles to play in making this a success.

The presentation will focus on providing a view of the emerging top strategies and the timetable for community education and engagement and plan approval at the BAAQMD and CARB board levels.

As members of the AB 617 Community Steering Committee for Richmond, North Richmond and San Pablo, we are also in support of Assemblymember Buffy Wicks’ AB 1465. To significantly reduce pollution in our community, we will need many strategies.

One of them involves significantly stiffening penalties on refineries that violate California environmental regulations, which AB 1465 would address. In the past four years, Chevron’s Richmond refinery has been responsible for more significant air quality violations than any other single source in BAAQMD’s nine-county territory. And more flaring incidents than any other refinery. Its major flaring incidents have increased by a factor of four since 2018. And we don’t even know how much “minor” flaring events have increased. These aren’t counted, even though they take a psychic toll on our community, above and beyond the pollution they may generate.

Councilmember Jimenez is asking the Richmond City Council to support AB617 and send a letter to Assemblymember Wick’s in support of AB 1465 Nonvehicular air pollution: civil penalties. Forcing refineries to improve their operational management is essential for public health, environmental justice, and regulatory effectiveness. AB 1465 needs to be passed.

Bill Text: Existing law prohibits a person from discharging from nonvehicular sources air contaminants or other materials that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to the public, or that endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of the public, or that cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property, as specified. Existing law establishes maximum civil penalties for a person who violates air pollution laws from nonvehicular sources.

This bill would triple specified civil penalties, as provided, if the violation results from a discharge from a stationary source required by federal law to be included in an 611

May 23, 2023
operating permit program established pursuant to specified provisions of the federal Clean Air Act, the stationary source is a refinery, and the discharge contains or includes one or more toxic air contaminants, as identified by the State Air Resources Board. The bill would define “refinery” for this purpose.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Resolution
Attachment 2 – Sample Letter supporting AB 1465 Nonvehicular Air Pollution: civil penalties
Attachment 3 – Presentation Slides
612
Reso. No. XX-17

RESOLUTION NO. XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA, IN SUPPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN AB 617 COMMUNITY EMISSIONS REDUCTION PLAN BY THE AB 617 COMMUNITY STEERING COMMITTEE AND

THE BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

WHEREAS, the Richmond community suffers negative health impacts from a combination of high industrial, rail, marine and truck pollution, and seventy-five per cent of our census tracts are in the top 10% for asthma state-wide; and

WHEREAS, flaring at the Chevron refinery has increased by a factor of four since the “Modernized” refinery was brought online in late 2018; and

WHEREAS, The AB 617 Richmond-North Richmond-San Pablo Community Steering Committee has been working with BAAQMD and CARB for two years and is in the final stages of making strategy recommendations for reducing emissions and improving public health.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Richmond City Council does hereby applaud the California State legislature and CARB for funding this program and making it a priority and encourage all concerned to look at all strategies that can help reduce the highest impact pollutants by at least 30-40% focusing particularly on the emissions strongly linked to chronic health problems.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Richmond City Council does hereby ask that the report and recommended strategies directly address the following key issues of community concern:
 Achieving a major, seventy-five per cent or greater reduction in the number of flaring incidents at the Chevron refinery.
 Setting aggressive goals for reducing PM 2.5, nitrogen oxides, nickel, manganese, benzene, sulfuric acid, DPM, formaldehyde, acrolein, arsenic, hydrogen cyanide, and hydrochloric acid emissions as these appear to be the greatest contributors to chronic health problems in our community.
 Requiring the tankers visiting the Chevron wharf to plug into shore power and convert to less polluting engines as soon as possible.
 How to improve public education and community understanding of our pollution- related health problems, our emission sources, and our emission reduction goals and achievements.

BE IN FINALLY RESOLVED, that there be sufficient funding to support a broad, far-reaching education and engagement program during the summer and fall of this year and the ongoing provision of information on our emission reduction goals and achievements.

**********************

I certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting thereof held Insert Date, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:

PAMELA CHRISTIAN

CLERK OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
(SEAL)
613
Reso. No. XX-17

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. XX, finally passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting held on INSERT DATE ADOPTED.

Pamela Christian, Clerk of the City of Richmond
614

SAMPLE LETTER

May 16, 2023

Honorable Members of the California State Assembly
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814

As members of the AB 617 Community Steering Committee for Richmond, North Richmond and San Pablo, we are writing in support of Assemblymember Buffy Wicks’ AB 1465.

Our committee has been working with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and California Air Resources Board for two years to develop our Community Emissions Reduction Program, per the guidelines and goals of AB 617. We will be wrapping up our recommendations this summer and presenting them to our community of 160,000 people this fall.

To significantly reduce pollution in our community, we will need many strategies. One of them involves significantly stiffening penalties on refineries that violate California environmental regulations, which AB 1465 would address. In the past four years, Chevron’s Richmond refinery has been responsible for more significant air quality violations than any other single source in BAAQMD’s nine-county territory. And more flaring incidents than any other refinery. Its major flaring incidents have increased by a factor of four since 2018. And we don’t even know how much “minor” flaring events have increased. These aren’t counted, even though they take a psychic toll on our community, above and beyond the pollution they may generate.

Current fines and penalties have not been sufficient to change Chevron’s behavior or hold it accountable in any serious fashion.

The Chevron Richmond refinery generated roughly $1.25 billion in profits in 2022. For a corporation making profits of this magnitude, the occasional $25,000 fine is unlikely to be viewed as either a hardship or a deterrent.

Forcing refineries to improve their operational management is essential for public health, environmental justice, and regulatory effectiveness. AB 1465 needs to be passed.

Sincerely,

Members of the Richmond-North Richmond- San Pablo AB 617 Community Steering Committee

Heidi Swillinger

615
Update on our
AB 617 CERP
Progress
Jeff Kilbreth & Marisol Cantu
616
Agenda
AB 617 Update
• Five Reasons AB 617 is a Big Deal
• Some background on AB 617 and our pollution
• Types of Strategies
• Timeline
• Examples of Ways the City Council can help
May 23, 2023 2617
Five Reasons AB 617 is a Big Deal
AB 617 Update

1. A groundbreaking focus on improving public health
in California’s most polluted communities

2. Our pollution has long been under-estimated and is
seriously affecting our public health
• asthma, diabetes, insulin resistance, obesity, low birth weights, cardiovascular problems, Parkinson's
• cognitive development, child behavior problems, adult mental health, Alzheimer's

3. The scope of the effort (and so far, the funding)

4. Community engagement and priority-setting

5. Improved data and regulatory accountability
May 23, 2023 3618
Some basic background
AB 617 Update
• CERP stands for Community Emissions Reduction
Program (or Plan)
• There is also a Community Air Monitoring Plan
• Our CERP Area covers over 160,000 people in Richmond, North Richmond & San Pablo
• Along with West Oakland, we are one of the first two
communities selected in the Bay Area and one of 17 state- wide
• We have an opportunity to lead the way for all refinery communities in the state
• We are different from West Oakland because their pollution is dominated by trucks and ships (both regulated by CARB) and ours’s is dominated by the biggest refinery in the state (regulated by BAAQMD)
May 23, 2023 4619
For Toxic Air,
oil refineries
are the
worst….

AB 617 Update
May 23, 2023 5620
Over 75%
of our
census
tracts are
in the
state’s top
10% for
Asthma
AB 617 Update
May 23, 2023 6621
Most Health-damaging Emissions
(with Chevron’s Contribution)
Criteria Air Pollutants
• PM 2.5 (61%)
• NOx (35%)
• SOx (88%)
Toxic Air Contaminants
• Nickel (70%)
• Manganese (77%)
• Benzene (13%)
• Sulfuric Acid (100%)
• DPM (24%)
• Formaldehyde (37%)
• Acrolein (28%)
• Arsenic (80%)
• Hydrogen Cyanide (100%)
• Hydrochloric Acid (96%)
• 1, 3-butadiene (3%)
• Cadmium (78%
• Naphthalene (75%)
• Hexavalent Chromium (93%)
AB 617 Update May 23, 2023 7622
Many strategies will be needed, including
• Better emission, exposure & health risk
data
• Better health impact data
• Exposure mitigation programs
• Local land use regulation
• Urban Greening
• Community involvement
• Legislative initiatives
• Stronger regulation of emissions
• More effective penalties & enforcement
• More accountability for major sources
• More accountability for BAAQMD
• More accountability for CARB
• Better help for major project reviews
• Better monitoring of emission spikes &
flaring events with better alerts
AB 617 Update May 23, 2023 8623
Timeline
Summer/Fall
2023
Community
Engagement &
Education
Review &
Finalization of
Strategies
Q1 2024
BAAQMD
Board Review
& Approval
Q2 2024
CARB Review &
Approval
Initial Funding of
Implementation
2025
1st year goals
2030
5-year goals
AB 617 Update May 23, 2023 9624
Examples of where the City Council can help
Drive Accountability
• Annual Meeting with reports from BAAQMD
management on violations issued, fines levied &
health damaging emissions reduced
• Annual Meeting with reports from refinery
management on emission and flaring event
reductions achieved and plans for next year
• Permit condition or ordinance required
• County ISO not the right vehicle
• Demand that the AG’s Office and the Legislature
look at export limits.
• If domestic usage of gas and jet fuel declines,
shouldn’t reduced pollution for us be protected?
Increase Engagement
• Review our CERP and comment formally to BAAQMD’s
senior management next fall
• Encourage CC Health Services to expand its public
health programs (education and mitigation)
• Find out how much toxic emissions went up after the
Modernization Project went online & discuss with
Chevron management
• Insist on getting the support you need in reviewing
major proposed projects like the hydrogen projects
• Support important legislation
• AB 1465 (Wicks) that will triple fines for refinery
violations
• SB 674 (Gonzalez) that will triple the number of
pollutants monitored on refinery fencelines
AB 617 Update May 23, 2023 10625

May 23, 2023

City Council

DATE: May 23, 2023
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM: Councilmember Soheila Bana

Subject:

Presentation from Richmond Police Department and
Family Justice Center on Addressing Sex Trafficking
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no cost associated with receiving the presentation on anti sex trafficking efforts

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

The City Council has supported the Human Trafficking
Unit in the RPD and community programs working to
combat this issue.

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

SB 357 includes policy that prohibits the police from
approaching a suspected prostitute for loitering.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

RECEIVE a presentation from the Richmond Police
Department, the Contra Costa County Human Trafficking
Task Force, and the Family Justice Center on anti-sex
trafficking efforts. (Councilmember Soheila Bana (620-
6743)

DISCUSSION:

Councilmember Bana requested a presentation on current collaborative efforts with RPD regarding human trafficking.

AGENDA
REPORT
626

May 23, 2023
Captain John Lopez with the Richmond Police Department will discuss the following topics:

- Mission and Vision
- SB 357 / Loitering for the Purposes of Engaging in a Prostitution Offense o Prohibits law enforcement to detain/arrest an individual for loitering in a public place with the intent to commit prostitution.
o California Penal Code Section 653.22 no longer exists o What is the impact for Richmond?
- Police Operations and Strategic Plan
- Current Staffing
o The decreased staffing within the police department has negatively impacted efforts from RPD

Katrina Natale, Director of the Contra Costa County Human Trafficking Task Force will discuss the following topics:

- Overview
o Vision, Mission, Co-Leadership, partners, organization - Key Principles & Activities
o Achievements (Richmond Focus)
o 23rd Street Corridor Working Group
- Strategic Plan: 2022-2025

Susun Kim, Esq., Executive Director of the Contra Costa Family Justice Center will discuss the following topics:

- Mission, Values and Mission
- Community Services
o Serving families affected by domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, elder abuse, and human trafficking

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 - Presentation Slides
627
Human Trafficking
Presentation
Presented by:

Richmond Police Department
Contra Costa Human Trafficking Task Force
Family Justice Center – Contra CostaCounty
628
Mission
The Mission of the Richmond Police Department is to prevent crime and maintain order. We work in partnership with our diverse community to help solve neighborhood problems, address root causes of crime and improve the quality of life in Richmond. We strive to perform in a manner that promotes public trust, confidence and a sense of safety and security. 629
Human Trafficking Law Changes
 Senate Bill 357 (SB 357): Loitering for the Purposes of Engaging in a Prostitution Offense  Prohibits law enforcement to detain/arrest an individual for loitering in a public place with the intent to commit prostitution
 Penal Code 653.22 PC no longer exists
 305 W&I: Children – Temporary Custody and Detention
 Any peace officer may, without a warrant, take into temporary custody a minor:
(a) When the officer has reasonable cause for believing that the minor is a person described in Section 300, and, in addition, that the minor has an immediate need for medical care, or the minor is in immediate danger of physical or sexual abuse, or the physical environment or the fact that the child is left unattended poses an immediate threat to the child’s health or safety. In cases in which the child is left unattended, the peace officer shall first attempt to contact the child’s parent or guardian to determine if the parent or guardian is able to assume custody of the child.

If the parent or guardian cannot be contacted, the peace officer shall notify a social worker in the county welfare department to assume custody of the child
630
Our Focus
 Identify and investigate human trafficking cases
 Protect
 Prosecution
 Prevention
631
Strategic Plan
“We work in partnership with our diverse community to help solve neighborhood problems, address root causes of crime and improve the quality of life in Richmond.” Specific strategies the Richmond Police Department is implementing to achieve our mission:
- We are actively involved with the Contra Costa Human Trafficking Task Force - 23rd Street Corridor Working Group
- Officer Development
- Victim Service Partners
- Outreach
- Direct impact operations
HUMAN

TRAFFICKING
IMPACT

COMMUNITY

MEMBERS
FAMILY

JUSTICE
CENTER
LAW

ENFORCEMENT
HT
TASK
FORCE

BUSINESS

LEADERS
STATE

LEGISLATION
632
Vision
To eradicate all forms of
human trafficking in CCC…by:
• Identifying and supporting
victims/survivors
• Holding traffickers
accountable through
effective prosecution
Key Principles
• Co-leadership
• Collaboration
• Multidisciplinarity
• Trauma-informed
• Victim-centered
• Culturally-responsive
• Survivor-led
• Evidence-based
633
Who We Are
Director
Investigators
HT Analyst
Designated HT prosecutors
Specialized HT Advocates
HT Program Manager
HT Case Specialists
Funded Victim Service
Partners:
• Bay Area Legal Aid
• International Rescue
Committee
• Justice At Last
• My Sister’s House
35+ Additional Partners
634
Key Activities & Strategic Plans

1. Proactive ID, investigation,
prosecution & services

2. Strengthen & expand collaborative
partnerships

3. Protocol development

4. Coordinated, comprehensive
victim services

5. Outreach, training & capacity
building
23 rd
Street Corridor Working Group
Collaborative, multidisciplinary engagement to
address human trafficking, crime and related
livability issues in the area.
635
636

HISTORY AND BACKGROUND
SB 968 declares Contra Costa
County the first Zero
Tolerance for Domestic
Violence County in California
(now Alliance to End Abuse)
2001
Planning efforts for West
Family Justice Center began
2009
West Family Justice Center
pilot opened in Richmond
2011
West Family Justice Center
moved to permanent site in
May
2015
New non-profit’s 13-member
board seated in September
2016
West Center expanded to 36
MOU partners
2019
Remained physically open
during COVID-19
2020
West Center served 1,328
clients and 1,361 children
2022
637
Family Justice Center Services
Serving victims of interpersonal violence regardless of income, gender, location and immigration status.

Long-Term Safety
• Parent education
• Job Training
Crisis Support
• Legal services
• Case management
• Richmond Police Dept.

SVU on-site
• Deputy District
Attorney on-site
• TeleCARE
• Trauma Recovery Center
• Child Abuse Counseling
Community
• Project Connect
• Backpack Drive
• Community events
• Family Justice Institute
638

May 23, 2023

City Council

DATE: May 23, 2023
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Councilmember Soheila Bana
Angel Montoya, Fire Chief

Subject:

Hilltop Green Emergency Evacuation Road
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The estimate to cover the design and management is $70,000 per Contra Costa County Fire. An appropriation
of $30,000 from the General Fund is required to cover
the cost. The Fire Trail Access fund will cover the
remaining $40,000.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

Councilmember Bana requests the City of Richmond to
cover the design and management of the Richmond
portion of the emergency evacuation road.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

DISCUSS and APPROPRIATE funding from the General
Fund in an amount not to exceed $30,000, and from the
Fire Trail Access fund in an amount not to exceed
$40,000, for the design and management of the Hilltop
Green Emergency Evacuation Road. Councilmember
Bana (510-620-6743).

AGENDA
REPORT
639

May 23, 2023
DISCUSSION:

Councilmember Bana has been in conversation with Assistant Fire Chief/Marshal Chris Bachman, Contra Costa County, regarding funding and management of the Hilltop Green Emergency Evacuation Road. She is requesting the City of Richmond to absorb the costs for design and management. If the City of Richmond manages the project, the project would go out to bid for a contractor to perform the work.

Public Works has reported an initial estimated cost for the emergency evacuation road as approximately $230,000. This cost may increase due to conditions outside the City’s control, such as the presence of an underground sanitary sewer line and electrical wooden pole. The relocation of one of these elements, if not both, may be needed after the design phase is complete. County Assistant Fire Chief Bachman has indicated that Measure X could cover the cost, but would expect the City to absorb the cost of the design and management, totaling an estimated $70,000, not including City of Richmond staff time.

The Fire Chiefs of Richmond and Contra Costa County would need to consult with Public Works on the project and come to an agreement of completing and funding the project. Additionally, since the project is located on two private properties coordination and agreements will be needed with the applicable homeowner association(s) in the private property in Richmond, and the private property owner of the property in Pinole prior to construction.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Park Central Street and Court Fire Trail Grant Preliminary Option 3 640
Item # Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
1 Mobilization 1 LS 4,166.88 $ 4,166.88 $
2 Clearing & Grubbing 1 LS 2,500.13 $ 2,500.13 $
3 SWPPP 1 LS 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 $
4 Surveying & Grading 1 LS 6,000.00 $ 6,000.00 $
5 Remove PCC Curb & Gutter 30 LF 45.00 $ 1,350.00$ 6 Remove PCC Valley Gutter 15 LF 45.00 $ 675.00 $ 7 Remove K-rail 10 LF 45.00 $ 450.00 $
8 Remove Shrub 1 LS 500.00 $ 500.00 $
9 Remove Striping 1 LS 500.00 $ 500.00 $
10 Remove and relocate Joint Pole/GuyWire 1 LS 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 11 Remove Concrete Wall 30 LF 400.00 $ 12,000.00$ 12 Install Asphalt Concrete 2 TN 250.00 $ 500.00 $ 13 Install Class 2 Aggregate Base 82 CY 200.00 $ 16,400.00$ 14 Geotextile Stabability Mat 3050 SF 1.25 $ 3,812.50$ 15 Install PCC Valley Gutter 5 LF 100.00 $ 500.00 $ 16 Install PCC Vertical Curb 30 LF 55.00 $ 1,650.00$ 17 Install PCC Driveway 100 SF 65.00 $ 6,500.00$ 18 Install Pressure Treated Wooden Header Board 150 LF 50.00 $ 7,500.00$ 19 Install 4" White Stripe 1 LS 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 20 Adjust to Grade Manhole 2 EA 4,000.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 21 Install Single-Swing Arm Gate 2 EA 10,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 22 Hydroseed 1 LS 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 $
112,504.50$
11,250.45$
11,250.45$
22,500.90$
157,506.30$
Park Central St and CT Subtotal
City of Richmond
Park Central Street and Park Central Court Fire Trail
Submittal: Grant Preliminary Takeoff
Option D: Class 2 Aggregate Base W/O TrueGrid
Date: 2023-05-02
10% Design
10% Constructiion management and Inspection
20% Contingency
Park Central St and CT Grand Total
641